1

ESV: Realising the PotentialSummary of the Manchester Workshop Discussions

21st April 2016

Dr. Jon Burchell (University of Sheffield), Dr Joanne Cook (University of Hull)

Reflecting on Current Challenges

During the first workshop session, participants were invited to share their reflections

on current challenges and developments emerging within their organisations in

relation to ESV and ESV engagement. In this summary, these issues have been

drawn together under the ‘gaps’ classifications utilised in the supporting research to

the workshops.

Skills Gap

Working group discussions confirmed many of the issues raised under the Skills

element of the ‘Gaps Framework’. Namely the predominance of team building one-

day challenges in the ESV offerings of businesses:

Organisations are more interested in the group volunteering – that’s where

most requests come from. Businesses/local government/public sector want to

send groups out. Team-building/challenge days etc.

Over the last five years this leads more towards team-building. Accountants

don’t want to do accounting when they’re out of the office.

However team challenges are always going to be very popular and are great

hooks for a business to engage in at the outset which may then lead to more

skills-based offers.

2

Participants noted the importance of developing skills based opportunities but also

recognised that there was a lack of brokerage resources to effectively match these

opportunities.

Volunteering Staffordshire was given as an example of a brokerage system funded

by Staffordshire County Council; it matches opportunities and provides support for

charities. However the funding is coming to an end and a system of charging will be

put in place. The concern is that businesses will stop using this system if they have

to pay. Yet this infrastructural support is essential to enabling charities to engage.

Without such support participants argued that charities find it difficult to identify what

ESV can offer them and to pitch exactly what they want from business.

Brokers talked of the difference between maintenance volunteering and progressive

volunteering but they are too often bundled together and may not suit employee

volunteers. It was felt that ESV offers on websites need to be thought through in

more detail so that they are feasible for employers. One gave an example from the

CVS website that advertised a vacancy for a minibus driver every Thursday morning.

He added that it was unlikely for any business to release someone so often but they

may have employees who would help with a marketing plan.

Signposting was also a key issue, since businesses found it confusing to negotiate

the brokerage landscape.

Capacity Gap

Businesses - Discussion of the capacity gap was seen as key by several

participants. One key element highlighted by businesses was the capacity gap they

faced around engaging a greater proportion of employees in ESV. One business

participant conceptualised this eloquently as the “The hourglass of volunteering”:

You have your leadership that are really keen at promoting it and you have

people that are nearer to the communities that are really keen to get involved

but the pinch point is the middle management who have to balance the targets

and the day job and therefore don’t necessarily release their employees out to

3

do that.  So that hourglass is a real challenge that you have got to convince the

‘squeezed middle’, as the phrase tends to be, to really get involved. Some of

them are absolutely fantastic when they do it, when they get involved and their

teams get really engaged and it’s actually using things like your employee

survey to actually find out who’s been doing volunteering and what the

engagement scores are. Then you can go to the slightly more squeezed,

cynical managers and say, ‘Look, here’s the proof’.

Solutions to this challenge in their opinion lay with organisational leadership focusing

their attention on this capacity challenge.

Charities - Following on from the skills gap, Voluntary, Community and Social

Enterprise (VCSE) sector participants talked of the challenges they faced in getting

many organisations volunteer ready, in supporting them to engage and in persuading

them to engage in the first place. Discussions focused on the time and work

necessary in volunteering preparation and management. Participants felt that

brokers needed to play a pivotal role in making businesses more aware of these

challenges and the costs involved in facilitating and ESV and in receiving volunteers.

One participant gave the example of a University of Liverpool capacity building

project for the voluntary sector that focused on sustainability. The project found that

those who received intensive support and mentoring grew by an average of 28%

whereas those with moderate support grew by 10%. It was noted that this support is

becoming increasingly rare yet is essential as voluntary organisations need to prove

sustainability and sell their strengths in order for businesses to engage on a medium

to long term basis. Such support was potentially a role for the business connector.

Investment in infrastructure becomes clear once you understand that there is a need

to organise training for the voluntary sector to up-skill them in knowing what their ask

is. If you get businesses and charities in one room, there is a need to create a level

playing field, so that charities can present their opportunities in an equal way. It

shouldn’t be about who shouts the loudest.

It was also noted that SMEs are often facing very similar problems, so there may be

some opportunity for joined up action.

4

A clear example of the need for infrastructure is highlighted by discussions around

risk: health and safety on the part of employees and reputational risks of both the

business and the charity. Risk is a two-way issue and requires honesty and trust to

mitigate against. Careful matching through brokerage is essential to this being

successful.

Brokers – Further work is needed to sell the message of how large organisations can

learn too from smaller organisations, both VCSE and private sector. Participants also

agreed that cuts to funding are a real barrier and the challenge is moving forward

and supporting brokerage for companies and charities. Another barrier is deciding

how to charge business for brokerage, in the light of cuts to funding. Further, groups

identified a real lack of understanding of, and respect for, what is done by brokerage

organisations. Getting businesses to understand that there is a cost is a real

challenge.

One business participant talked about how, when a business reaches the point of

making a decision of engaging in ESV, they normally expect fast action and set

timed targets. He felt that charities, at this point, weren’t always ready to respond as

quickly as needed. Without effective brokerage this becomes a large ask for charities

who are less experienced at engaging with businesses and less resourced to put

these systems in place themselves.

Knowledge Gap

Participants identified a need to break down several myths surrounding ESV and

saw brokers as having a key role in this. One such issue concerned the replacement

of paid staff by volunteers. The need for the VCSE sector to engage in a cultural shift

around what a volunteer does was another issue raised. It’s not just about aligning

the right needs/wants and offering the right skills but finding those people with

empathy for the other, increasing cross sectoral knowledge and increasing

engagement is key to overcoming this challenge. Other key myths focused around

the need for businesses to recognise that charities do not work solely to a financial

5

model. One example given was of how two businesses might merge to reduce costs

and share resources but this may not work in the VCSE sector due to value

differences and meeting targeted community needs. It was also recognised that both

sides also need to be empowered to say what they want and what they don’t want.

Everyone agreed that it is a slow process to reach the point of an aligned

relationship. Further, ESV places a lot of expectations on businesses but the

challenge they face is finding the capacity within a very busy organisation to find

what can be done. Adding to this is the challenge of going into an area, only being

there for a year or two, and trying to understand the area and what the need is.

Infrastructure Gap

This final gap featured throughout the above discussion but the working groups

added the pending challenge of:

When the 3 days come in, expectations will be raised - charities will have

raised expectations, businesses that will want to get moving on reaching the

targets. Is the infrastructure there going to be enough? I don't think that that is

the case. As an employer, if I'm not involved in ESV, where on earth do I go? I

can look on a website and see all these different names of organisations, how

do I select the right one? They don't all have the same name; some don't even

have the word volunteering in the title.

Adding to this discussion focused on the fact that businesses don’t necessarily want

to pay for brokerage services.

Building a Regional Picture of ESV Development in Manchester and Cheshire

In the second workshop session, participants were asked to focus upon developing a

picture of ESV within the region. In particular, groups were asked to examine three

central themes, which are summarised below.

6

‘What’s There?’ (What exists that can be built upon? Examples of good

practice? Areas and aspects that work well?).

‘What’s Needed?’ (What is missing from the region? How might some key

barriers and challenges be overcome? What frameworks could be

developed?).

‘What’s Possible?’ (Given the current context and limited resources, what can

be achieved? How could ESV be moved forward and engagement

strengthened?). The sections below summarise and synthesise the

discussions from the four working groups, under these three headings.

What’s there and what works well?

Discussions were more dynamically focused on identifying existing gaps and what

changes could be made which would enhance ESV collaboration. However, each

group, before developing a picture of regional potential, was asked to consider what

processes were already in place that worked well around ESV. These discussions

formed the basis for their discussions of how to build upon these existing processes

to gain more from collaboration around ESV, so it is useful to briefly reflect on them

here.

When brokerage works well, it is due to combination of good planning around putting

the systems, connector expertise and interpersonal skills in place. One working

group drew on the important contribution that the ‘Business Connectors’ programme

by Business in the Community had made.

Since Business Connect, there has been more coming together and thoughtful

planning. Also managing the expectations of both groups Is crucial to merging

the different cultures of both groups.

An example of broker collaboration was also given as being really successful at

matching good business / VCSE sector matches because they had a broad and

intensive infrastructure to draw from.

7

Participants also discussed how Volunteer Centres have a lot of the essential

knowledge of the local charity sector which is key information to support successful

ESV. Charities felt that they would often be lost without them. There is a kite mark to

be an accredited volunteer centre. Volunteer centres often sit within CVS. The

challenge is not to lose the potential this holds to creating successful ESV

partnerships and in getting the VCSE sector ESV ready. Participants noted that as

volunteer centres come under threat there is a significant risk of losing this important

base of knowledge and support.

Positive models of encouraging volunteering were also given. One such example is

the Give Five Campaign, which encourages people into informal or ad hoc

volunteering. The idea is that the charities think of a taster session/one off

opportunity, that can be transformed into a longer term desire to engage in

volunteering. Business volunteering and ESV could learn from this initiative in terms

of how to encourage and harness employee engagement with ESV. Start with small

commitments and if people enjoy it, it grows from there. This could also be applied to

building relationships with the VCSE sector.

Utilising ESV to tap into Local Authority expertise and employee skills and resources

was also identified as a strong positive development. Since there is a wealth of

knowledge within the local authority from planning to civil engineers to gardening to

health and hygiene etc. this has been tapped into. There is also potential in some

Local Authorities for resources to be invested into brokering ESV.

What’s Needed?

a) Effective Brokerage Infrastructure

Participants discussed the importance of responsive brokers and facilitators skilled in

bringing businesses and VCSE organisations together. It was acknowledged that a

variety of needs exist on both sides of the ESV relationship and that brokers are best

served to mediate this relationship and support relationship building. Brokerage can

assist in building an honest two-way relationship, and undertake risk-assessment

and due diligence activities. One broker explained how important it is to get the key

8

decision makers in the room together so that a clear mutual understanding is

achieved and the ability to make a decision to move forward is present.

It was suggested that infrastructure organisations are best placed to be used as

brokers as they are so embedded in the community. Brokers were also seen as

essential in developing the ESV readiness of charities.

It is more often the small organisations that need the most help as they lack the

time and space to work it out.

Essentially the kind of brokerage support that’s needed is an organisation/individuals

who are credibly connected with the local environment and somebody who has the

convening skills, somebody who can properly understand the needs of a charity and

act as a translator between the two. They need to understand the culture fit. Shared

interests are not enough. The broker needs to understand the business side as well.

b) A role for broker cooperation

An important emerging theme was the lack of clear signposts around brokerage and

in particular clear signposts for business around who to go to, what is available, and

importantly what brokerage can actually provide and how. Discussion centred upon

the activities necessary to bring existing provision together, improve what is there

already and make it simpler for both sides to engage with. Greater awareness is also

needed around why brokerage is important. Questions were raised as to where to go

to find the best broker to use for an organisation’s needs. There are many

competitors in this sector who could enhance the network by working as

partners/signposts instead of viewing it as a competition for finite resources. This

requires getting together to agree a way forward.

Potential avenues for broker cooperation were identified; participants agreed that

qualitative experiential case studies were the most effective way of putting the

message across. Ideas were discussed around developing online mapping of broker

offers and systems but largely this was seen as inadequate in isolation. More

investment was needed in personal and interactive broker systems. An integrated,

transparent and accessible brokerage system was seen as desirable by businesses

9

and some charities and this would only be achievable by bringing brokers together to

explore the potential and this opportunity is currently lacking. Likewise, funding is

limited.

A lot of duplication currently exists so energy could be put into looking at existing

resources to see what could be developed. This may involve overcoming a sense of

scepticism in the market towards sharing models and resources. A member

suggested Third Bridge which aims to bring together businesses and charities but

others hadn’t heard of it. UCLAN is currently creating a social impact model for staff

that they are looking to franchise out which might be one useful resource. It was

clear from the discussion that it was not always evident what is actually out there in

terms of brokerage provision.

One aspect needing work in terms of broker competition is the development of

signposting opportunities to each other, working together to improve the brokerage

scope and offer.

From a service user, whether a business or a charity, it’s understanding that

there is someone to reach out to and if that person isn’t the right person they

will signpost you. This isn’t that evident – brokers have work to do here.

The challenge is that brokers have to make money to do their job, this has

implications around who is willing to pay for brokerage, how do we overcome

competition to enable growth through cooperation and the work needed to raise

awareness of the important resources brokers can provide which make paying a

reasonable ask.

One suggestion of what would work well and add value to ESV was to engage

brokers in extended conversations around:

What works/what doesn’t work? Would that be valuable? Volunteer Centres in

the North West meet up regularly and discuss ESV. There isn’t a general

consensus across the North West on how to deal with it. There’s not a one

size fits all. There’s voluntary orgs, infrastructure orgs, public sectors orgs who

10

all do it very well. Some sort of network/communication/regular meeting to

discuss the issues and share best practice would be useful.

This is not without its challenges due to competition but it is possible if the will is

there.

c) Demonstrating value

One challenge pertinent across the sectors is how to measure impact and prove

value. Where is the evidence? For the VCSE sector this could be used to encourage

people to get involved across a spectrum of skills and opportunities. The challenge

however is to actually capture the value of it. It’s the same for business, as the

business case for releasing staff is essential to evidence. What charities need to

work on more is looking at the impact of volunteers, what difference did they make to

the organisation? Identifying specific outcomes can help organisations to develop

their ask in terms of what support they need from business. Sometimes ESV can

have a negative impact, such as badly painted walls for example. Some participants

discussed the role of quantitative and qualitative measurement and how a framework

needs to be developed that emphasises the importance of sustainable impact where

an immediate value cannot be placed on it. Numbered measurement can be

unrealistic for smaller organisations but this again brings up the issue of their

capacity to measure long-term impact through other methods.

d) Shared language

Differences in language between the business and voluntary sectors were raised as

important issues to be addressed in order to extend the potential of engagement

around ESV. There is also an issue with cutting through the jargon on each side to

establish exactly what the other wants and needs. One participant explained how:

…charities have come on a lot in recent year and are generally more able to

articulate their needs to others.

An imbalance in language and perspectives around ESV was also identified

whereby:

11

…not only do charities need to be more like businesses but the opposite is true

to align values and objectives around ESV and some adaptation to the word

volunteering might help.

Adding to this, participants discussed some confusion over the word ‘volunteering’

and how it links with skills development on the part of volunteers when they just

believe that they are helping out in the community.

A business member said that they term it as ‘creating shared values’ so that

there is a perception of both value to the business and to the community. ..

some people are afraid to term it in such a way that links values both sides.

To combat this, there was a need for business to embed the value so that is

considered to be freely given and valuable. This example led some to suggest that

‘community contribution’ might be a better term to use that ‘volunteering’.

e) Ambiguity over the 3 day proposal

While responses to the 3-day volunteering leave per year were mixed, employers

and VCSE organisations felt to degree unprepared for such a policy. For the VCSE

sector concerns centred on their capacity to meet this growth in employee

volunteers, for employers the need for flexibility in such a policy was paramount.

Some raised the question of:

Rather than all employees for three days, should it be less employees for more

days?

The thing to remember about 3 days, it’s still volunteering. Companies are not

going to pitchfork people out.

One employer gave the example of team members transferring their available hours

to skilled engineers within the team after the recent floods. In so doing, they were

able to send out a fully skilled response team which was far more effective.

12

Other examples of more intensive investment in ESV were given, such as one firm

that sent employees out for 6 months, which fits well with the business’ need to

replace people on the shop floor, making day release less compatible.

Trying to bounce everyone out for 3 days is much more challenging for

businesses. If you had 100 volunteers for 30 days it would be much better

Participants noted that the current context was not conducive to the initiation of this

policy in many areas.

Volunteer centres are closing, government are increasing number of

volunteers. Opening the funnel on one end, and closing it off on the other.

Unless there is a proper structure, this policy will fall apart. The government

must put some money in.

Overall participants agreed that the policy must enable flexibility and be

accompanied by some resources, otherwise the opportunities it offers will be lost.

f) Stepping stones to engage staff

Participants from employers and brokerage organisations raised concerns around

the proportion of employees currently engaging in ESV. The reasons for low

engagement rates included the current offers needing to create something that

employees are motivated to engage in, the need to develop taster sessions in ESV

as small scale one-off volunteering can often lead to a wider desire to volunteer and

the need to work hard to pitch skills volunteering to employees.

Volunteers need to understand that it is a mutual exchange: need to

encourage the thinking that it’s not about ‘fun’ and it’s not about ‘helping’ – it is

about a mutually beneficial learning experience (VCSE sector participant).

Some employers pointed out that skills volunteering requires businesses to consider

the impact against the time required to achieve this. This is a major challenge for

skills based volunteering compared with one-day challenges. VCSE organisations

13

talked of how they needed up-skilling in order to be clear about what benefit skills

based volunteering would deliver and how to sell these to employers.

g) Localised solutions

Another key theme was the problem of one-size not fitting all in terms of brokering

these relationships and providing infrastructure for ESV in different locations.

Knowing what works locally is as important to find out. Adding to this, too much short

term pressure can be placed on ESV to deliver something quickly without allowing

adequate time to go through the risk mitigation process. Currently ESV often tends to

be more reactive to opportunities as they arise, some national brokers struggle with

localised links because the infrastructure is patchy.

What’s Possible?

Participants discussed the challenges of adapting to financial constraints. It was

argued that the current situation was not one of ‘no new funding’, but rather a

reduction in funding. There is a cost in delivering increasingly demanded services

and if the financial support isn’t there and there is a lack of businesses willing to pay

for that support then this will inevitably restrict what is possible.

a) Online resource

One group discussed the need for a ‘superportal’ with local/regional pages. A

discussion took place as to whether it should be provided by government but some

worried about its lack of logistical capacity to deliver an effective one. There was

consensus that it would work best if a successful existing framework was adopted.

Emphasis was placed on it needing to be new and business oriented. It was also

anticipated that local links might be challenging to organise as there were often

notable differences between infrastructure delivery across neighbourhood

communities and uneven capacity of smaller VCSE organisations to engage with

such a resource.

Emphasis was also placed on the human connection to supplement any online

resource. Some participants argued that rather than an online portal for brokerage

what was actually needed is an online support mechanism for brokers, YouTube

14

clips, instagram, tool kits etc. For example, if there were successful brokers out there

that focus on one area, perhaps they could lend their expertise to elsewhere. A

simple handbook to manage expectations and answer questions that might arise in

advance would be of huge benefit. One organisation used this to manage the

expectations around the two types of volunteering: one-off and medium term, as they

both have different goals and planning needs. It’s important not to reinvent the wheel

with this process, for example, one participant stated that she knew of at least four

organisations creating their own databases and that resources could be better

pooled through existing networks to avoid waste. This infrastructure is considered

vital for smaller organisations who do not have the resources to do it alone.

b) Networks to bring parties together and developing trust in the sector

Linking to discussions earlier around the need for broker cooperation around ESV,

all working groups talked of the importance of continuing this network to enable the

different sectors involved in ESV to come together to build partnerships so that a

more cohesive and mutually beneficial infrastructure framework can be built which

responds to need and opportunity. It was noted, however, that there is a certain lack

of trust and competition around so an initiative may fall flat as others before have

done. A lot of care will be necessary to ensure that the offer will not duplicate

existing provision or organisations won’t buy in. The need to talk through these

challenges and build trust was seen as essential. The downside is that the human

connectors move on and things can break down very quickly if someone moves on

so succession or continuity is vital.

Other groups talked of ‘the need to create more encounters between business and

charities’ and more broadly between people. Brokers agree that they need the ability

to talk to the right person in the business, get to the decision-maker. Some have tried

accessing businesses through the Chamber of Commerce but with little success.

This can be a real challenge for brokers but the value in creating these opportunities

to engage could be significant especially since businesses rarely work in a single

locality. A partnership model was suggested to facilitate the bringing together and

networking of stakeholders. Various organisations stated that they could help with

certain elements of events but couldn’t fund it all. Work could be done in sourcing

15

bigger organisations out there who have funding priorities/strategy in this area and

can help.

c) A potential role for the CVS

Many CVS organisations were present at the workshop and they put forward the

ways they felt their role could support ESV. CVS are established to support the

VCSE organisations. Some are looking at other routes such as charging businesses

as members or charging them for requested brokerage. One suggestion was:

What about putting business connectors into infrastructure organisations? An

effective connector, and then business comes in to just make sure that the

project management bit of pulling organisations together can be delivered

(Business participant).

While CVS viewed brokering ESV as a natural extension of their role they argued

that funding support was a necessity to be able to do it more effectively, certainly for

large networks such as CVS who already have the knowledge banks. There needs

to be recognition of the value of infrastructure organisations and what they deliver.

d) Work is needed on the collation of best practice and models of success

There is more work needed to explore best practice in this region. The challenge is

pulling together what is working well already and looking at building this in each

location. One or two participants discussed successful models that had been built or

used and were willing to share. It was seen as a big challenge for organisations to

work together because of the limits in funding, resource capacity and various layers

within the sector.

Financing models were also discussed. A business member said that it was

important to recognise that when paying for infrastructure/brokerage, they were

paying for a service so, in their eyes, it is the brokerage who needed to work

effectively in ensuring that the business gets the best value and impact possible.

New business models are in existence out there that could be explored and

copied/adapted. One participant described how one business put the money into a

16

new project idea to make it happen so resourcing doesn’t just occur as volunteering

alone.

e) Change of attitude from funders

The conversation turned to funders and it was asked whether funders would allow

expenditure into a self-financing model for brokerage. Others felt that it was more a

case of how the return on investment is marketed to the funders in the application,

especially if some outcomes do not have a monetary value attached. More emphasis

is required on how VCSE sector can demonstrate return on investment – case

studies, impact in up-skilling employees through volunteering. In terms of value to

business and charity, there is a doubling of value and all sides need to be skilled in

articulating this.

f) A potential role for SMEs who are more locally embedded

One group discussed how smaller, local SMEs actually engage more effectively than

large organisations who may be beset with issues around decision making distance

and policy and authority restraints. In this region some brokers had had relatively

strong success in engaging SMEs and saw them as more accessible than larger

employers who tended to commission their brokerage nationally.

For further information about the research please contact

Dr. Jon Burchell email: J.Burchell@sheffield.ac.uk or

Dr. Joanne Cook email:Joanne.Cook@hull.ac.uk

17