The less regions an organisation had staff and/or customers in, the more likely they were to say social enterprises should be the voting members of SEA. Of those with staff and/or customers in only one state or territory, 79% said social enterprises should be the voting members; and of those with staff and/or customers in two or more states or territories, 52% said social enterprises should be the voting members. 

Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander controlled organisations were more supportive of social enterprises being the voting members (95%) than organisations that are not Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander controlled (70%).

We also asked respondents if they had any additional comments in relation to this question. The key themes of the open-ended responses were:

• Desire for simplified, integrated membership: Many respondents, regardless of their first answer, expressed a desire for a membership model that allows joining both a state or territory peak and SEA together.

• Clear criteria: There was a consistent call for clear, verifiable criteria for social enterprise membership.

• Balancing national and state interests: Respondents across categories recognised the need for the distinct and complementary roles of SEA and the state and territory peak bodies.

• Transparency and accountability: Several comments emphasised the need for SEA to ensure transparency and accountability in its future governance model.

• Inclusive representation: While many favoured social enterprises as voting members, there was also recognition of the need to hear from other stakeholders.

Beyond voting members, who should have a voice?

We asked respondents, beyond voting members, who they thought should have a voice at SEA. We asked them to choose one option from a list or to name their preferred option if it didn’t appear on the list.

The largest proportion of respondents wanted them to be ‘organisations of any kind and individuals’ (42%), followed by ‘a range of member-based networks/organisations (e.g. state peaks, rural network, The Purpose Precinct)’ (26%), ‘social enterprises’ (15%), ‘other’ (6%), ‘the state and territory social enterprise peaks’ (6%), ‘individuals’ (3%), and ‘organisations of any kind’ (2%).

The less regions an organisation had staff and/or customers in, the more likely they were to say that organisations of any kind or individuals should have a voice at SEA. Of those with staff and/or customers in only one state or territory, 47% said organisations of any kind or individuals should have a voice; and of those with staff and/or customers in two or more states or territories, 33% said organisations of any kind or individuals should have a voice. 

Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander controlled organisations were more supportive organisations of any kind or individuals having a voice (51%) than organisations that are not Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander controlled (40%).

We also asked respondents if they had any additional comments in relation to this question. The key themes of the open-ended responses were:

• Inclusivity and diversity of voices: Many respondents supported the idea that diverse stakeholder voices be heard. They emphasised the importance of ensuring that marginalised groups, smaller organisations, and individuals impacted by social enterprises also have a voice. There were also calls to balance power to avoid overrepresentation by more privileged groups and interests.

• Role of networks: There was broad support for member-based networks/organisations having a voice. Respondents highlighted that networks provide specific expertise and could or should play a critical role in informing SEA’s work.

• Non-voting category: Some respondents expressed interest in a non-voting member category that allows individuals and organisations who support social enterprises, even if not directly involved in governance, to participate in SEA discussions. 

• Stakeholders should support SEA's objectives: Some respondents mentioned that anyone who participates should support the social enterprise sector, align with the sector’s vision and mission and principles and values, and/or support SEA’s objectives. Some said this support should come with accountability, particularly for behaviours.

• Appreciation for engagement: Many respondents expressed thanks for being consulted on the design of SEA’s governance ahead of decision-making. They also said they appreciated that the survey was brief and open to all, so that the impact of time and privilege on participation was reduced.

What do people want to participate in?

We asked respondents aspects of governance they would be likely to participate in. We asked them to choose all options from a list, and to name any others that applied.

The highest number wanted to participate in sharing knowledge and learning (91%), followed by sector-wide co-designs and consultations (87%), collaborations with a focus on a specific challenge (e.g. access to decent work for people from refugee backgrounds, community-led innovation in rural Australia, or environmental care through resource recovery) (78%), participating in annual general meetings and special general meetings (57%), and sector-wide campaigns (48%).

Of those that listed additional options, responses highlighted the specific challenges participants want to focus on (e.g. access to decent work, culturally and racially marginalised communities, and wealth inequality), the specific skills people want to focus on (e.g. procurement, advocacy, profit for purpose, and impact measurement), and features they want to see (e.g. introductions and opportunities, roundtables, transparent governance, trade shows and asynchronous communication). The number of responses were too few to identify key themes.

Next steps

Enormous thanks to all who shared their views to help shape the design of SEA’s future governance. We see governance as one important way to set direction, enable work towards shared goals, and ensure accountability. 

Our first step post survey was to analyse and share the findings.

While our governance cannot be what each person wants, the findings give clear high-level direction to the design of SEA’s governance and from diverse sector stakeholders, including marginalised voices, which we see as critical. 

In addition, findings included that many respondents want to see simplified, integrated membership across SEA and the state and territory social enterprise peak bodies. That’s not something SEA can decide alone, so our second step will be to discuss the potential for simplified, integrated membership with our peak body peers.

From there our third step will be for the SEA board to review the survey results and detail of discussions with the state and territory social enterprise peak bodies to decide SEA’s new governance structure.