Search results

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.

This chapter proposes a reconceptualization of undergraduate education to support the development of students as agents of positive social change. Social innovation education is put forward as a new pedagogy for the twenty-first century.

The chapter outlines a series of studies carried out at the University of Northampton between 2014 and 2015 to investigate social innovation education as a pedagogical design and practice for undergraduate curricula. Drawing on phenomenography, systematic literature review, and theory building, this chapter sets out conceptual, theoretical, and practical frameworks for designing and facilitating social innovation education.

Research findings include an ontology for understanding the concept of social innovation education, as well as a set of graduate attributes for designing learning for social change. A model of pedagogical praxis is proposed that supports the development of teaching and learning toward a more critical and socially impactful approach.

Despite some similarities to entrepreneurship and enterprise education, social innovation education is distinctive in its focus on social change-making with or without financial gain. Not only does this chapter present a set of abstract and practical tools for embedding social innovation in an undergraduate program, but also it provides a possible methodology for institutions who wish to embody particular principles within their curricular offerings.

This work presents a review of the state of the art of the present century on academic and scientific production in Latin America related to the concept of Social Innovation. The analysis is based on articles published in indexed journals, which makes it possible to understand the existing asymmetry between the conceptual and theoretical veins, of the case studies, as well as of good social innovation practices that have been published in recent years. These debates have in some cases transcended public policies, as well as business and social realities where social innovation is a mechanism and strategy for personal, social, and territorial development. Finally, a Latin American community of researchers and academics around social innovation must be consolidated, who choose to continue building theoretical-empirical bodies following the Latin American reality.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution has escalated innovation to new heights unseen, creating an evolution of innovation and corporate social responsibility (CSR), and as a result, a more Innovative CSR. With this evolution comes also the evolution of the ‘Preneur’ from social entrepreneur to corporate social entrepreneur and corporate social intrapreneur. It is therefore important to acknowledge that social entrepreneurship is not just for the social sector, or start-up entrepreneur – corporations can also be social entrepreneurs. This chapter establishes an understanding of this possibility alongside solving wicked problems and challenges, and how to provide collaborative networks and co-creation experiences to assist others on this journey. More importantly, the chapter discusses how corporates can assist millennials (and Generation Z) by funding and incubating their innovative or social enterprise idea under the umbrella of CSR strategy, until it is ready to be released to the world. The chapter is supported by academic literature and business publications with suggestions for future research opportunities.

Corporate Social Responsibility.

This case is suitable to be used in advanced undergraduate and MBA/MSc level.

This case is about the conflict between Prof Bakar, the new Dean of Progressive Technical University (PTU), and the lecturers teaching the social innovation course. PTU was established in 1985 to provide opportunities for rural students to pursue technical education. Both parties had differing opinions over the suitability of projects in the social innovation curriculum. Dean Bakar was adamant that CSR is charity-based and therefore not suitable for the social innovation class. As the case unfolded, it was clear that each lecturer had different views about the course – indicating the wide-spectrum of views on the relationship between CSR and social innovation as well as social entrepreneurship. The case provides opportunities to deliberate on what constitutes “social purpose,” the 17 sustainable developmental goals, the global movement of social entrepreneurship and social innovation, impact investing and harvesting, as well as indigenous wisdom. The main trigger of the case is how to resolve the conflict and come up with an improved version of the course content, as well as a comparison framework for CSR, social innovation, and social entrepreneurship.

Using this case study, the students will be able to:

• compare CSR, social innovation, and social entrepreneurship;

• understand CSR activities and explain their main features based on the given case facts;

• analyze and solve the conflict between Dean Bakar and the six social innovation lecturers;

• propose solutions on how to review the social innovation course; and

• discuss how different perceptions could affect decision-making.

compare CSR, social innovation, and social entrepreneurship;

understand CSR activities and explain their main features based on the given case facts;

analyze and solve the conflict between Dean Bakar and the six social innovation lecturers;

propose solutions on how to review the social innovation course; and

discuss how different perceptions could affect decision-making.

This chapter emphasizes the importance of potential and realized capabilities in building and sustaining social innovations. We present an assessment of the drivers and barriers to the development of social innovation ecosystems through the use of internal (absorptive capacities) and external organizational capabilities (open social innovation). A particular emphasis is placed on social innovation outcomes and impacts. The capability approach is particularly useful for measuring social innovation impacts and investigating the “micro-meso-macro” of linkages that underlie the process of social innovation.

Our methodological approach measures social innovations’ outcomes and impact through an aggregative model, which takes into consideration different forms of capabilities that are engendered in the process of or as a result of social innovation. This methodology highlights the importance of social innovation drivers and contexts in which knowledge exploration and exploitation lead to the creation of capabilities that help social innovators to respond to unfulfilled social needs.

The research presented in this chapter provides a new perspective on how the capability approach can be used to assess and measure individual and collective actions when facing social challenges.

Our research supports and complements the findings of the EU project SIMPACT an acronym for “Boosting the Impact of SI in Europe through Economic Underpinnings,” by highlighting the processes and outcomes and SI impact measurement.

The measurement of social innovation outcomes and impact has gained importance for policy makers and constitutes a strategic tool for designing policies in support of social entrepreneurs, social investors, and private and public organizations which participate in cocreating and implementing innovative projects.

The research presented in this chapter sheds light on the “micro-meso-macro” linkages that foster social innovation ecosystems, and offer valuable tools and guidelines to researchers, practitioners, and policymaker in the field of innovation in general and social innovation in particular.

This chapter attempts to advance our understanding regarding social innovation with a focus on public sector organizations. The aim is to answer the following question: “How does a manager’s novel knowledge gained from decisional interventions act as a resource to achieve social innovation?” The study employed a qualitative research approach. Findings have stemmed from secondary sources such as officially published reports and media releases of three local councils of Victoria, Australia. The data were first contextually positioned and then analyzed by following the Gioia methodology. Research findings indicate that tacit knowledge gained by public managers helps them to make better decisional interventions. In different situations such as handling disturbance, negotiating with other parties, allocating resources, or being an intrapreneur, the decisions and its quality will be improved if public managers enhance their personal knowledge. This study also offers policymakers a new approach to deal with the social problems innovatively. It, therefore, provides insights on topics such as sustained social transformation through public reforms, navigation of resources, and wise leadership.

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.

World Vision exists to eradicate extreme poverty. The primary fundraising mechanism that has fuelled its growth into one of the largest international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) has been Child Sponsorship, which connects over 10 million individual donors with vulnerable children around the world. However, shifts in the market, geopolitical landscape, and institutional logics have seen this once innovative product come under increasing pressure. Using World Vision New Zealand (WVNZ) as a case study, we explore the challenges of implementing social entrepreneurship strategies, including the institutional constraints of developing new business models, through hybridization. Hybridity has gained increasing attention in the field of entrepreneurship and has been offered as a sense-making frame for business model innovation within social entrepreneurship. The use of institutional logics to understand the challenges of hybrid organizing in social entrepreneurship has been invaluable. However, as with any theoretical perspective, this approach has limitations. We suggest that nuanced challenges and sources of resistance to social entrepreneurship in established sectors and organizations might usefully be explored through concepts drawn from complexity theory. Specifically, we propose the use of the concept of structural attractors, which enables the explication of convergent, unifying, and generative dynamics. Our case study findings suggest that, paradoxically, the very essence of historical success may constrain future success. To wit, when faced with changes to institutional and market conditions, WVNZ was constrained by the very construct that enabled its initial growth. The challenge that this case demonstrates is that despite ostensibly hybrid shifts occurring in the management, governance, and espoused innovation strategy of the organization, the governing structural attractor of Child Sponsorship has constrained innovation and change.