JAnelle ORSI WORKSHOPS and PUBLIC LECTURES
February 2014
Contemporary transactional law seems like the last the place an idealistic young changemaker would find themselves, but that’s exactly where Janelle Orsi has ended up. The 34 year-old has just concluded a two week public lecture and invite-only workshop tour of Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane sponsored by Bronwen Morgan’s Activism and Enterprise project, which is examining grassroots food, energy, transport and waste/reuse initiatives and their legal support structures. Janelle has established her own practice together with the Sustainable Economies Legal Centre, a public organisation aimed at charting “the changing legal territory of the new economy, educating communities and individuals about the possibilities and limits of creative economic structures” such as cooperatives, community currencies, local investing and urban agriculture. Her most recent book, Practicing Law in the Sharing Economy, lays out the radical plan both smaller agreements, organisations and larger institutions from the ground up to better accommodate social justice and environmental issues.
The workshops have explored the positive developments in Australia towards enacting this vision as well as the many social, economic, and professional challenges that sharing economy advocates face. For example, how can the lawyers of a new sharing economy (of which Janelle’s estimates the US needs 500 000) charge reasonable rates while maintaining a reputation of quality? Where do ‘old economy’ regulations to protect workers, consumers and investors need to be adapted or updated? Local food swapping ordinances have provided a useful wedge for sharing economy advocates in the United States, where cities have classified local food swaps as illegal markets – making way for ‘heroic’ reformers. The impetus for the sharing economy in the deeply recessed United States economy may be different, but many lessons can still be applied, particularly around technology. Hopefully developments in electronic platforms to augment democratic institutions such as the cooperative form and local food production systems suggest a bright future for the sharing economy. Janelle’s tour concluded in Brisbane on Monday 24 Feb with her lecture, ‘Building Community Resilience in the Sharing Economy' which will be posted online.
A report of her visit is available here:
The workshops have explored the positive developments in Australia towards enacting this vision as well as the many social, economic, and professional challenges that sharing economy advocates face. For example, how can the lawyers of a new sharing economy (of which Janelle’s estimates the US needs 500 000) charge reasonable rates while maintaining a reputation of quality? Where do ‘old economy’ regulations to protect workers, consumers and investors need to be adapted or updated? Local food swapping ordinances have provided a useful wedge for sharing economy advocates in the United States, where cities have classified local food swaps as illegal markets – making way for ‘heroic’ reformers. The impetus for the sharing economy in the deeply recessed United States economy may be different, but many lessons can still be applied, particularly around technology. Hopefully developments in electronic platforms to augment democratic institutions such as the cooperative form and local food production systems suggest a bright future for the sharing economy. Janelle’s tour concluded in Brisbane on Monday 24 Feb with her lecture, ‘Building Community Resilience in the Sharing Economy' which will be posted online.
A report of her visit is available here:
orsi_aus_tour_unsw_writeup_-_final.pdf | |
File Size: | 680 kb |
File Type: |
Changemakers Festival Workshop:
November 2013
“Are you curious about what the ‘sharing economy’ is? Maybe you’re hoping to get in there and participate? Maybe you’re already on the road! This workshop is designed to appeal to all of you.”
With this hook, we managed to book out in a few short days our workshop piecing together social change and sharing economy startups. The workshop was promoted through the Changemakers Festival, developed by ‘social change and innovation community’ SixAUS, part Australian Centre for Social Innovation. The rationale for the festival is outlined at the intersection of big-picture reflection and technological change, perfect for our project on social activism and social enterprise:
"Australia has exploded [sic] as a hub of social change. Driven by technology, and inspired by local and international success stories, the social innovation community is starting to tackle some of our toughest social challenges and answer some of our biggest questions. What is the good life? What is Australia’s place in our region and the world? How can we respond to climate change, to refugees, to the changing nature of employment and family? The Changemakers Festival brings these ideas out in the open and encourages strong discussion, cross-sector collaboration, and concrete action to drive social change."
In this ‘cross-sectoral’ spirit, we enlisted the support of colleagues in business and law, Jenny Buchan and Catherine Bond as well as Kate Carruthers from Social Innovation Sydney to workshop issues around what has variously been called ‘social businesses’, ‘enterprise with purpose’, ‘social enterprise’, and ‘collaborative consumption.’ Together with a remarkably diverse group of young and not-so-young people working in and around these fields, we discussed the commercial, social and legal challenges to getting businesses off the ground.
We began by disentangling sharing economy startups from the existent for-profit startup infrastructure in Sydney. To achieve this, Declan opened the evening by presenting the ‘network map’ of the Sydney scene from Blue Chilli, to see who had made contact with the businesses listed there. It turned out most identified with the ‘social’ side of enterprise more than this for-profit infrastructure.
Kate Carruthurs then took over by outlining the ‘lean canvas’ as a device to quickly and easily make visible the essential elements of any start-up. Lean canvas was devised as a simple alternative to lengthy business plans outlining the problem your business will address, specify solutions, costs, competition, customers and revenue streams. For Kate, social businesses should be looking for collaborators rather than guarding their ideas with IP protections too early, as the fields in lean canvas like ‘unfair advantage’ tend to prioritise. Vigorous discussion of the merits of intellectual property and copyright provisions began and were parked in the following session on law.Kate drew extensively on the concept of collaborative consumption and AirBnB– the now classic case study – to demonstrate the power of social narratives around sharing to stir up status quo capitalism. She also endorsed the work of Peers, a collection of likeminded service providers who formed a de-facto lobbying group around regulations for access-centred and collaborative businesses.
Our discussion of Legal Facets of start-ups centred around this pie-chart: legal entity structure; the distinction between gift and contract; intellectual property; sources of legal support and what has rather humorously been called the ‘oh sh!t’ moment – when entrepreneurs realise after that fact that need some form of legal protection or intervention is needed. There was considerable interest in those attending in the legal form provided by the UK of a Community Interest Company (discussed further below) as well as in the legality of using crowd-funding as a means of raising equity or loans – a topic currently under consideration by a Federal Government enquiry.
Discussion Themes
The final session drew on the specific experiences of two student run organisations: Conan from BusinessOne – a start-up support organisation providing business, IT and design consultancy support to new social businesses, and another looking to sell a clothing product whereby a certain amount of each of sale can be redirected to a charity of the buyer’s choice.
Discussion themes Two main discussion themes cut across the sessions. The first involved the relationship between social businesses and ‘the big end of town.’ This took several forms: whether Peers was simply a support group for social businesses such as AirBnB or a more traditional for of lobbying or even a cartel. Most participants seemed comfortable with the idea of changing laws to accommodate businesses centred on access, but stopped short of identifying with the concept of ‘activism’ per se. What is at stake here is arguably whether activism over protection to business inputs is still activism.
Furthermore, given Deloitte’s role as a host of the Changemakers Festival some attendees questioned the extent to which ‘changemaking’ really was happening. Instead, they pointed out the ways social enterprise pitching contests and other competitions tied to the festival were being used as marketing devices for various business support services, especially around capital raising, accounting and other issues. There was some tension here between Kate’s disdain for existing big business and the capacity of some large corporates to accommodate, shape and foster businesses that may challenge other industries.
Early findings from our research have suggested that professional support is not anathema to the sharing economy. Ownership and control along traditional capital accumulation lines should not be confused with the professional running of a social business. Rather, what is at stake in professionalization is the stifling of gift relationships that may have animated the business in the first instance. One respondent referred to a coworking business as ‘growing up from toddlerdom’ but also raised concerns about ‘losing its magic’. A further line of research enquiry could involve tracking how metrics beyond estimates of ‘goodwill’ in capital markets, such as social impact, are being used.
The second discussion theme came out particularly strongly in the final session with the discussion around the social business combined with charity donation. For the respondent here, the question of ‘what they’re really doing’ was not yet settled, and seemed to be always in play. The discussion included the challenges of defining and delineating profits, rather than gift relationships through charity. The young entrepreneur had struggled to build partnerships with charities – simply getting time with their managers seemed difficult. Furthermore he had struggled to settle on an organisational form to reflect his balance of charity and business goals.
Many workshop participants expressed interest in a form of a Community Interest Company (as per the UK), where the assets are ‘locked’ into being used for the benefit of the designated community, to guard against the ease with which Pty Ltd structures can be modified. As one participant pointed out, although Pty Ltd can be easily modified to mimic a cooperative structure, it can just as easily be changed back to a for profit structure. “It all comes down to trust.”
Other issues covered included the potential for harm in the sharing economy. Insurance is the most widely recognized element here in the context of web-enabled (and subsequently face-to-face) businesses between complete strangers such as AirBnB and Openshed. This is another area where quantification of otherwise ‘social’ activity is the necessary basis for large corporate insurers to develop new products to support the sharing economy. Or this could be a niche market for new sharing economy services themselves, as the Spanish carshare company Social Car discovered when it helped to fund its start-up capital costs with a tailor made insurance policy negotiated with Globalis, a top Spanish insurance company.
The workshop as whole brought to life the difficult balance to be struck between creative innovation and the mitigation of potential harm in building the sharing economy – indeed the tone of the evening shifted noticeably from a facilitative, optimistic discussion in the first (business-focused) session to a more guarded, careful perspective in the second (law-focused) session. Whatever balance is struck, the fact that sharing economy start-ups challenge accepted distinctions from so many directions is clearly one that created energy, attracted diverse participants, and stimulated a convivial evening’s discussion.
November 2013
“Are you curious about what the ‘sharing economy’ is? Maybe you’re hoping to get in there and participate? Maybe you’re already on the road! This workshop is designed to appeal to all of you.”
With this hook, we managed to book out in a few short days our workshop piecing together social change and sharing economy startups. The workshop was promoted through the Changemakers Festival, developed by ‘social change and innovation community’ SixAUS, part Australian Centre for Social Innovation. The rationale for the festival is outlined at the intersection of big-picture reflection and technological change, perfect for our project on social activism and social enterprise:
"Australia has exploded [sic] as a hub of social change. Driven by technology, and inspired by local and international success stories, the social innovation community is starting to tackle some of our toughest social challenges and answer some of our biggest questions. What is the good life? What is Australia’s place in our region and the world? How can we respond to climate change, to refugees, to the changing nature of employment and family? The Changemakers Festival brings these ideas out in the open and encourages strong discussion, cross-sector collaboration, and concrete action to drive social change."
In this ‘cross-sectoral’ spirit, we enlisted the support of colleagues in business and law, Jenny Buchan and Catherine Bond as well as Kate Carruthers from Social Innovation Sydney to workshop issues around what has variously been called ‘social businesses’, ‘enterprise with purpose’, ‘social enterprise’, and ‘collaborative consumption.’ Together with a remarkably diverse group of young and not-so-young people working in and around these fields, we discussed the commercial, social and legal challenges to getting businesses off the ground.
We began by disentangling sharing economy startups from the existent for-profit startup infrastructure in Sydney. To achieve this, Declan opened the evening by presenting the ‘network map’ of the Sydney scene from Blue Chilli, to see who had made contact with the businesses listed there. It turned out most identified with the ‘social’ side of enterprise more than this for-profit infrastructure.
Kate Carruthurs then took over by outlining the ‘lean canvas’ as a device to quickly and easily make visible the essential elements of any start-up. Lean canvas was devised as a simple alternative to lengthy business plans outlining the problem your business will address, specify solutions, costs, competition, customers and revenue streams. For Kate, social businesses should be looking for collaborators rather than guarding their ideas with IP protections too early, as the fields in lean canvas like ‘unfair advantage’ tend to prioritise. Vigorous discussion of the merits of intellectual property and copyright provisions began and were parked in the following session on law.Kate drew extensively on the concept of collaborative consumption and AirBnB– the now classic case study – to demonstrate the power of social narratives around sharing to stir up status quo capitalism. She also endorsed the work of Peers, a collection of likeminded service providers who formed a de-facto lobbying group around regulations for access-centred and collaborative businesses.
Our discussion of Legal Facets of start-ups centred around this pie-chart: legal entity structure; the distinction between gift and contract; intellectual property; sources of legal support and what has rather humorously been called the ‘oh sh!t’ moment – when entrepreneurs realise after that fact that need some form of legal protection or intervention is needed. There was considerable interest in those attending in the legal form provided by the UK of a Community Interest Company (discussed further below) as well as in the legality of using crowd-funding as a means of raising equity or loans – a topic currently under consideration by a Federal Government enquiry.
Discussion Themes
The final session drew on the specific experiences of two student run organisations: Conan from BusinessOne – a start-up support organisation providing business, IT and design consultancy support to new social businesses, and another looking to sell a clothing product whereby a certain amount of each of sale can be redirected to a charity of the buyer’s choice.
Discussion themes Two main discussion themes cut across the sessions. The first involved the relationship between social businesses and ‘the big end of town.’ This took several forms: whether Peers was simply a support group for social businesses such as AirBnB or a more traditional for of lobbying or even a cartel. Most participants seemed comfortable with the idea of changing laws to accommodate businesses centred on access, but stopped short of identifying with the concept of ‘activism’ per se. What is at stake here is arguably whether activism over protection to business inputs is still activism.
Furthermore, given Deloitte’s role as a host of the Changemakers Festival some attendees questioned the extent to which ‘changemaking’ really was happening. Instead, they pointed out the ways social enterprise pitching contests and other competitions tied to the festival were being used as marketing devices for various business support services, especially around capital raising, accounting and other issues. There was some tension here between Kate’s disdain for existing big business and the capacity of some large corporates to accommodate, shape and foster businesses that may challenge other industries.
Early findings from our research have suggested that professional support is not anathema to the sharing economy. Ownership and control along traditional capital accumulation lines should not be confused with the professional running of a social business. Rather, what is at stake in professionalization is the stifling of gift relationships that may have animated the business in the first instance. One respondent referred to a coworking business as ‘growing up from toddlerdom’ but also raised concerns about ‘losing its magic’. A further line of research enquiry could involve tracking how metrics beyond estimates of ‘goodwill’ in capital markets, such as social impact, are being used.
The second discussion theme came out particularly strongly in the final session with the discussion around the social business combined with charity donation. For the respondent here, the question of ‘what they’re really doing’ was not yet settled, and seemed to be always in play. The discussion included the challenges of defining and delineating profits, rather than gift relationships through charity. The young entrepreneur had struggled to build partnerships with charities – simply getting time with their managers seemed difficult. Furthermore he had struggled to settle on an organisational form to reflect his balance of charity and business goals.
Many workshop participants expressed interest in a form of a Community Interest Company (as per the UK), where the assets are ‘locked’ into being used for the benefit of the designated community, to guard against the ease with which Pty Ltd structures can be modified. As one participant pointed out, although Pty Ltd can be easily modified to mimic a cooperative structure, it can just as easily be changed back to a for profit structure. “It all comes down to trust.”
Other issues covered included the potential for harm in the sharing economy. Insurance is the most widely recognized element here in the context of web-enabled (and subsequently face-to-face) businesses between complete strangers such as AirBnB and Openshed. This is another area where quantification of otherwise ‘social’ activity is the necessary basis for large corporate insurers to develop new products to support the sharing economy. Or this could be a niche market for new sharing economy services themselves, as the Spanish carshare company Social Car discovered when it helped to fund its start-up capital costs with a tailor made insurance policy negotiated with Globalis, a top Spanish insurance company.
The workshop as whole brought to life the difficult balance to be struck between creative innovation and the mitigation of potential harm in building the sharing economy – indeed the tone of the evening shifted noticeably from a facilitative, optimistic discussion in the first (business-focused) session to a more guarded, careful perspective in the second (law-focused) session. Whatever balance is struck, the fact that sharing economy start-ups challenge accepted distinctions from so many directions is clearly one that created energy, attracted diverse participants, and stimulated a convivial evening’s discussion.