LEPs are of course Local ENTERPRISE Partnerships.<\/p>\n
But enterprise cannot be developed without full attention being paid to its wider impact on nature, society and personal\u00a0health\u00a0and\u00a0well-being. \u00a0David Cameron has\u00a0talked\u00a0more than once about economic progress needing to be balanced with progress in\u00a0well-being. \u00a0Pursuing the growth of GDP outside of this wider social context would seem to be a fool’s errand.<\/p>\n
An enterprise policy that grows GDP, but increases illness or is not environmentally sustainable or increases inequality in our society may not be a good thing.<\/p>\n
So, how about developing a simple compass that can form the basis of a practical evaluation for new enterprise proposals? \u00a0I was very taken by this simple framework that Danone <\/a>use when evaluating their innovation projects…<\/p>\n N = Nature<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 will the development respect natural limits? \u00a0Is it environmentally sustainable?<\/p>\n S = Social<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 will the development lead to improvements in society? \u00a0Fair wages, good governance, increased equality, better access to finance to all \u00a0etc. \u00a0Will the goods and services produced enhance life in our communities?<\/p>\n E= Economic<\/strong>\u00a0\u2013 will the project work economically? What payback periods are we looking at here? \u00a0How can we encourage doing the right\u00a0thing\u00a0even when payback periods may take longer than usual business conventions would allow?<\/p>\n W= Wellbeing<\/strong>\u00a0or health \u2013 the Danone mission is to improve health for the greatest number of people through food. \u00a0If the project does not fit the mission then it will not move forward.<\/p>\n