Work Integration Social Enterprises (WISEs) and Well-being: What Matters and to Whom?

Work can have a significant effect on people’s well-being (Jahoda, 1981; Bambra, 2011). Moreover, the quality and type of work one does is important not only for health and well-being (Strong, 1998) but also as a source of... [ view full abstract ]

Work can have a significant effect on people’s well-being (Jahoda, 1981; Bambra, 2011). Moreover, the quality and type of work one does is important not only for health and well-being (Strong, 1998) but also as a source of meaning and identity (Yeoman, 2013; Sayer, 2009). Those that are disadvantaged within or excluded from the labour market face unique barriers which can inhibit their access to the potential well-being benefits of work and expose them to detrimental factors of unemployment and worklessness. 

Work integration social enterprises (WISEs) aim to provide employment opportunities for marginalised people who are significantly disadvantaged from the mainstream labour market. Training and the development of skills are often provided through real work scenarios, while the business trades in the market in an attempt to positively address the well-being of individuals in a sustainable manner. Previous research on WISEs have focused on their legal structures and proliferation (Spear & Bidet, 2005), Governance issues (Mason, 2010; Teasdale, 2012), impact at a societal level (Ho & Chan, 2010), procurement regulations (Gianfaldoni & Morand, 2015), social auditing (Jeffery, 2005) and public policy (Cooney, Nyssens, O’Shaughnessy, et al., 2016). However research on the impact of WISEs on people themselves is limited, particularly in relation to the well-being impacts on vulnerable populations. While it is contested that these organisations create tension between economic and well-being considerations and reinforce the neo-liberal welfare logic (Garrow & Hasenfeld, 2014) there a several studies which attest to its potential for positive effects (Svanberg, Gumley & Wilson, 2010; Ferguson, Kim & McCoy, 2010; Lysaght, Jakobsen & Granhaug, 2012; Williams, Fossey & Harvey, 2012). There is a lack of knowledge about what challenges are faced but also how individuals negotiate these challenges according to what matters to their well-being, an understanding of which is key to effective solutions.

This work will present preliminary findings on the challenges confronted by different disadvantaged groups within WISEs, how what matters to their well-being is being addressed by the organisation and how these ‘matterings’ are affected by the features of rural and urban location. Given the subjectivity of such ‘matterings’, Q methodology will be used. This approach will allow for a systematic, mixed method study of inter-subjectivity (Brown, 1993) between the perspectives of service users, employees and managers. Understanding these factors will provide guidance for the creation of fair working practices amongst WISEs at the local, national and international levels.

References

Bambra, Clare (2011) Work, Worklessness, and the Political Economy of Health. Oxford University Press.

Brown, Steven R. (1993) ‘A Primer on Q Methodology’, Operant Subjectivity 16(3/4), 91–138.

Cooney, Kate, Nyssens, Marthe, O’Shaughnessy, Mary, et al. (2016) ‘Public Policies and Work Integration Social Enterprises: The Challenge of Institutionalization in a Neoliberal Era’, Nonprofit Policy Forum 0(0),  Available from: http://www.degruyter.com/view/... (accessed 2 January 2017).

Ferguson, Kristin M., Kim, Min Ah and McCoy, Stacy (2010) ‘Enhancing Empowerment and Leadership Among Homeless Youth in Agency and Community Settings: A Grounded Theory Approach’, Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 28(1), 1–22.

Garrow, Eve E. and Hasenfeld, Yeheskel (2014) ‘Social Enterprises as an Embodiment of a Neoliberal Welfare Logic’, American Behavioral Scientist 58(11), 1475–1493.

Gianfaldoni, Patrick and Morand, Pierre-Henri (2015) ‘Incentives, Procurement and Regulation of Work Integration Social Enterprises in France: Old Ideas for New Firms?’, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 86(2), 199–219.

Ho, Amy Po-ying and Chan, Kam-tong (2010) ‘The social impact of work-integration social enterprise in Hong Kong’, International Social Work 53(1), 33–45.

Jahoda, Marie (1981) ‘Work, employment, and unemployment: Values, theories, and approaches in social research.’, American Psychologist 36(2), 184–191.

Jeffery, Stephen (2005) ‘Social firms: Developing business, economic viability, stakeholder value and worker inclusion’, International Congress Series 1282, 1153–1157.

Lysaght, Rosemary, Jakobsen, Klara and Granhaug, Birgit (2012) ‘Social firms: A means for building employment skills and community integration’, Work 41(4), 455–463.

Mason, Chris (2010) ‘Choosing sides: contrasting attitudes to governance issues in Social Firms in the UK’, Social Enterprise Journal 6(1), 6–22.

Sayer, Andrew (2009) ‘The injustice of unequal work’, Soundings (43), 102–113.

Spear, Roger and Bidet, Eric (2005) ‘Social enterprise for work integration in 12 european countries: a descriptive analysis*’, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 76(2), 195–231.

Strong, S. (1998) ‘Meaningful Work in Supportive Environments: Experiences With the Recovery Process’, American Journal of Occupational Therapy 52(1), 31–38.

Svanberg, Jenny, Gumley, Andrew and Wilson, Alistair (2010) ‘How do social firms contribute to recovery from mental illness? A qualitative study’, Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy 17(6), 482–496.

Teasdale, Simon (2012) ‘Negotiating Tensions: How Do Social Enterprises in the Homelessness Field Balance Social and Commercial Considerations?’, Housing Studies 27(4), 514–532.

Williams, Anne, Fossey, Ellie and Harvey, Carol (2012) ‘Social firms: Sustainable employment for people with mental illness’, Work 43(1), 53–62.

Yeoman, Ruth (2013) ‘Conceptualising Meaningful Work as a Fundamental Human Need’, Journal of Business Ethics 125(2), 235–251.