The first precedent is the co-operative movement. Rochdale is held up as the pioneering co-operative movement, but the author says the fact that these pioneers were Christian Socialists is now overlooked. The co-operative was set up to counter injustice and they felt their faith should be “reflected in their trading and ownership structure”. The second historical precedent is the monastery. Despite popular misconception, medieval monasteries were engaged in many more activities beyond prayer and signing. The Rule of St Benedict required the provision of hospitality, which was given in the form of health and educational services to the local population. Work on the land produced surpluses of products such as wool, crops and minerals which began to be traded internationally. All of this opened up the question of the nature of such a trading entity. There was no law governing incorporation at the time, so the “CEO of the monastery”, the abbot or abbess, was elected by the community to govern in consultation with the members, a process that took place in the chapter house (a circular room usually with a circular ‘boardroom table’ in the middle).
Monasteries would trade in ways beneficial to the local community, both monastic and lay people benefiting from surplus wool and crops and also the subsequent benefits in health, education, architecture and sustainable land use. Ashton says the monastic model demonstrates that enterprise could be established within the existing structure of a church organisation and harmonised with the direct leadership of that church as an integral part of the community life. However, Ashton’s article does not mention the many conflicts between town and monastery that erupted, at times violently, over issues connected with trade, ownership and trading rights. Examples are given in the introduction to this research. The author rightly warns that a stand-alone venture might well allow great flexibility in the market, but it runs a great risk of becoming detached from the vision of its founders as people come and go and the pressures of trading and the secular world begin to bear down.
Simon Lee (2009) looks at ways in which a faith-based social enterprise can be more explicit in working the faith aspect into its fabric. Company law was been changed in 2006 to suggest duties for directors, including having regard for a company’s impact on the environment and community – considerations that Christians could cite in support of any faith-based management decisions. Lee adds that this legal innovation allows an organisation to be guided by faith in limited contexts only, since it does not extend to allowing discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in providing services, goods or facilities; there are some exemptions within a religious organisation but not in the commercial world. So if an organisation wishes to discriminate it will need to prove that its sole or main purpose is religious rather than commercial. This is almost certainly a grey area: a religious charity that performs limited trading might qualify but a Christian-inspired accountancy firm that has faith-based internal procedures would not.