Hey Aussie “Peak Body” Associations, Meet Social Entrepreneurship

In a press release from a recent workshop on biosecurity in Australia, the CEOs of various “peak body” groups express what our country must do to protect itself from invasive pests:

“We need…rapid action to eradicate or contain new biosecurity threats,” says Andreas Glanznig, CEO of the Centre for Invasive Species Solutions.

“We need to support biosecurity champions big and small,” says Sarah Corcoran, CEO of Plant Health Australia.

“We need to be collaborative and cross-sectorial,” says Andrew Cox, CEO of the Invasive Species Council.

Great aspirations. Great words from committed people (so many CEOs!), calling themselves the “Biosecurity Collective Partners.” But two days of workshopping, two days of exchanging ideas, and the result is — what exactly? Another publicity campaign? Calls for more funding? Some new terminology for the same old ideas?[1]

This would all be academically interesting if it weren’t so serious. You’d almost think biosecurity wasn’t a critical issue for Australia.

(Newsflash: It is).

THE “PEAK BODY” COMPLEX

The Australian idea of “peak body” associations works great for unifying the voices of a profession or industry (it fosters careers, strengthens relationships). It can also work very well for coordinating responses to well-anticipated risks, including, for example, pandemics.

Leanne Kemp, Queensland’s Chief Entrepreneur, has created a platform to track the providence of high-value assets such as diamonds, art and wine. Not a social enterprise as such, but Leanne’s venture has the potential to reduce forced and child labour practices around the world.

It can be a disaster, however, for addressing wicked problems[2] such as climate change, healthcare, unemployment, or food security. Wicked problems require everything the Biosecurity Collective Partners are calling for— “rapid action,” the “supporting of everyday heroes,” a “collaborative and cross-sectorial” effort. But for government-funded “collective partnerships,” “professional associations,” “peak bodies,” these are just words, not practices.

The very metaphor of a “peak” suggests a high point, a commanding view, a domination; and, conversely, the exclusion, diminishment, overshadowing of everything that’s not part of that lofty lookout. Peak bodies either expect innovation to rise up the slopes of their exalted subject matter, or they wait for innovation to trickle down from even higher peaks (such as US-made trends, brands, technologies).

But the kind of rapid innovation needed to address wicked problems doesn’t work that way. It starts flat and grows of its own substance. It doesn’t choose a peak to scale; it creates its own counter-peak. It doesn’t pitch itself uphill to the members of a tight-knit association.

The members must actively seek it out. They must come to it.

INNOVATION BLINDNESS

Many high-impact solutions to wicked problems, including those addressing biosecurity, already exist right here in Australia. The real issue is not a lack of innovation or technical capacity. It’s an inability for peak bodies to recognise what’s right under their high altitude noses.

For example: My team, which includes numerous experts from a range of disciplines across the country, has already put together a detailed plan for 10 million Australian eyes to actively monitor biosecurity by 2022. The plan includes real financials, real projections, real job-creation, and a proven, scalable, 100% Australian-made technology that’s producing reliable, science-based results right now.

Biosecurity: A wicked problem. But also a real opportunity to re-imagine the future, grow Australia’s economy, and promote a greater connection to country. Image from the Department of Agriculture.

This is called social entrepreneurship. It’s happening all across Australia. It’s what government-supported groups like the “Biosecurity Collective Partners” need more of (contact the remarkable Leanne Kemp’s office for more information).

Isn’t it better, after all, for Australia to have a world-leading, long-term, job-creating, techno-financial solution to biosecurity, something it can export around the planet — rather than just another slogan, another local advertising campaign, yet more awareness about one of a hundred different things Australians need to be more aware of in today’s world?

Social entrepreneurs are helping solve some of Australia’s most wicked social problems, with innovative, scalable, industry-creating solutions.

THE COST OF FALSE SUCCESS = THE COST OF INACTION

These social entrepreneurs are motivated less by job descriptions, less by personal career growth, and more by the measurable, scalable and sustainable impact of their venture on a specific social problem. They understand urgency. They know that innovative solutions require innovative behaviour. They eschew business-as-usual. They know the dangers of group think, career biases, a lack of diversity in discussions. They know ideas are cheap, execution is everything.

Which is why they don’t just look for innovation in peak body forums, symposiums, workshops, conferences, and all the other traditional gatherings of collegiality.

Huy Nguyen is a leading social entrepreneur in Australia, with the potential to radically transform how everyday service workers, from Uber drivers to restaurant workers, learn to better assist people with disabilities.

They also understand the difference between “new” and “innovative.” Simply applying new technology (which in Australia is often hand-me-down tech from abroad) to old problems isn’t the same as real innovation, especially when it comes to wicked social problems. To say we’re applying “Artificial Intelligence” or “Citizen Science” to something like biosecurity or the bushfire crisis may sound sexy on grant proposals, but these have been around forever.

Social entrepreneurs prefer cliche-free environments. The high-beams of trendy terminology, they know, often blind us to actual, necessary change. They thrive on diversity, on the quieter, less heard voices in our society. They question authority. They know that anyone who is an “innovation manager,” or “head of innovation” or has “innovation” in their job title somewhere, likely suffers from innovation blindness.

Most importantly, they can detect real failure where others assume status quo achievements. They know success is often poorly measured, or applied only to a certain sector of society, which can result in an unimaginable cost of inaction or delay. In a recent Deloitte report, the cost of inaction for Australia when it comes to climate change will be equal to the cost of one Covid crises every year.

Social entrepreneurs fear complacency. They use the words “we need to” far less than the words “we are doing.” Their job never ends. They don’t get much vacation time, if any.

PEAKS AND VALLEYS

So how do we connect the peak bodies of social causes with the rich, diverse “innovation valleys” of entrepreneurship?

Tara Diversi, founder of Sophus Nutrition, is revolutionising how people practice better nutritional habits, with the potential to dramatically reduce healthcare costs. Tara founded her first business at 22 and is a marathon ice swimmer.

I’m not sure. It seems logical to collaborate. We’re all affected by these wicked problems. Although social entrepreneurs, it seems, often isolated and fully invested in social progress, are more exposed than most people. Are we better off working together? Is it necessary, and is it even possible? Maybe our motivations are too different. From my own experience, and talking to social entrepreneurs who, like me, have reached out many times to peak body groups, maybe the pathway to collaboration is too difficult to traverse. Maybe we’re better off as competitors.

But of course, just as the great valleys of innovation become infertile canyons when deprived of sufficient soil and sunlight, so too do the peak bodies of collegial networks become cold, barren places when elevated too high.

— end —

— — —
Retraction: In a previous version of this article I said the “peak body” associations are government-funded. That’s not entirely correct. At least one of the organisations mentioned in the article is funded primarily through private grants and donations.

1. The “Biosecurity Collective Partners” press release calls for “25 million biosecurity warriors.” This is hardly new and certainly not innovative. I recall this same “25 million eyes” concept from the biosecurity symposium I attended in 2018. New Zealand launched their “five million eyes” publicity campaign over six years ago. With an estimated six species going extinct every hour, six years of inaction results in the loss of over 300,000 species.

2. In planning and policy, a “wicked problem” is a problem that is difficult or impossible to solve because of incomplete, contradictory, and changing requirements that are often difficult to recognise (Wikipedia).