The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1750-8614.htm

Social enterprise and renewable

energy: emerging initiatives
and communities of practice
Dan van der Horst
School of Geography, Earth & Environmental Sciences,
University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Social enterprise
and renewable
energy
171
Received July 2008
Revised August 2008
Accepted September 2008

Abstract
Purpose After years of attempting to develop renewable energy (RE) mainly through large private
sector initiatives, the UK government has broadened its approach to provide more support for other
actors in this sector. The purpose of this paper is to assess what role social enterprise (SE) activities
can play in the development of the RE sector in the UK.
Design/methodology/approach The approach consists of an initial effort to map the sector in terms
of project types; and to assess the benefit of supporting SE activities in RE through an empirical case study.
Two types of SE-RE initiatives are examined here, namely a Scottish SE-RE consultancy (the Highlands
and Islands Renewable Energy Company HICEC) and the various SEs it supports in developing RE
projects through grants like the Scottish Community and Household Renewables Initiative (SCHRI).
Findings A typology of enterprise activities in RE is developed, based on activities along the RE
supply chain. The case study demonstrates the value of partnership working between HICEC staff and
the staff of local SEs, and suggests that the emergence of a community of practice is a key benefit of
the SCHRI and the collaborative way in which it was implemented by HICEC. The success of this
approach does throw up questions about replicability in different geographical settings.
Originality/value This is the first paper to explore SE activities in RE. It illustrates that
collaborative learning-by-doing by individuals across organisational boundaries is key for the
successful implementation of RE projects that are new to the UK.
Keywords Renewable energy, Experiential learning, Communities, United Kingdom
Paper type Case study

The thing I hope the minister will take on board [. . .] the climate debate [. . .] there are going to
be opportunities to set up new energy companies. Which will link agricultural production,
which will link all other sorts of different aspects of the economy. These ESCOs [. . .] are a
fantastic area for social enterprise. [. . .] if you set them up regionally then everybody in that
region will be likely to buy their energy from that company; If they will know if they buy
energy from these companies they know that the profits from that company could be used to
pay for social benefits in that area (Tim Smit, at the Voice07 conference in Manchester,
24 February 2007).
The author gratefully acknowledges the ESRC for funding his research on SE and RE (project
reference RES-152-27-0004). This research could not have been conducted without the extensive
support, advice and feedback from HICEC staff, especially from Mo Cloonan and Jon Priddy.
He is very grateful to all people involved in the SCHRI projects who shared their experiences,
views and reflections. All opinions expressed in this paper, along with any possible errors or
omissions are solely the authors.

Social Enterprise Journal

Vol. 4 No. 3, 2008
pp. 171-185
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1750-8614
DOI 10.1108/17508610810922686

SEJ
4,3

172

1. Introduction
The above quote by a leading social entrepreneur in the UK, shows snippets of a
particular vision of social enterprise (SE) activity in renewable energy (RE). Unlike
traditional utilities, energy services companies (ESCOs) do not sell electricity or energy.
Instead they develop, install, and finance projects designed to improve the energy
efficiency, carbon emissions reductions[1] and maintenance costs for facilities over a
longer period of time. They usually assume the technical and performance risk
associated with the project, i.e. the risks that the energy efficiency performance is
below expectation.
Tim refers to climate change as an underlying rationale. He mentions energy and
not just electricity, hints at the role of agricultural production (biomass energy is RE)
and specifies a regional scale of operation, both in terms of revenue generation
(customers) and distribution of social benefits. Considering the huge social and
environmental challenges posed by climate change and high energy prices, the rapid
developments in RE technologies and rising levels of state support and the dynamic
situation with regards to (privatised) provision of energy, it is certainly a good time to
examine the (potential) role of SEs in the production and utilisation of RE. This topic
area has been under-researched in the past, which is perhaps understandably
considering the rapid developments around RE, and the relatively minor role of
environmental issues in the growing academic research on SE. One paper cannot do
justice to all aspects of potential and current SE activities in RE. The aim of this paper
is by necessity more limited in focus: given the range of state support mechanisms for
the development of RE in most developed countries, what are the benefits of
supporting SE activities in RE? More specifically, this paper sets out to map the main
types of SE activities with regards to the production and utilisation of RE in the UK
and examine to what extent the most widespread types of SE support can help in the
development of RE sector.
The paper is structured as follows. A more general section will discuss the potential
role of SE in RE and map the main types of existing SE initiatives in RE currently
found in the UK. Focussing on the type with the largest number of initiatives, namely
existing SEs which adopt RE technologies within their real estate, the second part of
the paper will explore an existing scheme for community renewables (the Scottish
Community and Household Renewables Initiative SCHRI) and the role of the SE
which promotes and administers this scheme (the Highlands and Islands Renewable
Energy Company HICEC).
2. Renewable energy and social enterprise
This section provides a brief overview of RE developments in the UK since 1990, the
potential role of SE therein and a tentative map of existing types of SE initiatives in RE.
2.1 RE development; a limited response from the private sector
The dominant mode of energy provision in industrial countries is characterised by
highly centralised systems of distribution which can create a lock-in between fuel types
and utilisation technologies (e.g. car and petrol; nuclear power and electric night
storage heaters). Nowadays, extraction and transport infrastructures have national
and continental coverage (oil and gas pipe-lines, the electricity grid). Distribution grids
started locally by entrepreneurs and were slowly expanded and joined-up. In most

countries, they were nationalised at some stage, an act motivated by their natural
monopoly and the essential social services they provide. Since the early 1990s, under
the influence of neo-liberalism there has been an international trend to privatise or
deregulate national electricity markets. Around the same time, the threats of
human-induced climate change began to influence the political agenda, resulting in
growing state support for RE. In the UK, this support was almost exclusively for
technologies to produce renewable electricity which was to be sold through the grid.
In the 1990s, the non-fossil fuel obligation (NFFO) was the main funding programme
for renewables. However, uptake was disappointing, with many projects failing to
come into fruition. The planning process was often a key barrier as many proposed
projects generated strong local public opposition and were subsequently delayed or
rejected[2]. NFFO resulted mainly in the building of windfarms. Subsequent funding
mechanisms since 2000 (notably the Renewables Obligation) have proved to be more
attractive for corporate investors and they have boosted wind energy, with notable
developments of larger wind turbines and off-shore windfarms. The wind is stronger at
sea but the construction and connection to the national grid is far more expensive.
A key benefit of off-shore windfarms is the absence of local residents who play a
prominent role in protests against proposed windfarms on land[3].
However, the development of RE through large private enterprises has been
disappointing to date and has fallen well below UK government targets making the
UK a laggard in RE development within the EU[4]. At the other end of the technology
scale, government support has been rather more effective; domestic renewables have
proved so popular that all allocated funding was quickly spent and the Low Carbon
Buildings programme had to be put on hold. Between the domestic scale and the large
commercial scale lie a group of RE systems which are, both from an economic and from
a carbon emissions reductions point of view, often best operationalised at the
community scale. Examples include regional biomass energy systems, district
heating, smaller wind turbines closer to built-up areas, wind to heat and ground-source
heat pumps[5].
2.2 Why SE-RE initiatives make sense
There are a number of reasons why RE may be a promising area for SE activity. First
of all, many SEs embrace both social and environmental values, which they are likely
to express through a range of good management practices such as recycling, reducing
energy use or using green energy where possible. Development of RE may also be a
way to tackle fuel poverty a growing social problem. Secondly, there are a number of
SEs whose activities are relatively energy intensive (e.g. those using a significant
amounts of energy in transportation, processing or heating) and/or whose activities
produce waste or co-products which can be converted to energy
(e.g. energy-from-waste, EfW). Thirdly there is a general market opportunity for SE
to explore, created on the one hand by (fairly recent, and growing) state support for the
development of RE and on the other by what Kellett (2007) calls the technical reserve
of RE , i.e. unmanaged woodlands, garden waste going to landfill, windy locations,
suitable locations for micro-hydro, etc. Finally, there is scope for socio-technical
innovations in RE utilisation where certain models of SEs may have a comparative
advantage over private enterprises. This is for example the case with RE systems
which link together energy producer(s) and consumer(s) in mutual interdependence.

Social enterprise
and renewable
energy
173

SEJ
4,3

174

This interdependence may stem from the natural monopoly of the distribution system.
This is notably the case for district heating, a very energy-efficient way of providing
space heating and hot water in high-density built-up areas. Interdependency may
also stem from the use of a novel fuel and conversion technology. A typical
chicken-and-egg situation ensues when no entrepreneur wants to invest in the
production of the fuel without existing customers and no customer wants to purchase
the technology without a reliable fuel supply at hand. In both cases of interdependency,
the RE system can be developed if there is sufficient trust and collaboration between
the producer and the consumer[6]. It can be argued that the superior moral capital of
SEs (Bull, 2008) and their strong embeddedness in the local community (social capital)
provides them with a competitive advantage with regards to trust so that they can
build the necessary coalition or partnership to operationalise the RE system[7].
2.3 Types of RE-SE activities
RE includes wave, tidal, (river) hydro and wind energy which are converted to
electricity-; geothermal and solar energy which are used for heating or converted to
electricity-; and biomass energy 2 which dependent on the form may be used for
heating, lighting, transportation or electricity generation. This range of energies, along
with different conversion technologies, scales of production, types of utilisation and
last but not least types of SE, has the potential to create a very long and unwieldy list
of different types of SE-RE projects and activities. Using the basic stages of a RE
supply chain, a more simplified and workable typology is proposed here, consisting of
six main types (Figure 1).
The term SE is used fairly loosely in this paper, more or less consistent with the
argument of outcome not income (Dees and Anderson, 2006), while dependency on
state funding is not deemed to be an issue of concern here since almost the entire RE
sector is dependent to some extent on state support, including private sector initiatives.
The main distinction which is made here, is that between SEs that are producing RE
for internal use, and SEs which are generating a significant amount of their revenues
by selling RE, thus extending the basic typology to a total of seven (Figure 1).

(1) Manufacturing RE technology

(2) Installing &

maintenance

(3) Producing
(bio)fuel

Producing RE for (5) sale or (6) internal use

Figure 1.
Basic types of
entrepreneurial and
consumptive activity
along the renewable
energy supply chain

(7) Consuming RE

(4) Advice &

consultancy

In practice however even the distinction between internal use and significant export
may not always be clear cut and in any case a SE may experience fluctuating
production of RE and demand for energy over time, dependent on natural resource
characteristics, technological factors, climatic conditions and the different activities
undertaken by the SE.
2.4 Existing SE-RE initiatives in the UK
The most numerous SE-RE initiatives in the UK concern third sector organisations
which have had their old heating system refurbished and replaced by RE usually
solar water heaters, biomass energy or ground-source heat pumps. Schools are
prominent in this group and some also have wind and solar photo-voltaics installed as
demonstration projects with educational value. This group will be discussed in more
details in the second part of this paper.
SE focused on the production of RE are still uncommon in the UK, but their number
is growing. There are several wind cooperatives in the UK which operate relatively
small windfarms, the oldest of which are Baywind (England), Findhorn (Scotland) and
Bro Dyfi (Wales). The latter two are associated with experiments in communal living
dating back to the 1960s and 1970s giving rise to the Findhorn community and the
Centre of Alternative Energy (CAT), respectively. Both Baywind and CAT have
developed SEs to provide advice and consultancy to further the development of
community-based RE initiatives in the region (Bro Dyfi Community Renewables Ltd)
and the UK (Energy4All Ltd). HICEC, another RE advice/consultancy SE will be the
focus of the case study discussed in the second part of this paper.
A second group of SE in RE can be found in the Scottish Highlands where recent
legislation and state support has enabled local communities to buy out the large private
estates on which they lived[8]. This regained form of communal land ownership
(managed as a trust) has spurred local communities to identify opportunities for income
generation on their land. With low agricultural productivity, a short tourism season and
high wind speeds all year round, windfarms are an obvious option to consider for these
remote rural communities. A grid-connected community windfarm started operation in
2004 on the small island of Gigha on the Scottish west coast. Funded through a
combination of grants, loans and equity, the three second-hand 225 kW wind turbines
are operated by Gigha Renewables Ltd, a SE which is expected to provide a net income of
about 75k per annum for the local community of about 120 people[9]. A number of
similar community wind projects are under development, and some local communities
are also developing small scale hydropower and biomass energy projects.
Whilst this model is specific to parts of Scotland, in other parts of the UK, examples
can be found of similar developments on land that is (made) available for SE activities.
For example, an organic allotment society in South London has installed a 2.5 kW
windturbine on their land[10] and the Carbon Trust has set up a Partnership for
Renewables to encourage public sector organisations to develop RE projects on the
land which they own. Some pioneering local authorities are already active in this area,
producing RE for their own use or that of other local organisations. The council of
Woking (near London) has pioneered an ESCO (Thameswey Ltd) which generates heat
and electricity for local use, bypassing the national electricity grid by building private
wires[11]. Other councils have pioneered the local utilisation of biomass harvested on

Social enterprise
and renewable
energy
175

SEJ
4,3

176

council land (e.g. Barnsley Council in Yorkshire), wind turbines and roof-mounted solar
technologies on their land and buildings (e.g. Kirklees Council in Yorkshire).
With the exception of the councils, most of the above mentioned initiatives relate to
just one of the seven generic activities along the supply chain. There are also a number
of ways in which the supply chain activities may be combined in a single enterprise.
Some of the most typical combinations are listed in Table I, and discussed briefly
below:
(1) The manufacturer led model, whereby the technology manufacturer is
playing a proactive role in the utilisation of their technology. This model is
typical of more novel technology, such as biomass gasification or pyrolysis
(van der Horst, 2005).
(2) The generic ESCO model; an enterprise which supplies energy services to its
customers by installing and operating and RE facilities. Thameswey Ltd is a
good example.
(3) The farmer-led model; this type of enterprise is typical of the Scandinavian
farmer cooperatives (Peltola, 2007), whereby the farmers grow trees, do the
harvesting and chipping, supply the fuel to the plant, run and sometimes
maintain the plant. The customers, who may be SEs such as local schools,
retirement homes, hospitals, etc. pays for the amount of heat provided. This
model is rather rare in the UK, where at best there are producer groups set up to
benefit from Defras energy crops scheme. However, if wood is not grown but
bought, then a UK example is provided by Buccleuch energy, an ESCO who are
contracted to provide biomass heat to a district heating system which serves
130 new social housing units in Aviemore, Scotland, which are built and owned
by Albyn housing a social housing association that is pioneering RE
technologies.
(4) The EfW contractor model. This is a type of enterprise in which a farmer or
another producer of biomass materials has contracted out the conversion of this
material (typically on-site) into energy for use within their business. A typical
example is that of a farmer who produces biomass waste and has greenhouses
to warm but prefers to let a specialist contractor manage the energy conversion.
The contractor is likely to be an ESCO.
(5) The self-use model; like the EfW Contractor model, this model is characterised
by availability or access to RE (usually associated with owning or managing

Table I.
A typology of SEs, based
on RE supply chain
activities (the seven
production models are
explained in the text)

Technology manufacturing
Installation and/or maintenance
Producing biofuel
Producing RE
Consuming RE

X
X
(X)

II

Production model
III
IV
V

X
(X)
X

(X)
X
X

X
X

X
X
X

VI

VII

X
(X)
X
X

X
X

Notes: X signifies a key supply chain activity; (X) signifies a possible or secondary supply chain
activity

land) and an internal demand for energy. However, no other company in

involved in the RE production stage, so that this enterprise is wholly or
partially self sufficient in terms of the sourcing and production of its own
energy needs. Examples in the UK include country estates or larger farms that
have some forestry and demand for space heating of conference venues, tourist
bungalows, greenhouses, etc.
(6) The DIY model. This model is characterised by self-built and is often also at a
smaller scale than the self-use model. This model requires technical
competence and confidence to do the installation and maintenance. Examples
include eco-entrepreneurs who are the first to import a small-scale technology
from abroad and teach themselves how to assemble it and make it work.
(7) The building-integrated model. This model refers to built environment RE
technologies, which generate useful energy to cover part of the needs within the
building, using technologies such as solar water heaters, PV arrays, grounds
source heat pumps.

Social enterprise
and renewable
energy
177

3. Case study: HICEC a SE supporting community renewables

This second part of the paper presents a case study-based analysis which serves the
main aim of this paper; to assess the benefit of supporting SE activities in RE. Two
types of SE-RE initiatives are examined here, namely a SE-RE consultancy (HICEC)
and the various SEs it supports in developing RE projects. The findings reported below
are based on site visits to 11 projects in the Northern Highlands (Table II), interviews
with key individuals at these projects and informal discussions with HICEC staff.

Number

Type of organisation

N/R

Technology

Main users

Solar water heater

Tenants

R (elec)

Ground source heat

pump
Biomass boiler
Biomass boiler

Local community, youth

Social housing
association
Community recycling
centre
Community gym
Community swimming
pool
Community gym

6
7

Community centre
Community forestry

R (elec)
N

8
9

Community forestry
Social housing
association
Land trust (community
buy out)

N
R (elec)

Ground source heat

pump
Solar water heater
Photo-voltaic (not grid
connected)
Biomass boiler
Solar water heater

Wind (community)

Museum ( community
centre)

R (oil)

Biomass boiler

1
2
3
4

10
11

R (oil)
R (oil)
N

Local community
Local community
Local community
Local community
Local youth
Local community (how)?
Tenants
Electricity to grid,
income to local
community
Tourists and local
community

Notes: R, refurbishment or retrofit (the previous heating system is noted in brackets); N, new built

Table II.
Projects visited and/or
key project organisers
interviewed during my
visit to the Northern
Highlands. Actual project
names are replaced by
numbers to ensure
anonymity

SEJ
4,3

178

3.1 HICEC and SCHRI

Originally formed as an off-shoot of Highlands and Islands Enterprise. The HICEC is
(in their own words) a SE whose objective it is to empower communities by
supporting the development of community-based RE projects. Although not
exclusively operating in the Scottish Higlands, the majority of communities they
work with are located in sparsely inhabited, remote rural area where economic
opportunities are very limited and where high transport costs, low temperatures and
the absence of a gas grid[12] increase peoples vulnerability to fuel poverty. Most of
HICECs support for community renewables has been delivered under the flag of the
Scottish Community and Household Renewables Initiative (SCHRI). SCHRI was
established in 2002 and has since been extended until 2008. In the first 3 years
alone, 146 community RE projects have been funded (3.6m in total), including wind
(28 per cent), heating (19 per cent), biomass or biofuel and EfW (18 per cent), heat
pumps (16 per cent), hydro (3 per cent) and combined technologies (16 per cent). During
the same period, SCHRI also allocated nearly 400 grants to individual households
(not discussed here).
Considering the diverse nature of the beneficiaries of SCRI (all third sector/SE
organisations) and the wide socio-technical variety of the projects involved, the
development of appropriate evaluation procedures for these types of projects can pose
a real methodological challenge (Walker et al., 2007), a problem which is rather typical
for SEs in general (Haugh, 2005). HICEC have procedures in place to assess the
technical, economic and environmental effectiveness or efficiency of their projects.
The subsequent sections will reflect on two additional aspects of evaluation which are
particularly relevant for RE projects as socio-technical innovations; namely social
impacts and learning by doing.
3.2 The range of projects funded under SCHRI
The core challenge in assessing the social impacts of HICEC supported projects, lies in
the diversity of these projects and diversity in HICECs role(s) of support. HICEC has
provided funding for different RE technologies, but also for different bits of separate
kit with regards to each technology. For example, they helped a biomass-heated
community swimming pool to obtain a blower for loading woodchips into a hopper
(which stores the woodchips and feeds them into the boiler), and they helped a
hydropower project to install a device to keep salmon away from the turbine (where
this valuable and protected fish species could get killed). The energy technology
supported by HICEC has mostly been part of larger built-environment projects, usually
a building with a social purpose that was being built or refurbished with financial
support from (sometimes a partnership of) other organisations. This means that HICEC
has limited options for driving or steering the social aspects of the overall project (the
building). It also means that the social impacts (good or bad) of the overall project are
difficult to attribute to a single organisation in the wider partnership that sponsored
that building.
In terms of benefit provision, it is useful to distinguish between three different types
of projects; multi-functional community buildings, income generating projects and
social housing. Although some projects have clear primary functions, all community
buildings have multiple social functions, such as socialising, arts, learning, and sports.
In addition, these buildings provide a workspace for paid employees and/or volunteers.

Income generating projects, including community wind or community hydro[13],

are connected to the national grid and do not concern community buildings. The
purpose of these projects is income generation in order to fund social benefits. It is
therefore not possible to assess or predict the social impacts in advance, other than
noting the plans and spending priorities of the community trust. The visit was too
short to look into the (potential) impact of these projects on community cohesion. Wind
farm proposals can create friction within a community (a negative social impact).
However, the information collected for the proposed community wind developments
(project no. 10 and another development at the same community as project no. 5)
indicated that the consultation processes are sufficiently robust to reduce tensions and
create widespread support for, or at least acceptance of, community wind.
Social housing associations are also very different in that the houses are for private
use and the users (tenants) typically have a rather limited say/involvement in the
development process. They are receivers of the social benefit of more affordable
heating. While this social impact is clearly extremely important for many tenants who
are suffering from fuel poverty, it is provided in a top-down process that does not
(in itself) build their capacity. It can however build the capacity of the housing
association, who through positive experiences, may be embolded to roll out more of
such houses for their tenants. Through their demonstration projects, social housing
associations could potentially help to lead the way for other developers in terms of
operationalising the use of RE technologies in the (especially domestic) built
environment. However, there is also evidence that some tenants are not making the
most of the installed facilities. For example, one tenant decided to install an electric
shower despite having been provided with solar water heating. This points at a greater
need to involve tenants in the design of their domestic energy system in order to ensure
optimal use, both from an environmental and from an end-user perspective.
3.3 Capacity building
The above paragraph highlights the potential discrepancy between approaches which
build capacity and those which provide social benefits. In extreme cases, it can be the
difference between creating dependency on benefits versus developing people and
community[14]. It is useful here to distinguish between the overall project (usually
related to a building) and the energy technology that HICEC has supported. With the
clear exception of social housing, it would seem that most projects have indeed been
developed through initiatives from within the community (i.e. bottom-up), building
capacity within the community in the process. However, the same cannot be said for
the technologies. There are a few examples where technologies have been bolted on
as an after-thought to please the funding body that was paying for the building. It
could be argued that as a rule of thumb, fit and forget technologies in their own right
do not build a lot of capacity in the community. There may be some exceptions to this
rule, for example, when a local firm is involved in the delivery, develops the skills to
install this technology and is able to find further orders for it. Technologies that clearly
do build capacity in the community are not fit and forget but rather fit, fumble,
fidget and finally fine-tune. Biomass would be the most obvious example for
that. Getting it to work is not simply a triumph of hands-on technical skills, but
requires active management, sourcing of fuel, supporting (or even creating) a fuel
supply chain that is local and provides further jobs and economic opportunities.

Social enterprise
and renewable
energy
179

SEJ
4,3

180

Eventually, as the experiences of the gym (no. 3) and the swimming pool (no. 4) show, it
can save significant financial resources[15]. The limiting factor to this argument is that
the savings are dependent on fossil fuel prices, i.e. an external factor. The steeply rising
costs of heating oil have proved these projects to be right from a financial point of
view[16].
The concept of capacity building can be open to different interpretations,
depending on whose capacity is being built and how is it being built. An ideal
community project is developed by the community for the community. However,
within the community itself there will be people who are doing more work and people
who are receiving more benefits from this work. This is not necessarily a problem for
those community members that are simply deemed to be in need of support. It could be
argued that the very elderly are in this category. They have already contributed to the
community over the course of their life and their physical health is not expected to
improve. However, in most cases those community members that are deemed to be
vulnerable, need both support and capacity building so that they can become less
dependent and less vulnerable. The question is then to what extent RE projects provide
benefits that result in capacity building for these groups? A warm community hall
creates more and better opportunities for community activities. These activities may
help to create a stronger sense of community and thus build and strengthen social
capital. It may also provide space and encouragement for more (formal or informal)
educational activities, thus building human capital. This mode of delivery could be
referred to as creating an enabling environment. It creates facilities and opportunities
for capacity building but cannot in itself deliver or guarantee capacity building.
Evidence of capacity building through the use of the building, can only be collected
through the monitoring of activities in the building (see further down).
3.4 New energy services
Energy services are in essence social services; they enable us to develop elaborate food
cultures, keep us warm in winter and cool in summer, ban the darkness from our
waking hours and give us fast transportation and instant communication to maintain
social relations over long distances.
In the UK, fuel poverty is often operationally defined as a situation whereby people
spend more than 10 per cent of their income on fuel. However, this particular definition
also has its limitations in the regional context of the Highlands and Islands, where
heating is required for long periods of the year, local jobs are in short supply, poorly
paid or seasonal and (relatively cheap) grid gas heating is often absent. For example,
the particularly high cost of transport of people and goods to and from the area is not
included in this definition, yet adds an important and closely related burden on the
household purse. Secondly, there are situations whereby people are not so much facing
a high bill but are actually lacking access to energy services that are taken for granted
in other parts of the UK. The absence of electricity grid in some areas or gas grid in
many areas is a prime example of this problem. Where RE alternatives are found to be
relatively expensive, it could be argued that the term energy poverty would be more
appropriate than fuel poverty, since biomass is the only RE source that tends to be
seen as a fuel. Some HICEC-supported projects are delivering energy services that were
previously absent or very limited. The completion of an electricity grid on the island of
Eigg (a mini-grid fed for 100 per cent by RE) in February 2008 provides a good

illustration of the social benefits of improved access to energy services. As a

consequence of this increased level of basic energy provision as a social good, overall
energy usage may increase and the environmental benefits (i.e. reduction of green
house gas emissions) of using RE may not actually materialise. From a social justice
perspective, this situation is much more defensible, but it could potentially create
tension with funding sources that explicitly specify the need for positive environmental
outcomes, notably carbon emissions reductions. In those circumstances, it is important
to highlight that there is no equivalence of service, i.e. the project is providing more
energy services than were previously available to a community where basic social
services were limited by energy poverty (in addition to people suffering from fuel
poverty in its standard definition).
3.5 Leadership, partnership and learning-by-doing
Another aspect which emerged is the dependency on key individuals to deliver these
social benefits. This dependency can on the one hand be seen as a risk of failure, but on
the other hand there is a chance of delivering more than originally envisaged. With
regards to failure, there was one example of renewables at a school, which were used as a
learning tool. When the teacher who was the driving force behind the project left, the
technology was no longer actively used in teaching and technical problems were not
resolved. The community swimming pool (no. 4) and the community gym (no. 3) are
examples of projects where key individuals have helped to deliver social benefits over
and above of what could be reasonably expected. What these key individuals have in
common, is the drive and ability to solve or overcome, what might be narrowly seen as,
technical problems by actively drawing on the knowledge and expertise of others and
simultaneously developing their own and that of their staff (employees, volunteers
and/or students). From interviews with the leading individuals for these projects, it
became clear that HICEC staff were seen to be playing an important role in this
learning-by-doing partnership. It was observed that the leading individuals in the
most successful projects were most complimentary about HICEC support.
These appeared to be very competent and proactive individuals, which suggests that
(rather than HICEC made these projects happen) it is the partnership between these
community leaders and HICEC staff which has been the key to success. This
demonstrates that the relatively hands-on and (on-site) face-to-face support provided by
HICEC staff is clearly vital for success. It also suggests that it would be difficult and
ultimately unproductive to try to separate the role of HICEC in the provision of funding,
and the role of its staff as advisors, champions and even leaders (a term used by one of
the interviewees).
3.6 HICECs role in empowering communities
The pace of wider adoption of RE technologies in community projects cannot be
explained as a linear function of a range of technical, financial, social and institutional
drivers and barriers. Innovation in socio-technical systems can be a complex process
(or nested processes) with many interdependencies that are time and space specific. In
the light of this complexity, it would be useful to see HICECs aim of empowering
communities not just in the context of communities of place (i.e. communities defined
by their geographical location) but also in the context of communities of practice (Lave
and Wenger, 1991), where the technical expertise is shared and developed between

Social enterprise
and renewable
energy
181

SEJ
4,3

182

individuals who lead on local projects, HICEC staff, technology providers, installation
consultancies, early individual adopters, etc.
Rydin and Holman (2004) distinguish between bonding social capital, which binds
together the people living in geographically defined communities, bridging social capital
which connects people with shared values and interests across geographical space (i.e. the
type of social capital that is relevant for communities of practice) and bracing social capital
which is present in those key individuals or organisations who possess both bonding and
bridging social capital. Sustainable development capital then requires the simultaneous
presence of these three types of social capital. HICEC, as a non-hierarchical organisation
with strong knowledge sharing ethos and practices, regionally distributed offices and
locally embedded technical staff, is well designed to play an important role in the
creation of sustainable development capital[17]. It highlights the value of HICECs current
approach as opposed to seemingly cheaper options for support such as those based on
telephone, internet and paper-based communication[18].
The concept of partnership working extends beyond the idea of a community of
practice to include for example strategic partnerships. The influence of these is not
always benign though. For example, the plan for a refurbishment of the community
hall received a negative review from Highland and Island Council because it lacked
renewables. The leading individuals for this proposal then turned to HICEC. However,
they were reluctant to review their plan, demanding instead a simple bolt-on solution to
tick the renewables box so that they could quickly resubmit their proposal to Highland
Council. HICEC had to oblige in order to honour their strategic relationship with
Highland Council. The result was a roof-mounted solar water heater which was too far
removed from the kitchen. It took a lot of time, wasted lots of water and lost a lot of
heat before the sun-heated water would flow from the tap. As a consequence, staff
resorted to sourcing warm water for cleaning from the (electric) instant hot-water
dispenser that was installed for coffee and tea making.
There are also occasions where strong project leadership would be witnessed with
the absence of good partnership working. The PV array for a community forestry
building and the wind turbine on a golf course, provide useful examples. These
projects received SCHRI financial support from HICEC because of the drive of the
project leaders who had clear prior ideas of what they wanted and were therefore not
interested in developing a partnership. The direct social impacts of these two projects
seem limited, but there may be indirect reputational or educational benefits for the
exposure to and acceptance of RE technologies by visitors or members of the golf
course and community forestry project (no. 7)[19].
4. Concluding thoughts
This paper explores the potential role of SE initiatives in RE in the UK, where a
one-sided government focus on large private sector utilities has left both a market gap
for local generation of energy and scope for innovation in local energy service delivery.
The vast majority of HICEC supported projects were designed to provide facilities for
delivering social benefits to (key groups in) the local community. The actual delivery
(i.e. the amount) of social benefits and capacity building to community members is
very much dependent on the capacities of key individuals/social entrepreneurs.
However, these individuals often acknowledged explicitly the role of HICEC staff, which
suggests that HICEC delivers both the potential for benefits (by providing funding) and

its staff help in the delivery of these benefits through partnership working and situated
learning. A research focus on the (geographical) community and the technical expert
or the development officer is very partial and myopic in this context. Highlighting the
inseparability of learning from social participation, these findings show that it is not just
very difficult but potentially futile to employ standardised evaluation procedures to
account exactly for who delivers benefits and how they are delivered. In theory, formal
accounting exercises can yield valuable management information, both for providing
the evidence base for future sponsoring decisions by HICEC, and for encouraging more
effective management of projects by the local community. Whilst there is scope for more
systematic monitoring and evaluation, there was (very) little evidence to suggest that
HICEC staff were actually lacking in insights with regards to the social impacts of
projects they supported. Repeat visits to projects and regular personal contacts
appeared to provide HICEC staff with sufficient information for informal monitoring
and evaluation and the organisational culture of HICEC seems to foster sufficient
personal reflections and critical thinking about the suitability and eligibility of projects
that are considered for support. These observations do throw up questions about the
mainstreaming of SE activities with regards to RE. This mainstreaming would require
a wider uptake of RE systems by SEs in the Highlands and in other geographical areas of
the UK. Especially with regards to the latter, the relatively intensive, sometimes
informal and often personal level of collaboration between HICEC staff and SE staff may
not be easily replicated if the number of projects were to increase substantially or if more
projects were to be developed in more urbanised parts of the UK. Whilst the innovation
diffusion process of new technologies has been widely studied (and is generally expected
to progress along a typical elongated S curve), it is not clear at this point in time how
this process will manifest itself spatially, i.e. in different physical, social, cultural and
governance environments.
Further research on the delivery of social benefits through SE initiatives that
represent socio-technical innovations, should focus explicitly on developing a greater
understanding of the processes of learning, and the ways in which these may manifest
themselves in heterogeneous outcomes across space and time. Indeed the literature on
learning by doing is quite extensive but in the context energy it remains poorly
understood (Sagar and van der Zwaan, 2006) with only a handful of studies published
so far on renewables (Kamp et al., 2004; Junginger et al., 2005) and none focussed on
SEs. The development of RE-SE initiatives shares some of the features of complex
systems, including indeterminate outcomes at the onset and non-linear developments
or improvements. The notion of communities of practice or even communities of
learning (Knight, 2001) is a key feature for the development of successful initiatives
and the replication of lessons learned. Although some of the existing literature on SE
suggests that knowledge sharing is limited, this case study shows that in the
development of the RE sector, where conventional commercial approaches have
achieved too little in the past, SE initiatives may have a unique role to play, not only
because they are closer to the customers and their needs, not only because they can
utilise local resources (physical and social), not only because they may create synergies
between social and environmental objectives within the limits of the economic bottom
line, but also because of their strong knowledge and experience sharing ethos, which is
essential for the development of a new sector that needs to find its way through the
phase of growing pains and teething problems.

Social enterprise
and renewable
energy
183

SEJ
4,3

184

Notes
1. The oil crisis in 1973 gave a first impetus for the development of ESCOs, who aimed to assist
in delivering energy efficiency. The current rise of interest in ESCOs is also focused on
carbon savings.
2. In the eyes of some potential investors (notably banks), political risk was another major
barrier. Obviously, the strength of these barriers is relative to the level of financial incentives
on offer.
3. There are still many controversies about off-shore windfarms.
4. About 4 per cent of the UK electricity production comes from RE at the moment and the only
two EU countries with proportionally less RE generation are Malta and Luxemburg.
5. Heat pumps are a relatively energy efficient method for electric space heating or cooling.
They are often supported along with genuine RE technologies, but should not be confused
with geothermal energy.
6. There are several other ways to kick-start the market, including loss-leader approach by the
fuel provider, or an ESCO model where the fuel provider also owns and maintains the
conversion technology.
7. The literature on (social) trust is too extensive for discussion here, but it is worth noting that
a whole range of factors may influence the level of trust, including shared values,
competence, fairness, etc.
8. The unique land ownership pattern in the Scottish highlands, often viewed as a feudal
system, dates back to the highland clearances after the last Jacobite rebellion failed in 1746.
9. For further details, see http://gigha.org.uk/windmills/TheStoryoftheWindmills.php
10. For more details, see http://spahill.org.uk/turbine1.html
11. For more details, see http://energysavingtrust.org.uk/uploads/documents/housingbuildings/
Woking.pdf
12. Some of the larger places have a gas mini-grid that is supplied by lorry. A few of the most
remote hamlets are not even connected to the electricity grid.
13. There is only one example of community-hydro in the area but this project was not visited
during the fieldwork.
14. Walker and Devine-Wright (2008) distinguish in community energy projects between the
types of outcomes (ranging from distant and private to local and collective) and the types of
processes (ranging from closed and institutional to open and participatory).
15. Admittedly, at a higher personal labour input, but thats renewable and often voluntary.
16. The manager of the gym (no. 3) estimated the fuel cost savings to be in the region of
10k/year.
17. This statement is based on occasional observations, informal discussions with HICEC staff
and unprompted remarks by interviewees.
18. This is for example common practice at the Energy Savings Trust who deal with a much
greater number of individual/household grant applications and requests for information.
19. Owing to time limitations in the field, this could not directly assessed.
References
Bull, M. (2008), Ethical capital: the neglected aspect in the conceptualisation of social
enterprise, paper presented at the Social Enterprise Research Conference, South Bank
University, London, 26-27 June.

Dees, J.G. and Anderson, B.B. (2006), Framing a Theory of Social Entrepreneurship: Building on
Two Schools of Practice and Thought, Association for Research on Nonprofit
Organizations and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA), Indianapolis, IN.
Haugh, H. (2005), A research agenda for social entrepreneurship, Social Enterprise Journal,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Junginger, M., Faaij, A., Bjorheden, R. and Turkenburg, W. (2005), Technological learning and
cost reduction in wood fuel supply chains in Sweden, Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol. 29,
pp. 399-418.
Kamp, L., Smits, R. and Andriesse, C. (2004), Notions on learning applied to wind turbine
development in the Netherlands and Denmark, Energy Policy, Vol. 32, pp. 1625-37.
Kellett, J. (2007), Community-based energy policy: a practical approach to carbon reduction,
Journal of Environmental Planning & Management, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 381-96.
Knight, P.T. (2001), Complexity and curriculum: a process approach to curriculum-making,
Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 369-81.
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Peltola, T. (2007), Business on the margin: local practices and the politics of forests in Finland,
Ethics, Place and Environment, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 29-47.
Rydin, Y. and Holman, C. (2004), Re-evaluating the contribution of social capital in achieving
sustainable development, Local Environment, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 117-33.
Sagar, A. and van der Zwaan, B. (2006), Technological innovation in the energy sector: R&D,
deployment, and learning-by-doing, Energy Policy, Vol. 34, pp. 2601-8.
van der Horst, D. (2005), UK biomass energy since 1990; the mismatch between project types
and policy objectives, Energy Policy, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 705-16.
Walker, G. and Devine-Wright, P. (2008), Community renewable energy: what should it mean?,
Energy Policy, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 497-500.
Walker, G., Hunter, S., Devine-Wright, P., Evans, B. and Fay, H. (2007), Harnessing community
energies: explaining and evaluating community-based localism in renewable energy policy
in the UK, Global Environmental Politics, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 64-75.
Further reading
Johnstone, H. and Lionais, D. (2004), Depleted communities and community business
entrepreneurship: revaluing space through place, Entrepreneurship & Regional
Development, Vol. 16, pp. 217-33.
Corresponding author
Dan van der Horst can be contacted at: D.vanderhorst@bham.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Social enterprise
and renewable
energy
185

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.