Search results

The chapter aims at representing the results of a case study with concern to the economic and environmental crisis triggered by Ilva in Taranto.

The case study design follows an ethnographic approach. The analysis is based on the collection of some qualitative interviews and documentation related to the environmental conflict engendered by the Ilva of Taranto, which has been the largest steel mill in Europe since the 1990s.

The analysis of the empirical data shows some interesting insights about (a) the growing contradictions in time of crisis in the relationship between the ‘the four pillars’ of sustainability (economy, social justice and society, environment, culture); (b) the importance of the social pillar in playing a key role in the management of local conflicts and in stimulating change within social and economic organizations; (c) the difficulty to promote sustainable policies through a multilevel governance approach able to synthesize the complexity of the scenarios emerging at the local, regional, national and European levels, in order to create an alternative way of development.

The ethnographic approach is useful to analyse in depth the core of the environmental conflict and the divergent developmental scenarios expressed by the different categories of actors.

The chapter provides empirical research results on the peculiarities of social innovation and the specific features that its business model must support. It concludes by proposing a Social Innovation Business Model Canvas and steps towards Social Innovation typologies.

The research is based on the results of a comparative analysis of 25 business case studies and 32 biographies conducted within the SIMPACT research framework. We then implemented a process of reverse engineering to uncover the business models behind the cases which facilitated the creation of a typology for different social innovation business models. Reverse engineering is the application of tools and processes used to study new business ventures in comparison with existing ones. As such, it sheds further light on the broad characteristics of social business models and their value creation mechanisms. The evidence coming from the cases were analyzed within a new business model and clustered to identify a typology of business models of social innovations.

The main SIMPACT findings, resulting from the reverse engineering process and upon which our discussion is based, can be seen in the following distinguishing characteristics of SI business models. SI business models are: configured around finding complementarity between antagonistic assets and seemingly conflicting logics; often structured around a divergence in the allocation of cost, use, and benefit leading to multiple value propositions; modeled on multiactor/multisided business strategies, and developed as frugal solutions and through actions of bricolage. Four typologies of social innovation were identified: beneficiary as actor, beneficiary as customer, beneficiary as user, and community-asset-based models.

While much attention has been placed on for-profit business models, there is little literature on social/not-for-profit business models. This chapter can add to this gap by providing substantial empirical evidence.

Practitioners in the field of social innovation, particularly the growing intermediary sector, could integrate the findings of the research in their work.

The work is also leading to the construction of a future business toolbox for social innovation, which will be even more useful for incubators, accelerators, and supporting structures.

Research presented in this chapter is the result of an extensive comparative analysis across all of Europe, including examples of failure, and the first to propose a typology of SI Business Models.

We are interested in how and why people use or take part to crowdfunding projects.

Over the past four years, we have interviewed over 120 crowdfunding requesters and supporters of over 15 project types from dance to technology to publishing.

The key contributions of this research are: An understanding of the work involved, an understanding of motivations for participation, and an understanding of how the design of platforms influences engagement.

We adopt a computer-supported cooperative work approach from sociology, computer science, and design to provide a new perspective to researchers who seek to understand user behavior, motivations, and the mechanisms in place to support engagement with crowdfunding technology.

This chapter expands the limited work on leadership in the digital age and considers how the relative inclusivity of organizational identity as well as its corresponding organizational scripts affects who performs “leading tasks,” formal leaders or committed supporters, in two social movement groups. Drawing on a random sample of 5% of Facebook posts from committed supporters and 1% of Facebook posts from group administrators associated with March Against Monsanto (MAM) and Occupy Monsanto (OM), two groups that have shared general goals but different organizational identities, we find that the clarity of an organization’s script shapes who performs leading tasks and how they perform them. MAM, which has an exclusive organizational identity and relatively defined script, encouraged supporters to engage with one another directly and perform a broad range of leading tasks even as it reinforced the group’s hierarchy. OM, which has an inclusive organization identity and relatively undefined script, had less supporter engagement. Absent scripts regarding the rules of participation, OM’s committed supporter primarily shared information with other site users, but rarely engaged them directly. We conclude with a discussion of our results and outline additional avenues for analyzing leadership in the digital age.

This chapter examines different dimensions of leadership communication that promote creativity and innovativeness. It explores how leaders engage and inspire their subordinates on the one hand and how they motivate, challenge and encourage them on the other. The aim is to provide a multifaceted description of how leaders use communication to promote innovativeness in organisations. The chapter draws on the ‘wheel of leadership communication on innovations’ by Zerfass and Huck (2007). The wheel examines communication based on cognitive, affective, conative and social dimensions. The other key concepts of the study are transformational and communicative leadership. The approach is qualitative, and the data derive from interviews with leaders of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The findings suggest that to promote organisational innovativeness all four dimensions – cognitive, affective, conative and social – must be taken into account. Multidimensional skills are required of leaders who are expected to master different communicational roles and to act as enablers, engagers, motivators and supporters at the same time. This calls for emotional and social sensibility, flexibility and adaptability to different people and situations. Leadership communication is crucial for innovation management because creative thinking and commitment enable innovation. Therefore, in the business context, attention must be paid to how people are inspired, supported and motivated, as well as to open communication. The main limitations of the study are that it focuses only on SMEs and that it does not include the voices of personnel, which would have added value to the managerial perspectives.

This chapter explores the role of colleges and universities supporting regional and national economic development with emphasis on leveraging innovation and entrepreneurship. Key focuses for economic development support from higher education include human resources development, technical assistance, capacity building, economic research and analysis, research, technology transfer, and new business development.

This chapter will develop an understanding of what the logical conclusion of having English football clubs primarily existing as businesses: namely, those instances where clubs are treated not as community institutions but as any other business with set assets that can be disposed of at a profit. There is an unfortunate history of clubs being owned based on the value of the assets they possess (such as their stadium or training), a trend that has only seemed to accelerate in recent decades. The various forms asset stripping takes can be explored by examining what happened to clubs like Blackpool FC and Wimbledon FC, as well as many others. This chapter is an exploration of what happens when the entity that fans assume is something more than a business is dismantled for profit, the harshest of reality checks, and a reminder that football clubs in these contexts are little more than business assets.

As a sector, higher education is at the low end of innovation rankings. The challenges we face – demographic, technological, political, and pedagogical – will require sustained innovation at a strategic level. Recent research with mature companies has identified exemplars in strategic innovation (e.g., O’Connor, Corbett, & Peters, 2018). This work explores whether – and how – higher education institutions might adapt insights from the corporate sector for strategic innovation in teaching and learning.

The introductory section provides an overview of the nature of strategic innovation (and why it is hard to sustain), strategic issues facing higher education, and the status and challenges of sustaining strategic innovation for teaching. The next two sections describe insights from research with corporate exemplars of sustaining strategic innovation. Each section uses a scenario from higher education as a proof-of-concept test to explore the application of the corporate sector insights for strategic innovation in higher education teaching and learning.

The final section of the chapter discusses the planned next steps to prototype and test adaptation of these corporate sector insights with institutional innovation leaders in higher education, as well as additional potential sources of insights (from other research in the corporate sector and from strategic innovation in the public sector).