David Cameron has plans for a Big Society. “We want to give citizens, communities and local government the power and information they need to come together, solve the problems they face and build the Britain they want.“
(May 18, 2010)

 

It’s less than two months into this new government and it is already becoming increasingly clear that their plans for a big society are not big enough. Let me explain why.

 

First, a Big Society has a big ambition. The ambition is to “solve problems and build a better Britain”. That, you would have thought, would translate into clear social results like reduce waste, reduce irresponsible drinking, reduce child poverty, improve personal health.

 

So far, the ambition remains fuzzy. At its most articulate it is about “tackling the social, economic and political challenges that the UK faces today.” (Coalition agreement, May 2010).

 

Second, a Big Society would draw on all the resources that can contribute to the achievement of real social change. Our society is dominated by the private sector and the public sector. These sectors together provide us with food, drink, transport, education, health, money, policing.

 

So, you might have expected (as it is a “Big” Society), when David Cameron and Nick Clegg called a gathering of key people to Number 10 last month to kick things around, that the roundtable would have included all the major forces that could help achieve real change. This is about shared responsibilities. It is about collaboration.

 

But it is becoming increasingly clear that the key partners envisaged in the government’s thinking on Big Society is not a big list. It is small. The primary drivers of the Big Society are seen to be charities, social enterprises, local authorities and local community groups. That is why these were the primary constituents at the Number 10 roundtable. And it is why the lead on Big Society is Nat Wei (now Lord Wei), a social entrepreneur.

 

I do not denigrate the importance of the third sector, social enterprise, local authorities and local community groups. I think they are stunningly important. But not to embrace the private and the public sector completely in the big warm hug of the Big Society is very small-minded.

 

There is a commercial imperative for companies to engage their employees and customers on climate change, recycling, obesity, responsible drinking, responsible lending, poverty and many other social issues. Business has access to markets, research and products and services.

 

There is a critical role for the public sector in achieving social change, not simply improving services. Not actively engaging key government departments and strategies in the foundation of the Big Society would be a big mistake.

 

 

Third, the strategies to achieve the Big Society are varied and powerful. There is a universe of strategies that can be used to encourage people to act to share responsibility for real change. They include research, communications, public policy, collaborative action, the creation and use of products and services, changes to infrastructure and systems, and community and grassroots action.

 

So far, the thinking again seems to be narrow. In an interview with Lord Wei in The Guardian on June 22, the key strategies were to increase volunteering, create the big society bank and create an army of community organizers. Once again, when faced with the opportunity of using all available strategies to encourage collective action on social problems, the choice is narrowed.

 

The current Tory view of individual action seems to confine responsibility to volunteering, philanthropy, running “free” schools, influencing local government policy and creating co-operatives and social enterprises to run public services. Again, all great, but a narrow scope of action which seems to exclude more than it includes.

 

It doesn’t seem to include the daily actions that we each take to recycle more, drink responsibly, reduce food waste, eat well, stay safe, save energy, save water or borrow only what we can afford to repay.  It doesn’t seem to include the actions we take as customers to influence companies or the behaviour of companies to influence customers.

 

It doesn’t seem to understand that in a Big Society people want purpose in the jobs they do. It doesn’t seem to include companies acting to achieve long-term success, risking the massive negative impact on all our lives if they focus only on short-term financial gain.

 

It doesn’t seem to encourage the public sector to invest in programmes to encourage people to act sustainably or improve personal health to head off future costs to the public sector. In fact, there are strong signs that the government is dismantling, by accident or design, the capacity that has been built up around social marketing.

 

Social marketing should be core to the Big Society with its focus on impact, customer involvement, personalizing services and collaborative action. Instead, the huge investment by the Department of Health in social marketing capacity seems destined to wither away.

 

 

 

Fourth, Big Society should be based on a deep understanding of people. That means we need to understand what people think, feel, believe and do. It means we need to understand their behaviour and what motivates them to act .

 

It means understanding them, creating a personal conviction of the need to act, giving them the tools that make it easy for them to act, and creating communities of interest so that people have the freedom to own and achieve real change.

 

The early signs are that this government understands two potential motivators – personal benefit (let’s give people an incentive to recycle) and benefiting others (encouraging volunteering). But if you tune into the latest thinking on neuroscience, marketing, psychology or economics, it’s clear that there is a much wider and deeper list of triggers that motivate people to act.

 

In addition, few of us see ourselves as volunteers, community leaders or social entrepreneurs. We are not citizens to be nudged into action by the use of well-meaning initiatives like an annual Big Society Day. If you want an army, let’s create armies of employees, customers, parents and patients: people passionate to work together for real change or people simply wanting help to do stuff in their daily lives like eat well or save for retirement.

 

The thing is, I have a conviction that the Big Society should be Big not small, Wide not narrow and Deep not shallow. My concern is that the early thinking of this government displays a small ambition for the Big Society. For now, it’s like watching an ice sculpture being created. As it is carved and refined, its shape will be set, and the Big Society will become frozen within its current narrow confines.

 

I think it would be a shame if the Big Society were a big missed opportunity.

 

John Drummond is Chief Executive of Corporate Culture
June, 2010