Search results

Social Entrepreneurial Enterprises (SEEs) are companies that are founded with the mission to change the world in a specific socially oriented way rather than to provide an (economic) ROI (Bornstein, 2004). The social mission is usually accomplished incrementally by convincing other members of society of their cause. The degree to which the social mission is accomplished is the function which an SEE tries to optimize while at the same time remaining economically viable and independent. As SEEs are entrepreneurial enterprises, they are associated with a high risk of failure, yet at the same time they empower their leaders through independence.

The purpose of this article is to develop a nonprofit integrated social accounting (NISA) model that takes into account the particular objectives of nonprofit organizations (achieving their mission and remaining viable as an organization), their specific characteristics (e.g., the engagement of volunteers), and their economic, social and environmental impacts. The conceptual framework includes defining social accounting, setting the boundaries of the reporting entity, identifying the objectives of nonprofit reporting, identifying the users of the accounts and their information needs, and considering the questions that have to be answered in order to know if the organization is achieving its goals. From the conceptual framework, the NISA model is developed, incorporating four elements: (1) economic and human resources; (2) economic, social and environmental value creation; (3) internal systems and processes; and (4) organizational learning, growth and innovation. Overall, the model provides a mechanism to address both functional and strategic accountability concerns of the organization, its effectiveness and efficiency, and to drive behavior through feedback and readjustment. In this way, accounting plays an important role in shaping the ‘reality’ of the organization.

Since the introduction of the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, there has been a common misconception that Social Value is inherently about Procurement. We think that the process of Procurement is a means through which questions can be asked around Social Value commitments; however, Social Value should come into dialogue way before a tender exercise. It must be at the forefront of political visioning, strategy development, officer behaviour and the design of goods and services. In this chapter, we explore how Public Authorities and other Anchor Institutions can embed Social Value into everything they do, utilising Commissioning and Procurement as the basis.

This paper builds homogenous series of the rate of surplus value (RSV) for the Chinese economy over the extended period 1956–2014 with a Marxian approach. It finds that the high profitability that stimulated capital accumulation in the decade before the 2008 crisis had relied on the continuous growth in the RSV. Given that the global crisis and changes in the domestic economy undermine all the conditions maintaining the accumulation model (an expanding external market, a relatively large reserve army of labor, and a low debt-income ratio), the RSV has failed to increase and profitability declined since 2008. Thus, this paper interprets the so-called new normal of the Chinese economy as a stage of declining profitability that results mainly from the stagnant RSV and the rising value composition of capital.

This chapter sketches a new development in responsible investing, namely impact investing. Impact investing, which we define as the entire spectrum of investments deliberately aiming to create shared value, can be seen as an integrative approach to wealth creation through investments. The case of microfinance is used to illustrate this new development.

The chapter combines a viewpoint and a case study that serves to illustrate the practical relevance of the viewpoint.

The chapter starts with a brief overview of the origin and rise of responsible investments, followed by a description of mission-related investments and impact investing as its latest development. Microfinance is presented as a special case, thereby focusing on the investors, the asset allocation and the meaning – and application – of the notion of impact.

The chapter shows that a focus on social and financial returns can be combined without having to make serious financial sacrifices. It also demonstrates that investments can come from investors as diverse as pension funds, foundations or high net-worth individuals.

If impact investing really takes off – particularly supported by institutional money – there will be much more opportunity to tackle social and environmental innovation than without those investments.

The chapter challenges (institutional) investors to evaluate their responsible investment strategy and to rethink their asset allocation. Impact investing can become an important addition to the responsible investment landscape.

Following Philip Selznick’s lead in using pragmatist social science to understand issues of public concern we conducted a study of failed innovation in the commercial construction industry (CCI). We find that social heuristics – collectively constructed and maintained interpretive decision-making frames – significantly shape economic and non-economic decision-making practices. Social heuristics are the outcome of industry-based “institutionalization processes” and are widely held and commonly relied on in CCI to reduce uncertainty endemic to decision-making; they provide actors with both a priori and ex post facto justifications for economic decisions that appear socially rational to industry co-participants. In the CCI – a project-centered production network – social heuristics as shared institutions sustain network-based social order but in so doing discourage novel technologies and impede innovation. Social heuristics are actor-level constructs that reflect macro-level institutional arrangements and networked production relations. The concept of social heuristics offers the promise of developing a genuinely social theory of individual economic choice and action that is historically informed, contextually situated, and neither psychologically nor structurally reductionist.

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.

Measuring the economic and social impact of innovation is a nontrivial act. Using an embedded analysis method this paper examines the Grameen Bank and Microsoft Corporation as examples of social and commercial entrepreneurship. Both organizations embraced radical innovation that was scaleable and created wealth. They also both had profound economic and social impact on the world.