The policy direction and compliance functions of Boards were valued. But too often Boards were viewed by the sector as an “administrative necessity“.

In many organisations, it was observed that there could be better shared understanding and alignment of a Board’s thinking and views with program operations and the work of CEOs. It was stated that Board members were often only appointed to facilitate fund-raising; and to utilize the exclusive networks in which they operated.

It was suggested that board members in the Social Economy appeared to be immune from education and learning about modernised boards and their changing responsibilities in a contemporary [social] business organisation.

Participants noted that many funders adopted the national standards of board governance from the for-profit sector, and in a number of observed cases applied these as a requirement in the funding of non-profits. This application was seen to deny the complexity of management in the Social Economy.

Two final issues were identified by participants. The first related to the observation that while most boards demonstrated a certain level of competence in their responsibilities (compliance, networking, representing the program..), they were also the employers of leaders and managers including CEOs who were expected to operate with great efficiency. This situation had the potential to create tensions in relationships.

A final issue was observed in the high costs of restructuring social economy boards on a federated/national model.