Search results1 – 5 of 5
This chapter aims to understand how partnerships and networks can aid the development and growth of organizations whose goal is to foster social inclusion along the…
This chapter aims to understand how partnerships and networks can aid the development and growth of organizations whose goal is to foster social inclusion along the agro-food supply chain, with particular reference to the social entrepreneurship sector.
The chapter draws on a framework proposed by Newth and Woods (2014) to identify the main drivers of resistance to the development of social entrepreneurship. The empirical evidence is based on a single case, involving an Italian social enterprise, Semi di Libertà, which produces high-quality artisan beer. Case material included an analysis of organization documents and interviews with key actors.
The case study shows how Semi di Libertà faced different types of resistance, related to formal and informal institutions and market drivers, and leveraged partnerships with other actors in the ecosystem. Some of these partnerships were planned a priori to overcome specific problems (e.g., the Prison’s Authority, Mastri Birrai). Other partnerships were developed “by chance” (e.g., “peer” associations) but turned out to be particularly important to deal with the above resistances.
The case study methodology prevents the authors from generalizing too far past the obtained results. However, key elements from the case, such as the relevance of “spontaneous” partnerships and those with “peer” organizations, could be taken into account for similar initiatives in different contexts.
Recent literature has highlighted the relevance of partnerships in scaling social enterprises but has not explored the dynamics whereby these partnerships are created and developed. This chapter provides some preliminary evidence of how partnerships can be used to overcome the resistance limiting the growth of social entrepreneurship and the sustainability of socially inclusive initiatives.
We argue that in order to address the contemporary challenges that organizations and societies are facing, the field of organization development (OD) requires frameworks…
We argue that in order to address the contemporary challenges that organizations and societies are facing, the field of organization development (OD) requires frameworks and skills to focus on the eco-system as the level of analysis. In a world that has become economically, socially, and technologically highly connected, approaches that foster the optimization of specific actors in the eco-system, such as individual corporations, result in sub-optimization of the sustainability of the natural and social system because there is insufficient offset to the ego-centric purposes of the focal organization. We discuss the need for OD to broaden focus to deal with technological advances that enable new ways of organizing at the eco-system level, and to deal with the challenges to sustainable development. Case examples from healthcare and the agri-foods industry illustrate the kinds of development approaches that are required for the development of healthy eco-systems. We do not suggest fundamental changes in the identity of the field of organizational development. In fact, we demonstrate the need to dig deeply into the open systems and socio-technical roots of the field, and to translate the traditional values and approaches of OD to continue to be relevant in today’s dynamic interdependent world.
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…
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.