Encyclopedia of Social Innovation (Elgar Encyclopedias in Business and Management series) 1800373341, 9781800373341

Citation preview

Encyclopedia of Social Innovation

ELGAR ENCYCLOPEDIAS IN BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT Elgar Encyclopedias in Business and Management represent the definitive reference works in the field. The Encyclopedias present an overarching guide to a wide variety of subject areas within Business and Management, and form an essential resource for academics, practitioners, and students alike. Each Encyclopedia is edited by one or more leading international scholars, and contains a broad collection of entries authored by key scholars within the field that collectively aim to provide a concise and accessible coverage of the essential subjects. The Encyclopedias cover discrete subject areas across management including, but not limited to, Corporate Governance, Strategic Management, Human Resource Management, International Business, Family Business, Social Innovation, and Critical Management Studies. Equally useful as reference tools or high-level introductions to specific topics, issues, methods and debates, these Encyclopedias are an invaluable contribution to the field. For a full list of Edward Elgar published titles, including the titles in this series, visit our website at www​.e​-elgar​.com​.

Encyclopedia of Social Innovation Edited by

Jürgen Howaldt Director, Social Research Centre Dortmund, TU Dortmund University, Germany

Christoph Kaletka Deputy Director, Social Research Centre Dortmund, TU Dortmund University, Germany

with the assistance of Marthe Zirngiebl, Daniel Krüger and Karina Maldonado-Mariscal

ELGAR ENCYCLOPEDIAS IN BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA

© Jürgen Howaldt and Christoph Kaletka 2023

With the exception of any material published open access under a Creative Commons licence (see www.elgaronline.com), all rights are reserved and no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.

Entry 40, ‘Social Innovation in Energy System Transformation,’ is available for free as Open Access from the individual product page at www.elgaronline.com under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) license. Published by Edward Elgar Publishing Limited The Lypiatts 15 Lansdown Road Cheltenham Glos GL50 2JA UK Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. William Pratt House 9 Dewey Court Northampton Massachusetts 01060 USA A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Control Number: 2023943035 This book is available electronically in the Business subject collection http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781800373358

ISBN 978 1 80037 334 1 (cased) ISBN 978 1 80037 335 8 (eBook)

EEP BoX

Contents

9

List of contributorsix Introduction to the Encyclopedia of Social Innovationxxv Jürgen Howaldt and Christoph Kaletka PART I 1

2

3

THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

PART II

Ambivalence and side-effects of social innovations Stefan Böschen

2

Imagined futures and social innovation Timur Ergen

7

Operationalizing social practice theories for social innovation research Maria Rabadjieva and Marthe Zirngiebl

4

Resistance to social innovation Tuur Ghys

5

Social innovation and the remaking of structures, systems and regimes René Kemp and Bonno Pel

6

Social innovations as a repair of social order Cornelius Schubert

7

Social innovation and social change Jürgen Howaldt and Michael Schwarz

8

Strands of social innovation research Adela J. McMurray, Ashokkumar Manoharan and Don Scott

System thinking for social innovation50 Katharine McGowan, Michele-Lee Moore and Ola Tjörnbo CONCEPTS AND TYPES

10 Exnovation Rafael Ziegler 11 Joseph A. Schumpeter: innovation and society Birgit Blättel-Mink 12 Open social innovation Anne-Laure Fayard 13 The politics of conceptualizing social innovation Michael J. Roy, Simon Teasdale and Lars Hulgård

11

18

56

61 67

73

14 Social innovation in the digital age 77 Gianluca Misuraca and Pierre Rossel

23

31

15 Social innovation and technological innovation Matthias Weber

83

16 Social innovation research and innovation studies Attila Havas

89

17 The South American concept of tecnologia social95 Marlei Pozzebon, Ana Clara Souza and Fabio Prado Saldanha

36

18 Sustainable innovation Cordula Kropp

45

v

100

vi  Encyclopedia of social innovation

PART III SOCIAL INNOVATION PROCESSES 19 Co-creation in social innovation Melanie Smallman and Cian O’Donovan

30 Governance of social innovation 169 Diego Galego and Marleen Brans 107

20 Democratic experimentalism and social innovation112 Carolina Andion and Graziela Alperstedt 21 Design for social innovation Alessandro Deserti and Francesca Rizzo

118

22 Diffusion Jürgen Howaldt, Ralf Kopp and Michael Schwarz

123

23 Grassroots innovation for transformative social change Swati Banerjee, Abdul Shaban and Shrirang Chaudhary 24 The institutionalization of social innovations Bonno Pel 25 Power and empowerment in social innovation Flor Avelino, Julia M. Wittmayer and Adina Dumitru

129

31 Innovation systems Alexander Ebner

174

32 Law and social innovation Bronwen Morgan

179

33 Social innovation, civil society and democracy-building Alejandra Boni, Sergio Belda-Miquel and Diana Velasco 34 Social innovation labs Mónica Edwards-Schachter

191

35 Social movements Maria da Glória Gohn and Karina Maldonado-Mariscal

197

36 Social networks and social innovation205 Lina Sonne Vyas PART V

134

141

SOCIAL INNOVATION IN ESTABLISHED RESEARCH AREAS

37 Futures studies and social innovation211 Elmar Schüll 38 Social innovation to advance diversity and inclusion Wendy Cukier, Zohreh Hassannezhad Chavoushi and Guang Ying Mo

PART IV ECOSYSTEMS, ACTORS AND GOVERNANCE 26 Collaborative spaces for social innovation Eva Wascher

149

27 Cross-sector collaboration for social innovation Jo Barraket and Sally McGeoch

39 Social innovation in education Karina Maldonado-Mariscal and Antonius Schröder

154

40 Social innovation in energy system transformation Julia M. Wittmayer and Karoline S. Rogge

28 Ecosystems of social innovation Dmitri Domanski, Christoph Kaletka and Daniel Krüger

159

29 Foundations and social innovations 164 Steffen Bethmann

186

41 Social innovation in the fashion industry Sabine Weber

216

221

227

232

Contents  vii

42 Social innovations and the future of mobility in times of climate change Andreas Knie 43 Social innovation in health Victoria Boelman 44 Social innovation through the Maker Movement Massimo Menichinelli 45 Social innovation and poverty and marginalization P. K. Shajahan and Dipannita Bhattacharjee

237 242

248

PART VI BUSINESS AND ECONOMY 55 Cooperatives and social innovation312 Gorka Espiau Idoiaga 56 Corporate social innovation Philip H. Mirvis

317

57 Degrowth Yves-Marie Abraham

323

46 Social innovations in rural areas Gabriela Christmann

261

58 The potential of social innovation for future employment trends Antonia Caro-González and Marta Enciso-Santocildes

47 Social innovation in services Carla Cipolla

266

59 The revival of the commons Tine De Moor

335

48 Social innovation in social work Anne Parpan-Blaser and Matthias Hüttemann

272

60 Social economy Marie J. Bouchard and Benoît Lévesque

340

346

277

61 Social entrepreneurship Anne de Bruin, Simon Teasdale and Michael J. Roy

50 Social innovation research and practice for sustainable development282 Jeremy Millard

62 Social value in management and social innovation research Ghita Lkhoyaali and Emmanuel Raufflet

51 Social justice and social innovation289 Fergus Turner and Ella Scheepers

63 Socially inclusive businesses Gabriel Berger and Leopoldo Blugerman

52 Welfare innovation for social cohesion Benjamin Ewert

PART VII SCIENCE AND RESEARCH

49 Social innovation and territorial development Alina Kadyrova

253

296

53 Ageing societies and social innovation301 Ken Aoo and Fiona Henderson 54 Workplace innovation Steven Dhondt

306

64 Citizen science Christopher Kullenberg 65 Social innovation and its actors: the role of university research Judith Sutz 66 Social innovation and social sciences Klaus Schuch

328

352

356

365

370

376

viii  Encyclopedia of social innovation

67 Transformative research Mandy Singer-Brodowski

382

73 Transformative innovation policy 420 Caetano C. R. Penna, Carla Alvial-Palavicino, Bipashyee Ghosh and Johan Schot

389

PART IX RESOURCES AND MEASUREMENT

PART VIII INNOVATION POLICY 68 EU policy on social innovation Nora Milotay

69 Next generation innovation policy 395 Jakob Edler 70 Responsible research and innovation as a social innovation Lucien von Schomberg and René von Schomberg 71 Social innovation and the new role of the state Uwe Cantner, Dirk Fornahl and Matthias Menter 72 Social innovation and public policy Geoff Mulgan

401

406

414

74 Impact bonds: beyond the hype? Eleanor Carter and Andreea Anastasiu

427

75 Social impact measurement Gorgi Krlev, Georg Mildenberger and Volker Then

433

76 Social innovation measurement Judith Terstriep, Gorgi Krlev, Georg Mildenberger, Simone Strambach, Jan-Frederik Thurmann and Laura-Fee Wloka

438

77 Sustainable finance as a social innovation Olaf Weber

448

Index453

Contributors

Alperstedt, Graziela: Graziela Alperstedt is a professor of the Business Administration Department and the Administration Graduate Program of the Center of Administration and Socioeconomic Sciences (ESAG) at Santa Catarina State University (UDESC), Florianópolis – SC, Brazil. She has a Post-Doctoral in Administration from Fundação Getúlio Vargas (FGV) and in interdisciplinary humanities from the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), and holds a PhD in Production Engineering and Systems from the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC). She is researcher at the Observatory of Social Innovation of Florianopolis (OBISF).

Editors Howaldt, Jürgen: Prof. Dr Jürgen Howaldt is the director of Social Research Centre Dortmund, TU Dortmund University, and professor at the Faculty of Social Sciences. He is an internationally renowned expert in the field of social innovation and co-founder and chair of the European School of Social Innovation. He was the scientific coordinator of the global research project ‘SI-DRIVE – Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change’, funded within the 7th Framework Programme of the European Union, and has co-edited the Atlas of Social Innovation. His research focuses on social science-based innovation research and social innovation.

Alvial-Palavicino, Carla: Carla Alvial-Palavicino is a Research Fellow at the Utrecht University Centre for Global Challenge. She has a Masters on Sustainability from the University of Tokyo and a PhD on Governance of Innovation from the University of Twente. Dr Alvial-Palavicino works at the intersection between theory and practice, connecting academic knowledge with challenges from practitioners. Her work focuses on futures and anticipation in the context of transformational change.

Kaletka, Christoph: Dr Christoph Kaletka is the Deputy Director at sfs, TU Dortmund University, Germany. He is a habilitated innovation researcher and holds a PhD in communication science. His main research fields are social innovation, digital inclusion, and digital learning spaces. Christoph teaches social innovation at TU Dortmund University’s Faculty of Rehabilitation Sciences. He is an Editorial Board member of the European Public & Social Innovation Review (EPSIR) journal and advisory board member of All Digital, the umbrella organization of European digital learning centres. He has co-edited the two volumes of the Atlas of Social Innovation.

Anastasiu, Andreea: Andreea Anastasiu is the Executive Director of the Government Outcomes Lab at the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford. Andreea works closely with government policymakers and other stakeholders across the private, voluntary and academic sectors to help improve the understanding and practice of impact bonds and other outcomes-focused models of service provision.

Authors Abraham, Yves-Marie: Yves-Marie Abraham is a professor at HEC Montréal, where he teaches sociology of the economy and conducts research related to degrowth. He is the co-editor of Décroissance versus développement durable: débats pour la suite du monde (2011) and Creuser jusqu’où? Extractivisme et limites à la croissance (2015). In 2019 he published an extended reflective essay on degrowth titled Guérir du mal de l’infini (Écosociété). He also directs the Master’s programme in social innovation management at HEC Montréal.

Andion, Carolina: Carolina Andion is a professor of the Public Administration Department and the Administration Graduate Program of the Center of Administration and Socioeconomic Sciences (ESAG) at Santa Catarina State University (UDESC), Florianopolis – SC, Brazil. She has a Post-Doctoral in Public Administration and Government from Fundação Getúlio ix

x  Encyclopedia of social innovation

Vargas (FGV) and in Social Economy from Valência University (UV) and holds a PhD in Human Science from the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC). She is Leader of the Research Center on Social Innovation in Public Sphere (NISP) and Coordinator of the Observatory of Social Innovation of Florianopolis (OBISF). Aoo, Ken: Ken Aoo has a mixed background in banking, international development, philanthropy, and research. Now, he researches social innovation at Okayama University, Japan. His current research interests include social innovation scaling processes and ecosystems, community regeneration and well-being, and multi-stakeholder collaboration in Japan and elsewhere. His recent publications include Social Innovation Scaling Process in East Asia (2019). He holds a BA in International Relations (University of Tokyo), an MPhil in International Development (IDS, University of Sussex), and a PhD in Social Science (University of Tsukuba). Avelino, Flor: Prof. Dr Flor Avelino is a researcher and lecturer on just sustainability transitions and social innovation. She is currently a full professor of Organizations & Sustainability at the Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development at Utrecht University. Previously, she worked at the Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT) and at the Department of Public Administration & Sociology at Erasmus University Rotterdam. With a background in political science, she specializes in power theories and has a particular interest in how people, organizations and networks are (dis) empowered to contribute to just sustainability transitions. Banerjee, Swati: Swati Banerjee is Associate Dean, Alum Affairs and Professor, School of Social Work, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. She also coordinates Right Livelihood College, Mumbai, a global network of universities initiated by Right Livelihood Foundation. She has been a post-doctoral fellow at Lund University and visiting faculty at many universities, including Roskilde, Lund, British Columbia. The key focus of her research includes people-centred social innovation and development, participatory methodologies and design thinking for social change. She is associated with different journals as associate editor and member of editorial boards.

Barraket, Jo: Prof. Jo Barraket is Director of the Melbourne Social Equity Institute at the University of Melbourne. A political sociologist, Jo is Australia’s premier researcher of social enterprise and a leading researcher of social innovation. Her work focuses on how social equity is improved through new ways of organizing, resourcing and scaling social change, and the relationships between state and civil society organizations in policy design and implementation. Belda-Miquel, Sergio: Sergio Belda-Miquel is lecturer and researcher at the Universitat de València, Department of Social Work and Social Services, Faculty of Social Sciences. He is also Head of Sustainability Initiatives at this University. His interests are international development aid, grassroots innovations, transitions to sustainability, transformative education and social work. He is author of about 100 academic contributions and part of national and international research projects and academic networks on these topics. He provides advice to local public administrations and social organizations. Berger, Gabriel: Gabriel Berger is associate professor at the School of Business of Universidad de San Andrés (UdeSA), Buenos Aires, Argentina and the director of UdeSA’s Center of Social Innovation, which coordinates training, research and teaching activities about corporate social responsibility, impact business models, social investment, philanthropy and nonprofit organizations. He has been the dean of UdeSA’s School of Business (2013–17) and is a founding member of Social Enterprise Knowledge Network (SEKN). He holds a PhD from the Heller School of Social Policy and Management at Brandeis University (USA). Bethmann, Steffen: Dr Steffen Bethmann is the Executive Director of the Melton Foundation for Global Citizenship. Before, he worked as a researcher, consultant, and executive trainer at the Center for Philanthropy Studies at the University of Basel. In parallel, he completed his doctoral thesis at the Max-Weber-Institute at Ruprecht Karl University of Heidelberg. His main interest lies in foundation strategies and governance as well as social innovations. He also develops frameworks to teach global competencies and programmes to achieve the SDGs. Bhattacharjee, Dipannita: Dr Bhattacharjee currently works as Assistant Manager at Cactus Communications, Mumbai, India.

Contributors  xi

She holds MPhil and PhD degrees in Social Work from Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. She has worked in the development sector as well as in academic institutions in the past on livelihoods and related areas. Her publications and research are in the intersecting areas of gender, livelihoods and marginalization and she has developed e-learning modules on gender and development for University Grants Commission, India. Blättel-Mink, Birgit: Professor Dr Birgit Blättel-Mink holds a professorship in Sociology with main focus on Industry and Organization at the Institute for Sociology, Goethe-University Frankfurt/Main. She is very well known in the field of innovation research with special expertise in ecological innovation. Most recently she has co-edited the German Handbuch der Innovationsforschung which in due course will be published in English as well. Another co-edited anthology on Innovationssysteme translates crucial papers of Innovation System approach for the German community. From 2019 to 2021 she was President of the German Sociological Association (DGS). Blugerman, Leopoldo: Leopoldo Blugerman holds a PhD from University of Hull (England) and is Associate Professor at the Instituto de Industria of Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento (Buenos Aires, Argentina), where is the Director of the BA in Business Administration. He is a member of the Consultative Council in the National Institute of Associativism and Social Economy (INAES) and is also involved in research projects within Social Enterprise Knowledge Network (SEKN) and the Center of Social Innovation of Universidad de San Andrés. Boelman, Victoria: Victoria Boelman is former Director of Research at The Young Foundation, the UK’s home for community research and social innovation. With a background across private, public and third sector organizations, she has been researching issues of health, community well-being and social innovation for almost 20 years. She is currently Associate Director of Research and Policy for the RNID (Royal National Institute for Deaf People), the national charity supporting the 12 million people in the UK who are deaf, have hearing loss or tinnitus. Boni, Alejandra: Alejandra Boni is professor at Universitat Politècnica de València (Spain) and deputy director of Ingenio

(CSIC-UPV). She is extraordinary professor at the University of the Free State in South Africa. Her research interest focuses on human development, higher education, global citizenship and transformative innovation. She is leading the formative evaluation component of the Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium (TIPC). She has been involved in research projects, training and policy advice in different European countries, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, South Africa and Nigeria. Böschen, Stefan: Stefan Böschen is Professor for Society and Technology at the Human Technology Center (HumTec) RWTH Aachen University. He is Spokesperson of HumTec and Co-Director of the Käte Hamburger Kolleg ‘Cultures of Research’. Moreover, he is a member of the working-group ‘interdisciplinary science studies’ at Leopoldina – Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften. He is trained Chemical Engineer (Diploma) and Sociologist (PhD and Habilitation). His special interests are: sociology of science and technology, risk research, technology assessment, theory of modern societies. Bouchard, Marie J.: Marie J. Bouchard is full professor at Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Canada, and member of the Center for research on social innovation (CRISES). She is President of the Scientific Commission on Social and Cooperative Economy of CIRIEC International since 2015. She held the Canada Research Chair on the Social Economy from 2003 to 2012. She has published numerous articles and books on the social economy and does international consultancy with OECD and UN agencies (ILO, UNDESA, UNRISD). Brans, Marleen: Marleen Brans is a professor at the KU Leuven Public Governance Institute and a visiting professor at the Université Catholique de Louvain. At KU Leuven, she is the Director of the Master in Advanced Studies of European Policies and Public Administration. Her research interests include policy advisory systems, ministerial advisers and the use of expert advice. She is a past founding Vice-President of the International Public Policy Association. Her most recent co-edited book (with Arco Timmermans) is The Advisory Role of Political Scientists in Europe: Comparing Engagements in Policy Advisory Systems (Palgrave Macmillan, 2022).

xii  Encyclopedia of social innovation

Cantner, Uwe: Uwe Cantner is a professor of economics at the Friedrich Schiller University Jena and at the University of Southern Denmark, Odense since 2010. Since 2019, he has been Chairman of the Expert Commission on Research and Innovation (EFI) at the German Federal Government. He publishes in internationally peer-reviewed journals on topics from innovation economics and evolutionary economics, to productivity and efficiency measurement. Caro-González, Antonia: Dr Antonia Caro-Gonzalez is Senior Researcher at the Digital Society Technology Unit at the I2Cat Foundation (Catalonia, Spain) and Director of the International Research Project Office at Valencian international University (Spain) and Director of Eoh-for-Good-Leading Systemic Transformation for the Common Good. As a prolific researcher, she has contributed to numerous research projects, edited several books and published chapters and papers in several peer-reviewed publications on a diverse range of social issues related to Social Innovation Ecosystems Building, People-Centred Leadership, and societal impact and valorization of R&I. She has played a pre-eminent role in the European School of Social Innovation since its inception. Carter, Eleanor: Dr Eleanor Carter is a Research Fellow at the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford and is also Research Director for the Government Outcomes Lab. Eleanor’s research investigates challenges in coordinating complex public service delivery networks and cross-sector partnerships. Chaudhary, Shrirang: Shrirang Chaudhary is a PhD research scholar at the School of Management and Labour Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Mumbai. He specializes in organizational and social psychology with experience in both academic and programmatic research and works in the areas of human resources and community development. Chavoushi, Zohreh Hassannezhad: Zohreh Hassannezhad Chavoushi (PhD) is currently a Senior Research Associate at the Diversity Institute, Toronto Metropolitan University (formerly known as Ryerson University), where she uses insights from gender and diversity theories to reveal barriers and opportunities that are associated with women and immigrants’ entrepreneurship develop-

ment. She is currently working on reports and research papers describing the pathway towards a more inclusive innovation ecosystem in Canada, the exploration of women and underrepresented groups’ barriers in entrepreneurial activities, and the application of a critical ecological lens to address existing issues in entrepreneurial ecosystem. Christmann, Gabriela: Gabriela Christmann is a sociologist. She is Deputy Director at the Leibniz Institute for Research on Society and Space (IRS), Erkner, Germany, where she is also heading the research group ‘Social Innovations in Rural Areas’. At the same time, she is Adjunct Professor at the Department of Sociology at the Technische Universität Berlin, Germany. Her research interests include urban and regional sociology, social innovations, analyses of social processes, and digitalization of human action. Cipolla, Carla: Carla Cipolla explores how design can leverage social innovation processes for sustainability and services oriented to transformative changes. She is associate professor at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (Coppe) and co-founder and coordinator of the Rio DESIS Lab, where she contributes to enabling socially innovative processes in the city. Carla is a past coordinator of DESIS (Design for Social Innovation and Sustainability) Network and currently a member of its international coordination committee. Cukier, Wendy: Prof. Wendy Cukier, MA, MBA, PhD, DU (HC), LLD (HC), MSC, is one of Canada’s leading experts in disruptive technologies, innovation processes and diversity. She is the Founder of Toronto Metropolitan University’s Diversity Institute, leading numerous projects aimed at promoting the participation and advancement of underrepresented groups, including women, racialized people and Indigenous peoples. Dr Cukier has assisted organizations in becoming more inclusive through innovative programmes such as DiversityLeads funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, which tracks the progress, impediments and evidenced-based strategies for promoting diversity in organizations. da Glória Gohn, Maria: Maria da Glória Gohn is a Sociologist. She holds a PhD in Political Science from the University of Sao Paulo and a post-PhD in the New School University, New York. She is Professor of University of Campinas, Visiting Professor

Contributors  xiii

in University Federal of ABC and Senior Researcher 1A of the National Council of Research (CNPq). Currently she coordinates the RC Soc. Mov. of the Brazilian Sociological Society. She researches on social movements, social theories, participatory counsels, and NGOs. She has published 22 books as Participação e Democracia no Brasil Ed. Vozes (Participation and Democracy in Brazil) and Teoria dos Movimentos Sociais Ed. Loyola (Theories of Social Movements).

His main scientific focus is on the impacts of digital technologies on organizational and work practices. He leads the European Workplace Innovation Network (EUWIN) and supports the organizational concept of workplace innovation with practical applications and in theory development. This work is conducted as the scientific coordinator of the multi annual H2020 Beyond4.0, H2020 GI-NI projects and Horizon Europe Bridges 5.0 projects.

de Bruin, Anne: Anne de Bruin is Professor in the Aotearoa Centre for Enterprising Women, University of Auckland, and Emerita Professor, Massey University, New Zealand. Her main research interests are entrepreneurship, innovation, and gender issues. She has published in leading journals including Business & Society, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development and Energy Economics. Her most recent co-edited book is A Research Agenda for Social Entrepreneurship in the Elgar Research Agenda Series. Anne is a Fulbright New Zealand Scholar.

Domanski, Dmitri: Dmitri Domanski works at the economic development agency of the Ruhr Area, Germany. As researcher at TU Dortmund, he has worked on several international social innovation projects including ‘SI-DRIVE – Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change’. He is the co-founder of the European School of Social Innovation (ESSI), a keynote speaker at conferences in Europe and Latin America, and co-editor of the book Innovación Social en Latinoamérica (Social Innovation in Latin America). In 2017, he was awarded the Josef Hochgerner Fellowship by the Centre for Social Innovation (Vienna) for the best social innovation research proposal.

De Moor, Tine: Tine De Moor holds the chair Social Enterprises and Institutions for Collective Action at Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University. Her research focuses on the emergence, functioning and evolution of institutions for collective action and their importance for social and sustainable entrepreneurship; part of this research specifically focuses on citizens’ collectives, a form of collective action that nowadays seems to be needed to fill the social gaps caused by stepping-back governments and failure of free market mechanisms. Deserti, Alessandro: Alessandro Deserti is professor in Design at the Politecnico di Milano, where he is currently the Director of the Department of Design. His main research lines deal with design-enabled innovation processes, methods and tools and ways in which their adoption can be combined with systemic and organizational change. In recent years he has investigated the application of design methods and tools in diverse contexts, such as human smart cites, social innovation, responsible research, and innovation (RRI), public sector innovation (PSI) and business model innovation. He has worked in many EU projects. Dhondt, Steven: Steven Dhondt is currently a senior researcher at TNO (Netherlands) and professor at the KU Leuven (Belgium).

Dumitru, Adina: Dr Adina Dumitru is Director of the Sustainability Specialization Campus and a Distinguished ‘Beatriz Galindo’ Researcher at the University of A Coruna. Her current teaching and research focuses on the psychological determinants of sustainable lifestyles, social innovations in the domains of energy, food, mobility and social finance, and the development of indicators for the impact of nature-based solutions on social cohesion, empowerment and health. She coordinated the work on social indicators of the European Taskforce on Impact Assessment of nature-based solutions, and is an expert on Sustainable Urbanization of the European Environment Agency. Ebner, Alexander: Alexander Ebner is Professor of Political Economy and Economic Sociology at the Faculty of Social Sciences at Goethe University Frankfurt where is also the Founding Director of the Schumpeter Center for Innovation and Public Policy. Previously, he was Associate Professor of Political Economy at Jacobs University Bremen and Affiliate Professor at Grenoble Ecole de Management. His major research interests comprise the areas of entrepreneurship and innovation, comparative capitalism, and the history of economic thought.

xiv  Encyclopedia of social innovation

Edler, Jakob: Prof. Jakob Edler is executive director of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI since 2018, and Professor of Innovation Policy and Strategy at the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research (MIoIR), University of Manchester, which he led until 2018. His main areas of research are the analysis and design of governance and policy in the fields of science and innovation, with a particular focus on the role of the state in influencing social and economic transformations. Edwards-Schachter, Mónica: Mónica Edwards-Schachter is a multidisciplinary researcher, writer, consultant, trainer and scientific disseminator with ample experience in innovation, in particular social innovation, and STEAM education. She has more than one hundred publications and is member of the board of NOVAtion. Critical studies of innovation advisor and consultant in several organizations, she is an expert evaluator at the EIT and the European Commission (Horizon, COST) and mentor in various women empowerment programmes. She is founder of monValu, a project based on storytelling, STEAM competences and ocean literacy Enciso-Santocildes, Marta: Dr. Marta Enciso-Santocildes is an Associate Professor and member of the Private Law Department at the University of Deusto’s Law School since 1993. She is a researcher in the fields of Cooperativism, Social and Solidarity Economy and Social Innovation. She has taken part in local and international competitive projects, edited several books and has published book chapters and papers in scientific journals in her specialist areas. She has been a guest lecturer at different universities.

Basque Country) and Scientific Director of Work4Progress initiative powered by La Caixa Foundation. Previously, he served as Senior Advisor to the Executive Office of the Basque President, Professor of Practice at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research on Montreal (CIRM-McGill University), Senior Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace and Senior Associate to CICR (Columbia University). Ewert, Benjamin: Benjamin Ewert is Professor of Health Policy and Health Professions at Fulda University of Applied Science in Germany. His research focuses on behavioral insights, co-production, and social innovation in the realm of health policy and beyond. He is co-editor of the book Behavioral Policies for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention (Palgrave Pivot, 2019) and has published articles in academic outlets such as Public Administration, Public Policy & Administration and Policy & Politics. Fayard, Anne-Laure: Anne-Laure Fayard is the ERA Chaired Professor in Social Innovation at Nova School of Business and Economics (Nova SBE) and visiting Research Professor at New York University (NYU). She is an ethnographer studying collaboration, innovation, design, and technology, with a focus on social innovation. Her work has been published in leading journals such as Administrative Science Quarterly and Organization Science. Prior to Nova SBE, Anne-Laure was a faculty member at INSEAD and then NYU. She has held visiting positions at Ecole des Mines, at Imperial College, and at the London School of Economics.

Ergen, Timur: Timur Ergen is a senior researcher at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies in Cologne, Germany. His research investigates energy transitions, economic competition, and science and technology policy. His research has been published in journals such as Energy Research and Social Science, Review of International Political Economy and the Socio-economic Review. Currently he is working on a monograph on the comparative history of deindustrialization in Germany and the USA.

Fornahl, Dirk: Dirk Fornahl is a professor of regional economics at the University of Bremen and is currently employed at the Friedrich Schiller University Jena. He founded the CRIE (Centre for Regional and Innovation Economics) in 2011 and was the director until 2020. His research focuses on regional science (regional cluster life cycles, network relationships) as well as industry development (firm growth, start-up research, spin-offs) and innovation (impact of policy support, innovation systems, support networks).

Espiau Idoiaga, Gorka: Gorka Idoiaga (PhD) is the Director Agirre Lehendakaria Center for and Political Studies (University

Galego, Diego: Diego Galego is a Professor of Political Science and International Relations at Tecnologico de Monterrey, School of Social Sciences and Government,

Espiau at the Social of the

Contributors  xv

Campus Puebla, Mexico. He is also a research fellow at the KU Leuven Public Governance Institute in Belgium. He specializes in uncovering the impact of social movements on policymaking. In his book, Queering Public Policy, Dr Galego explores the influence of Brazil’s LGBTQ+ movement on public policy. Ghosh, Bipashyee: Bipashyee Ghosh is a Research Fellow at Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex. Her research is on Transformative Innovation Policy and Deep Transitions. She researched sustainability transitions in urban India and Thailand for her PhD in Science and Technology Policy from SPRU, and continues to study social and technological innovations and systemic change in global contexts, towards sustainable and just futures. She is also a lecturer in Transformative Innovation Policy and Development at Department of Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy (STEaPP), UCL, UK. Ghys, Tuur: Tuur Ghys is an associate professor at the faculty of political science and international relations of the Autonomous University of Nuevo León, Mexico. He has a PHD in social sciences from the University of Antwerp, Belgium. As a researcher, he focuses on the sociology and politics of social problems such as poverty and inequality. Havas, Attila: Attila Havas, PhD is a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Economics, Centre for Economic and Regional Studies, Budapest; Senior Scientist at AIT, Austrian Institute of Technology, Vienna; regional editor of International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy; and member of the editorial board of Foresight and STI Governance. His academic interests are in economics of innovation, national and sectoral innovation systems, theory and practice of innovation policy, foresight, and social innovation. Henderson, Fiona: Fiona Henderson is a Research Fellow at Glasgow Caledonian University, Scotland with a background in Psychology (MA, Aberdeen University; MSc, Strathclyde University) and a PhD in evaluating innovative teaching and learning (University of Glasgow). She is a co-investigator on a number of grants relating to social innovation education, social enterprise and social care, and currently leads research on innovating the communication of flood risk in Scotland. She publishes in

the areas of ageing, heath, social care, social policy and climate change. Hulgård, Lars: Lars Hulgård is Professor of Social Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation at Roskilde University, Denmark, and Permanent Visiting Professor at Tata Institute of Social Science, India. He was a founding member of EMES International Research Network and served as president from 2010 to 2016. His research is on social and solidarity economy with a particular interest in understanding how social enterprise links to issues of solidarity and democracy. In March 2022 he finalized a Mapping of Democratic Enterprises in Denmark for the Danish Ministry of Industry, Business and Financial Affairs. Hüttemann, Matthias: Matthias Hüttemann is Professor of Health-Related Social Work at the Fliedner University of Applied Sciences, Düsseldorf. His research focuses on social work in health care, collaboration between researchers and practitioners, and innovation in social work. Together with Anne Parpan-Blaser, he has edited an anthology on innovative social work. Before joining the university, he worked in various fields of clinical social work. Kadyrova, Alina: Dr Alina Kadyrova is a Lecturer in Innovation with the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research (MIOIR), Alliance Manchester Business School (Manchester, United Kingdom). Her current research focuses on social and inclusive innovation in urban areas. In particular, she is interested in understanding the roles of spatial and organizational factors enabling innovation primarily aimed at addressing social issues. She has presented her research at various international conferences and published in internationally recognized journals such as Scientometrics and the Journal of Social Entrepreneurship. Kemp, René: René Kemp is Professor of Innovation and Sustainable Development at the Maastricht Sustainability Institute (MSI) of Maastricht University and professorial fellow at UNU-MERIT, a research institute of United Nations University and Maastricht University. He is a multidisciplinary researcher specialized in the study of innovation and sustainability transitions. He has published in innovation journals, environmental and ecological economics journals, policy journals, transport and energy journals, and sustainable development jour-

xvi  Encyclopedia of social innovation

nals on eco-innovation, sustainability transitions and social innovation. Knie, Andreas: Andreas Knie is political scientist at the Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB) leading the research group Digital Mobility and Social Differentiation with Dr habil. Weert Canzler and he is university professor at the Technical University (TU) Berlin. In 2006, Andreas Knie founded the Innovation Center for Mobility and Societal Change GmbH (InnoZ). He is advisor for municipalities and organizations on the topics of transport, mobility, digitalization and sustainability as well as author of various books and an expert on mobility in the media. Kopp, Ralf: Dr. Ralf Kopp is a sociologist working as senior researcher, project manager and coordinator of the research field ‘Labour and organization in the socio-digital transformation’ at Social Research Centre Dortmund. He focuses on questions of future of industrial work, especially on questions of management, innovation, leadership, participation and empowerment. Krlev, Gorgi: Gorgi Krlev is Assistant Professor of Sustainability at ESCP Business School in Paris. He also holds a Visiting Professorship at Politecnico di Milano and Visiting Fellowship at Kellogg College, University of Oxford. In his research he deals with social entrepreneurship, social innovations and impact, with a particular focus on how cross-sector collaborations and new field emergence promote societal transformations and contribute to addressing environmental and social sustainability challenges. Kropp, Cordula: Cordula Kropp holds the chair in sociology of environment and technology at the University of Stuttgart and is director of the Centre for Interdisciplinary Risk and Innovation Research at the University of Stuttgart (ZIRIUS). The focus of her work is on sustainability-oriented, sociotechnical transformation processes and their participatory and risk-sensitive organization, especially in infrastructure sectors such as mobility, energy, water and architecture. Kropp was a member of the Sustainability Advisory Board in Baden-Württemberg, Germany until 2021. Krüger, Daniel: Daniel Krüger has an MA in Social Science and is a researcher at TU Dortmund University, Social Research Centre. With a particular interest in social

inclusion, his research focuses on social innovation, its process and its framework conditions. He has experience in European research projects (SI-DRIVE, ESIA, SISCODE) and supported the editing process of the Atlas of Social Innovation series and the Encyclopedia of Social Innovation. His PhD project focuses on the impact of open labs for digital inclusion. He is a member of the European School of Social Innovation. Kullenberg, Christopher: Christopher Kullenberg is associate professor in Theory of Science at the University of Gothenburg. His current research is focused on the theory and practice of citizen science, with special regard to its social and epistemological questions. Lévesque, Benoît: Benoît Lévesque is Professor Emeritus at Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Canada. He was co-founder and director of the Center for research on social innovation (CRISES) from 1986 to 2003, and co-founder and co-director of the Community-University Research Alliance on social economy from 2000 to 2003. He was President of CIRIEC-Canada from 1996 to 2000 and President of the Scientific Council of CIRIEC International from 2002 to 2010. He has published numerous articles and books, mainly in the fields of economic sociology, social economy and social innovation. Lkhoyaali, Ghita: Ghita Lkhoyaali is a PhD candidate in management at HEC Montréal. She holds a Master’s degree in Strategy and Social Responsibility of Organizations from ESG UQAM. Her research interests focus on sustainable development, social value creation, interorganizational collaboration, and cross-sectoral interactions in the context of societal grand challenges. She taught a sustainable development course at the graduate level as a lecturer in the management department of HEC Montréal. Maldonado-Mariscal, Karina: Karina Maldonado-Mariscal is a senior researcher and lecturer at the Social Research Centre at TU Dortmund University. She received her PhD in Sociology from Humboldt University Berlin and was postdoctoral researcher at the ETH Zurich, where she led projects on social innovation and vocational education. Working for the government of Zapopan, Mexico, she researched sustainable development and co-founded the start-up-initiative ‘Reto Zapopan’ (https://​retozapopan​.com​

Contributors  xvii

.mx). She is member of the European School of Social Innovation and vice-president for Europe at the International Sociology Association, RC04 Sociology of Education. Her research focuses on social innovation in education, innovation in science, and transformation and social change. Manoharan, Ashokkumar: Dr Ashokkumar Manoharan is Senior Lecturer of Strategic Management at the College of Business, Government and Law at Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. Dr Manoharan’s research interests cover human resource challenges in the hospitality industry, focusing on workforce diversity and related diversity management practices, migrant workers, and organisational culture. His research work has been widely published in journals and international conferences. McGeoch, Sally: Sally McGeoch is PhD candidate at the Centre for Social Impact Swinburne (Australia) with a research interest in cross-sector collaborative approaches to scaling work integration social enterprises. She is also a social impact professional with a focus on supporting social enterprises to scale through capacity building, strategic investment and collaborative partnerships. McGowan, Katharine: Katharine McGowan is an Associate Professor of Social Innovation at the Bissett School of Business at Mount Royal University in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. She holds a doctorate in Canadian History from the University of Waterloo. Her research areas include historical social innovation, resilience and complexity. McMurray, Adela J.: Professor Adela J. McMurray (PhD) is Dean (Research) at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia. Professor McMurray’s work is internationally acclaimed as she has published over 360 publications and won grants to $5million. Her research expertise addresses: Innovation, Culture, Sustainability, Commitment, Entrepreneurship and Leadership including Organisational Change and Development in public and private sectors. Menichinelli, Massimo: Massimo Menichinelli, Doctor of Arts in New Media & Master of Science in Industrial Design, is currently Research Fellow at RMIT University and Senior Resident Researcher at Politecnico di Milano – Department of Design – Polifactory. His practice and research have focused on the development of

open, collaborative, and co-design projects and the processes, networks and systems that enable them in Open Design, Fab Lab, Maker Movement, User-driven Open and Social Innovation initiatives. Menter, Matthias: Matthias Menter is a professor of business dynamics, innovation, and economic change at the Friedrich Schiller University Jena. He is further a research fellow at the Institute for Development Strategies (IDS) at Indiana University at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs (SPEA), United States. His research focuses on aspects of entrepreneurial and innovative ecosystems, academic entrepreneurship, university–industry collaborations, and public policy. Mildenberger, Georg: Georg Mildenberger is Head of Research and Acting Director at CSI – University of Heidelberg. He has been working at CSI since 2007, and has been leader of different project teams working on social innovation in a European context. Georg worked in research on social innovation and impact measurement, but also counselled NPOs in developing and governing social innovations and building supporting structures for innovative ideas. He holds a doctoral degree of Darmstadt University, and a Master’s degree in philosophy and political science from Tübingen University. Millard, Jeremy: Jeremy Millard has an MSc in Social Sciences and Geography from London University and is a Chief Consultant at the Danish Technological Institute, as well as Visiting Research Fellow at several UK and Irish universities. He has over forty years research and development experience in social and open innovation, good governance and technology development. He works with numerous governments, businesses and civil organizations around the world and with the EC, UN, OECD, and WB, and has published extensively on a wide range of subjects. Milotay, Nora: Nora Milotay is a policy administrator in the Secretariat of the European Parliament’s Employment and Social Affairs Committee. Prior to that, she worked as an analyst of social and employment policies at the European Parliamentary Research Service and on education policy in Hungary and at the European Commission. Her main areas of interest are issues of inequality, governance and social innovation. A historian by training, she holds a BA Hons from Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, an

xviii  Encyclopedia of social innovation

MA from the Central European University, Budapest and an MPhil and a PhD from the University of Cambridge. Mirvis, Philip H.: Philip Mirvis is an organizational psychologist studying organizational change, the workforce and workplace, and business leadership in society. An advisor to companies and NGOs on five continents, he has authored/edited sixteen books including How to Do Relevant Research: From the Ivory Tower to the Real World and Sustainability to Social Change: Lead Your Company from Managing Risks to Creating Social Value. Mirvis received a career achievement award from the Academy of Management as ‘Distinguished Scholar-Practitioner’. He is a research fellow at the Babson Institute for Social Innovation. Misuraca, Gianluca: Gianluca Misuraca is founder and Vice President of Inspiring Futures (IF), a global advisory consultancy in strategic foresight, social innovation, digital governance and technology diplomacy. He is leading the International Outreach for Human-centric Artificial Intelligence (InTouchAI.eu) initiative funded by the European Commission’s Service for Foreign Policy Instruments. He is the Executive Director of the Master in Artificial Intelligence in Public Services (AI4GOV) led by the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid and Politecnico di Milano, as well as an Advisor on Digital Democracy for Re-Imagine Europa (RIE). Mo, Guang Ying: Dr Guang Ying Mo is the Director of Research at the Diversity Institute, Toronto Metropolitan University. Dr Mo obtained her PhD in Sociology from the University of Toronto. Her research fields are organizational communication, collaboration and innovation, social support for underrepresented groups, and social media. Prior to joining the Diversity Institute, she conducted research projects on organizational communication and technology use by underrepresented groups, such as older adults, adolescents, and caregivers of people with dementia. Her current work is focusing on entrepreneurship and employment equity for underrepresented groups. Moore, Michele-Lee: Michele-Lee Moore is the Director of Transdisciplinary Education at the Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, and leader of the Water, Innovation, and Global Governance lab at the Dept of Geography and Centre for

Global Studies, University of Victoria. Her research explores transformation, social innovation, social-ecological systems resilience, complex systems, and local and global water governance. Morgan, Bronwen: Bronwen Morgan is Professor of Law at the Faculty of Law and Justice at UNSW Sydney. Her research on transformations of the regulatory state has evolved to explore creative ways of reimagining the economy to respond to contemporary challenges, including innovative ways of sharing the ownership and governance of digital platforms, distributed participatory approaches to providing important infrastructure such as energy, food and water, and links between social activism and social enterprise. She is a co-founder of the New Economy Network of Australia. Mulgan, Geoff: Sir Geoff Mulgan is Professor of Collective Intelligence, Public Policy & Social Innovation at University College London (UCL). He has previously been CEO of Nesta and the Young Foundation, director of the UK Government’s Strategy Unit and head of policy in the Prime Minister’s office. Past books include Social Innovation: How Societies Find the Power to Change (Policy Press, 2019). His latest book Another World Is Possible: How to Reignite Social and Political Imagination was published by Hurst Publishers in 2022. His website is geoffmulgan.com. O’Donovan, Cian: Cian O’Donovan is a Senior Research Fellow at UCL’s Department of Science and Technology Studies. He researches how digital transformation impacts public services like social care, its users and its workforces. He uses this work to study who benefits from innovation more broadly and how those benefits can be better distributed. In 2014 he co-founded Uplift, Ireland’s largest people-powered digital advocacy organisation for progressive change. Parpan-Blaser, Anne: Anne Parpan-Blaser is professor at the School of Social Work FHNW, Institute for Integration and Participation. Her work focuses on innovation in social work and on participation (of people with disabilities). From 2013 to 2015, together with Matthias Hüttemann and a team from the School of Social Work FHNW she developed an innovation program for social work organizations (http://​ www​ .soziale​-arbeit​-entwickeln​.ch/​). Prior to her

Contributors  xix

appointment at the FHNW School of Social Work, she worked as a trained social worker in social welfare, drug counselling and with people with disabilities. Pel, Bonno: Dr. Bonno Pel is a researcher/lecturer at the Socio-Environmental Dynamics Research group (SONYA) at the Université Libre de Bruxelles (Belgium). His research is focused on the governance and politics of societal transitions and social innovation. Bonno has studied and published on such transformation processes in areas as diverse as traffic management, the unconditional Basic Income, social enterprises, delta area management, driverless vehicles, sustainable festivals, circular economy, and energy citizenship. Penna, Caetano C. R.: Caetano C. R. Penna is Assistant Professor in the Economics of Technology and Innovation at the Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management of the Delft University of Technology (TU Delft) and Adjunct Professor in the Economics of Technology and Industry (on leave) at the Institute of Economics of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ). His research focuses on mission-oriented and transformative innovation policies; finance for sustainability and innovation; and the economics and geopolitics of technology and innovation. Pozzebon, Marlei: Marlei Pozzebon is professor at HEC Montréal and at FGV/EAESP – Brazil (joint appointment). Some keywords of her research are social change, social technologies, community-based projects and post-development. Her research interests centre on the relationship between communities and social technologies, and to the possibilities of better understanding and promoting social change using collaborative research methods. Marlei’s past work was based on structuration theory, different forms of social constructivism, and critical approaches. She has become increasingly inspired by theoretical contributions from the South and methodologies based on participatory inquiry. Marlei is a founding member of the Associação Brasileira de Ensino, Pesquisa e Extensão em Tecnologia Social (ABEPETS). Prado Saldanha, Fabio: Fabio Prado Saldanha is Associate Professor in Social Economy and Social Innovation at Université de l’Ontario Français (Toronto, Canada), and holds a PhD in Management, Strategy and Entrepreneurship from HEC Montréal

(Montréal, Canada). He has developed research projects involving creativity and innovation in several sectors – from automotive to aerospace, from microfinance to citizen engagement of youth populations in Brazil and Canada. His research is directed towards critical, discursive, and post-colonialist approaches to social innovation and social technologies. Dr. Saldanha is a founding member of the Associação Brasileira de Ensino, Pesquisa e Extensão em Tecnologia Social (ABEPETS). Raufflet, Emmanuel: Emmanuel Raufflet is a Senior Professor of Management at HEC Montréal. He is also a member of the Center for research on social innovation (CRISES). He has led research projects related to energy, sustainability and social acceptability with public, private and non-profit organizations. He has published multiple books, book chapters, journal articles and teaching cases. He served as the academic director of the Montréal-based IEDDEC Institute (Institute for the Environment, sustainable development and circular economy) and is the co-chair of the Quebec Network for research on circular economy. Rabadjieva, Maria: Maria Rabadjieva is a researcher at the Institute for Work and Technology (IAT) in the ‘Innovation, Space and Culture’ department. Since May 2018, she has been doing her doctorate with the working title: ‘The relevance of the concept of practice fields for understanding the diffusion of social innovation’ at TU Dortmund University, supervisor: Prof. Dr Jürgen Howaldt (TU Dortmund University). Within her research, she is utilizing practice theories for social innovation research. Rizzo, Francesca: Francesca Rizzo, PhD in Computer Science, is Professor at Politecnico di Milano, Department of Design where she teaches Users Studies and Digital Design Studio. She is expert in Participatory Design (PD) applied on the fields of service design, social innovation, and public sector innovation. She has been actively working as researcher for various EU-funded research projects and currently she is involved in three HEurope projects. She is author of many publications in journals and presented at a conference in the larger field of design research for Social and Public Sector innovation. Rogge, Karoline S.: Karoline Rogge is Professor in Sustainability Innovation and Policy at the Science Policy Research Unit

xx  Encyclopedia of social innovation

at the University of Sussex and Deputy Head of the Competence Center Policy and Society at the Fraunhofer Institute of Systems and Innovation Research. Her work focuses on investigating the link between policy and innovation, typically assuming a broad innovation and policy mix perspective. Her research, teaching and policy engagement focuses on accelerating sustainable energy and mobility transitions in Germany, the UK, Europe and beyond. Rossel, Pierre: Pierre Rossel is a Neuchatel University graduate, with a PhD in anthropology. He is currently Associate Professor at Elisava, Barcelona School of Design and Engineering (UVic-UCC) and previously the President of Inspiring Futures, a Swiss Consultancy active at the crossroad of digital and ecological transitions and social challenges Inspiring Futures. He taught for 24 years technology assessment and foresight at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL). As a futurist, he has contributed to numerous publications, over 80 research projects and executive mandates; in many of them, he has explored the possible osmosis between technological developments and social innovation. Roy, Michael J.: Michael Roy PhD is Professor of Economic Sociology and Social Policy at the Yunus Centre for Social Business and Health at Glasgow Caledonian University, UK, and leads the Social Economy Research Group there. His research focuses on the health and well-being impacts of local civil society actors – especially social enterprises – social innovation ecosystems, and in innovative and contentious policy instruments such as Social Impact Bonds. He is Editor in Chief of Social Enterprise Journal and Associate Editor of Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and his research has been published in journals as diverse as Public Management Review, Social Science and Medicine, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, and Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal. Scheepers, Ella: Ella Scheepers is an activist and organisational development facilitator working at the intersections of social justice, social innovation and feminist practice. Scheepers has over 11 years of experience with social justice and human rights organisations, philanthropic institutions, and more recently social innovation approaches to social change. Her work has included exploring unconventional partnerships and

innovative approaches to organisational management and well-being, strategic planning, grant-making, and network-building across sectors. Schot, Johan: Johan Schot is Professor of Comparative Global History at the Utrecht University Centre for Global Challenges. He is Director of the Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium (TIPC) and the Deep Transitions project. He was previously Director of the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) at the University of Sussex Business School in the UK from 2014 to 2018. Professor Schot works jointly with actors from different academic disciplines, policymakers, governments, civil society, NGOs, the media and business world to address the biggest societal challenges. Schröder, Antonius: Antonius Schröder is member of the board of SFS (Social Research Centre) at TU University Dortmund. He has worked in and managed more than 30 European projects (e.g. Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change). He is Managing Director of the European School of Social Innovation ESSI, Chair of the ESTEP Focus Group People, Leader of the Processes for Planet Permanent Working Group Societal Innovation. Beside publishing more than 80 books or articles, he is editorial member of the Atlas of Social Innovation and A Research Agenda for Social Innovation. Schubert, Cornelius: Cornelius Schubert is professor for Sociology of Science and Technology at TU Dortmund University. He holds an MA degree in sociology, psychology and English linguistics and received a PhD in sociology from the Technical University of Berlin. His areas of expertise are in the sociology of technology, innovation studies, and qualitative methods. In his previous research, he studied processes of digitalization in health care, innovation networks in the semiconductor industry, and the use of computer simulations in the financial sector. Schuch, Klaus: Klaus Schuch is scientific director and senior scientist at the Centre for Social Innovation (ZSI), Austria. He is expert on (societal) impact of research and innovation, international R&I cooperation, R&I policies, and evaluation. Klaus gained insights on social innovation from his evaluative work, especially in the field of development cooperation. He lectured for many years at the Department of Development Studies at the University of Vienna. Klaus is also

Contributors  xxi

member of the board of the European School of Social Innovation. Schüll, Elmar: Dr Elmar Schüll is Head of Research at the Department of Social Sciences and member of the master programme ‘Social Innovation’ at Salzburg University of Applied Sciences. He is also acting as guest lecturer in the master programme ‘Zukunftsforschung’ (Futures Studies) at Freie Universität Berlin. His research interests are social innovation and social change, futures studies, higher education research and organisational research. Schwarz, Michael: Dr Michael Schwarz is a sociologist. He worked from 1980 to 2004 at ISO Institute for Research on Social Opportunities, Cologne, and from 2005 to 2012 as senior researcher and project manager at Social Research Centre Dortmund in the research fields of organizations, networks, innovation and climate change with special interests in pathways to sustainable development. Since 2012 he has worked as a freelancer with office in Cologne. His main focus lies now on the social-theoretical foundation of social innovation and transformative social change. Scott, Don: Emeritus Professor Don Scott, Southern Cross University, Lismore, Australia, held positions of Corporate Planner, Marketing Director and Managing Director in different types of businesses. After 21 years in business, he entered academe and completed a PhD degree in economics. Professor Scott has published numerous articles in international journals, some of which have been given ‘best paper’ awards and has consulted for a number of large businesses and government organisations on strategic management, marketing and forecasting. Shaban, Abdul: Abdul Shaban is Professor and Chairperson of the Centre for Public Policy, Habitat and Human Development, School of Development Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Mumbai. He has been the Deputy Director of TISS, Tuljapur Campus. He is an urban geographer and economist with research interests on issues related to cities, entrepreneurship, creative industries, and religious minorities. He has been visiting professor at several universities including LSE, Muenster University, Erasmus University, Paris Diderot University. He has been associated with different journals as editor and member of the editorial boards.

Shajahan, P. K.: Dr Shajahan is a full Professor of Social Work and Dean, Academic Affairs at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai. He is one of the founding members and currently the Co-President of Critical Edge Alliance (CEA). During 2018–22 he was the Vice-President of International Council on Social Welfare (ICSW) as well as a Member of the Board of Directors of International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW). He is engaged in several collaborative academic projects across the globe. His research and publications include such areas as Participatory Development, Social Enterprises and Social Innovation, School Education and Accountability and Social Protection. Singer-Brodowski, Mandy: Dr Mandy Singer-Brodowski studied educational science at the University of Erfurt. She worked at the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy and as the scientific coordinator of the Center for Transformation Research and Sustainability at the University of Wuppertal. In 2015 she completed her PhD at the Leuphana University of Lüneburg. Currently, she is PI of several research projects on Education for Sustainable Development at Freie Universität Berlin. Smallman, Melanie: Dr Melanie Smallman is Associate Professor in Science and Technology Studies at University College London (UCL), Co-Director of the UCL Hub for Responsible Research and Innovation and a Fellow at the Alan Turing Institute. Her research focuses on the social impacts of science and technology and how these impacts shape public views around new and emerging technologies and public policy. Sonne Vyas, Lina: Dr Lina Sonne Vyas is Associate Professor at FLAME University, Pune, India, with a focus on social innovation and entrepreneurship, digitisation and society, and entrepreneurship in arts + culture. She was previously Associate Professor at O.P. Jindal Global University, India. Before that she set up and ran social innovation advisory Inblick Innovation, built a research portfolio at Okapi, co-led research at Intellecap, and was Assistant Professor at Azim Premji University. She holds a PhD in Economics of Innovation from UNU-MERIT, Maastricht University, Netherlands.

xxii  Encyclopedia of social innovation

Souza, Ana Clara: Ana Clara Souza is Visiting Professor at the Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Rio Grande do Sul (IFRS – Brazil) and holds a PhD in Management from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS – Brazil). She develops research on social innovation, social technologies, social entrepreneurship, and related topics. In her work, she focuses on practice-based theories, qualitative research methods and participatory research methodologies. Dr. Souza is a founding member of the Associação Brasileira de Ensino, Pesquisa e Extensão em Tecnologia Social (ABEPETS). Strambach, Simone: Simone Strambach is professor for economic geography and innovation research at the Faculty of Geography, at University Marburg, Germany. She has long-term experience in the spatial shaping of (social) innovation and knowledge processes. With her research group on Knowledge Dynamics, Sustainability Innovation and Global Change, she works on organizational change, path dependencies and connected institutional dynamics in socio-ecological transformation processes. Her research experiences are based on multiple national and international projects and consulting activities. She holds a doctoral degree from Mannheim University and a Habilitation from Stuttgart University. Sutz, Judith: Judith Sutz works on knowledge production and innovation as seen from the South, with particular attention to the capacity to solve problems in scarcity conditions, the necessary transformation of the academic reward system, and research directionality for a sustainable and inclusive development process. She coordinates a research programme at the Interdisciplinary Space, Universidad de la República, Uruguay: ‘Science, technology, and innovation for a new development’, aiming at designing policies based on better and usually not taken into account evidence. Teasdale, Simon: Simon Teasdale is Professor in Management at Queen’s University Belfast. His research focuses on how social innovation policies are enacted through discourse and financial incentives, and the complex ways in which practitioners seek to negotiate and informally amend such policies. His work has been published in journals such as Economy and Society, Journal of Social Policy and Public Administration. He recently edited (with

Anne de Bruin) A Research Agenda for Social Entrepreneurship (Edward Elgar, 2019). Terstriep, Judith: Judith Terstriep (economist) is Head of Research Department Innovation, Space & Culture at the Institute for Work and Technology at the Westphalian University of Applied Sciences and lecturer at the Ruhr-University Bochum. She has long-term experience in (social) innovation research. Focal areas of her work cover social innovation and its measurement, societal innovativeness, (social) innovation ecosystems, (regional) challenge-oriented innovation policies, sectoral and regional analyses. Currently, Judith leads the joint projects IndiSI+ – Social Innovation Indicators and GIs – Strengthening Societal Innovation Capacity. She holds a doctoral degree from TU Hamburg. Then, Volker: Volker Then is Chief Executive Officer and Member of the Executive Board, Fondazione AIS – Advancing Impact and Sustainability, Bologna; 2006–2021 Executive Director of the Centre for Social Investment at Max-Weber-Institute of Sociology, Ruprecht-Karls-University, Heidelberg; 1994–2006 Bertelsmann Foundation, Director Philanthropy and Foundations Programme Division; since 2014 Member of the national advisory board G7-Social Impact Investment Task Force; since 2021 member Scientific Board, OECD Global Action ‘Promoting Social and Solidarity Economy Ecosystems’. Member of multiple international working groups and boards in foundations and the non-profit-sector; thematic focus on social investment, organizational strategy, and impact measurement. Thurmann, Jan-Frederik: Jan-Frederik Thurmann is a research assistant and PhD candidate in the working group Knowledge Dynamics, Sustainable Innovation, Global Change in the department of Economic Geography of the Philipps-University of Marburg. After his studies in Development Economics he consulted at Gesellschaft für internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) around the evaluation of Aid-for-Trade projects before joining the IndiSI-project to develop early indicators for social innovation. His research interests lie in sustainable economic development processes, network and discourse analysis via social media, and quantitative methods.

Contributors  xxiii

Tjörnbo, Ola: Ola Tjörnbo is an Assistant Professor in Leadership at Renaissance College, University of New Brunswick. His main research interest is looking at social transformation using social innovation, complexity and systems theories. He has published numerous papers on the role of leadership, governance, social media and power in complex systems transformation. He is the co-founder of Archipelago Consultants. Turner, Fergus: Fergus Turner is the programme lead for the Systems Justice Innovation portfolio at the Bertha Centre for Social Innovation & Entrepreneurship at the University of Cape Town’s (UCT) Graduate School of Business (GSB) where his work includes convening multi-sector processes for systems change, teaching and training for systems entrepreneurship in emerging economies, and designing innovation labs to catalyse solutions for socio-economic and climate justice issues. He is interested in research and practice in the fields of social innovation, systems change, climate justice and systems entrepreneurship. Velasco, Diana: Diana Velasco is a research fellow at Ingenio (CSIC-UPV). She has led academic and research policies in Colombian universities holding positions as provost and vice-chancellor for research and innovation. In the last years, she has closely collaborated with the Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium (TIPC) being the academic lead of the TIP Conference 2022 and supporting formative evaluation experimental policy engagements in Sweden, South Africa, Catalonia and Colombia. She has been an international advisor in higher education and research strategies in several global programs. von Schomberg, Lucien: Lucien von Schomberg is a Senior Lecturer in Creativity and Innovation at the University of Greenwich. As a scholar in the field of responsible innovation, Lucien leads several research projects and workstreams, and establishes partnerships with organisations across the world. He also plays an active role in a variety of EU-funded projects with a cumulative net worth of £12 million, while driving transformative change through pioneering research and innovative initiatives. His work is published in philosophy journals including Synthese and Philosophy & Technology and further disseminated through a range of book chapters, conference papers, project reports, whitepapers, webinars, blogs,

and podcasts. In addition, he is editorial board member of academic journals Philosophy of Management and NOvation, and guest editor of a special issue at the Journal of Responsible Innovation. von Schomberg, René: René von Schomberg was at the European Commission from 1998 to 2021. He is currently a senior research fellow at RWTH university of Aachen and also a guest professor at the Technical University of Darmstadt. He is the first editor of the most comprehensive book on responsible innovation to date: The International Handbook on Responsible Innovation: A Global Resource (Edward Elgar, 2019). He runs a blog with open access publications: https://​renevonschomberg​.wordpress​.com. Wascher, Eva: Eva Wascher is a researcher at TU Dortmund University, Social Research Centre. She has work experience in social entrepreneurship, sustainable finance and social innovation related projects. Her PhD project focuses on the social innovation labs approach as an instrument of collaborative governance. She studied Business Administration, Economics and Philosophy at Berlin School of Economics and Law, Dublin Institute of Technology and Ruhr-University Bochum and holds an interdisciplinary MA in ‘Ethics-Economics, Law and Politics (EELP)’. Weber, Matthias: Dr. Matthias Weber is Head of Center for Innovation Systems & Policy at AIT Austrian Institute of Technology and Invited Professor at Université Gustave Eiffel, Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Science, Innovation, Societé. Trained in process engineering, political sciences and economics, he has been working for more than twenty-five years on the transformation of socio-technical systems, the analysis of novel practices of innovation, and the use of foresight in support of governing research and innovation policy. Weber, Olaf: Olaf Weber is Professor at the School of Environment, Enterprise and Development at the University of Waterloo, Canada, and holds a University of Waterloo Research Chair in Sustainable Finance. His research addresses the connection between financial sector players, such as banks and sustainable development and the link between sustainability and financial performance of enterprises. His research addresses the impacts of the financial industry on sustainable development, the role of voluntary and regulatory mechanisms for the

xxiv  Encyclopedia of social innovation

financial sector to become more sustainable, social banking and impact investing. Weber, Sabine: Sabine Weber is a professor of sustainable fashion at the School of Fashion, Senaca College, Toronto. She worked for nearly twenty years as a product manager/head of design in the fashion industry and as an international buyer/team leader in retail for different brands. She has a Master’s and a PhD in Environmental Resources Sustainability from the University of Waterloo. Her research field is social innovation in the fashion industry’s transition towards sustainability. Wittmayer, Julia M.: Julia M. Wittmayer holds the position of Assistant Professor with the Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences (ESSB) and works as senior researcher at DRIFT. Her work focuses on social innovations in, and governance of, processes of transformative change in urban areas, and in the context of energy system change. To support knowledge development and transformative action addressing societal challenges, she develops and implements collaborative research formats. Julia engages in policy advice for local and national government bodies across Europe, and lectures to diverse audiences. Wloka, Laura-Fee: Laura Wloka is a researcher at the Institute for Work and Technology at the Westphalian University Gelsenkirchen. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in social science and Middle Eastern science from Ruhr-University Bochum and

a Master’s degree in economic development from University College London. Her research interests are development economics (with a focus on climate change finance) and sustainable economic development (with a focus on social innovation). Ziegler, Rafael: Rafael Ziegler is a professor at HEC Montréal and director of the Institut international des coopératives Alphonse-e t-Dorimène-Desjardins. Rafael has published the books Creating Economic Space for Social Innovation (2019, with A. Nicholls) and Innovation, Ethics and Our Common Futures (2020). When he was a schoolchild, the Chernobyl nuclear accident happened. A group of parents responded creatively founding an energy cooperative that took over the local grid, and in doing so contributed to the German energy transition. Inspired by such innovators, Rafael is interested in ideas contributing to transformations towards sustainability. Zirngiebl, Marthe: Marthe Zirngiebl is a researcher and PhD candidate at the social research centre (SFS) at TU Dortmund University. She has been working in national and international research projects focusing on social innovation. She is co-editor of the publication series Atlas of Social Innovation and coordinated the many entries to the of the Encyclopedia of Social Innovation (published in 2023). Her research focus is on social innovation, processes of transformative change, and sustainable consumption using the lenses of practice.

Introduction to the Encyclopedia of Social Innovation

Jürgen Howaldt and Christoph Kaletka A new understanding of innovation

In view of major societal challenges as well as accelerated change dynamics in the economy, society and culture, there is a growing awareness of the limited problem-solving capacity of economic-technological innovations and established control and problem-solving routines (Rammert 2016). Consequently, the contours of a new, more comprehensive understanding of innovation have become apparent (Howaldt and Schwarz 2010; Moulaert et al. 2013). The conviction is gaining ground that social innovations – in addition to technological innovations – are of decisive importance in tackling these challenges. At the heart of the old industrial society’s understanding of innovation, technological innovations in the sense of product and process innovations were long considered the most important drivers of social development. However, an increasing number of researchers, practitioners and policymakers argues that social innovations in the sense of creative and purposeful changes in social practices are of crucial importance for overcoming these challenges (Howaldt and Schwarz 2010; Franz et al. 2012; Ayob et al. 2016). Recent years have seen this new form of innovation emerging, both as an object of research and development: social innovations appear in a variety of forms and influence our lives widely (Mulgan 2019). Already today, there are numerous approaches and successful initiatives on an international scale that demonstrate the strengths and potentials of social innovations in the area of social integration through education and poverty reduction, in the implementation of sustainable consumption patterns or in the management of demographic change (Howaldt et al. 2018, 2019). Even though the concept is currently enjoying a great deal of attention, the discussion goes far back in time. As Benoît Godin pointed out in his manifold publications on

the history of innovation, the terms social innovation and social innovator first started appearing more frequently at the beginning of the nineteenth century – and hence long before the technological and economic appropriation of the term innovation (Godin 2012). Semantically, from the outset, they were closely linked to processes of social transformation as specific forms of ‘human-made and deliberate’ social change (Godin 2015, p. 2). At the beginning of the twentieth century, a new meaning appeared: social innovation as the advent or adoption of a new behaviour or a new practice. With the social world composed of such practices, which are individual, yet interdependent, they encompass all areas of society, such as gender relations, formal and informal education, management, governance as well as everyday life, established habits and cultural customs (Godin 2012). In this context, the question of the relationship between social and technological innovations is also being intensively discussed (Ogburn 1964 [1950]; Brooks 1982). Due to expanding and entirely new social demands, reinforced by the challenges of globalization, population growth, increasing inequality, social conflicts and – not least – climate change, the need for impactful social measures of all types rockets high. Accordingly, social innovation has become a ubiquitous concept, with countless approaches and successful initiatives that illustrate its strengths and potential, and at the same time its diversity and fast moving empirical reality (Howaldt et al. 2018, 2019).

Emergence of a research field

Despite the long history of the term, it is only in recent years that scientific study of the topic has intensified. The theoretical basis for a systematic study of social innovation can be traced back to the beginnings of sociology and innovation research, but neither in the work of Georg Simmel, Max Weber and Gabriel Tarde, nor in the publications of Joseph A. Schumpeter can we find a concept that has been elaborated in this perspective. William F. Ogburn is often cited as the first sociologist who explicitly addresses the importance of social innovations, as part of his theory of social change. He sees inventions and/or innovations – understood as ‘a combination of existing and known elements of culture, material and/or non-material, or a modifi-

xxv

xxvi  Encyclopedia of social innovation

cation of one to form a new one’ (Ogburn 1964 [1950], p. 23) as being the most important cause of change (Howaldt and Schwarz 2021). Since the 1980s, the term social innovation has been increasingly used in a number of research fields (Moulaert et al. 2005; Domanski and Kaletka 2017). But, for a long time, the conceptual discussion around the term – if conducted at all – remained largely confined to the respective research communities in these specific fields (Pue et al. 2016). In each of these fields, specific emphases are found, questions and, aligned with these, different definitions and understandings of social innovation (Choi and Majumdar 2015; Rüede and Lurtz 2012). Parallel to this differentiation, and stimulated by the strong increase in political and public interest in social innovation, an independent field of research with a clearly defined object of investigation and associated interest in knowledge has developed in the international discourse in recent years (Murray et al. 2010; Franz et al. 2012; Moulaert et al. 2013; Cajaiba-Santana 2014; Nicholls et al. 2015; Klein et al. 2016; Howaldt et al. 2021). In view of the increasingly obvious complexity of the problem situations and the associated approaches to solutions in the individual research fields, the relationship between social innovation and social transformation processes has become the focus of interest (Klein et al. 2016; Moulaert et al. 2017; Westley et al. 2017; Ziegler 2019; Pel et al. 2020; Avelino et al. 2017). The increasing importance of the concept and a largely neglected theoretical and conceptual discussion led to intensified social innovation research. A wide range of activities has been developed to stimulate an interdisciplinary discourse working on its conceptual clarity and theoretical foundations within the last decade (Howaldt et al. 2021). After a long period of almost non-existent or largely neglected conceptual and theoretical debate, contours of an autonomous research field (Howaldt et al. 2021) are becoming visible, based on a common research object, a shared knowledge base and a working communication structure. In a collective effort, social innovation research has further established itself as an autonomous research field with an emerging community of researchers (Domanski and Kaletka 2017).

The Encyclopedia of Social Innovation: structure and rationale

This Encyclopedia addresses the demand for a better understanding of social innovation in the innovation research community as well as across different research fields, which are building conceptual bridges to social innovation. The increasingly sophisticated scientific debate and the formation of a distinct field of research provide the basis for this Encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a compendium providing summaries of knowledge, either general or special to a particular scientific field or discipline. On the one hand, such a scientific field is characterized by a common research focus – in this case, a theoretically sound and empirically based understanding of social innovation. On the other hand, such a field is supported by a common knowledge base that, according to Fagerberg and Verspagen (2009), serves to differentiate the emerging field from other areas of science. The common knowledge base includes both a certain degree of consensus as well as lively discussion and debate with regard to concepts and approaches (ibid.).1 The multidisciplinary nature of social innovation research offers potential for further development of the research field and opens up a variety of perspectives on the subject. In that spirit, social innovation research does not only yield many points of contact to innovation studies and the debates on a re-orientation of innovation policy, but the field also owes important impulses to the debates on sustainable development and related socio-ecological transformation processes (Schot and Steimüller 2018; Avelino et al. 2017). At the same time, the research field is embedded in diverse discourse contexts and scientific debates, and influences the discussion in adjacent research fields. Due to its global character, different socio-cultural aspects and scientific traditions are incorporated into its development (Pozzebon et al. 2021). For the development of an encyclopedia, this requires a special sensitivity for the diversity of the debate, the different approaches and cultural backgrounds. In light of the increasing number of research papers, interdisciplinary research efforts and transdisciplinary projects conducted in recent years, a considerable body of knowledge on social innovation has been generated, which addresses its complexity and evolution as well as the importance of partnerships between stakeholders from different societal sectors to set up social inno-

Introduction  xxvii

vations as well as the necessity of linking policies to successfully contribute to social change (do Adro and Fernandes 2020). This Encyclopedia provides an overview of past and current social innovation research. It covers different fields of research and the diversity of research perspectives and disciplinary approaches. It focusses on theoretical, empirical and practical aspects of the topic, which have shaped the current understanding of social innovation, but which also signpost directions ahead. Our goal for this book is to show the range and depth of advances that characterize the field and at the same time move the field forward by including new topics for social innovation research. Towards this end, we invited experts around the world working in and beyond social innovation to contribute to this book. By bringing them together, the book opens up insights into the state of the art as well as current trends of social innovation research and its connection to other schools of thought and research traditions. As diverse as the world of social innovation is, the conceptual underpinnings draw upon the experiences of a variety of disciplines contributing to the rich, multi-layered nature of the concept. With its 77 entries, the Encyclopedia addresses a wide variety of thematic fields of significant importance for social innovation research and practice and provides exciting insights in important topics of an emerging research field. Instead of drawing a defining line under single concepts and approaches, the entries aim to show the various connecting and separating points to social innovation, spark discussions, and leave room for reflection. With this broad approach, the volume seeks to provide a pluralistic knowledge base in social innovation research and the scientific research and thematic fields associated with it. The contributions are organized in nine parts, which attempt to cluster the entries in a thematic way. As such, clusters are subjective formations of thematically interrelated contributions, which some readers might have sorted differently. The following presents an overview of the rationale underlying the thematic parts. Part I Theoretical Foundations comprises entries aiming to show social innovation’s diverse roots in distinct social theories, such as practice theories, system and institutional theories or theories of change and potential bridges to adjacent approaches such as the Multi-Level-Perspective or Technology

Assessment. Part II Concepts & Types presents entries on distinct types of innovation and their links, overlaps and contradictions to social innovation research. The entries of Part III Social Innovation Processes describe the various routes social innovations can take and the obstacles they face when being scaled up and diffused into society. It further sheds light on the role of society as an important driver of social innovation and processes of co-creation and democratization. Part IV Ecosystems, Actors & Governance contains contributions with systemic perspectives on the governance and framework conditions of social innovation, its various potential players, social movements as well as infrastructures such as social innovation labs. The entries of Part V Social Innovation in Established Research Areas shed light on how social innovation has contributed to other fields of research. The areas the entries cover range from regional studies over poverty and marginality to health and ageing societies. Part VI Business & Economy clusters entries discussing social innovation and its role in and influence on business and economy. The articles address a broad spectrum of the economy, from the social economy over corporate business to alternative economies and take a closer look at central players. Part VII Science & Research with its entries reflects on the role of social sciences and universities in social innovation in general and the potential of transformative research and citizen science in particular. The entries of Part VIII Innovation Policy provide an overview of the development of innovation policy and the increasing importance of social innovation, discuss the role of the state and public policy for social innovation, and present alternative frameworks. Ultimately, the contributions of Part IX Resources & Measurement sketch ideas how the impact of social innovation can be monitored and presented and further present specific instruments, which help in funding social innovation. Some readers may have expected additional or different entries. We are aware that such a compendium cannot address all potential theories, themes and aspects in an exhaustive manner. Nevertheless, we believe that this Encyclopedia, by combining an array of different thematic angles, disciplinary perspectives and socio-cultural backgrounds, provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of social innovation research. To facilitate the overview and allow room for accentuation, the entries follow

xxviii  Encyclopedia of social innovation

a similar but not uniform structure starting with a general overview of the topic describing its significance and (potential) references or frictions to social innovation research. This is either followed by a more specific presentation of the state of the art of the scientific debate in the respective topic area or a detailed description of the topic’s joint efforts in social innovation research. Each entry concludes with a critical reflection and outlook.

Final remarks and acknowledgements

This Encyclopedia is the result of a collective effort involving many different stakeholders. Our thanks and sincere appreciation go to all authors for their own contributions, critical reviews of their colleagues’ work and valuable suggestions of topics and experts we may have otherwise missed. This large group of experts from all over the world has been so generous with their time and creativity, and we do not take all these efforts for granted. We hope that this book is not the one and only result of their work, but a starting point for future collaborations, joint research projects, and a critical yet cohesive scientific community in social innovation and its adjacent fields. For sure, with so many authors and topics needed to collectively create a fully-fledged encyclopedia, it is of critical importance to have an editorial office that is always on top of the whole production process and whose members are dedicated to compile the best encyclopedia possible. Therefore, we would specifically like to thank Marthe Zirngiebl for managing all activities of the editorial office team with dedication and authority. Together with Marthe, Daniel Krüger and Karina Maldonado-Mariscal have facilitated the development of this Encyclopedia with their thematic expertise every day over the last 24 months. Without the commitment of this excellent team to review all contributions so critically and thoroughly, to keep communications going with all experts involved and to collectively meet all deadlines, we would not have this book in our hands now. We would also like to thank Alexandra Menzel, Julius Wiegand and Sophie Zastrow who dedicated a lot of time and effort to make sure every entry met the formal requirements and every in-text reference was cited correctly in the bibliography. We are also very grateful

to Daniel Mather at Edward Elgar Publishing for suggesting this project to us and his assistance throughout the whole development process. We would also like to acknowledge the support and valuable input we received from members of the European School of Social Innovation (ESSI) and The European Forum for Studies of Policies for Research and Innovation (Eu-SPRI). The collection of knowledge in the context of this Encyclopedia is not just a scientific endeavour. As the concept of social innovation is closely linked to the Enlightenment and the idea that change is not made by God, nature or chance but by humans (Godin 2015); in this sense, the systematic collection of knowledge and the construction of an encyclopedia is always connected to the shaping of our common future. In this respect, we agree with the words of Richard Rorty: Intellectual and moral progress is not a matter of getting closer to an antecedent goal, but of surpassing the past. (…) On the pragmatist view I am putting forward, what we call “increased knowledge” should not be thought of as increased access to the Real, but as increased ability to do things – to take part in social practices that make possible richer and fuller human lives. (Rorty 2007, p. 108)

We hope that this book represents a knowledge base not only for academia, but also for practitioners, policymakers, and other groups involved in the search for new social practices for a better future.

Note 1.

The resulting discussion is conducted within the framework of a specific scientific communication system which includes conferences and journals, common standards and a reward system (Howaldt et al. 2021).

References

Avelino, F., J. M. Wittmayer, R. Kemp and A. Haxeltine (2017), ‘Game-changers and transformative social innovation’, Ecology and Society, 22 (4), Art. 41, accessed 14 September 2021 at https://​www​.ecologyandsociety​.org/​ vol22/​iss4/​art41/​. Ayob, N., S. Teasdale and K. Fagan (2016), ‘How social innovation “came to be”: Tracing the evolution of a contested concept’, Journal of Social Policy, 45 (4), pp. 635–53. Brooks, H. (1982), ‘Social and technological innovation’, in S. B. Lundstedt and E. W. Colglazier

Introduction  xxix (eds), Managing innovation, Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press, pp. 9–10. Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014), ‘Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework’, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 82 (C), pp. 42–51. Choi, N. and S. Majumdar (2015), ‘Social innovation: Towards a conceptualisation’, in S. Majumdar, S. Guha and N. Marakkath (eds), Technology and innovation for social change, New Delhi: Springer, pp. 7–34. do Adro, F. and C. I. Fernandes (2020), ‘Social innovation: A systematic literature review and future agenda research’, International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 17, pp. 23–40. Domanski, D. and C. Kaletka (eds) (2017), Exploring the research landscape of social innovation: A deliverable of the project Social Innovation Community (SIC), Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle. Fagerberg, J. and B. Verspagen (2009), ‘Innovation studies: The emerging structure of a new scientific field’, Research Policy, 38, pp. 218–33. Franz, H.-W., J. Hochgerner and J. Howaldt (2012), Challenge social innovation: Potentials for business, social entrepreneurship, welfare and civil society, Berlin, New York: Springer. Godin, B. (2012), ‘Social innovation: Utopias of innovation from c.1830 to the present. Project on the intellectual history of innovation’, Working Paper No. 11, Montreal, Quebec. Godin, B. (2015), Innovation contested: The idea of innovation over centuries, New York: Routledge. Howaldt, J., C. Kaletka and A. Schröder (eds) (2021), A research agenda for social innovation, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Howaldt, J., C. Kaletka, A. Schröder and M. Zirngiebl (eds) (2018), Atlas of social innovation: New practices for a better future. Sozialforschungsstelle, Dortmund: TU Dortmund University. Howaldt, J. and M. Schwarz (2010), ‘Social innovation: Concepts, research fields and international trends’, Studies for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment, Volume 5, Aachen, accessed 18 December 2022 at https://​ www​.web​.sfs​.tu​-dortmund​.de/​odb/​Repository/​ Publication/​Doc/​1289/​IMO​_Trendstudie​ _Howaldt​_Schwarz​_englische​_Version​.pdf. Howaldt, J., C. Kaletka, A. Schröder and M. Zirngiebl (eds) (2019), Atlas of social innovation : Vol. 2, A world of new practices, München: oekom. Howaldt, J. and M. Schwarz (2021), ‘Social innovation and social change’, in J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka and A. Schröder (eds), A research agenda for social innovation, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 39–57. Klein, J.-L., C. Jetté, A. Camus, C. Champagne and M. Roy (2016), La transformation sociale

par l’innovation sociale, Quebec: Presses de l’Universite du Quebec. Moulaert, F., D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood and A. Hamdouch (2013), ‘General introduction: The return of social innovation as a scientific concept and a social practice’, in F. Moulaert, D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood and A. Hamdouch (eds), The International handbook on social innovation: Collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 1–6. Moulaert, F., F. Martinelli, E. Swyngedouw and S. Gonzalez (2005), ‘Towards alternative model(s) of local innovation’, Urban Studies, 42 (11), pp. 1969–90. Moulaert, F., A. Mehmood, D. MacCallum and B. Leubolt (2017), Social innovation as a trigger for transformations: The role of research, Brussels: European Commission. Mulgan, G. (2019), Social innovation: How societies find the power to change, Bristol: Policy Press. Murray, R., J. Caulier-Grice and G. Mulgan (2010), The open book of social innovation, social innovator series: Ways to design, develop and grow social innovation, London: The Young Foundation, accessed 13 September 2021 at https://​youngfoundation​.org/​wp​-content/​ uploads/​2012/​10/​The​-Open​-Book​-of​-Social​ -Innovationg​.pdf. Nicholls, A., J. Simon and M. Gabriel (2015), New frontiers in social innovation research, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Ogburn, W. F., 1964 [1950], ‘Social evolution reconsidered’, in W. F. Ogburn, On culture and social change: Selected papers, ed. Otis Dudley Duncan, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 17–32. Pel, B., A. Haxeltine, F. Avelino, A. Dumitru, R. Kemp, T. Bauler et al. (2020), ‘Towards a theory of transformative social innovation: A relational framework and 12 propositions’, Research Policy, 49 (8), 104080. Pozzebon, M., S. Tello-Rozas and I. Heck (2021), ‘Nourishing the social innovation debate with the “social technology” South American research tradition’, Voluntas, 32, pp. 663–77. Pue, K., C. Vandergeest and D. Breznitz (2016), ‘Toward a theory of social innovation’, Innovation policy lab white paper, 1, Munk School of Global Affairs, Toronto: University of Toronto. Rammert, W. (2016), ‘Die Ausweitung der Innovationszone’, in W. Rammert, A. Windeler, H. Knoblauch and M. Hutter (eds), Innovationsgesellschaft heute. Perspektiven, Felder und Fälle, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 3–14. Rorty, R. (2007), Philosophy as cultural politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rüede, D. and K. Lurtz (2012), ‘Mapping the various meanings of social innovation: Towards a differentiated understanding of an emerging concept’, EBS Business School Research Paper,

xxx  Encyclopedia of social innovation No 12–03, accessed 17 March 2021 at https://​ UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward papers​.ssrn​.com/​sol3/​papers​.cfm​?abstract​_id​=​ Elgar Publishing. 2091039. Ziegler, R. (2019), ‘The times of social innoSchot, J. and W. E. Steinmueller (2018), ‘Three vation: Fictional expectation, precautionary frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems expectation and social imaginary’, in A. de of innovation and transformative change’, Bruin and S. Teasdale (eds), A research agenda Research Policy, 47 (9), pp. 1554–67. for social entrepreneurship, Cheltenham, UK Westley, F., K. McGowan and O. Tjörnbo (2017), and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar The evolution of social innovation, Cheltenham, Publishing, pp. 164–76.

PART I THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS

1.

Ambivalence and side-effects of social innovations

stakeholders and citizens is seen as an essential prerequisite for overcoming side-effects. In the current Open Innovation Agenda of the European Commission, the participation of citizens in innovation processes is seen as a key driver for the same (EC 2018). However, unsurprisingly, these reflective efforts have produced their own ambivalences. The multiplication of knowledge perspectives has not only refined problem perception, but also made it more difficult to fix problem descriptions (think of the still influential climate deniers or formerly Coronavirus debates). With the deepened view into the future, more and more futures became decision-relevant contingencies (with the consequence of growing assessment regimes) (→ FUTURES STUDIES AND SOCIAL INNOVATION). With the increased inclusion, uncertainties of values were strengthened and normative conflicts were brought into knowledge production (with the consequence of a politicization and medialization of knowledge). At the same time, this development has brought the importance of social innovations into the limelight in many ways. For a long time, social innovations were a side show in innovation research. In the meantime, this form of innovation has come into focus not only as a complement to technical innovations, but also in its own right (Howaldt et al. 2021). Even more so, the special interconnections and mutual constraints of technological and social innovations are spotlighted in the context of transformative processes. This opens up a fresh view on ambivalences and side-effects of (social) innovations. This is important, as social innovations have been often regarded as a good form of innovation as such.

Introduction

Innovation is a key topic of present-day societies. The tremendous importance of innovation is often highly focused on. Disruptive innovations or leap innovations are terms of a very heated discourse. Even more: innovation can be understood as a dispositive of contemporary society. We live in innovation societies (Rammert 2021). However, innovation can be seen as a dispositive and the logical culmination of a discourse of progress that has spread in modern societies since the early modern period. Incidentally, the ambivalence of this development was seen very early in modern societies (since the sixteenth century), namely that innovatio could under certain circumstances turn into mutatio (Schulze 2014). Schumpeter put it in a nutshell with his formula of creative destruction. Innovations open up new opportunities for development and at the same time bear the danger that side-effects not only counteract these new opportunities, but more strikingly even undermine potentially the basis for future opportunities. Against this background, ambivalences as well as side-effects can be seen as an integral part of socio-technical innovation since the early days of modern societies. At the same time, it can be noted that unwanted side-effects have been given more and more attention, especially since the 1960s (the time Technology Assessment as reflexive practice was established). These shifts can be traced in the social-theoretical dimensions of factual, temporal and social. Factually, the political system is expected to be relieved of problem identification and solution. To this end, the diversity of relevant knowledges was expanded in order to be able to develop more differentiated perspectives of problem identification and solving. In terms of time, the expansions are particularly evident in the emergence of a social discourse around the so-called Precautionary Principle. According to this principle, possible future side-effects that have not yet been recognized should be addressed in advance. Finally, in social terms, the inclusion of heterogeneous

Key findings

Against this background, an overview of the research field is presented in three sections. First, the position of social innovation in relation to technological innovation is addressed and it is argued that social innovations, their forms and relations, can be understood as a seismograph for understanding socio-technical change (1). Second, this can be specified by looking at ambivalences and side-effects of socio-technical change mirrored by social innovation processes (2). Third, these insights highlight the question of 2

Ambivalence and side-effects of social innovations  3

how innovation theory should be conceptualized to address such changes (3). Social innovation – it’s related Contemporary societies are shaped as innovation societies (EC 2018) and can be characterized accordingly (Rammert 2021). Fundamentally, such societies are permeated by a logic of comparison, which plays a central role in distinguishing the new from the old, the better from the worse. Discursive differences are established, be it symbolically, practically or normatively. Industrialized knowledge societies are in a global competition and continuously try to improve the framework conditions for the production of innovations. In the meantime, social innovations are seen as an integral part of societal innovation processes (EC 2018). Here, however, there is both a top-down and bottom-up perspective. For example, the Bureau of European Policy Advisors (BEPA) states: ‘at a time of major budgetary constraints, social innovation is an effective way of responding to social challenges, by mobilising people’s creativity to develop solutions and make better use of scarce resources’ (BEPA 2010, p. 7). This top-down perspective instrumentalizes social innovation to cushion the shift of functions from the public sector. At the same time, the prevailing master narrative of the socio-technical imagination of progress through growth remains unchallenged. Social innovations are in this view only another means to support the prevailing neo-liberal economic and innovation policy. Contrary to this idea, however, there are initiatives of social innovation that seek ways out of prevailing structures or even position themselves in opposition to them (cf. Howaldt et al. 2021). They gain significance by designing alternative social developments. In doing so, social innovation initiatives not only show new ways of thinking and acting, but at the same time link this with new forms of social practice, which are designed narratively and then lived in accordingly (cf. Wittmayer et al. 2019). In this way, alternative ‘socio-technical imaginaries’ (Jasanoff 2015) are created. However, the newly discovered relevance of linking technological and social innovations is accompanied by interpretive struggles in various dimensions (→ SOCIAL

INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION). Firstly, the figuration of understandings of innovation comes into view anew (e.g. with the quest of how technological and social innovations should be linked). Secondly, the question arises as to what role social innovations are assigned – and what would be appropriate. What forms and intrinsic values are assigned to social innovations? Thirdly, questions about an appropriate analysis of innovations are coming into view anew in order to grasp the changes in socio-technical change that have been indicated. In sum, the thematization of social innovations, their practices and relations in the field of socio-technical change can also be used as a seismograph to illuminate the specific preconditions, ambivalences and side-effects of socio-technical change through innovation. Socio-technical change: innovation and side-effects – innovation as side-effect Capturing socio-technical change as a multifaceted networked process is very challenging. The interplay of technological and social innovations also takes very different forms. Rarely does this take place in a synchronized manner, but rather in a dynamic of nested side-effects. This can be illustrated with the help of very different processes, which will be presented below as examples and sorted according to the three social-theoretical dimensions of factual, temporal and social. It becomes apparent that each of these only marks a starting point to reveal the further interplay. With regard to the material dimension, infrastructures and their materiality form a central topos. The materialization of social practices creates a space of enabling and self-binding. In many cases, change towards more sustainability fails due to the fact that demands have been created and infrastructures developed accordingly, so that material flows and social practices in which they are required are mutually stabilizing (Hui et al. 2017). Some such demands took their starting point in changing lifestyles as social innovations, others more in a new technological possibility (as in the case of electricity). These networks of power evolve ‘posing a linked series of sociotechnical problems’, as Edwards (2004, p. 209) put it to describe their co-evolutionary development, which Stefan Böschen

4  Encyclopedia of social innovation

has to align not only physical and technical, but also organizational, legislative and societal factors. Socio-technical innovations thus take place as an interweaving of different practices. This is currently impressively demonstrated in maker spaces as forms of participatory knowledge production (Dickel et al. 2019). Starting from the time dimension, we can point to new forms of future development and appropriation that are being tested in the context of transformative processes. Such knowledge technologies (e.g. scenarios) can at the same time be understood as social innovation, because in this way decision-making problems of the present can be framed in a new way and thus made capable of decision-making (Grunwald 2018). However, the opening of such scope also brings with it the side-effect of being able to shift decision-making burdens of the present into the future. Starting from the social dimension, the focus is directed, for example, to the application of new inclusion strategies in technology development. These sometimes produce social innovations as a side effect, such as citizens being constructed as users and thus being integrated into technology development processes in a narrowly functionalized frame (Hyysalo et al. 2016). Another meaningful case is the model transfer of successful models of social coordination into other cultural-institutional contexts. The MIT model (the specific organizational features allowing MIT to be the best technical university worldwide) works in Cambridge, but not necessarily in other locations around the world, because the respective framework conditions are different (Pfotenhauer and Jasanoff 2017). In any case, these brief sketches show that the state of development to date always also determines the conditions for future development opportunities. However, these do not have to be visible from the outset, but often only become apparent when transformative processes are occurring. This is the case when social innovations are mobilized for transformative change (e.g. Wittmayer et al. 2019). Moreover, social innovations are continuously taking place in order to attenuate social imbalances while technological innovations are emerging and diffusing. These sets of social innovations limit then future change as established social structures and Stefan Böschen

have, sometimes, to be broken up in more or less conflict-ridden processes for allowing transitions to take place. Analytical framework: relations, references and synchronization Such developments take on a new dimension when the political aim is to promote social innovations. In the USA and Australia, for example, the White House Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation and the Australian Centre for Social Innovation were founded in 2009. The report on the state of social innovation in the EU published by the Bureau of European Policy Advisers (BEPA 2010) also dates from this time. Such policy initiatives to promote social innovations as instruments of social change are themselves social innovations. What is decisive here is that they can be understood as an expression of an increasingly reflexive (i.e. observing and shaping) approach to the topic of social innovations at the level of national and international politics. Here, scientific as well as political strategies are being established in order to more precisely grasp the ambivalences and side-effects of social innovations as they gain in importance. However, a special feature of social innovations comes into play that makes it more difficult to capture the side-effects more precisely. This is their rhizome-like structure-forming quality. Accordingly, possible side-effects must be identified in relation to a multitude of reference dimensions. It can help to develop an analytical framework that allows such tensions to be identified. Two aspects in particular appear to be important here: the interconnected relations of social fields of innovation and the network of human–thing relations. In the view of a relational innovation theory (Rammert 2010), innovations are understood as a configuration of relations and references. Particularly revealing in terms of innovation theory is the fact that innovation processes in a selected social field are often interlinked with those in other fields, if not dependent on them. Fundamental technical innovations often require accompanying innovations in politics (e.g. new regulations) or in the field of civil society (different usage practices). If synchronization problems are to be expected in relation to other fields, this will lead to social innovations. Such inno-

Ambivalence and side-effects of social innovations  5

vation processes do not always have to be carried out explicitly and visibly in public (as in the case of legislative processes), but often take place underground, as it were. At the same time, however, it is necessary to focus more precisely on the human– thing relations. Actor–network theory has thought this methodologically symmetrical. In this way, sometimes surprising relations and moments of enabling between actants emerge (Latour 2005), but also new demands on collective action (Callon et al. 2001). The theory of distributed agency operates in a more socio-technically differentiated way. According to this theory, not only do people (individuals or organizations) act in complex, dynamic socio-technical constellations, but technology also acts actively in these networks of relationships between people and machines (Rammert 2021). A heuristically helpful answer to the question of concrete investigability is provided by Mol’s (1999) ‘ontological politics’. Admittedly, this is not a conventional politics, but a politics of multiple enactment. For Mol, the quantity and diversity of the practices actually carried out – and thus of the practices established in a society – is a political question. She assumes that there are many but by no means arbitrary enactments of a specific phenomenon – such as the provision of energy. Accordingly, it is significant which of the possible enactments are actually chosen. In the meantime, therefore, the problem of consequences and side-effects of social innovations is being looked at more clearly. This is not only being done analytically. The first steps are the development of indicators for measuring the consequences and side-effects of social innovations (Streicher et al. 2020; Terstriep et al. 2022) or the reflection on problematic setting of boundaries of socio-technical transformation, such as the fact that citizens are not considered part of the system in energy transition models, but rather as outsiders, so that acceptance problems are actually problems of insufficiently drawn boundaries of the system (Grunwald 2019). These questions of relational linkages are not only relevant for analyses of innovation ecosystems (e.g. Adner 2017). Rather, they are also reflected in a new, constructive debate between representatives of technology assessment and social innovation scholars (Böschen et al. 2022).

Reflection and outlook

Taking these brief considerations together, it becomes apparent that the special quality of social innovations, on the one hand, and their interwoven nature in socio-technical ensembles, on the other, contributes to addressing questions about the side-effects and ambivalences. There are initial approaches to this, but at the same time it becomes clear that a conceptual framework is needed to make ambivalences and side-effects of social innovations investigable. In order to be able to work out the special quality of the side-effects of social innovations, a combination of considerations on innovation practice in innovation ecosystems, a theory of relational innovation as well as the recording of consequences of innovations through specific indicators seems to represent a fruitful reflection setting of ambivalences and side-effects of social innovations. Stefan Böschen

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Adner, R. (2017), ‘Ecosystem as structure: An actionable construct for strategy’, Journal of Management, 43 (1), pp. 39–58. BEPA (2010), Empowering people, driving change: Social innovation in the European Union. Bureau of European policy advisors, European Commission, accessed 22 June 2022 at https://​op​.europa​.eu/​o/​opportal​-service/​ download​-handler​?identifier​=​4e23d6b8–5c0c​ -4d38​-bd9d​-3a202e6f1e81​&​format​=​pdf​&​ language​=​en​&​productionSystem​=​cellar​&​part​=​ ; https://​doi​.org/​10​.2796/​13155. Böschen, S., C. Kaletka, P. Letmathe and B. Pelka (2022), ‘Konturen einer Folgenabschätzung sozialer Innovation’, in M. Hüttemann and A. Parpan-Blaser (eds), Innovationen in der sozialen Arbeit, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer Verlag. Callon, M., P. Lascoumes and Y. Barthe (2001), Acting in an uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Dickel, S., Chr. Schneider, C. Thiem and K.-A. Wenten (2019), ‘Engineering publics: The different modes of civic technoscience’, Science & Technology Studies, 32 (2), pp. 8–23. EC (2018), Europe 2020 strategy website. Retrieved 2 March 2018 from https://​ec​.europa​ .eu/​info/​business​-economy​-euro/​economic​ -and​-fiscal​-policy​-coordination/​eu​-economic​ -governance​-monitoring​-prevention​-correction/​

Stefan Böschen

6  Encyclopedia of social innovation european​-semester/​framework/​europe​-2020​ -strategy​_en​#relatedlinks. Edwards, P. N. (2004), ‘Infrastructure and modernity: Force, time and social organization in the history of sociotechnical systems’, in Th. Misa et al. (eds), Modernity and technology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 185–226. Grunwald, A. (2018), Technology assessment in practice and theory, London: Routledge. Grunwald, A. (2019), ‘Das Akzeptanzproblem als Folge nicht adäquater Systemgrenzen in der technischen Entwicklung und Planung’, in C. Fraune et al. (eds), Akzeptanz und politische Partizipation in der Energietransformation, Wiesbaden: Springer, pp. 29–43. Howaldt, C., C. Kaletka and A. Schröder (eds) (2021), A research agenda for social innovation, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Hui, A., T. Schatzki and E. Shove (eds) (2017), The nexus of practices: Connections, constellations, practitioners, London: Routledge. Hyysalo, S., T. E. Jensen and N. Oudshoorn (eds) (2016), The new production of users: Changing innovation collectives and involvement strategies, London: Routledge. Jasanoff, S. (2015), ‘Future imperfect: Science, technology, and the imagination of modernity’, in Sh. Jasanoff and S.-H. Kim (eds), Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power, Chicago, IL/London: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 1–33. Latour, B. (2005), Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mol, A. (1999), ‘Ontological politics: A word and some questions’, in J. Law and J. Hassard (eds), Actor network theory and after, Oxford/

Stefan Böschen

Keele: Blackwell and the Sociological Review, pp. 74–89. Pfotenhauer, A. and S. Jasanoff (2017), ‘Panacea or diagnosis? Imaginaries of innovation and the ‘MIT model’ in three political cultures’, in Social Studies of Science, 47 (6), pp. 783–810. Rammert, W. (2010), ‘Die Innovationen der Gesellschaft’, in J. Howaldt and H. Jacobsen (eds), Soziale innovationen, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 21–51. Rammert, W. (2021), ‘Technology and innovation’, in B. Hollstein, R. Greshoff, U. Schimank and A. Weiß (eds), Soziologie: Sociology in the German-speaking world, Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 515–34. Schulze, W. (2014), ‘“Mutatio” und “Innovatio”. Zugänge zur Wahrnehmung von Veränderung in der Frühen Neuzeit’, in U. Beck and M. Mulsow (eds), Vergangenheit und Zukunft der Moderne, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 47–81. Streicher, J., L. Schön, R. Rosenball, G. Mildenberger and G.-Chr. Schimpf (2020), Studie zur Folgenabschätzung von sozialen Innovationen. Studie im Auftrag des BMBF. Wien/Heidelberg: CSI/Joanneum. Terstriep, J., G. Krlev, G. Mildenberger, S. Strambach, J.-F. Thurmann and L. Wloka (2022), ‘Measuring social innovation’, in J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka and A. Schröder (eds), A research agenda for social innovation, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 263–86. Wittmayer, J. M., J. Backhaus, F. Avelino, B. Pel, T. Strasser, I. Kunze and L. Zuijderwijk (2019), ‘Narratives of change: How social innovation initiatives construct societal transformation’, Futures, 112, 102433.

2. Imagined futures and social innovation

produce – highly uncertain situations and future trajectories. Fundamental uncertainty makes the question of how actors arrive at shared notions of the future a pressing concern for innovation analysis. After laying out the basic theoretical architecture of the perspective, this entry presents avenues to connect it to the analysis of social innovation. Recent conceptions of the social constitution of expectations are often developed in contrast to notions of expectations in contemporary economics (Svetlova 2021). With few exceptions, late twentieth-century economics has developed models based on rational expectations, in which individual agents uniformly process known information to form expectations as the bases of rational decision-making (Sheffrin 1996). As influentially argued by Knight (1921), fundamental uncertainty – a situation in which actors cannot form reliable estimates about future states of the world – makes standard notions of rational decision-making impossible. Beckert (2016) has suggested that expectations under conditions of uncertainty have a quasi-fictional quality – as foundations for decision-making actors routinely treat imagined futures as if they were reliable projections. Borrowing from the pragmatist and phenomenological traditions in sociology, the argument is that images of the future hence become subject to ongoing social moulding and coordination (Emirbayer and Mische 1998). Images of the future are disseminated through story-telling and narratives about possible and desirable future pathways (Garud et al. 2014). Modern societies are populated with calculative devices, models, and technologies used to develop and coordinate plausible expectations (Svetlova 2021). Contrary to most of the economic literature, sociological approaches emphasize that images of the future are infused with norms and values (Jasanoff and Kim 2015). In line with older approaches in economics (Kalecki 1943), the imagined futures-perspective stresses that expectations have consequences for the distribution of resources in society. As changing images of the future often imply changing relative fortunes of different social groups, expectations can be highly contested (Brown and Rappert 2000). Beckert (2016) has called this field of contestation the ‘politics of expectations’.

Situating the imagined futures-perspective

The imagined futures-perspective conceptualizes how expectations about the future shape human agency, social interaction, organizations, and society at large (Beckert 2016). Recent work on imagined futures in sociology and neighboring disciplines does not constitute a clearly demarcated approach or school of thought. Rather, it is a loosely connected movement exploring the scholarly potential of re-focusing explanatory toolkits from social structures towards expectations. The perspective’s foundational argument is that expectations about the future are socially constituted. Images of the future emerge in ongoing social interactions, they are moulded by cultural beliefs, social structures, and regimes of knowledge, and they are influenced by social power relations (Emirbayer and Mische 1998; Jasanoff and Kim 2015). The crucial role of expectations in social action has been emphasized by a number of earlier literature and research strands (Beckert and Suckert 2021). Important sources of inspiration for more recent work are arguments about entrepreneurial visions in economic and management theory (e.g. Alvarez and Barney 2005; Garud et al. 2014; Witt 1998), debates about social forecasting and future studies (Andersson 2018), and the sociology of utopias (e.g. Levitas 1979) (→ FUTURES STUDIES AND SOCIAL INNOVATION). The exact relation to these earlier literatures and the original contributions of the recent resurgence of sociological interest in the future has not been fully worked out. Given that it is an ongoing movement of theoretical statements and empirical research, surveys of the imagined futures-perspective’s original contributions may be an issue for future retrospective assessment. Building on a rich and well-developed literature in science and technology studies (Borup et al. 2006), the imagined futures-perspective has been shown to contribute to the understanding of innovation processes (Beckert and Bronk 2018). Innovations as a rule involve – and often 7

8  Encyclopedia of social innovation

Imagined futures and the problem of social innovation

The Imagined futures-perspective contributes to understanding innovative activities in two important respects: first, building on a rich literature in the sociology of science and technology, it helps to analyse how agents mobilize support for deviance from established practices. Second, it contributes to conceptualizing how an open future propels innovative activities. By definition, innovation implies venturing into the uncertain. New institutions, organizations, practices, and technologies as a rule have unproven properties and effects. Besides established factors of actors’ willingness to adopt innovations, actors’ engagement with new practices and objects can hence be understood as being based on socially constituted expectations (van Lente 1993). To pick the example of technological innovation, expectations guide activities, provide structure and legitimation, attract interest and foster investment. They give definition to roles, clarify duties, offer some shared shape of what to expect and how to prepare for opportunities and risks. … [They] drive technical and scientific activity, warranting the production of measurements, calculations, material tests, pilot projects and models. (Borup et al. 2006, pp. 285–6)

A voluminous research literature has demonstrated how the construction of shared visions of technological change is key for technological development, especially in terms of early coalition-building and the mobilization of resources (e.g. Brown and Rappert 2000; Ergen and Umemura 2021). In this vague sense, technological expectations can be said to prefigure technological development (van Lente and Rip 1998). The notions of the narrative constitution of expectations and the mobilizing role of shared expectations can be fruitfully related to the field of social innovation. As documented in the empirical analysis of social movements, efforts at social reform are propelled by shared stories about social ills and possible future remedies (Davis 2002). The power of shared conceptions of the future for social innovation initiatives has been demonstrated through in-depth case studies (Wittmayer et al. 2019). Narratives of change Timur Ergen

can cause the reframing of dominant beliefs and social values, the emergence of common identities in emerging social coalitions, and the structuring of social action. Beyond their role as structuring forces, imagined futures can be thought of as enablers of open time horizons and therefore as the basis for experimentation (Ergen 2018). Empirical studies of technological innovation have shown that new products, practices and technologies routinely emerge not from situations of focus and concerted investment, but from uncertainty, experimentation and ongoing dialogue between heterogeneous types of actors (Lester and Piore 2006; Stark 2009). While routinely anchored in established organizational structures and institutions, imagined futures can be understood as enablers of creative deviance from established routines. Alternative visions of the future can serve as protective shells for ‘craziness’ (Beckert 2016, p. 174; March 1995), and thereby help innovative activities develop. Recent work on situating social innovation in the field of sustainable energy has highlighted its characteristically incrementalist and experimentalist character (Wittmayer et al. 2020). Particularly in the realm of renewable energy, local experimentation in small-scale initiatives with deviant visions for future social orders have been shown to be key for the development of sustainability transitions (e.g. Hess 2007).

Social innovation and promissory legitimacy

The imagined futures-perspective may additionally contribute to debates about the sociology of social innovation as a public policy paradigm. Beckert (2020) has suggested the notion of promissory legitimacy, referring to the political legitimation of policies through promises. Critique of the role of social innovation in contemporary political economic debates can be understood as capturing a similar argument. The social innovation agenda has been criticized for being an outgrowth of the neoliberal policy paradigm (Jessop et al. 2013), as being anchored in commercial logics (Ziegler 2019), and as presenting a figleaf for financial interests to extract resources from traditional fields of public goods provision (Gabor 2021). As demonstrated empirically for the field of micro-finance, promises of strengthening

Imagined futures and social innovation  9

entrepreneurial dynamics and local innovation have discredited and displaced public programmes to alleviate poverty (Mader 2015). The imagined futures-perspective can help to situate political economic movements of this kind. Such movements challenge established institutions on the basis of promissory stories about the future. Analyses of social innovation as a social imaginary – propagating specific moral values, political coalitions and social interests – would be a worthwhile agenda to move the debate about social innovation as a policy paradigm beyond blanket repudiations and acclaim (Teasdale et al. 2020). Timur Ergen

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Alvarez, S. A. and J. B. Barney (2005), ‘How Do Entrepreneurs Organize Firms Under Conditions of Uncertainty?’, Journal of Management, 31 (5), pp. 776–93. Andersson, J. (2018), The Future of the World: Futurology, Futurists, and the Struggle for the Post Cold War Imagination, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beckert, J. (2016), Imagined Futures: Fictional Expectations and Capitalist Dynamics, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Beckert, J. (2020), ‘The Exhausted Futures of Neoliberalism: From Promissory Legitimacy to Social Anomy’, Journal of Cultural Economy, 13 (3), pp. 318–30. Beckert, J. and R. Bronk (eds) (2018), Uncertain Futures: Imaginaries, Narratives and Calculation in the Economy, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Beckert, J. and L. Suckert (2021), ‘The Future as a Social Fact: The Analysis of Perceptions of the Future in Sociology’, Poetics, 84, 101499. Borup, M., N. Brown and K. Konrad (2006), ‘The Sociology of Expectations in Science and Technology’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18 (3–4), pp. 285–98. Brown, N. and B. Rappert (eds) (2000), Contested Futures: A Sociology of Prospective Techno-Science, London: Routledge. Davis, J. (2002), ‘Narrative and Social Movements: The Power of Stories’, in J. Davis (ed.), Stories

of Change: Narrative and Social Movements, New York: SUNY Press, pp. 3–30. Emirbayer, M. and A. Mische (1998), ‘What Is Agency?’, American Journal of Sociology 103 (4), pp. 962–1023. Ergen, T. (2018), ‘The Dilemma between Aligned Expectations and Diversity in Innovation: Evidence from Early Energy Technology Policies,’ in J. Beckert and R. Bronk (eds), Uncertain Futures: Imaginaries, Narratives, and Calculation in the Economy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 298–318. Ergen, T. and M. Umemura (2021), ‘Shifting Patterns of Expectations Management in Innovation Policy: A Comparative Analysis of Solar Energy Policy in the United States, Japan and Germany’, Energy Research and Social Science, 79, 102177. Hess, D. J. (2007), Alternative Pathways in Science and Industry: Activism, Innovation, and the Environment in an Era of Globalization, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gabor, D. (2021), ‘The Wall Street Consensus’, Development and Change, 52 (3), pp. 429–59. Garud, R., H. A. Schildt and T. K. Lant (2014), ‘Entrepreneurial Storytelling, Future Expectations, and the Paradox of Legitimacy’, Organization Science, 25 (5), pp. 1479–92. Jasanoff, S. and S.-H. Kim (eds) (2015), Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Jessop, B. et al. (2013), ‘Social Innovation Research: A New Stage in Innovation Analysis?’, in F. Moulaert (ed), The International Handbook on Social Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 110–30. Kalecki, M. (1943), ‘Political Aspects of Full Employment’, The Political Quarterly, 14, pp. 322–30. Knight, F. H. (1921), Risk, Uncertainty and Profit, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. Lester, R. and M. Piore (2006), Innovation: The Missing Dimension, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Levitas, R. (1979), ‘Sociology and Utopia’, Sociology, 13 (1), pp. 19–33. Mader, P. (2015), The Political Economy of Microfinance: Financializing Poverty, London: Palgrave Macmillan. March, J. G. (1995), ‘The Future, Disposable Organizations and the Rigidities of Imagination’, Organization, 2 (3–4), pp. 427–40. Sheffrin, S. M. (1996), Rational Expectations, 2nd edition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stark, D. (2009), The Sense of Dissonance: Accounts of Worth in Economic Life, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Svetlova, E. (2021), ‘AI Meets Narratives: The State and Future of Research on Expectation

Timur Ergen

10  Encyclopedia of social innovation Formation in Economics and Sociology’, Socio-economic Review, 20 (2), pp. 841–61. Teasdale, S. et al. (2020), ‘Everyone a Changemaker? Exploring the Moral Underpinnings of Social Innovation Discourse Through Real Utopias’, Journal of Social Innovation, 12 (1), https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​ 19420676​.2020​.1738532. Van Lente, H. (1993), ‘Promising Technology: The Dynamics of Expectations in Technological Developments’, PhD thesis, University of Twente. Van Lente, H. and A. Rip (1998), ‘Expectations in Technological Developments: An Example of Prospective Structures to be Filled in by Agency’, in C. Disco and B. van der Meulen (eds), Getting New Technologies Together: Studies in Making Sociotechnical Order, Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 203–31. Witt, U. (1998), ‘Imagination and Leadership: The Neglected Dimension of an Evolutionary

Timur Ergen

Theory of the Firm’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 35 (2), pp. 161–77. Wittmayer, J. M. et al. (2019), ‘Narratives of Change: How Social Innovation Initiatives Construct Societal Transformation’, Futures, 112, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.futures​.2019​.06​ .005. Wittmayer, J. M. et al. (2020), ‘Beyond Instrumentalism: Broadening the Understanding of Social Innovation in Socio-technical Energy Systems’, Energy Research & Social Science, 70, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.erss​.2020​.101689. Ziegler, R. (2019), ‘The Times of Social Innovation: Fictional Expectation, Precautionary Expectation and Social Imaginary’, in A. de Bruin and S. Teasdale (eds), A Research Agenda for Social Entrepreneurship, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 164–76.

3. Operationalizing social practice theories for social innovation research

together these two perspectives, researchers differentiate, for example, between initiatives and practice fields (Howaldt et al. 2017), local initiatives and the social innovation itself (Pel et al. 2017), or initiatives within action fields/arenas of development (Wittmayer et al. 2020). Despite these efforts a common theoretical framework for social innovation is still lacking. We argue that a focus on the dynamics of practices as understood in social practice theories can help social innovation research to integrate these dimensions in one framework. Some authors have already taken the idea that social innovation is about change in practice(s) and integrated it into their definitions as a ‘new combination and/or configuration of social practices’ (Howaldt & Schwarz 2010, p. 21), ‘a value-oriented and social needs-based transformation of social practices and capabilities’ (Terstriep et al. 2021, p. 265) or ‘a deliberate change of a social practice’ (Hölsgens 2020, p. 162). Nevertheless, only Hölsgens (2020) elaborates on what ‘practice’ means in his understanding of social innovation, namely ‘a change of (a) certain habit(s) or routine(s)’ (p. 162), while in the other texts the word ‘practice’ lacks theoretical ground. The intensified research interest in social practices within the area of social innovation is aligned with the premise that large-scale social changes, for example in the field of sustainability, are only possible when social practices and norms change (Howaldt & Schwarz 2017). In social innovation research this requires a shift in the focus of analysis: from innovation dynamics put in motion by a (network of) innovator(s) towards the dynamics of social practices. We argue that exploring these dynamics requires operationalizing social practice theories to the full degree and testing if theoretical applications are compatible with social innovation research. We need to go past a metaphorical use of the term ‘social practice’ to broaden the concept of social innovation beyond social entrepreneurship. While the plea for social innovation research to build up on social practice theories has been voiced already (Howaldt & Schwarz 2017), first theoretical mergers remain scarce (cf. Hölsgens 2020; Rabadjieva & Butzin 2020). Therefore, stepping on the few articles dealing with this topic and our research within SI-Drive,1 a project funded under the 7th European

Introduction: the potential of social practice theories for social innovation research

Despite the recent political upswing of social innovation, theoretical developments of the concept are rooted in different disciplines and still need further development distinguishing the concept from other forms of innovation while highlighting required framework conditions for social innovations to thrive (cf. Pel et al. 2020). One theoretical school, which has some potential to strengthen theoretical advancements of social innovation in specific and inform social innovation research in general, are social practice theories. In this entry we argue that both social practice theories and social innovation research are concerned with similar process dynamics going from small to large, from individual actions to social practices, from local initiatives to social change and vice versa. In both, people with their capabilities, history and interests play a vital role in the creation and the reproduction of the social by being simultaneously enabled and constrained by existing institutions and structures. Additionally, empirical studies in social practice theories have tended to focus on mundane situated everyday practices and recently started to look at large-scale phenomena and transitions (Spaargaren et al. 2016), which are of interest for social innovation research with its focus on innovations’ aspirations to solve societal challenges as well (e.g. transitions in mobility or energy). However, while social practice theories manage to integrate these diverse elements and dynamics by studying practices somewhat exclusively (cf. Shove 2012), social innovation research still struggles to bridge them. Social innovation so far is studied equally as a localized solution and as more globally spread ideas. It often refers to individual initiatives, projects, platforms, or enterprises, and likewise describes overarching innovative ideas implemented in various initiatives simultaneously (e.g. car sharing, microfinancing or ecovillages). To bring 11

12  Encyclopedia of social innovation

Commissions’ Research Framework, we first briefly present a short overview of what social practice theories comprise before elaborating on the concepts from which social innovation research could benefit. In addition to discussing current studies making use of these concepts, we suggest further empirical and theoretical implications for social innovation research.

Practice theories: central concepts for social innovation research

Social practice theory is a relatively new theoretical stream in social science. Dating back to the 1980s with the works of Anthony Giddens and Pierre Bourdieu being subsumed under the so called first generation of practice theories, only over the past 20 years, with the so called second generation of practice theorists comprising inter alia the works of Andreas Reckwitz, Theodor Schatzki, Elizabeth Shove and many others, social practice theories have gained momentum in social sciences (cf. Hui et al. 2017). Just like other social theories, the goal of social practice theories is to explain social order. In contrast to other classic sociological theories, social practice theories put the focus of analysis neither on individuals with their actions and interests nor on the external factors and context conditions, but on ‘social practices ordered across space and time’ (Giddens 1984, p. 2). While activities are shaped and enabled by structures of rules and meanings, structures are also reproduced in human actions so that individual activities and social structures co-exist in constant interaction with each other. In this vein, practice theories overcome the dichotomy of structure and agency by focusing on what people do in a habitualized manner – namely, practices.2 These practices vary from simpler ones, such as cooking and driving to much more complex ones like practices of negotiating or governing (Schatzki 2002). Consequently, social change manifests as a change in practices. Despite such general commonalities, there is no unified practice theory (cf. Hui et al. 2017; Reckwitz 2002). Instead, various scholars offer different approaches to defining practices, their main components, and how they connect and change. The following paragraphs sketch some concepts from social practice theories, which can be helpful for social innovation research. Maria Rabadjieva and Marthe Zirngiebl

The list of concepts mentioned is by no means exclusive but rather serves as a starting point for considering the contributions that social practice theories can make to refine and operationalize social innovation theory. Specifically, we focus on three topics: 1. The organization of practices. Theoretical considerations of the organization of practices yield insights into the stability and stabilizing factors of practices and consequently could inform social innovation research in studying the organizing principles leading to the establishment and/or rejection of social innovations (i.e. individual initiatives as well as globally spread ideas). 2. Entity, performance and role(s) of actors. By moving beyond an analysis of the innovator(s) as great men bringing forward a social innovation, social innovation research could benefit from social practice theories’ considerations between the interplay of seemingly independent practices structuring social life and actors actively shaping them in performance or becoming practice carriers. 3. The interrelatedness of practices. While case studies in social innovation research have a slight tendency to narrow their analyses to one specific initiative and its sector, recent studies have applied a more relational approach looking at the underlying ecosystem, relations between actors, or initiatives; social practice theories’ focus on relations between practices in fields, arenas, or bundles could further sharpen this development. For each of the topics we first elaborate on their conceptual replication in social practice theories and then discuss how social innovation research makes use of them or how they can be further operationalized. The organization of practices Reviewing social practice theories we encounter an agreement among the authors on the general understanding that ‘practice’ stands for actions plus organization. People with their ‘practical consciousness’ (Giddens 1984), ‘habitus’ (Bourdieu 1990), ‘practical intelligibility’ (Schatzki 2002), ‘competencies’ (Shove et al. 2012) and ‘the body’ itself (Reckwitz 2002) act and through that carry

Operationalizing social practice theories for social innovation research  13

and shape practices.3 There is some disagreement, however, how practices are organized. While authors like Anthony Giddens (1984) and Pierre Bourdieu (1990) emphasize the repetitive character of practices, seeing them as repeated actions (in fields), others regard them as a block of elements (e.g. Reckwitz 2002). More effort is put into theorizing practices as an organized set of doings and sayings, activities, or elements in recent years. The emphasis falls equally on the action chains people engage with and other organizational factors like general and practical understandings (how and why to do a practice), rules (principles, perceptions, instructions), and teleoaffective structures (the ends towards which practices are performed) (Schatzki 2012). Shove, Pantzer and Watson (2012) bring down those elements to three: (1) competencies (knowing how to do practices), (2) meanings (a combination of symbolic understandings), and (3) materials (things, artefacts, technologies, and the body itself). The premise of these recent works is that studying more closely the identifiable, nameable elements of practices can shed more light on social processes. The idea of repetition as a source of change is not new for (social) innovation studies. Specifically Gabriel Tarde’s association of repetition with imitation – as a central mechanism of social reproduction – is recognized as a helpful framework to place social innovation in the processes of social change (Howaldt et al. 2014) (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION AND SOCIAL CHANGE). The idea of practices as blocks of identifiable elements, however, has been applied in social innovation research only recently. In their article ‘Emergence and diffusion of social innovation through practice fields’, Rabadjieva and Butzin (2020) operationalize the three elements approach of Shove, Pantzer and Watson (2012) to analyse social innovation initiatives mapped in the SI-Drive project. The authors conclude that social innovations can diffuse through travelling elements (materials, competencies and meanings). The majority of SI-Drive’s so called ‘practice fields’ (i.e. a set of several initiatives in which the practices performed are similar) revolved around one or a combination of these elements, showing that localized initiatives link globally in this way, without direct interaction. Using the example of urban gardening, Rabadjieva and

Butzin (2020) show that a social innovation ‘can travel’ through, for example, an article transferring the competency and meaning necessary for imitating the social innovation somewhere else, considering that the materials needed (e.g. land, soil and crops) are already available. A precondition for the adoption of a whole practice is that all the required elements must be available at the new location. The research suggests focusing on the organizational factors and elements of practices when researching social innovation since most of the studied initiatives target changes in one of these factors. In our view, it will be also interesting to further explore the connection between elements and repetition, and repetition and imitation in social innovation research. A distinction between what is being transferred, imitated, and repeated can be fruitful not only for theorizing diffusion mechanisms, but social innovation more generally as well. Entity, performance and role(s) of actors Connected to the notion of repetition is another common understanding in social practice theories, namely that practices exist only when performed. As Schatzki (2018) underlines for social practice theories, actions are social events bound with practices. Instead of focusing on people as agents or main actors in social life, practice theorists emphasize what is being done. Performances or actions are seen as one part of practices; however, not as the only one. Giddens (1984) and Bourdieu (1990) reserve considerable place in their works to elaborate on the background of action. For example, Bourdieu explains agency through different types of capital (economic, cultural and social) (1986) and the habitus (unconscious ‘system of dispositions’ created by past experiences and guiding ‘schemes of perception’) (1990, p. 54). Similarly, Giddens sees agency as requiring as much intention as capability. Guided by practical consciousness and reflexivity and employing available resources, people act in a certain way; however, they are not always accountable for the occurring consequences (Giddens 1984, p. 12). For both authors the individual forms an essential part of practices as a ‘perpetrator’ (ibid.); however, there is more to practices, and respectively to social life, than agency. For Bourdieu, agency happens within existMaria Rabadjieva and Marthe Zirngiebl

14  Encyclopedia of social innovation

ing social conventions. Behaviour is socially constructed and happens in established fields. Actions by Giddens are exercised in systems of rules existing outside the particular individual or agent. By discussing the interplay between agency and structure/field both authors recognize that actions and the consequences thereof cannot be seen only as intentional or rational. In contrast, more contemporary works on social practice theories put more effort on distinguishing between entity, that is, the distinguishable elements (e.g. materials, competencies and meanings) constructing the practice and its performance, rather than the background of the action itself. Concepts as ‘practical consciousness’ or ‘habitus’ are partially integrated in the elements of meanings and competencies or in the general and practical understandings; however, the focus falls in the interplay between performance and entity. A practice ‘endures between and across specific moments of enactment’ (Shove et al. 2012, p. 7). In the moment of enactment, the elements of the practice as entity are being linked in a specific local situation. Only in performance are the elements ‘which constitute the practice as an entity … sustained over time’ (ibid.). In this way, entity and performance are intertwined in practice. Shove et al. (2012) argue that people are carriers of practices. The different performances of the same practice link to one another through the shared elements and through various means of feedback (monitoring devices, naming and recording, development of rules and standards, setting and re-setting conventions, etc.). The cross-referencing between practices as performance shapes the practice as an entity, which, again through feedback, shapes the different performances and recruits further carriers. Shove et al. (2012) speak about the careers of individual practices and those who sustain them to elaborate on the interdependence between individuals and practices. Such an understanding is in line with the commonality in social practice theories to oppose individualism (Schatzki 2018). It also, however, gives the impression of neglecting the role of individuals in practices. This issue is to some degree addressed in The Nexus of Practices, in which several authors emphasize ‘people as entities that become participants and who subsequently perpetuate and transform practices through their actions’ (Hui et al. 2017, p. 6). Nevertheless, social practice theories Maria Rabadjieva and Marthe Zirngiebl

see people as perpetrators, practitioners or carriers of practices and not as agents or actors having different roles in social process, a perspective traditionally followed in social innovation research. There is already a lot of research on social innovators and the multiple roles identifiable for all the people involved in social innovation processes (e.g. innovators, promoters, supporters, beneficiaries) (Terstriep 2016). It is undeniable that all these groups shape solutions through different kinds of engagement. Therefore, in social innovation research it is not enough to focus on what is being done instead of who is doing it. The focus on actors should be shifted to what is being done by whom and why. Operationalizing social practice theories for social innovation research here could mean, for example, to search for the ‘habitus’ of (the) social innovator(s). And while the innovators’ side is often emphasized, the beneficiaries or adopters stay neglected even though, as Hölsgens (2020) underlines based on an extensive social innovation literature review, ‘it is not the capacity of the innovator but the motivations and the capacities of the adopters that are decisive factors’ for the diffusion of innovative solutions (p. 167). It is essential to see why people participate and adopt the suggested solutions and why they change their practices and routines. It could be helpful to look into concepts as reflexivity (Giddens 1984) or the carriers of practices as defined by Shove et al. (2012) – who carries what, and how each group influences and changes the solution and social practice. In particular, we already know that a lot of social innovations aim at opening up existing practices for new carriers and performances (elderly, women, children, people with impairments, LGBTQ+ or more generally vulnerable social groups) in fields like employment, community development, education, health, and so on (see Simpact4 and SI-Drive5). Studying such examples within a social practice theory framework can help to understand better the connection between innovator, target group, solution and practice, and broaden the understanding of their respective contributions in the social innovation process. The interrelatedness of practices So far it should have become evident that social practice theories are relational the-

Operationalizing social practice theories for social innovation research  15

ories. Neither people’s choices, intentions and actions, nor the external structures alone determine the course of the social world. The actions are nested in systems (Giddens 1984) or fields (Bourdieu 1990) so that the one cannot be fully understood without the other. Practices link through their elements and organizational factors, they connect and build ‘bundles’ of practices to the point that ‘social development ultimately rests on the emergence, persistence, and dissolution of bundles’ (Schatzki 2012, p. 21). These bundles can have different complexity. While Shove and her colleagues distinguish bundles (loosely connected practices based on co-location) from constellations (more densely connected practices, which do not need to be co-located), Schatzki speaks more broadly about practices building nexuses. In any case, ‘practices “collaborate” in the reproduction of more extensive complexes in which all have a part to play’ (Shove et al. 2012, p. 88). Through their connections (collaboration, competition, conflict) practices create the social. Therefore, when studying change processes, practice theorists call for studying bundles, constellations, and the relations rather than singling out practices or elements (Shove 2010). Change processes happen within and between practices and constellations of practices, when elements are changed or links are broken or re-created in a new way. While Giddens (1984) and Bourdieu (1990) elaborate on the larger social changes when describing the construction and change of systems and fields by rules and people with resources, the more recent works lack the bigger picture so far. There is no clarity about how dense constellations and nexuses can become and how to distinguish one nexus from the other. Rahel Jaeggi makes a significant effort in this direction with her concept of forms of life ‘understood as normatively structured inert bundles of social practices’ (Jaeggi 2014, p. 78).6 According to Jaeggi, forms of life are more than individually preferred lifestyle choices, but the expression of more or less generally agreed upon societal norms and rules. Thereby, forms of life change if the guiding norms change or if the practices associated with the form of life are perceived as irreconcilable with the guiding norms. Yet, to adapt practices constitutes an

act of social learning which is actively and intentionally steered by (groups of) actors. It is evident that there is more work to be done in social practice theories to understand the relations between practices. Again, we can find similarities here with social innovation research. As stated initially, social innovation is rarely understood as a single solution, even if the sheer volume of case studies might suggest differently. The research on transformative social innovation, for example, purposefully chooses local initiatives and their respective transnational networks as an empirical base for studying social innovation dynamics (Pel et al. 2020). Furthermore, in their paper Pel and colleagues (2020) explicitly emphasize ‘SI as a process of changing social relations’ (p. 3) on four levels: (i) within SI initiative, (ii) in network formations, (iii) in relation to institutional change, and (iv) in relation to the socio-material context. Even though the authors do not operationalize or refer to social practice theories directly, their approach (social innovative actions happen within arenas of development and strategic action fields) and their finding of the embedded agency paradox (social innovation aiming to change institutions while at the same time reproducing them) come very close to the understandings described in the previous paragraphs. Similarly, the SI-Drive project distinguished between social innovation initiatives – localized solutions as projects, platforms, or enterprises – and social innovation practice fields – a summary of initiatives expressing common characteristics (e.g. car sharing, microfinancing or ecovillages) (Krüger et al. 2018). The premise was again that the dynamics of social innovation go beyond the borders of the separate local initiatives. SI-Drive did recognize social practice theories as a valuable theoretical consideration when developing a social innovation framework at the beginning (Howaldt et al. 2014); however, it did not operationalize it further. Thus, the concept of the ‘practice field’ stayed vague and it was not specified what precisely the similarity of initiatives in a practice field encompasses. Consequently, some practice fields consisted of very similar initiatives dispersed globally (e.g. car sharing or micro financing); others combined an assortment of initiatives sharing only brief characteristics. One example is the practice field ‘Smart working, smart commutMaria Rabadjieva and Marthe Zirngiebl

16  Encyclopedia of social innovation

ing’, combining different initiatives aiming to change the work mobility complex. The initiatives varied from introducing a home office and shift in working hours to corporate shared mobility options and combinations thereof. Operationalizing social practice theories and, more specifically, the notion of relations between practices can help explain such dynamics. There are practice fields like car sharing, which are already densely connected to other practices and where the activities within practices have become routinized to some degree. In other cases, practice fields present loose patterns of interventions targeting one entry point of a practice or a nexus at a time (elements or other organizational factors). Researching well-established practice fields can help to understand the relations in the reconfiguration of practices. Exploring the loosely connected interventions within practices can contribute to understanding how the separate initiatives connect and link to become a well-established practice field. Additional research should also be done on comparing how well-established and loosely connected social innovation practice fields contribute to social change. Can we find similarities there with forms of life, arenas, (action) fields, or systems? Combining social practice theories and social innovation research can help answer such questions.

Conclusion

Based on an overview of the social practice theory literature and the few social innovation research articles working with social practice theories or similar concepts, to inform social innovation research we suggest a focus on 1. the organization of practices, since most social innovation initiatives target changes in specific social elements, 2. the distinction between entity, performance and role(s) of actors, since the social innovation process engages multiple people contributing in different ways and 3. relations between practices since social innovations evidently do not exist in isolation, but connect to each other and to existing social practices Operationalizing social practice theories (e.g. the social innovation practice field) in this way can help define and analyse more clearly Maria Rabadjieva and Marthe Zirngiebl

the relation between social innovation initiatives and social change. Such a perspective offers a clear sociological view of social innovation by understanding it as reconfiguration and intervention in social practices. Researching it will (1) uncover new or under researched dynamics and diffusion mechanisms, (2) contribute to a better understanding of the entanglement between the different actors participating in the social innovation process, and (3) enable a more comprehensive understanding of social innovation, combining the local, organizational manifestation and the more abstract, diffused social innovation forms. Maria Rabadjieva and Marthe Zirngiebl

Notes

1. See https://​si​-drive​.eu/​(last accessed 19.09.2021). 2. The exact definition of ‘practice’ (and its constituents) varies in different theoretical approaches; one tangible description is suggested by Reckwitz (2002) regarding a practice as ‘a routinised type of behaviour’ (p. 249). 3. We elaborate on these concepts and the background of action in the section ‘Entity, performance, and role(s) of actors’ below, and focus here on the organization of practices. 4. See http://​www​.simpact​-project​.eu/​evidence/​ sicases/​index​.htm (last accessed 19.09.2021). 5. See https://​www​.s​ocialinnov​ationatlas​.net/​map/​ (last accessed 19.09.2021). 6. Quotation from German source translated into English by the authors.

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Bourdieu, P. (1986), ‘The forms of capital’, in J. Richardson, Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, Westport, CT: Greenwood, pp. 241–58. Bourdieu, P. (1990), The Logic of Practice, tr. Richard Nice, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Giddens, A. (1984), The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Cambridge: Polity Press. Hölsgens, R. (2020), ‘Why sustainable social innovations (do not) diffuse? An alternative view to social innovation dynamics’, in M. Martini, R. Hölsgens and R. Popper (eds), Governance and Management of Sustainable Innovation: Sustainability and Innovation, Cham: Springer, pp. 161–79. Howaldt, J., Kesselring, A., Kopp, R. and Schwarz, M. (2014), ‘Social theory’, in J. Howaldt, A. Butzin, D. Domanski and C. Kaletka (eds),

Operationalizing social practice theories for social innovation research  17 Theoretical Approaches to Social Innovation: A Critical Literature Review. A deliverable of the project ‘Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change’ (SI-Drive), Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle, pp. 9–33. Howaldt, J., Schröder, A., Butzin, A. and Rehfeld, D. (eds) (2017), ‘Towards a general theory and typology of social innovation’. A deliverable of the project ‘Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change’ (SI-Drive), Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle. Howaldt, J. and Schwarz, M. (2010), “Soziale Innovation” im Fokus. Skizze eines gesellschaftstheoretisch inspirierten Forschungskonzepts, Bielefeld: Transcript-Verl (Sozialtheorie). Howaldt, J. and Schwarz, M. (2017), ‘Die Mechanismen transformativen Wandels erfassen: Plädoyer für ein praxistheoretisches Konzept sozialer Innovationen’, Gaia, 26, pp. 239–44. Hui, A., Schatzki, T. and Shove, E. (2017), ‘Introduction’, in A. Hui, T. Schatzki and E. Shove (eds), The Nexus of Practices: Connections, Constellations, Practitioners, New York: Routledge, pp. 1–7. Jaeggi, R. (2014), Kritik von Lebensformen, Berlin: Suhrkamp. Krüger, D., Schröder, A., Kapoor, K., Weerakkody, V. and Weber, M. (2018), Methodology: Guidelines for Defining and Describing Social Innovations (D2.4 internal report), accessed 7 January 2022 at https://​www​.si​-drive​.eu/​wp​ -content/​uploads/​2018/​03/​SI​-DRIVE​-D2​_4​ -Methodology​-2018​-final​.pdf. Pel, B., Dorland, J., Wittmayer, J. and Jorgensen, M.S. (2017), ‘Detecting social innovation agency: methodological reflections on unit of analysis in dispersed transformation processes’, EPSIR, 2, pp. 110–26. Pel, B., Haxeltine, A., Avelino, F., Dumitru, A., Kemp, R., Bauler, T., Kunze, I., Dorland, J., Wittmayer, J. and Jørgensen, M.S. (2020), ‘Towards a theory of transformative social innovation: a relational framework and 12 propositions’, Res. Policy, 49 (8), 104080, http://​doi​ .org/​10​.1016/​j​.respol​.2020​.104080. Rabadjieva, M. and Butzin, A. (2020), ‘Emergence and diffusion of social innovation through practice fields’, European Planning Studies, 28 (5), pp. 925–40. Reckwitz, A. (2002), ‘Toward a theory of social practices. a development in culturalist theo-

rizing’, European Journal of Social Theory, 5 (2), pp. 243–63. Schatzki, T. (2002), ‘Practices’, in T. Schatzki (ed.), The Site of the Social: A Philosophical Account of the Constitution of Social Life and Change, University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, pp. 59–122. Schatzki, T. (2012), ‘A primer on practices’, in J. Higgs, R. Barnett, S. Billett, M. Hutchings and F. Trede (eds), Practice-based Education: Practice, Education, Work and Society, Rotterdam: Sense, 6, pp. 13–26. Schatzki, T. (2018), ‘On practice theory, or what’s practices got to do [got to do] with it?’, in C. Edwards-Grove, P. Grootenboer and J. Wilkinson (eds), Education in an Era of Schooling: Critical Perspectives of Educational Practice and Action Research, Cham: Springer, pp. 151–65. Shove, E. (2010), ‘Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change’, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 42 (6), pp. 1273–85. Shove, E. (2012), ‘Energy transitions in practice: the case of global indoor climate change’, in G. Verbong and D. Loorbach (eds), Governing the Energy Transition: Reality, Illusion or Necessity? London: Routledge, pp. 51–74. Shove, E., Pantzar, M. and Watson, M. (2012), The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How It Changes, Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. Spaargaren, G., Weenink, D. and Lamers, M. (eds) (2016), Practice Theory and Research: Exploring the Dynamics of Social Life, London, New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Terstriep, J. (ed.) (2016), Boosting SI’s Economic and Social Impact, Gelsenkirchen: Institute for Work and Technology, accessed 22 September 2021 at http://​simpact​-project​.eu/​publications/​ info/​SIMPACT​_Brochure​_final​_web​.pdf. Terstriep, J., Krlev, G., Mildenberger, G., Strambach, S., Thurmann, J.-F. and Wloka, L.-F. (2021), ‘Measuring social innovation’, in J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka and A. Schröder (eds), A Research Agenda for Social Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 263–86. Wittmayer, J., de Geus, T., Pel, B. et al. (2020), ‘Beyond instrumentalism: broadening the understanding of social innovation in socio-technical energy systems’, Energy Research & Social Science, 70, 101689, accessed 3 March 2022 at https://​www​.sciencedirect​.com/​science/​article/​ pii/​S2214629620302644.

Maria Rabadjieva and Marthe Zirngiebl

4.

Resistance to social innovation

very much overlooked subject area’ (Davies and Simon 2013, p. 40). Second, we must understand that the process of diffusing innovations is not just a matter of discovering creative solutions and showcasing their merits, but instead leaves much room for resistance. Borrowing from the field of Science and Technology studies, we can see that this is true for (technological) innovation in general. In their work on the social construction of technology, Pinch and Bijker (1984) show that technological development only appears as an autonomous force because we do not symmetrically pay attention to failed technologies. Once we do, we discover a graveyard of rejected prototypes that were successfully resisted by social groups with varying degrees of power. With social innovation we have good reasons to believe there is even more space for resistance. To start, social innovation is often targeted at vulnerable groups (elderly, indigenous, low educated, etc.) that do not have the means or power to push through innovations like investment funds or the military could, but instead depend on mediation from others (Westly and Antadze 2010). This allows a wide range of actors (including the public at large) to have the opportunity to resist social innovations that do not align with their interests or values. Another reason relates to the fact that social innovation tries to tackle social problems by changing social relations, including power relations (see Avelino 2021) (→ POWER AND EMPOWERMENT IN SOCIAL INNOVATION). These social problems, however, often exist in the first place because of resistance to changing those very power relations, rather than a lack of innovative ideas on what could be done. We should thus not be surprised to encounter resistance to projects dealing with for example racism or poverty, problems that are linked to (interests in) exploitation and exclusion (Royce 2015; Mosse 2010). Further discussion of resistance to social innovation is increasingly relevant, even if the topic is underexplored in comparison to for example indicating ‘success factors’. Overcoming, incorporating or accepting resistance plays an important part of the process of socially innovating. In what follows we reflect on some of the forms this resistance can take.

Introduction

Why would anyone resist social innovation? Social innovation itself is sometimes seen as a form of resistance against societal disruption (as society defending itself; see Polanyi 1944/1968) or oppressive institutions, but seeing social innovation as something that is to be resisted might sound odd at first. After all, the focus of much research in recent decades has been on the promotion, diffusion and upscaling of social innovation. To understand the relevance of discussions on resistance to social innovation, we must first tackle the notion that social innovation is generally favourable. As Larsson and Brandsen (2016, p. 293) indicate, most policymakers and authors implicitly treat social innovation as a positive phenomenon. In practice, this depends both on the context and content of the social innovation. Heiskala points out that the feasibility of social innovation depends on one’s position: ‘Many social innovations bring benefits to all or many people but it is equally possible to have social innovations that mean increased power resources to some while they at the same time bring increasing inequality and suffering elsewhere’ (Heiskala 2007, p. 71). A historical example of a questionable social innovation was the poorhouse instituted in 1834 in the United Kingdom (and later in the United States), an early alternative to welfare where people in need of assistance were forced to work and live in workshops. While this innovation acted to preserve inequalities and served the interests of capital, this form of pseudo slavery was later abolished (although lasting longer in the USA; see Wagner 2005) and looked back upon as a social policy failure. Ayob et al. (2016) also trace one of the earliest applications of social innovation as an academic concept to the description of slave trade. Additionally, as with all innovations, we must consider the possibility of negative unintended consequences (→ AMBIVALENCE AND SIDE-EFFECTS OF SOCIAL INNOVATIONS): ‘Much diffusion research assumes that innovation, and therefore adoption, is a good thing (…) indeed, the negative and unintended consequences of innovation adoption are an important and 18

Resistance to social innovation  19

Forms of resistance

The topic of resistance to social innovation can be explored from different angles, depending on how we conceptualize resistance. We start by discussing resistance in the broadest sense of any actions taken (or not taken) by actors that hinder or slow down the development of social innovation. This discussion has some overlap with the larger literature on barriers or challenges for social innovation. For example, Howaldt et al. (2016, p. 82) mention resistance to change as one of the common constraints of social innovation across Europe, in particular when it involves government actors with slow processes of decision-making. Besides as institutional inertia, resistance can appear under a wide spectrum of forms, such as consumer hesitation or scepticism with funders. The study of resistance in this broad sense can draw on insights in innovation or entrepreneurial studies. For example, focusing on social entrepreneurship, Newth and Woods (2014) offer a classification of organizational resistance (e.g. institutional logics), formal institutional resistance (e.g. regulatory limits), informal institutional resistance (e.g. conflicting habits) and market resistance (e.g. competition). They argue that these forms of resistance help shape the social innovation, as innovators need to balance pushing for social change with partly incorporating the concerns of those resisting. It is important to see that this broad resistance or friction, often taking the form of lack of enthusiasm or inflexibility, is not necessarily consciously aimed at stopping social innovation. For example, Bartels (2017) argues that institutional actors can both encourage and restrict the mainstreaming of the same social innovation, depending on their expectations of how this process should go in practice. He offers a case study of Neighbourhood Action Teams in Amsterdam. In this social innovation, social workers engage citizens in identifying neighbourhood problems and try to organize inhabitants to tackle them. The political leaders of the city formally encouraged (and funded) the diffusion, while at the same time civil servants (initially) resisted or discouraged those parts of the application with which they were uncomfortable. Resistance in the broad sense discussed above is sufficiently familiar to general discussions on the process of (social) innova-

tion. We will now focus on a narrower or true form of resistance, understood not as mere disinterest, concern or reluctance, but as direct and explicit hostility. Venturing into the fields of political science and sociology will prove useful in exploring why and how groups try to outright stop social innovation. The form explicit resistance takes depends on the type and scale of the social innovation. Some social innovations such as universal pensions or the right to information take the form of large societal changes and often require legal or even constitutional change. In these cases the resistance to them also plays out on a political level. Incorporating broader studies from the field of political science can give us a general insight into this sort of resistance. For example, in his seminal work The Rhetoric of Reaction (1991), Hirschman explores recurring arguments of conservatives against what we could consider macro-level social innovations such as civil rights, popular democracy and social security. Hölsgens (2016) offers a more explicit discussion of resistance to social innovation in his analysis of woman suffrage in the Netherlands. He shows how powerful interest groups organized to stop this change, and activists needed to engage in power politics themselves to push it through. High-level resistance against these macro-innovations can of course still be found in the twenty-first century, for example in the opposition against the Child Trust Fund in the United Kingdom (Gregory 2011). In this social innovation, the state deposited money in investment accounts for children of vulnerable families, to which family members can add but never subtract (improving the trust relation between them) until the child gains access at adulthood. While promising, the social innovation was eventually terminated in 2011 by the Conservative government. Although the diffusion of most social innovations has some sort of legal implications (from tax regimes to food regulation), most social innovation research does not focus on the previously mentioned national political scale. Instead, many research projects are composed of compiling case studies of innovative local projects. Resistance in these cases logically comes from local groups. An interesting case study is that of ‘Neighbourhood Health Centres’ in Belgium (Ghys 2020). This social innovation conTuur Ghys

20  Encyclopedia of social innovation

sists of neighbourhood-oriented centres which combine multiple first-line medical disciplines (family doctor, nurse, physiotherapist, etc.) in a forfeit-based payment system. While this social innovation has existed since the 1970s and has clear advantages for poor residents (it is virtually costless as the insurance pays the forfeit), its diffusion has been severely hindered by explicit hostility from local doctors. Fearing the innovation would undercut their position (wages are fixed, not per commission), doctor organizations used their status to both shame colleagues from joining centres and lobby local and national administrations to retract support for the social innovation. On this level the study of resistance to social innovation can draw on insights from sociology to further analyse why and how resistance takes place. This can help to understand the particular dynamics of a social innovation within the context of specific problems (migration, poverty, sexism, etc.), as well as give perspective on the basic social relations that underlie local forms of resistance. One relevant classic sociological dynamic is exclusion of outsiders to protect privilege (Elias and Scotson 1994), for example when middle-class groups antagonize emergency squatting initiatives in their neighbourhoods (Lawson et al. 2015). Researchers could also pay attention to how problematic institutions might be functional for certain groups (Gans 1996), who will seek to protect them which could hinder innovative solutions. Furthermore, insight in the various stereotypes and labels surrounding the target groups of social innovation (former convicts, homeless people, prostitutes, migrants) can aid our understanding of resistance to innovation. So far we have discussed resistance in a negative light, often as attempts of elites and their defenders to stop innovations that were valued by at least the authors discussing them. However, since we established earlier that social innovation does not need to be feasible, resistance does not need to be unfeasible. Social innovations might be resisted ‘from below’, by the groups they target or by activists. One could think for example of an indigenous group resisting an innovation because they perceive it as a threat to their heritage (Newth and Woods 2014). Social innovations can further evoke resistance because they are perceived as paternalistic, Tuur Ghys

shameful (think of variants of food aid) or exploitative. The resistance might also follow from the problem definition of projects. To tackle structural problems such as racism or poverty, social innovations must ultimately interact with structural causes. If the logic of the social innovation ignores such structural causes, these projects open themselves up to critical resistance. For example, Kohl-Arenas (2016) has sharply criticized various self-help projects for being inadequate in dealing with rural poverty in the United States, instead mostly serving to validate the beliefs of philanthropists. On a more conceptual level, the critique of Alcock (2005) on community experiments provides food for thought. He points out that policy approaches focused on community-based projects and experiments have been common in both the USA and UK since the 1960s’ war on poverty. These generally unsuccessful experiments keep returning under different guises, but policymakers fail to learn that seeking solutions from people who have nothing is a flawed strategy (see also Eizaguirre et al. 2012). If social innovation is another such guise, we should also consider the possibility of resisting to social innovation as a meta-strategy or discourse regarding social problems. As Sinclair and Baglioni point out, social innovation ‘is one of a number of concepts with potentially progressive and regressive implications; other such concepts include “resilience”, “asset approach”, “localism”, and “social capital”. Each of these terms could be applied to justify contrasting diagnoses of and prescriptions for social problems’ (2014, p. 475). While hostility to social innovation as a policy discourse is rare, for example Fougère et al. (2017) explicitly call to resist the European Union’s discourse on social innovation because it would advance a neoliberal and depoliticized view on social problems. More commonly, authors have voiced concerns about the role of social innovation in welfare retrenchment (Martinelli 2012).

Conclusion

Taking a closer look at resistance to social innovation invites us to reflect on various related topics while seeking to understand the process of social innovation. To start with, the topic of resistance sheds light on the fact that social innovation is

Resistance to social innovation  21

not unequivocally positive, or is at least not experienced as such by various groups. This serves as a painful reminder that social innovation is not a magic formula that can bypass or be neutral in social and political struggles, even if it is sometimes implicitly marketed as such (Larsson and Brandsen 2016). If social innovation is indeed a genuine road towards social change, it will come with all the resistance and politicking with which activists are long familiar. Regarding social problems rooted in exploitation and exclusion, a more daring reflection might be that a lack of at least verbal resistance by privileged groups towards a project should invite critical interest in the underlying approach and assumptions. The fact that resistance can play an important role in the process of social innovation also indicates that strategies to diffuse desirable social innovations require top-down support in order to overcome such resistance. Especially when dealing with populations who are defined by their lack of resources (e.g. homeless people) and/or social marginality, social innovation is not an alternative to the state as an enforcer of social and political rights. Last, the question remains how to incorporate resistance into research. Documenting resistance to (desirable) social innovation can be a first step. The act of making this sometimes hidden resistance visible can in itself provide a starting point for overcoming it, or at least force an explicit debate on the merits of the social innovation and the interests at play. Drawing insights from fields such as political science and sociology can further help to understand resistance to social innovation, as well as strategies to overcome it. Finally, we can learn from resistance to social innovation – especially if that resistance comes ‘from below’ ­– to critically reflect on the pitfalls and blind spots of certain social innovations. Tuur Ghys

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Alcock, P. (2005), ‘“Maximum feasible understanding” – lessons from previous wars on

poverty’, Social Policy and Society, 4 (3), pp. 321–9. Avelino, F. (2021), ‘Theories of Power and social change: power contestations and their implications for research on social change and innovation’, Journal of Political Power, 14 (3), pp. 425–48. Ayob, N. et al. (2016), ‘How social innovation “came to be”: tracing the evolution of a contested concept’, Journal of Social Policy, 45 (4), pp. 635–53. Bartels, K. (2017), ‘The double bind of social innovation: relational dynamics of change and resistance in neighbourhood governance’, Urban Studies, 54 (16), pp. 3789–805. Davies, A. and J. Simon (2013), ‘Growing social innovation: a literature review. A deliverable of the project “The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe (TEPSIE)”’, Brussels: European Commission, DG Research. Eizaguirre, S. et al. (2012), ‘Multilevel governance and social cohesion: bringing back conflict in citizenship practices’, Urban Studies, 49 (9), pp. 1999–2016. Elias, N. and J. L. Scotson (1994), The Established and the Outsiders, London: Sage. Fougère, M. et al. (2017), ‘A critical reading of the European Union’s social innovation policy discourse: (re)legitimizing neoliberalism’, Organization, 24 (6), pp. 819–43. Gans, H. (1996), The War Against the Poor, New York: Basic Books. Ghys, T. (2020), ‘Resisting social innovation: the case of neighborhood health centers in Belgium’, European Public Social & Social Innovation Review, 5 (2), pp. 14–26. Gregory, L. (2011), ‘An opportunity lost? Exploring the benefits of the Child Trust Fund on youth transitions to adulthood’, Youth & Policy, 106, pp. 78–94. Heiskala, R. (2007), ‘Social innovations: structural and power perspectives’, in T. J. Hämäläinen and R. Heiskala (eds), Social Innovations, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 52–79. Hirschman, A. (1991), The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hölsgens, R. (2016), ‘On the importance of power struggles in the diffusion of social innovations: the case of women suffrage in the Netherlands’, European Public Social & Social Innovation Review, 1 (2), pp. 63–72. Howaldt, J. et al. (2016), ‘Comparative analysis (mapping 1): mapping the world of social innovation: a global comparative analysis across sectors and world regions, SI-DRIVE No.

Tuur Ghys

22  Encyclopedia of social innovation D1.4., accessed 31 March 2022 at http://​dx​.doi​ .org/​10​.17877/​DE290R​-17198. Kohl-Arenas, E. (2016), The Self-Help Myth: How Philanthropy Fails to Alleviate Poverty, Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Larsson, O. and T. Brandsen (2016), ‘The implicit normative assumptions of social innovation research: embracing the dark side’, in T. Brandsen et al. (eds), Social Innovations in the Urban Context, London: Springer, pp. 293–302. Lawson, V. et al. (2015), ‘“The poor are us”: middle-class poverty politics in Buenos Aires and Seattle’, Environment and Planning A, 47, pp. 1873–91. Martinelli, F. (2012), ‘Social innovation or social exclusion? Innovating social services in the context of a retrenching welfare state’, in H. W. Franz, J. Hochgerner and J. Howaldt (eds), Challenge Social Innovation, New York: Springer, pp. 169–80. Mosse, D. (2010), ‘A relational approach to durable poverty, inequality and power’, Journal of Development Studies, 46 (7), pp. 1156–78. Newth, J. and C. Woods (2014), ‘Resistance to social entrepreneurship: how context shapes

Tuur Ghys

innovation’, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 5 (2), pp. 192–213. Pinch, T. J. and W. E. Bijker (1984), ‘The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other’, Social Studies of Science, 14, pp. 399–441. Polanyi, K. (1944/1968), The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Royce, E. (2015), Poverty and Power: The Problem of Structural Inequality, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Sinclair, S. and S. Baglioni (2014), ‘Social innovation and social policy: promises and risks’, Social Policy & Society, 13 (3), pp. 469–76. Wagner, D. (2005), The Poorhouse: America’s Forgotten Institution, Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield. Westly, F. and N. Antadze (2010), ‘Making a difference: strategies for scaling social innovation for greater impact’, The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 15 (2), pp. 1–19.

5. Social innovation and the remaking of structures, systems and regimes

criticize existing institutions and systems for which they are developing alternatives that prefigure system change (Bureau of European Policy Advisers 2011). The last type of social innovation is overtly political by advancing criticisms to existing power relations and socio-technical practices and the actors’ attempts to create alternative systems that should replace (and not just complement) existing systems and political structures. The issue of system change and regime change (through the agency of challengers and interplay of multiple developments) is considered in the literatures on socio-technical transitions, socio-economic transformation and socio-ecological transformation, with the help of specific theoretical schemes in which social innovation is increasingly incorporated and considered. This entry examines how social innovation has in various ways been considered as a lever for systemic change. This comprises not only the literature frontally addressing social innovation, but also – and especially, we would argue – the social innovation understandings as developed in the literatures on socio-ecological transformation, socio-technical transitions and socio-economic transformation. For the latter research strands, social innovation is usually not the primary focus. Social innovation tends to be discussed in implicit terms, under headers of institutional transformations, cultural shifts or waves in economic development. Focusing on historical and contemporary processes of systemic change, such literatures help to better account for the various ways in which existing structures, regimes and systems act as constraints to change, as motivations for transformative change and as facilitators of certain changes (for example by helping the system deal with pressures for adaptation). The aforementioned systemic approaches discussed place social innovation in the ‘bigger picture’ of broader shifts in the socio-institutional landscape (globalization, urbanization, emancipation, demands for cultural recognition and the development of the ‘precariate’) and pay attention to the affordances of new technological configurations (for measurement, accounting, booking, communication) and of evolving (regeneration) ecosystems. Furthermore, these systemic perspectives typically look beyond immediate impacts, minding the cumulative and often unpredictable impacts of social innovation that interacts

Introduction

This entry deals with the role of social innovation in the remaking of social structures, socio-technical systems and regimes. The networked nature of social innovation and transformative goals of initiatives such as Slow Food and REScoop gives them a social movement element. Some are reformist, others are more transformative, but such aspects are not static, but occurring in interacting with other developments (regime changes and landscape developments). For policymakers, social innovation is about creative responses to social problems through local initiatives, such as neighbourhood restaurants, community gardens and (renewable) energy cooperatives. Oftentimes these local initiatives are part of internationally networked social innovations such as Slow Food1 and REScoop,2 which share values, identities, philosophies and missions. For politically oriented scholars, social innovation is about people who empower themselves to deal with ‘problems of poverty, exclusion, segregation and deprivation or opportunities for improving living conditions that cannot find satisfactory solutions in the “institutionalized field” of public or private action’ (Moulaert et al. 2010, p. 2). The remaking of institutional structures, ‘regimes’ and societal systems can be an explicit goal of social innovation. Arguing for a ‘maximalist’ view on social innovation, Unger (2015) underlined this potential for systemic change. An attempt to do (analytical) justice to the various motivations and forms of social innovation is provided in the report Empowering people, driving change: social innovation in the European Union, by classifying social innovation in three broad categories: (i) social innovations that respond to pressing social demands not addressed by the market and are directed towards vulnerable groups in society, (ii) systemic initiatives such as time banks where people trade services via a pool using hours (instead of money) as the currency, (iii) collective alternative economy initiatives that openly 23

24  Encyclopedia of social innovation

with changes in technologies, institutions and biophysical systems. Especially this last aspect of co-produced and multi-dimensional changes in coupled systems tends to be less prominent in the literature on social innovation and social change. This is reflected in accounts of social innovation that define it as: – the generation and implementation of new ideas about how people should organize interpersonal activities, or societal interactions, to meet one or more common goals (Mumford 2002). – new social practices created from collective, intentional, and goals-oriented actions aimed at prompting social change through the reconfiguration of how social goals are accomplished (Cajaiba-Santana 2014). – innovative activities and services that are motivated by the goal of meeting a social need and that are predominantly diffused through organizations whose primary purposes are social (Mulgan 2006). By contrast, more explicit attention to systemic impacts is given in accounts of transformative social innovation (Westley and Antadze 2010; Lévesque 2016; Haxeltine et al. 2017). For Westley and Antadze (2010, p. 2) social innovation is ‘a complex process of introducing new products, processes or programs that profoundly change the basic routines, resource and authority flows, or beliefs of the social system in which the innovation occurs. Such successful social innovations have durability and broad impact.’ The idea in this systemic account is that social innovations have potentials to disrupt and change broader systems, yet in order to achieve this, social innovation initiatives must enroll incumbent organizations and actors across institutional domains and geographic scales (from local to regional to national to global). In line with a relational ontology, lower-level change can create upper-level change under certain circumstances. Disrupting the larger institutional context is possible by connecting the innovation to political, cultural or economic opportunities that exist. Institutional entrepreneurs are important for making connections between different social systems at cross-scales but the dynamics owe a lot to events not under the control of anyone. Because of tipping points and cascades of René Kemp and Bonno Pel

change the dynamics are prone to bouts of non-linearity. In Haxeltine et al. (2017) and other publications based on the TRANSIT project, transformative social innovation (TSI) is not so much a distinct kind of innovation but ‘a process of changing social relations that involves the emergence and spread of new knowledge and practices that challenge, alter or replace the established institutions in a specific context’ (Haxeltine et al. 2017, p. 61). Empowerment is part of this: ‘The empowerment of people is both a condition for and an intended outcome of such change in social relations and dominant institutions’ (Avelino et al. 2020, p.  956; → POWER AND EMPOWERMENT IN SOCIAL INNOVATION). Another paper based on TRANSIT analyses ‘how the empowerment afforded through SI networks rests on (1) local embedding, (2) transnational connectivity and (3) discursive resonance’ (Pel et al. 2019, p. 311). In those approaches, agency is viewed as depending on aspects beyond the agent. This fits with a longer tradition of a systemic perspective on innovation in general and on social innovation in particular (Ogburn 1964 [1950]; Rammert et al. 2018; Schatzki 2019; Howaldt and Schwartz 2021).

Social innovation and transformations in coupled systems

As indicated in the introduction, this entry highlights the ways in which social innovation is understood in various literatures on transformation processes in ‘coupled systems’. We will subsequently discuss the literatures on socio-ecological transformation, socio-technical transitions and on socio-economic transformation. We will see that system change is always linked with changes in social organization and thus with social innovation. In each of those, social innovation appears in different ways: through energy cooperatives who produce renewable energy, through circular social housing projects and through platforms for a just energy transition. These systemic perspectives literatures are interesting for social innovation research. They examine how social innovation is tied up with technologies, production chains and new value networks, locally situated practices, financial form and transactions, and they highlight the social inno-

Social innovation and the remaking of structures, systems and regimes  25

vation element in the remaking of structures, systems and regimes. Social innovation in sustainability transitions research Socio-technical system changes are the object of study in sustainability transitions research (Geels 2005; Grin et al. 2010). Transition studies inquire into attempts to foster system change to a low-carbon energy system, sustainable mobility and nature-inclusive (regenerative) agriculture and patterns of regime change (adaptation, replacement and co-existence of a new and old regime). Dynamics of change (fast and slow) are studied from a socio-technical perspective which gives due attention to the practices, aims and networks of (organized) actors in niches, regimes and niche-regimes.3 In such studies, social innovation is viewed primarily as a dimension of (more or less radical) changes in socio-technical ‘regime’ changes (Wittmayer et al. 2020). Regarding the energy transition, social innovation is thus studied as support of technological innovation, in terms of new governance arrangements and new forms of organization such as community energy (Hoppe and de Vries 2019). A typical example is Warbroek et al. (2018) who examine the attempts of local low-carbon energy initiatives (LLCEIs) to become viable alternatives to the centralized, private oriented energy system. Their social innovation resides in building capacities, and in alleviating institutional hurdles and barriers. The focus on social learning and social innovation as a dimension of socio-technical change is typical for the transitions literature. A commonly used framework in sustainability transitions studies is the multilevel perspective based on evolutionary ‘niches’, the socio-technical regime and the broader landscape. In this framework, niches are the places in which innovations develop and grow, thanks to the coordinated action of niche agents as socio-technical innovators and because of special circumstances. Novelties must compete with well-developed alternatives produced by incumbent actors. In the transition literature this competition is conceptualized as a niche–regime interaction process. Producers and consumers are central agents of a socio-technical regime, but regimes are also sustained by a wider set of actors (banks, scientists, insurance compa-

nies, government, etc.). A well-established insight from ST studies is that government cannot act forcefully against regimes, for instance the car-dependent mobility regime. Through speed limit regulations and emission limits, governments put pressure on the car regime, but the emission limits are set in consultation with car manufacturers, resulting in limits that usually do not require fundamental changes in cars. This shows that governments are also involved in preserving the automobile regime, besides their implication in attempts to change it. The third element of the multilevel perspective is the socio-technical landscape. The landscape is the wider context of practices. It is being composed of infrastructure and other physical aspects (houses, cities, etc.), systems of governance, political associations, regulations, societal values, beliefs, concerns, the issues selected for attention, the media, and prices and incomes, social security. The socio-technical landscape denotes a set of background factors for social innovators. It influences their activities in various ways (which are not easily discerned), but the landscape is in turn also affected itself by transformative changes and purposive social innovations in society. In the transition literature, the role of social innovation is viewed as an element of sustainability transitions (in energy, transport and the agriculture-food system). Less attention is given to their immediate contributions to the flourishing of individuals, and to social justice. Exceptions are the work on grassroots innovation by Seyfang and Smith (2007), Seyfang and Haxeltine (2012) and others, and the work on transformative social-ecological innovations (Huntjens 2021). Intermediate projects are a way of inculcating in the mainstream some of the principles and framings held in the green niche (Smith 2007). Identities and activities may change in the process, but certain differences will remain: ‘Government departments have their own objectives; technology developers have a different modus operandi to grassroots idealists; ecopreneurs seek commercialisation, moving innovations from social economy to market economy; and academics bring their own agendas. Through niche engagement, and associated social learning, the positions and commitments of some actors will alter’ (Seyfang and Smith 2007, p. 598). To conclude, this René Kemp and Bonno Pel

26  Encyclopedia of social innovation

literature on grassroots innovations and transformative socio-ecological innovations (→ GRASSROOTS INNOVATION FOR TRANSFORMATIVE SOCIAL CHANGE) is particularly attentive to the social innovation dimensions of sustainability transitions. Social innovation in socio-ecological transformation research Socio-ecological transformation research deals with the attempts of social actors to restore eco-system resilience through social action. Social innovation is evaluated from the point of view of improving the quality of ecosystems. An example study is Brawner (2015). It explores the transformational potential of permaculture design and its emergence as a socio-ecological paradigm through a case study in rural Shipka, Bulgaria. The study describes how permaculture education incorporates ecological language and systems thinking, how it involves the deployment and learning of skills, and how it tends to blur the distinction between experts and laypersons. This example also shows how socio-ecological transformation studies, similar to the work on socio-technical transitions, often consider social innovation as a form of social learning. In this literature, innovation, adaptation, and transformation are seen as ongoing requirements of resilient socio-ecological systems (Olsson et al. 2014). This research study describes and attempts to transform locally situated eco-systems. Focal issues are building local ecological knowledge, creating a vision and developing social networks, building trust and social capital, and dealing with surprises and changing opportunities. There is far greater attention to the agency of individuals than in the socio-technical literature. The focal issue is resilience (i.e. the degree to which people and nature can adapt to change). A theory of transformative agency for socio-ecological system change is offered in Westley et al. (2013). This theory considers social innovation important for resilience, the capacity of a system to adapt to shocks and to re-organize itself. Socio-ecological system resilience is said to require adaptive forms of co-management in and through polycentric forms of governance, with an important role for orienting multiple and independent centres René Kemp and Bonno Pel

of decision-making towards ecological preservation, achieved via innovation, learning, adaptation and cooperation (Westley et al. 2013). This literature highlights the emergent properties of complex system change, and the associated need for adaptive governance and social innovation. Although the focus is typically on achieving relatively local and place-based changes, SET scholars have also considered issues of transformation at higher scales. An often mentioned scheme is that of Donella Meadows (1999) about leverage points in systems.4 The need for social innovation is discussed in Olsson et al. (2017). They draw attention to a ‘paradoxical tension’ between the need for rapid speed to counter ecological degradation, and the time needed for a ‘“good” Anthropocene [approach] that keeps social and ecological justice issues at the forefront of new social innovations’. The analytical concept of socio-ecological transformation, developed within the framework of social ecology, differs from the normatively charged, capitalism-critical socio-ecological transformation literature which views social innovation as a response to oppressive structures, exploitation and cultural institutions. Social innovation in socio-economic transformation research Social and economic problems are the focus of attention in socio-economic transformation research. Here social innovation is seen as a reaction to market and state failures (having to do with property rights, competition and profit, and the state coercion of people) and cultural institutions (patriarchy, materialism). Scholarship in this tradition includes the seminal work of Fung and Wright (2003) on ‘real utopias’, but also comprises the ‘institutional imagination’ advocated by Unger (2015) and the longstanding research traditions on social enterprise, social economy and solidarity economy (Laville 2014), the territorial development approach to social innovation of the ‘Moulaert school’ (Moulaert et al. 2010) and the ‘diverse economies’ articulated by Gibson-Graham (2008). Cooperatives, emancipation and social movements and state–economy–civil society relations are the focus of these studies, homing in on social enterprise, the Third sector and Social Solidarity Economy, among other things. In the more political literature the actual doings

Social innovation and the remaking of structures, systems and regimes  27

are typically backgrounded whereas aspects of social organization and contestation are foregrounded. The work on transformative social innovation (Avelino et al. 2019; Pel et al. 2020; Strasser et al. 2022) marries the socio-economic transformation approach with a socio-technical transition approach in considering the doings, normative goals, empowerment vis-à-vis institutions of power, and the interaction with dominant institutions. In contrast to coordinated social movement actions, transformative social innovation initiatives are owned and managed by people in a decentralized and (largely) non-hierarchical way. They involve value-based doings and the learning of skills, and often exist within a network structure. Examples are slow food convivia, transition towns, eco-villages and time banks. The narratives of change of the mother organization give them a movement element. Some of them are targeted by government and impact investors for value delivery, but the obligations for quality assurance and impact reporting do not fit well with their wishes to act as spaces of ‘alterity’ or ‘resistance’ (Fyfe 2005). They orient themselves less to political actors than the social movements of the past (fighting for equal rights and environmental protection) and because of this they are less recognizable as a movement (Hawken 2007). Socio-economic transformation research reveals that people are more than consumers, workers for money and voting citizens. It highlights individuals taking roles as prosumers (as members of an energy cooperative or self-builders of a sustainable house), ethical workers, community projects members, co-owners of land which is cultivated in an environmentally responsible way. They are part of a broader process of emancipation and the orientation to normative ideals, which constitutes a social transformation. TSI research helps to avoid ‘neoliberal’ preoccupations with the social entrepreneur; it does not engage in implicit celebrations of grassroots innovation ‘challengers’ versus ‘incumbents’. It circumvents the ‘movement-centrism’ in social movement studies and does not confine social innovation to the Third sector ‘silo’ (Pel et al. 2019).

Synthesizing conclusions

The literature on socio-technical transitions, socio-ecological transformation and socio-economic transformation brings out various ways in which social innovation is connected to other changes and affordances. Ontologically they are based on a coupled systems perspective, with distinct foci on socio-technical regimes, socio-ecological systems and socio-economic structures. They are quite disparate and developed in separate scientific communities, but recent scholarship on social innovation does offer crossover analyses. An example of a crossover study is the multi-authored article ‘Beyond instrumentalism: broadening the understanding of social innovation in energy systems’ by Wittmayer et al. (2020). They distinguish two understandings of social innovation: a narrow meaning which is focused on innovative problem-solving, and a broader understanding of social innovation as a component of socio-technical change, as a source of emancipation and as political effort towards a different society. Considering the impacts in terms of fairness, inclusivity and justice, it draws attention to normative issues and potentials for structural change. Wittmayer et al. (2020) also note that many community energy initiatives are dependent on support from a wide range of actors, especially government. They propose to give more attention to ‘the broader fields that social innovations are afforded by and in which social innovation actors are embedded in, through concepts such as “action fields” or “arenas of development”’ (Wittmayer et al. 2020, p. 5) and caution against views that consider social innovation to be inherently good. Regarding the more political-critical understanding of social innovation, they stress the need for a certain pragmatism, and for a degree of instrumental thinking. This fits with the call of Moulaert and MacCallum (2019) to connect political action with practical action. Importantly, this example of social innovation in the energy transition shows how the systemic angles on social innovation reframe fundamental issues of purposes and politics. There is still considerable room for crossovers between the coupled-systems innovation perspectives and social innovation research. For example, Törnberg (2021) incorporates the multilevel perspecRené Kemp and Bonno Pel

28  Encyclopedia of social innovation

tive in a social-political change framework. Likewise, there is work that appears to insert social innovation thinking into systemic perspectives which background social relations and ethical and political aspects, rather ethically and politically void. For better dealing with mindsets and transformative literacy, Göpel (2016) proposes to add two extra layers to the transitions-theoretical Multi Level Perspective: world views, visions and narratives and ‘me & you’ relations. The new scheme emphasizes the importance of ideas in holding societies together (through a shared orientation) and the importance of transformative skills and new orientations for successfully challenging the status quo. A different perspective on transitions is also offered by practice theorists (Shove et al. 2012; Schatzki 2019). They conceptualize social changes as ‘configurations of significant differences in bundles of practices and material arrangements’ (Schatzki 2019), and find the multilevel perspective ‘too ordered and too layered’ (Shove et al. 2012, p. 13). Both draw attention to practical understandings and meanings. The systemic approaches have thus much to offer to social innovation research, but they have their blind spots – notably with regard to the social dimension of the coupled social– technical–ecological–economic systems. For further reading, the following publications are particularly relevant: Howaldt and Schwarz (2021), Moulaert and MacCallum (2019), Pel et al. (2020), Wittmayer et al. (2020). René Kemp and Bonno Pel

Notes 1.

Slow Food envisions a world in which all people can access and enjoy food that is good for them, good for those who grow it and good for the planet. https://​www​.slowfood​.com/​. 2. REScoop, the European federation of citizen energy cooperatives, is committed to community-owned renewable energy. It offers services to members and represents the voice of citizens and energy cooperatives to European policymakers. It also stipulates obligations for members. An example is the obligation of sharing the cost and benefits of projects in time and space: between present and future generations, between people close to the projects and beyond. https://​www​.rescoop​.eu/​about​-us​ #vision​-mission. 3. The primary frameworks for analysis of niche innovations and regime changes are: strategic niche management (Kemp, Raven), technology innovation systems (Bergek, Markardt, Hekkert), the mul-

René Kemp and Bonno Pel

4.

tilevel perspective (Rip, Kemp, Geels) and social practices (Shove). The places to intervene in a system (in increasing order of effectiveness) are: 9. Constants, parameters, numbers (subsidies, taxes, standards). 8. Regulating negative feedback loops. 7. Driving positive feedback loops. 6. Material flows and nodes of material intersection. 5. Information flows. 4. The rules of the system (incentives, punishments, constraints). 3. The distribution of power over the rules of the system. 2. The goals of the system. 1. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system – its goals, power structure, rules, its culture – arises.

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Avelino, F., Dumitru, A., Cipolla, C., Kunze, I. and Wittmayer, J. (2020), ‘Translocal empowerment in transformative social innovation networks’, European Planning Studies, 28 (5), pp. 955–77. Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J., Pel, B., Weaver, P. W., Dumitru, A., Haxeltine, A., Kemp, R., Jørgensen, M. S., Bauler, T., Ruijsink, S. and O’Riordan, T. (2019), ‘Transformative social innovation and (dis)empowerment’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, pp. 195–206. Brawner, A. J. (2015), ‘Permaculture in the margins: realizing Central European regeneration’, Journal of Political Ecology, 22, pp. 429–44. Bureau of European Policy Advisers (2011), Empowering people, driving change: social innovation in the European Union, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014), ‘Social innovation: moving the field forward. A conceptual framework’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82 (C), pp. 42–51. Fung, A. and Wright, E. O. (2003), Deepening democracy: institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance, Vol. 4, London: Verso. Fyfe, N. R. (2005), ‘Making space for “neo-communitarianism”? The third sector, state and civil society in the UK’, Antipode, 37 (3), pp. 536–57. Geels, F. W. (2005), ‘Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72, pp. 681–96. Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2008), ‘Diverse economies: performative practices for “other worlds”’,

Social innovation and the remaking of structures, systems and regimes  29 Progress in Human Geography, 32 (5), pp. 613–32. Göpel, M. (2016), The great mindshift: how a new economic paradigm and sustainability transformations go hand in hand, Cham: Springer Open. Grin, J., Rotmans, J. and Schot, J. (2010), Transitions to sustainable development, London: Routledge. Hawken, P. (2007), How the largest movement in the world came into being and why no one saw it coming, New York: Viking Press. Haxeltine, A., Pel, B., Wittmayer, J. M., Dumitru, A., Kemp, R. and Avelino, F. (2017), ‘Building a middle-range theory of transformative social innovation: theoretical pitfalls and methodological responses’, European Public and Social Innovation Review, 2 (1), pp. 59–77. Hoppe, T. and de Vries, G. (2019), ‘Social innovation and the energy transition’, Sustainability, 11 (1), 141. Howaldt, J. and Schwarz, M. (2021), ‘Social innovation and social change’, in J. Howaldt et al. (eds), A research agenda for social innovation, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 39–58. Huntjens, P. (2021), Towards a natural social contract: transformative social-ecological innovation for a sustainable healthy and just society, Cham: Springer. Laville, J.-L. (2014), The social and solidarity economy, Abingdon: Routledge. Lévesque, B. (2016), ‘Les innovations sociales et les transformations; un enchaînement qui ne va pas de soi’, in J. L. Klein et al. (eds), La transformation sociale par l’innovation sociale, Montreal: Presses de l’Université de Québec, chapter 2. Meadows, D. (1999), Leverage points: places to intervene in a system, accessed 6 June 2022 at http://​www​.scrummaster​.dk/​lib/​ AgileLeanLibrary/​People/​DonellaMeadows/​ donellameadows​.org​-Leverage​%20Points​ %20Places​%20to​%20Intervene​%20in​%20a​ %20System​.pdf. Moulaert, F., Swyngedouw, E., Martinelli, F. and Gonzalez, S. (eds) (2010), Can neighbourhoods save the city? Community development and social innovation, Abingdon: Routledge. Moulaert, F. and MacCallum, D. (2019), Advanced introduction to social innovation, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Mulgan, G. (2006), ‘The process of social innovation’, Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1 (2), pp. 145–62. Mumford, M. (2002), ‘Social innovation: ten cases from Benjamin Franklin’, Creativity Research Journal, 14 (2), pp. 253–66. Ogburn, W. F. (1964) [1950], ‘Social evolution reconsidered’, in W. F. Ogburn, On culture and social change: selected papers, ed. O. D.

Duncan, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 17–32. Olsson, P., Galaz, V. and Boonstra, W. J. (2014), ‘Sustainability transformations: a resilience perspective’, Ecology and Society, 19 (4), p. 1. Olsson, P., Moore, M.-L., Westley, F. R. and McCarthy, D. D. P. (2017), ‘The concept of the Anthropocene as a game-changer: a new context for social innovation and transformations to sustainability’, Ecology and Society, 22 (2), p. 31. Pel, B., Haxeltine, A., Avelino, F., Dumitru, A., Kemp, R., Bauler, T., Kunze, I., Dorland, J., Wittmayer, J. and Jørgensen, M. S. (2020), ‘Towards a theory of transformative social innovation: a relational framework and 12 propositions’, Research Policy, 49 (8), 104080. Pel, B., Wittmayer, J., Dorland, J. and Søgaard Jørgensen, M. (2019), ‘Unpacking the social innovation ecosystem: an empirically grounded typology of empowering network constellations, innovation’, The European Journal of Social Science Research, 33 (3), pp. 311–36. Rammert, W., Windeler, A., Knoblauch, H. and Hutter, M. (eds) (2018), Innovation society today: perspectives, fields, and cases, Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Schatzki, T. (2019), Social change in a material world, London: Routledge. Seyfang, G. and Haxeltine, A. (2012), ‘Growing grassroots innovations: exploring the role of community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30, pp. 381–400. Seyfang, G. and Smith, A. (2007), ‘Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: towards a new research and policy agenda’, Environmental Politics, 16 (4), pp. 584–603. Shove, E., Pantzar, M. and Watson, M. (2012), The dynamics of social practice: everyday life and how it changes, London: Sage. Smith, A. (2007), ‘Translating sustainabilities between green niches and socio-technical regimes’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19 (4), pp. 427–50. Strasser, T., de Kraker, J. and Kemp, R. (2022), ‘Network leadership for transformative capacity development: roles, practices and challenges’, Global Sustainability, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1017/​ sus​.2022​.6. Törnberg, A. (2021), ‘Prefigurative politics and social change: a typology drawing on transition studies’, Journal of Social Theory, 22 (1), pp. 83–107. Unger, R. M. (2015), ‘Conclusion: the task of the social innovation movement’, in A. Nicholls et al. (eds), New frontiers in social innovation research, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 233–51. Warbroek, B., Hoppe, T., Coenen, F. and Bressers, H. (2018), ‘The role of intermediaries in sup-

René Kemp and Bonno Pel

30  Encyclopedia of social innovation porting local low-carbon energy initiatives’, Sustainability, 10 (7), 2450. Westley, F. and Antadze, N. (2010), ‘Making a difference: strategies for scaling social innovation for greater impact’, The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 15 (2), article 2. Westley, F. R., Tjornbo, O., Schultz, L., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Crona, B. and Bodin, O. (2013), ‘A theory of transformative agency in linked

René Kemp and Bonno Pel

social-ecological systems’, Ecology and Society, 18 (3), article 27. Wittmayer, J. W., de Geus, T., Pel, B., Avelino, F., Hielscher, S., Hoppe, T., Mühlemeier, S., Stasik, A., Oxenaar, S., Rogge, K. S., Visser, V., Marín-González, E., Ooms, M., Buitelaar, S., Foulds, C., Petrick, K., Klarwein, S., Krupnik, S., de Vries, G., Wagner, A. and Härtwig, A. (2020), ‘Beyond instrumentalism: broadening the understanding of social innovation in socio-technical energy systems’, Energy Research & Social Science, 70, 101689.

6. Social innovations as a repair of social order

Social innovations that aim at resolving ‘cultural lags’ in Ogburn’s terms stress the need for creatively resolving misalignments between interdependent social worlds. Early on, Ogburn identified the societal adaptations, or repairs, to the transformative dynamics later described by Schumpeter. Drawing creative destruction and disruptive maintenance together provides a more nuanced understanding of social change in modern societies: while the use of the term social innovation draws heavily on the positive connotations from the pro-innovation bias, this entry argues that the underlying processes of social change can be more aptly described and analysed by concepts such as cultural lag and repair.

Introduction

The pro-innovation bias of innovation policy and research (Godin and Vinck 2017) typically links innovation strongly with positive notions of novelty and improvement. Social innovations benefit from this semantic surplus; however, a more nuanced picture is helpful when social innovations are conceived as distinct modes and means of social change. In contrast to the dominant themes of novelty and improvement, this entry argues that social innovations can be fruitfully studied through the lens of repair (Jackson 2014), using EU policy discourse as a case in point. In this sense, social innovations are as much about preservation as they are about creation. This does not make social innovations academically or politically less interesting; rather, it seeks to highlight a specific role that many social innovations fulfil with respect to the maintenance of social orders. Thus, they might not figure as instances of creative destruction, but rather as forms of disruptive maintenance in processes of transformative change (Pel et al. 2020). Looking at field of social innovation policy (European Commission 2013), we tend to find a mismatch between the dominant framing of social innovations as agents of social change and their aim to maintain or re-balance social order. The latter does not resemble the patterns of ‘creative destruction’ (Schumpeter 1942, p. 83), but rather operates as disruptive maintenance1 that seeks to compensate, repair, or resolve the manifold ‘lags’ (Ogburn 1922, pp. 200–13) found in contemporary societies. Creative destruction and disruptive maintenance are no oppositions. They share the destructive-disruptive moment of novelty and of course, the maintenance of social order can and must be a creative process. However, in contrast to the progressive notions engrained in creative destruction, disruptive maintenance entails some form of conservatism. Without overstressing analogies to technical repair, social innovations in this way can be considered as updates or patches that fix specific societal problems.

Key findings Social innovation as repair The shift in thinking along notions of repair, rather than innovation, helps to counterbalance the emphasis on the creation of new orders with a sensitivity towards fragility and breakdown of established orders (Jackson 2014). As Jackson states, innovation and repair are not mutually exclusive. Rather, repair is an often-overlooked element in innovation processes, either since inventions diffuse and need to be adapted to local situations or since the successful diffusion relies on continuously maintaining the integrity of the invention in the face of counter inventions or material decay (→ DIFFUSION). Recently, social innovation scholars have also hinted at repair as a fruitful concept to study social change (Howaldt et al. 2015, p. 44). For instance, the Aconchego Housing Program in Portugal was featured in the 2010 report for the European Commission This is European social innovation. The programme ‘matches older people who live on their own with students who are in need of accommodation’ (European Commission 2010, p. 23), thereby seeking to benefit both parties. This can be seen as an attempt to repair the social cohesion of a society in which the young and the old increasingly inhabit mutually exclusive social worlds. Conceiving social innovation as repair entails an understanding that differs from a narrow notion of repair in which objects break down (e.g. a car with engine trouble that is moved to a specialized repair work31

32  Encyclopedia of social innovation

shop in order to restore functionality). In such a narrow notion, repair is spatially and temporally detached from the contexts of use and the instances of breakdown. A wider notion extends repair to instances where the working order needs to be actively recreated or circumvented so as to enable the continuous flow of activities. The important characteristic of repair however remains (i.e. that it is mostly motivated by a conservative interest in recreating a previously disrupted order, in restoration, and not in initiating larger processes of change – similar to early religious uses of innovation as spiritual renewal) (Godin and Schubert 2021). Such a wider understanding of repair holds several interesting aspects for the study of social innovations. First, the study of repair resonates with the basic tenets of current societal change already present with Schumpeter or Ogburn. Repair does not build on notions of stability and order but gains its analytic perspective from the numerous insights into the fragilities and ambiguities of industrialized countries. The technical infrastructures of modernity suddenly seem much less dependable and much more vulnerable than before. A point of departure for studying social innovations as a form of repair lies in the recognition of a dynamic social reality that constantly produces the need for reflexive intervention to keep things going. Both repair and social innovations thus sit in the middle between the dynamics of differentiation and interdependence. Second, insights into repair can shed light on the complexities of diffusing social innovations. Taylor (1970) noted the inherent resistance to change of established social orders that poses significant obstacles to the scaling of social innovations. As with all innovations, the diffusion of social innovations is a creative process that transforms the initial invention through processes of adoption. The local adoptions of repair enable inventions to grow past the local situations of their creation and hence are a basic element of diffusion. Even if this does not entail a breakdown in the narrow sense, it sensitizes for the dynamics of innovations that go beyond the originality of inventions. In this sense, social innovations can not only be conceived as fixes to human problems, but their diffusion itself depends on repair or repair-like articulations. Cornelius Schubert

Third, repair studies highlight that repair can be used analytically to investigate economic, material-semiotic and epistemic relations at the heart of modern societies. For one, they reveal specific economies of worth. Repair in many cases is not confined to simple replacements of spare parts according to prescriptions in a manual, but operates in local forms of competent evaluation and improvisation (Henke 2000, pp. 66–9). Should something be repaired or replaced? Is the repair necessary for the intended function? From this perspective, repair is not only an economic cost/benefit calculation; it ties valuations of longevity or status into the questions if and how something should be repaired. In addition, the repair of technical devices offers analytic insights into such social structures and dynamics. In the same way that repair should not be considered a strictly technical phenomenon, social innovations should not be conceived as purely social. The material-semiotic constitution of repair thus mirrors the material-semiotic constitution of social innovations. The outlines of social innovation as a repair of social order above have taken their cue from Ogburn’s theory of cultural lags and have drawn on recent studies on repair to conceptualize social innovation initiatives as moments of disruptive maintenance. The next section provides some key findings from EU social innovation policy discourse by showing how a latent repair agenda is superimposed by a dominant innovation narrative. If social innovations are, however, understood as a reflexive instrument of political agency, they can be conceived as a specific form of repair work that seeks novel means to attain established ends and to resolve the strains of cultural lags. This interlocking of repair and innovation has become the dominant mode of funding social innovations on the level of EU policy (→ EU POLICY ON SOCIAL INNOVATION). Shedding light on this package will help to gain a deeper understanding of social innovation as repair while at the same time questioning the innovation imperative and pro-innovation bias in political discourse. Social innovation in EU policy discourse One key finding is that the discourse on the level of EU policy narrows social innovation down to an instrumental understanding

Social innovations as a repair of social order  33

as a political tool to address societal challenges. For instance, in the report This is European social innovation for the European Commission, social innovation is briefly defined as follows: ‘Social innovation is about new ideas that work to address pressing unmet needs’ (2010, p. 9). The report was compiled by three European social innovation proponents: the Social Innovation eXchange at the Young Foundation, the Euclid Network, and the Social Innovation Park, Bilbao. Later definitions extend the instrumental application of social innovations: The notion has gained ground that social innovation is not only about responding to pressing social needs and addressing the societal challenges of climate change, ageing or poverty, but is also a mechanism for achieving systemic change. It is seen as a way of tackling the underlying causes of social problems rather than just alleviating the symptoms. (BEPA 2014, p. 8)

A closer look at this instrumental understanding reveals that social innovations are not neutral means, but embody distinct normative dispositions. One disposition is that social innovations should be beneficial for society, the other links social innovation with an entrepreneurial understanding of social change. Societal beneficiality is a prominent addendum to the definition of social innovations, since they are ‘social in both their ends and their means’ (European Commission 2013, p. 6). Social innovations are aimed at ‘improving human well-being’ and in addition ‘are not only good for society but also enhance individuals’ capacity to act’ (ibid.). Such a normative narrowing of the term first curtails its analytic scope. The ‘social’ in social innovation acts as a normative handle by which the term is inserted into the repertoire of legitimate political instruments. In addition, it demarcates specific conditions of felicity under which social innovations are deemed successful (i.e. fulfilling a social need). Last but not least, it contrasts social from economic or technical innovations by pointing out that they are not for profit. The contrast to economic innovations, however, becomes questionable when looking at the entrepreneurial bias of social innovations in EU discourse. Even though one of the main arguments for social innovations is that they provide

solutions to ‘social demands that are traditionally not addressed by the market or existing institutions’ (ibid.), the proposed mode of social innovation strongly draws on economic innovation driven by a Schumpeterian entrepreneur: It is worth adding that one important, but certainly not sole agent type spearheading Europe 2020 social innovations is the social enterprise. Social enterprises are ventures in the business of creating significant social value, and do so in an entrepreneurial, market-oriented way, that is, through generating own revenues to sustain themselves. (ibid., p. 15)

The response to societal challenges is specifically framed as a ‘willingness to take risks and find creative ways of using underused assets’ (ibid., p. 16). The political instrument of social innovation is therefore not only integrated into the policy discourse through a normative notion of the social but also deeply engrained with neoliberal ideas through an economic notion of innovation. By promising to tap into creative and transformative potentials on a local level, to create bottom-up grassroots initiatives that address pressing global problems, the discursive framing of social innovations on an EU policy level at the same time introduces the figure of the entrepreneur, now social entrepreneur, as the prime mover of such change. But how is this entrepreneurial bias in EU policy related to an understanding of social innovations as repair? My main argument is that the EU discourse frames social innovations predominantly in terms of demand-pull, rather than a supply-push. Whereas the latter is very much in line with Schumpeter’s understanding of entrepreneurial invention and creative destruction, the former requires a need to be fulfilled and can be understood in Ogburn’s terms as solution to existing maladjustments. Pull-models of innovation have been used in the political realm since the 1960s, albeit with an emphasis on technical inventions to fix social problems. Social innovations continue this political uptake on innovations as solutions to social needs. The main argument against a reconsideration of social innovation as repair would then be the novelty aspect (the ‘new ideas’) that are found at the centre of inventions and supposedly not in repair. However, studies of repair highlight the creative and origiCornelius Schubert

34  Encyclopedia of social innovation

nal aspects tied in with each repair as long as it transcends simple replacement (Henke 2000; Jackson 2014). Like innovation, repair largely develops as an open-ended process, not a predetermined sequence of events. The creative aspect of invention, which the European Commission emphasizes by ‘new ideas that work to address pressing unmet needs’, can be understood as an approach to fixing a cultural lag in Ogburn’s sense and as forms of disruptive maintenance. Repair and social innovation are not mutually exclusive in this reading. Rather, the need for repair, for resolving cultural lags and societal tensions, derives from the endless dynamics of modern societies and capitalist modes of production and is addressed in EU policy, among others, by mobilizing social innovations. What we can see on the level of EU discourse is, however, an interesting detachment of the rhetoric of innovation and repair. The dominant use of entrepreneurial vocabulary on the level of EU invokes an understanding of innovation in terms of Schumpeter. The underlying definition of a problematic societal situation, in contrast, follows the concept of cultural lags and the promises of repair. The time around the year 2010 can be seen as the nascent phase of social innovations within EU policy. Over the following years, the entrepreneurial understanding of social innovation was stabilized in subsequent reports like the Guide to Social Innovation (European Commission 2013). In sum, we see a push towards a narrow entrepreneurial understanding of social innovation on the level of EU policy discourse, advocated by actors like the Young Foundation. This draws heavily on the positive connotations of innovation in general and on economic and technical innovation in particular. It emphasizes an entrepreneurial approach for fixing current societal challenges while at the same time supporting an instrumental perspective that makes use of social innovations as social technologies.

Critical reflection and outlook

This entry had two main aims. In the first part, social innovations were conceived as a form of repair or disruptive maintenance. In the second part, social innovations in EU policy

Cornelius Schubert

documents were shown to carry an entrepreneurial notion of innovation closely related to an economic perspective and a neoliberal agenda. If social innovation is understood in this way as a normative means of societal change, it can be conceived more accurately in the (politically unfashionable) terms of repair and disruptive maintenance rather than the popular terms of innovation. A more cautious approach to the benefits of organized social innovation seems warranted since research suggests that it is not simply a new and effective governance tool but that it cuts both ways and encounters strong resistance also on the local level (Taylor 1970). If social innovations are forms of disruptive maintenance, these disruptions are likely to be countered by conservative forces and institutionalized practices. Focusing on social innovations as a mode of social change and a disruptive maintenance of social order could then help to counter the pro-innovation bias found on the level of EU policy and in (social) innovation studies. The repair perspective can help to unpack dominant innovation narratives with respect to societal change. It can generate inquiries into the active modes of preservation that address societal challenges but without buying into an instrumentalist innovation discourse. This opens up research questions at the intersection of social science, policy and society not only by regarding innovation and repair as two sides of the same coin, but by highlighting the often-neglected issues of maintenance and repair that constitute a central element in processes of change.2 Cornelius Schubert

Notes 1.

2.

I use the term here to highlight the disruptive novel aspects of social innovations as well as their role in maintaining order. The disruptions need not be large but may be small adjustments to existing practices. The point is that they are not simple continuations of established forms of order. A longer version of this argument can be found in Schubert (2019).

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material.

Social innovations as a repair of social order  35 BEPA (2014), Social innovation: a decade of changes: a BEPA report, Luxembourg. European Commission (2010), This is European social innovation (Enterprise & Industry), Luxembourg. European Commission (2013), Guide to social innovation, Luxembourg. Godin, B. and C. Schubert (2021), ‘Research on the history of innovation: from the spiritual to the social’, in J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka and A. Schröder (eds), A research agenda for social innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 21–38. Godin, B. and D. Vinck (eds) (2017), Critical studies of innovation: alternative approaches to the pro-innovation bias, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Henke, C. R. (2000), ‘The mechanics of workplace order: toward a sociology of repair’, Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 44, pp. 55–81. Howaldt, J., R. Kopp and M. Schwarz (2015), On the theory of social innovations: Tarde’s neglected contribution to the development

of a sociological innovation theory. Edition Soziologie, Weinheim: Beltz Juventa. Jackson, S. J. (2014), ‘Rethinking repair’, in T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski and K. A. Foot (eds), Media technologies: essays on communication, materiality, and society, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 221–39. Ogburn, W. F. (1922), Social change: with respect to culture and original nature, New York: Viking Press. Pel, B., A. Haxeltine, F. Avelino, A. Dumitru, R. Kemp, T. Bauler and M. S. Jørgensen (2020), ‘Towards a theory of transformative social innovation: a relational framework and 12 propositions’, Research Policy, 49 (8), pp. 1–13. Schubert, C. (2019), ‘Social innovations as a repair of social order’, NOvation – Critical Studies of Innovation, 1, pp. 40–66. Schumpeter, J. A. (1942), Capitalism, socialism and democracy, New York: Harper & Row. Taylor, J. B. (1970), ‘Introducing social innovation’, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 6 (1), pp. 69–77.

Cornelius Schubert

7.

Social innovation and social change

Key findings Historical background Although it has been a core topic for sociology from its beginnings, the understanding of social change is broad and heterogeneous. ‘Since there is no universalist theory of social change whose explanatory claim is unchallenged in sociology, we have to deal with a large number of theories and theoretical traditions that contribute to an understanding and explanation of social change’ (Weymann 1998, pp. 17f.1). The reasons why there is no general theory of social change and also why there cannot be one (Boudon 1986, p. 189) lie mainly in the non-rationality (of which no account is taken) of social reality, that is, in the empirical facts of non-determined, both planned and unplanned, open-ended processes. Actions do not necessarily have the form of a choice between predetermined options. They may be innovative instead (ibid., pp. 166ff.). At the same time, different ideal types of innovations could be distinguished: the prevailing structuralist view of innovation as a response to an explicit or implicit endogenous need, as a structural or functional requirement, or the interactionist and strategic view, in which innovation (with reference to Schumpeter) does not follow mechanically from the environmental conditions, for these merely provide an abundance of opportunities which are either taken up or not. This distinction – which is also key for the analysis of social innovations – has great consequences with regard to the interpretation of transformation processes such as industrialization or the emergence of capitalism. They are not responses to a need, but rather the outcome of a long and complex process of making use of specific opportunities (ibid., p. 172), or a chain of social innovations which are interwoven with each other in many and diverse ways. The so-called industrial revolution, for example, is not a break or event that can be traced back to a few particular causes. Rather, it is a process that extends from the thirteenth to the nineteenth centuries. Any theory that reduces such both planned and unplanned processes of social change to specific dominant factors such as dependency, economic and cultural change, technological progress, expanding markets, class struggle, the specific features of political organization

Introduction

Social innovations are by now widely recognized as essential for society’s response to major challenges, including climate change, energy supply, poverty, and pandemics. While culminating social and economic problems identified in public discourse are increasingly prompting a call for extensive social innovation, the relationship between social innovation and social change remains a largely underexplored area. Even though in recent years there has been greater discussion of processes of social change and transformation and the importance of social innovations in this regard has been emphasized (Howaldt and Schwarz 2021; Pel et al. 2020), established approaches for analysing and shaping social transformation (UNRISD 2016) or ‘systemic change’ (BEPA 2010) often lack not only a clearly defined concept of social change and transformation, but above all also a concept of social innovation that is grounded in social theory. Until today, social innovations are treated only ‘with few if any reference to a theory of change which is relegated to context or background’ (Godin 2012, p. 35). The dominant understanding is that social change refers to significant alterations in social structures, practices and beliefs as a result of mainly unplanned economic and cultural change. In contrast, social innovations are seen as micro-phenomena and a planned and intended (collective) action that (can) contribute to the much larger process of social change (Mulgan 2015, p. xiii) through diffusion and scaling-up processes, although it is extremely difficult to understand where the corresponding ideas come from and why some are spreading and others are not (ibid.). Furthermore, depending on whether the social innovations are incremental, institutional or disruptive, there are also different and increasing ranges in the objectives associated with them, which go as far as system change. Different actors and networks up to social movements are involved in these processes (Nicholls et al. 2015, pp. 3f.; Fligstein and McAdam 2011).

36

Social innovation and social change  37

or the like, can be ruled out. Contingency, understood as a principle of openness and uncertainty, and its scientific consideration play a crucial role in the analysis of social change. On the other hand, the terms ‘social innovation’ and ‘social innovator’, which first started to appear more frequently at the beginning of the nineteenth century, were already semantically closely linked to social transformation processes in the early days of the discussion. Especially in Great Britain and France, they initially were widely used in discourses about a socialist transformation. In the emerging discourses around the concept of social reform, ‘social innovation’ then acquired a connotation that associated it more strongly with problem-solving within the established order, for example in the areas of education, working conditions, and equal opportunities (Godin 2012, pp. 21f.). In the initially few academic approaches that explicitly dealt with social innovation, the close semantic association of social innovation with revolution and reform was successively abandoned and an attempt was made to make this term usable for a specific type of ubiquitous gradual change. Nevertheless, the concept of social innovation has played only a minor role in sociological theories of social change. It has remained a largely isolated, unspecified, and not systematically integrated aspect in theories of social change. Thus, its importance in processes of social change remains systematically blurred and underexposed in this theoretical context (Howaldt and Schwarz 2016, p. 17). Among the few social change theorists who explicitly address social innovation are William F. Ogburn and Wolfgang Zapf. Ogburn is often cited as the first sociologist to address the importance of social innovation within his theory of social change. He sees inventions and/or innovations – understood as ‘a combination of existing and known elements of culture, material and/or non-material, a modification of one to form a new one’ (Ogburn 1964 [1950], p. 23) as being the most important cause of change. Social change is understood as an emergent innovation process, in which technological as well as non-technological variables can be the trigger. Although Ogburn lists social inventions of various kinds, he does not examine them in terms of their institutional-

ization as social innovations. A theoretically well-founded integration of social innovations into a theory of social change is proclaimed as possible and necessary, but is not developed further. In the context of his modernization theory approach, Wolfgang Zapf explicitly makes the connection between social innovation and social change. He describes social innovations as ‘new ways of achieving goals, especially new forms of organisation, new regulations, new lifestyles, which alter the direction of social change, solve problems better than earlier practices, and which are therefore worth imitating and institutionalising’ (Zapf 1989, p. 177, emphasis in original). They are a subset of processes of social change and ‘a suitable means […] of meeting social challenges, namely through material, time-based and social sharing of (social) problems so that they lose their overwhelming dimension’ (Zapf 1997, p. 39). The ‘field’ of social innovations in combination with technological innovations in this context is continuing modernization of the basic institutions of modern societies. Their potential for processes of fundamental social transformation of societies is not discussed.2 While the development of an empirically based (sociological) theory of social change is still pending, more complex models for an improved understanding of the development and diffusion of technical innovations have already emerged in social science innovation research in the 1970s and 1980s (Hall 2006). Evolutionary economics in particular has provided important impetus for a sociologically enlightened conceptualization of technology development and diffusion (Weyer 2008, pp. 151ff.). These also form the basis for more far-reaching concepts of transition research, which have gained increasing importance in recent years. In the context of the growing interest in societal transformation processes, the multi-level perspective (MLP) developed in sociotechnical innovation research (Geels 2019) and the governance model of transition management based on it (Loorbach 2010) are of particular importance. Under this perspective, system innovations in societal functional areas such as transportation, energy supply, food, housing and communication are considered. These functional areas are characterized by specific socio-technical systems. System innovations arise from interJürgen Howaldt and Michael Schwarz

38  Encyclopedia of social innovation

connected developments on different levels. Different societal sectors, actors, practices, (learning) processes, routines, capabilities and rules play a role, but always linked to the question of how they influence the emergence, development and enforcement of new technologies and socio-technical systems or regimes shaped by them. Despite a variety of criticisms, the MLP approach hardly seems to have lost its appeal as a theoretical model for shaping social transformation processes. However, from the perspective of a social theory-based understanding of social innovation, it does not provide a suitable basis for an adequate understanding of social transformation processes. With its staggered ontology (Schatzki 2016a, pp. 38ff.) in the form of a rigid macro–meso–micro hierarchy of the three levels landscapes, regimes and niches, it systematically hides the dynamics of change in social practices and is therefore unable to capture the significance of social innovations in transformation processes (Avelino et al. 2017). Against this background, scholars from the Dutch Research Institute for Transitions, choose with reference to social theory-based concepts of social innovation a more integrative approach by analysing the transformative potential of social innovation (Avelino et al. 2017; Pel et al. 2020). They have developed a heuristic that aims to avoid determinant factors and takes into account that societal transformation is shaped and produced by particular patterns of interaction between social innovation, system innovation, game-changers and narratives of change. Individual actors, initiatives and networks, are empowered (or disempowered) to contribute to this process through different forms of governance, social learning, resourcing, and monitoring. (Avelino et al. 2014, p. 5)

Current research Looking at the current international discussion on the topic of social innovation, it is clear that the question of the relationship between social innovation and social change is increasingly becoming the focal point of debate. However, despite increasing attempts to grasp this connection conceptually, the results to date have remained unsatisfactory, particularly with regard to a social-theoretically viable foundation and Jürgen Howaldt and Michael Schwarz

integration of social innovation. Although some progress has been made in recent years, a widely accepted theoretical model founded by empirical research is still missing. The four approaches in social innovation research discussed below can be used to illustrate the differences in conceptualizing the relationship between social innovation and social change (Howaldt and Schwarz 2021). Social innovation as social entrepreneurship research Since the turn of the millennium the discussion about social innovation has been increasingly shaped by the concept of the social entrepreneur (Nicholls 2012). Based on the work of Mohammad Yunus and the Stanford Center for Social Innovation at Stanford University’s Business School, a dynamic research community has emerged (Pue et al. 2016, pp. 50ff.) that is shaping public debate on the topic. Company and organization-oriented perspectives have gained in importance. The debate about social entrepreneurship is involved in a controversy on the change and structure of modern societies and the reorganization of the relationship between the economy, politics and civil society (Mair 2010). The system of welfare state regulation is to become the subject of innovations that develop out of the realm of civil society. However, the debate with its many partly contradictory definitions falls short of the requirements for a scientifically sound concept (e.g. Short et al. 2009). What is needed are more comprehensive concepts that address the cross-sectoral networking of individual innovators’ solutions with political and other public initiatives (Avelino et al. 2014). This is also where the work of Geoff Mulgan and his colleagues in London comes in. They focus on the possible contribution of social innovators to mastering the major societal challenges and develop a process model with the Social Innovation Life-Cycle (Murray et al. 2010, p. 11), which is intended to clarify the connection between social innovation and systemic change. Their work and their definition of social innovations as ‘social in both their ends and their means’ (ibid., p. 3) have had a decisive influence on European innovation policy. The report of the influential Bureau of European Policy Advisers (BEPA 2010) identifies three complementary perspectives of social innova-

Social innovation and social change  39

tions that describe their relationship to social transformation processes. The perspective of sustainable development, which goes beyond the traditional linear models of technical innovation and aims to reorganize society with regard to participation, empowerment and learning itself, is gaining in importance alongside the solution of concrete social problems or orientation towards the major social challenges (ibid., pp. 26ff.). Further efforts are needed to strengthen social innovation at all levels. Against this background Mulgan (2019) calls for a theoretical underpinning of social innovation discourse. Social innovation and resilience In their examination of the concept’s limitations, Frances Westley and her colleagues at the Waterloo Institute for Social Innovation and Resilience adopt a wider perspective by focusing on the potential contribution of social innovations to increasing the resilience of modern societies. They assume that the concepts of social innovation and resilience, namely, the ‘capacity to adapt to shocks and changes while maintaining sufficient coherence for identity’ (Westley 2008, p. 3), are closely tied together. From this perspective ‘social innovation is an important component of being resilient – new ideas will keep a society adaptable, flexible and able to learn’ (Moore et al. 2012, p. 91). In this context, the authors work with a broad understanding of social innovations, ‘including products as well as deliberative processes and policies that are transformative in their outcome with respect to greater social resilience’ (McGowan and Westley 2015, p. 54). At the same time, in their analysis of historical social innovation cases, they emphasize a system shift ‘towards greater inclusion, greater resilience and greater prosperity’ (ibid., p. 54). They see social innovation as an integral part of human history, and at the same time as a core element of social change. Thus they widen the perspective and propose a new understanding of scaling processes. According to this they are most interested in scaling understood as attempts to bring about whole system change, not just organizational growth, and make a distinction between the concepts of ‘scaling up and scaling out’. If the social entrepreneur is the critical figure in ‘scaling out’, then in contrast, ‘scaling up’ requires ‘system entrepreneurs’ – ‘indi-

viduals committed to and skilled in changing broader systems’ (Westley and Antadze 2010, p. 7). System entrepreneurs are able to ‘recognise and seize an opportunity without the ability to control it directly’ (ibid.). Social innovation and regional development One of the most prominent areas in which the concept of social innovation has increasingly become a research focus in the social sciences is local and regional development. The International Handbook on Social Innovation (Moulaert et al. 2013) presents a research perspective on social innovation that has been developed over the last 30 years, which is intended to be a coherent methodological perspective that deals both conceptually and practically with structural, political and cultural forces that generate social exclusion, but also have the potential for social change and socially innovative initiatives, and that combine societal well-being with the shaping and organization of society. It centres on a three-dimensional frame of reference that consists of the mutually associated defining characteristics of social innovation: satisfying needs in the sense of human development, reconfiguration of social relationships, and empowerment or political mobilization. Social innovation initiatives and processes are placed in a programmatic meta-theoretical frame of reference which is oriented towards identifying their structural and institutional aspects, and their significance in the context of social transformation. It serves to analyse opposing forces of human development, as well as past and future spatially and institutionally embedded social innovation processes and initiatives. Social innovations occur on various spatial levels as well as on societal micro-, meso- and macro-levels, and they cannot be isolated from aspects such as local integration, mobilization of many different types of resources, and learning on the part of actors. In this sense, social innovation is an arena for a deliberating kind of decision-making with a transformative power, based on political negotiation at local/ regional level by publics created by the political power of social movements (Moulaert et al. 2013). In particular, their findings on process dynamics of social innovation, especially concerning empowerment dynamics of social movements and initiatives, are imporJürgen Howaldt and Michael Schwarz

40  Encyclopedia of social innovation

tant for a socio-theoretically sound concept of social innovation. Social innovation as reconfiguration of social practices The question of how the relationship between social innovation and social change can be captured with a non-normative concept is primarily explored from a practice theoretical perspective (→ OPERATIONALIZING PRACTICE THEORIES FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION RESEARCH). Here, the new manifests itself at the level of social practices. In a non-normative understanding of social, which does not refer to socially desirable or good as a determining criterion, the innovative consists in the social, collaborative reconfiguration of (always already existing) social practices. In this sense, social innovations can be defined as an intentional reconfiguration of social practices in certain fields of action, emanating from certain actors with the aim of solving problems or needs better than is possible on the basis of established practices (Howaldt and Schwarz 2010, p. 54). It is then a social innovation when certain inventions, ideas and initiatives are imitated, context-specifically adapted and (thereby) lead to a transformation of social practices in or between specific social sub-areas as an expression and driver of social change. In processes of (transformative) social change, interferences in the imitation of social practices and social innovations lead to the reconfiguration of complexes of practices, practice formations and corresponding forms of life. Not a priori stable social facts (systems, structures, levels, norms) and external developments are the relevant drivers of social change, but rather the constellation of relations of imitative repetition, opposition and adaptation (Tarde 2009). With a focus on social practices, the occurrence of social conditions and of transformative social change can be analysed and understood. The challenge of promoting sustainable lifestyles and economic activity at core is about reconfiguring the social practices that make up society (Shove et al. 2012, p. 137). Since forms of life and forms of practice are both a precondition for and product of social practices, they prove to be shapeable. The changing of forms of practice, that is, the socially created ability to create something new in the course of practice, Jürgen Howaldt and Michael Schwarz

is an active social process with structuring effects, and it is participation in practices and forms of practice that makes the capacity to act (agency) possible in the first place (ibid., p. 121). All social phenomena occur as part of an ‘immense and dynamic network’ of social practices and material arrangements (Schatzki 2016b, p. 70). Material and technical arrangements are not socially relevant as such; they become so only in their interconnectedness with social practices. With Social Change in a Material World Schatzki (2019) presented a new practical-theoretical approach to social change and its explanation as a piece of social theory. Social change is thus a configuration of significant differences in bundles of social practices and material arrangements, caused by the connection of chains of activity with (material) events and processes. The concepts of change, difference, event and process, together with those of action, practice, material arrangements and bundles of practice form the conceptual framework with which social dynamics are to be analysed. If we integrate social innovations into this approach, then they are inventions and sophisticated corrections in problematic situations; successful collective actions, distributed permanent efforts of certain actors whose actions bring about change. These are surprising or irregular actions and novel reactions to them, moments from which social change can start. Simple and minor social changes in social phenomena are causes for change. More complex changes consist of linkages of social innovations (i.e. new linkages that bring about change). In combination with the concept of the criticism and transformation of forms of life (Jaeggi 2014) this approach can be regarded as an element of a more comprehensive theory of social change. According to Jaeggi, forms of life are aimed at solving problems, and in this way can be criticized and changed (ibid., p. 448). They are ‘variable relationships of practices, not self-contained and comprehensively integrated entities’ (ibid., p. 118) but rather experiments in problem-solving and at the same time elements of transformative social change. Hence social change is conceived of as a more or less successful reaction to existing forms of life and practices becoming obsolete, as a self-enriching and open-ended learning process that emerges within practical performances. This approach

Social innovation and social change  41

allows a theoretical merger of (social) problems, social practices, social innovations and processes of transformative social change, as well as an evaluation of forms of life and hence of social practices and social innovations beyond normative attributions in the sense of ‘a perfectionist theory of the good life, which would inevitably attract accusations of paternalism’ (Jaeggi 2015, p. 14).

Critical reflection and outlook

With the increased thematization of and research into the major social challenges, a type of inter- and transdisciplinary transformation research has formed that is predominantly critical of modernization and growth, and which is mainly concerned with the possibilities and conditions for the realization of viable, sustainable and/or human development, corresponding designs for society, and accompanying transformation processes, as well as the necessary transformative knowledge. In the debate surrounding sustainable development and the necessary social transformation processes, a key position is occupied by social innovations, which allow the development of new values and practices. Recent years have seen the development of a whole series of more or less theoretically informed approaches that conceptually and programmatically focus on the shaping or shapeability of transformation processes in terms of sustainable and human development. However, the ‘varied use of the term “transformation”’ – as can be seen in approaches such as transition management, transition design, transformation design, social design, and the Great Transformation – leads to a conceptual uncertainty rather than to a theoretically grounded understanding of transformative change (Howaldt and Schwarz 2016, pp. 43ff.). Also the role of social innovation in processes of social change and societal transformation remains unclear. Established approaches for analysing and shaping societal transformation or ‘transformative change’ (UNRISD 2016) often lack not only a clearly defined concept of transformation, but, above all, a concept of social innovation that is grounded in social theory (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION AND THE REMAKING OF STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS AND REGIMES).

With regard to a theoretical underpinning of social innovation research, a better understanding of the role of social innovation in processes of societal and socio-technical transformation is a crucial point. This shift in the understanding of innovation has far-reaching consequences in the context of its application in specific domains, for example, energy, health and transportation. Furthermore, with a broader concept of innovation in mind, we also have to widen the perspective on domains as education and learning, employment and work health and social care, tackling poverty; the 17 SDGs might provide a useful characterization of relevant domains. Such an understanding of change has implications for the governance of social change processes. The shift in perspective onto social innovation directs the focus onto the experimental shaping of social learning processes, onto mechanisms of imitation and hence onto non-linear, non-sequential forms of spreading, institutionalization and routinization (→ DIFFUSION). There is a need for more historical studies that help us to understand the evolution of social innovation (Westley et al. 2017). That also means that we have to focus on the (national, regional, cultural, social, economic, political) context of social innovation – what is going on pertaining to the modes, dynamics and forces (including real power structures in spheres of economies and politics) of social change. Faced with an uncertain future, alternative narratives and theories of change are a pivotal driving force behind physical change (Wittmayer et al. 2019; Ziegler 2019). A specific focus should be laid on the ambivalence of social innovation. The implementation of innovation and new technologies goes along with the displacement of previous ones. While innovation generates winners, it also generates losers at the same time. In fact, this ambivalence was acknowledged as early as Schumpeter (1964) introduced the process of ‘creative destruction’. The development of a theoretically sound concept of social innovation is a precondition to elaborate an integrated theory of innovation and to direct empirical research to better understand the role of innovation in complex processes of social change and transformation. A great challenge for conJürgen Howaldt and Michael Schwarz

42  Encyclopedia of social innovation

temporary innovation research lies indeed in analysing the potential of social innovation in the creation of new social practices that enhance an inclusive, equitable, democratic, participative, and above all socially anchored future. Beyond such a policy-oriented and normative perspective on social innovations, however, above all it is important to conceive them as an analytical category in research on processes of change and to integrate them systematically as such in – primarily practice-theory – approaches to explaining transformative social change. Jürgen Howaldt and Michael Schwarz

14 September 2021 at http://​ www​ .jstor​ .org/​ stable/​41057693. Geels, F. W. (2019), ‘Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: a review of criticisms and elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 39, pp. 187–201. Godin, B. (2012), ‘Social innovation: utopias of innovation from c.1830 to the present. project on the intellectual history of innovation’, Working Paper 11, Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation, accessed 14 September 2021 at http://​www​.csiic​.ca/​PDF/​SocialInnovation​ _2012​.pdf. Hall, B. H. (2006), ‘Innovation and diffusion’, in J. Fagerberg and D. C. Mowe (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 459–85. Notes Howaldt, J. and M. Schwarz (2010), ‘Social 1. Quotations from German-language sources were innovation: concepts, research fields and translated into English by the authors. international trends’, Studies for Innovation in 2. Other authors who have explored the relationa Modern Working Environment, Volume 5, ship between social innovation and social change Aachen, accessed 4 March 2022 at https://​ include Peter Drucker, Harvey Brooks and Otto sfs​.sowi​.tu​-dortmund​.de/​storages/​sfs​ Neuloh. For an overview of these conceptual -sowi/​r/​Publikationen/​Soziale​_Innovation​ designs, see Howaldt and Schwarz (2016), chapter 3.1. _Publikationen/​Social​_Innovation​_Concepts​ _​_Research​_Fields​_and​_Trends​.pdf. Howaldt, J. and M. Schwarz (2016), ‘Social References innovation and its relationship to social change: verifying existing social theories in Entries marked in bold are further reading reference to social innovation and its relamaterial. tionship to social change’, SI-Drive Report Avelino, F., J. Wittmayer, A. Haxeltine, R. D 1.3, Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle, Kemp, T. O’Riordan, P. Weaver et al. (2014), accessed 14 September 2021 at http://​www​ ‘Game-changers and transformative social .sfs​.tu​-dortmund​.de/​cms/​Medienpool/​ innovation: the case of the economic crisis and small​_publications/​SI​-DRIVE​_D1​-3​-Social​ the new economy’, TRANSIT Working Paper, -Change​_final​-260416​.pdf. accessed 14 September 2021 at http://​ www​ Howaldt, J. and M. Schwarz (2021), ‘Social inno.tra​nsitsocial​innovation​.eu/​content/​original/​ vation and social change’, in J. Howaldt, C. TRANSIT​%20outputs/​91​%20Gamechangers​ Kaletka and A. Schröder (eds), A Research _TSI​_Avelino​_etal​_TRANSIT​_workingpaper​ Agenda for Social Innovation, Cheltenham, UK _2014​.pdf. and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Avelino, F., J. M. Wittmayer, R. Kemp and A. Publishing, pp. 39–58. Haxeltine (2017), ‘Game-changers and trans- Jaeggi, R. (2014), Kritik von Lebensformen, Berlin: formative social innovation’, Ecology and Suhrkamp Verlag. Published in English (2018) Society 22 (4), Art. 41, accessed 14 September as: Critique of Forms of Life, Cambridge, MA: 2021 at https://​www​.ecologyandsociety​.org/​ The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. vol22/​iss4/​art41/​. Jaeggi, R. (2015), ‘Towards an immanent critique BEPA (2010), ‘Empowering people, driving of forms of life’, Raisons politiques, 57 (1), change: social innovation in the European pp. 13–29. Union’, Brussels: Bureau of European Policy Loorbach, D. (2010), ‘Transition management Advisers (BEPA), European Commission, for sustainable development: a prescriptive, www​ accessed 14 September 2021 at http://​ complexity-based governance framework’, .tra​nsitsocial​innovation​.eu/​resource​-hub/​ Governance, 23 (1), pp. 161–83. empowering​-people​-driving​-change​-social​ Mair, J. (2010), ‘Social entrepreneurship: taking -innovation​-in​-the​-european​-union. stock and looking ahead’, in A. Fayolle and Boudon, R. (1986), Theories of Social Change: H. Matlay (eds), Handbook of Research on A Critical Appraisal, Cambridge: Polity Press. Social Entrepreneurship, Cheltenham, UK Fligstein, N. and D. McAdam (2011), ‘Toward and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar a general theory of strategic action fields’, Publishing, pp. 15–28. Sociological Theory, 29 (1), pp. 1–26, accessed McGowan, K. and F. Westley (2015), ‘At the root of change: the history of social innovation’, in

Jürgen Howaldt and Michael Schwarz

Social innovation and social change  43 A. Nicholls, J. Simon and M. Gabriel (eds), New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 52–68. Moore, M.-L., F. Westley, O. Tjornbo and C. Holroyd (2012), ‘The loop, the lens, and the lesson: using resilience theory to examine public policy and social innovation’, in A. Nicholls and A. Murdock (eds), Social Innovation: Blurring Boundaries to Reconfigure Markets, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 89–113. Moulaert, F., D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood and A. Hamdouch (eds) (2013), The International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Mulgan, G. (2015), ‘Foreword: the study of social innovation – theory, practice and progress’, in A. Nicholls, J. Simon and M. Gabriel (eds), New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. x–xx. Mulgan, G. (2019), Social Innovation: How Societies Find the Power to Change, Bristol: Policy Press. Murray, R., J. Caulier-Grice and G. Mulgan (2010), The Open Book of Social Innovation, Social Innovator Series: Ways to Design, Develop and Grow Social Innovation, London: The Young Foundation, accessed 13 September 2021 at https://​youngfoundation​.org/​wp​ -content/​uploads/​2012/​10/​The​-Open​-Book​-of​ -Social​-Innovationg​.pdf. Nicholls, A. (2012), ‘The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: reflexive isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic field’, in B. Gidron and Y. Hasenfeld (eds), Social Enterprises: An Organisational Perspective, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 222–47. Nicholls, A., J. Simon and M. Gabriel (eds) (2015), ‘Introduction: dimensions of social innovation’, in New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–26. Ogburn, W. F. (1964) [1950], ‘Social evolution reconsidered’, in W. F. Ogburn, On Culture and Social Change: Selected Papers, ed. Otis Dudley Duncan, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 17–32. Pel, B., A. Haxeltine, F. Avelino, A. Dumitru, R. Kemp, T. Bauler et al. (2020), ‘Towards a theory of transformative social innovation: a relational framework and 12 propositions’, Research Policy, 49 (8), 104080. Pue, K., C. Vandergeest and D. Breznitz (2016), ‘Toward a theory of social innovation’, Innovation policy lab white paper, 2016–01, Munk School of Global Affairs, Toronto: University of Toronto. Schatzki, T. R. (2016a), ‘Practice theory as flat ontologyʼ, in G. Spaargaren, D. Weenick and M. Lamers (eds), Practice Theory and

Research: Exploring the Dynamics of Social Life, London: Routledge, pp. 28–42. Schatzki, T. R. (2016b), ‘Materialität und soziales Leben’, in H. Kalthoff, T. Cress and T. Röhl (eds), Materialität. Herausforderungen für die Sozial- und Kulturwissenschaften, Paderborn: Fink, pp. 63–88. Schatzki, T. R. (2019), Social Change in a Material World, London, New York: Routledge. Schumpeter, J. A. (1964), Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, 6th edition, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Short, J., T. W. Moss and G. T. Lumpkin (2009), ‘Research in social entrepreneurship: past contributions and future opportunities’, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3 (3), pp. 161–94. Shove, E., M. Pantzar and M. Watson (2012), The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How It Changes, Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Tarde, G. (2009), Die sozialen Gesetze. Skizze einer Soziologie, Marburg: Metropolis. UNRISD [United Nations Research Institute for Social Development] (2016), ‘Innovative Politik für transformativen Wandel’, UNRISD Flagship-Bericht 2016, Berlin: Deutsche Gesellschaft für die Vereinten Nationen e.V. Westley, F. (2008), ‘The social innovation dynamic’, Working Paper, Social Innovation Generation, Waterloo: University of Waterloo, accessed 14 September 2021 at http://​ sigeneration​.ca/​blog/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2010/​ 07/​TheSoc​ialInnovat​ionDynamic​.pdf. Westley, F. and N. Antadze (2010), ‘Making a difference: strategies for scaling social innovation for greater impact’, The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 15 (2), pp. 2–19. Westley, F., K. McGowan and O. Tjörnbo (2017), The Evolution of Social Innovation, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Weyer, J. (2008), Techniksoziologie. Genese, Gestaltung und Steuerung soziotechnischer Systeme, Weinheim/München: Juventa. Weymann, A. (1998), Sozialer Wandel. Theorien zur Dynamik der modernen Gesellschaft, Weinheim/München: Juventa. Wittmayer, J. M., J. Backhaus, F. Avelino, B. Pel, T. Strasser, I. Kunze et al. (2019), ‘Narratives of change: how social innovation initiatives construct societal transformation’, Futures, 112, 102433. Zapf, W. (1989), ‘Über soziale Innovationenʼ, Soziale Welt, 40, pp. 170–83. Zapf, W. (1997), ‘Entwicklung als Modernisierungʼ, in M. Schulz (ed.), Entwicklung. Die Perspektive der Entwicklungssoziologie, Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, pp. 31–45. Ziegler, R. (2019), ‘The times of social innovation – fictional expectation, precautionary expectation and social imaginary’, in A. de Bruin

Jürgen Howaldt and Michael Schwarz

44  Encyclopedia of social innovation and S. Teasdale (eds), A Research Agenda for Social Entrepreneurship, Cheltenham, UK

Jürgen Howaldt and Michael Schwarz

and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 164–76.

8. Strands of social innovation research

here are based, on the one hand, on many years of research in the field as encapsulated by Weerakoon and McMurray (2021), and, on the other hand, on an extensive literature review. This chapter aims to examine the strands that have been encompassed by social innovation research. Using keywords1 a systematic literature search was conducted between the years 1998 and 2021. The search explored the databases of Business Resource Complete, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, Scopus, Psych INFO, Emerald Fulltext, and Google Scholar. Searching was continued until no further articles or books that could be identified as related to social research strands were identified. The result generated 27 refereed papers and book chapters related to strands of social innovation research.

Introduction: the nature of social innovation

Innovation has long been a feature of capitalist economies and was a leading aspect in the development of the industrial era in Britain. According to Godin (2015), it has been an area of interest and consideration for hundreds of years, although it has only become positive in its orientation in the twentieth century. Various types of innovation are relevant to many research areas in technology, economics, business, and numerous fields of social entrepreneurship and human endeavour. More recently, the concept of social innovation has permeated those fields yet not without experiencing the challenges of being clearly defined, and social entrepreneurship has evolved as an aim to create products and services that will benefit society. Social innovation or entrepreneurship is a type of innovation that has undergone difficulties in its specification and is an area of many investigations by numerous researchers in many disciplines. ‘Social entrepreneurship means different things to different people’ (Mair 2010, p. 16). Social innovation is global (Domanski et al. 2020), and organizations have started to report the social impact (Nicholls 2018). According to Adams and Hess (2010), interest in this area has grown considerably, yet this growth has resulted in confusion regarding the identification of what social innovation encompasses. A definition of social innovation was proposed by Mulgan (2006, p. 146), who defined it as ‘innovative activities and services that are motivated by the goal of meeting a social need and that are predominantly diffused through organizations whose primary purposes are social’. Other definitions have highlighted social innovation aspects such as social needs (Oosterlynck et al. 2013) that change social systems (Westley and Antadze 2010), new solutions for social needs (Bennet and McWhorter 2019), social innovative initiatives which address social problems (Mulgan 2012), and Edwards-Schachter and Wallace (2017) identified elements such as social change, sustainable development and the services sector. The results presented

The strands of social innovation research

There have been several strands of social innovation (Table 8.1). Coopey et al. (1998) investigated the basis for social innovation in the case of personal agency and found it to be based on self identity, drawing on experience, freedom of action and command over resources, and the use of social and political relationships. An article by González and Healey (2005) also explored social innovation regarding governance processes and cultures and identified how this had developed in a particular circumstance. Finally, Moulaert and Nussbaumer (2005) identified the social economy as being a part of social innovation, which, according to these authors, is based on several aspects, in particular, institutional innovation or innovation in social relations, innovation in governance, and innovation in terms of the social economy and more satisfaction of the needs of local communities. Known for their research into the contributors to social innovation, Adams and Hess (2010) reported that the social innovation field was based on local development. One year later, Leeuwis and Aarts (2011) carried out an evaluation of the role of communication in social innovation. It was suggested that communication impacts innovation through three possible strands; the first was regarding the reconfiguration of relationships between existing or new networks. A second way communication influenced innovation was through social learning, whereby debates and 45

46  Encyclopedia of social innovation Table 8.1

Summary of strands and authors

Strands

Authors

Personal agency

Coopey et al. (1998)

Social economy

Moore and Westley (2011)

Innovation

Moulaert and Nussbaumer (2005), Oosterlynck et al. (2013), Seyfang and Longhurst (2013)

Creativity

Van der Have and Rubalcaba (2016), Adams and Hess (2010)

Local development

Adams and Hess (2010), Van der Have and Rubalcaba (2016)

Solving societal challenges

Adams and Hess (2010)

Communication

Leeuwis and Aarts (2011)

Governance and culture

González and Healey (2005)

Collaboration between private, public and third Edwards-Schachter et al. (2012) sectors

learning activities led to innovations. Finally, a third means was through the involvement of communication in power and conflict interactions, with possible impacts on innovative activities. Social innovation is an activity that plays an important role in finding solutions for social and ecological problems, and this requires an investment of capital to enable such activities to be brought to fruition. This has led to the development of the concept of social finance, which identifies the nature of capital required to develop social innovation. Investigations by Edwards-Schachter et al. (2012) identified what was suggested to be crucial aspects of social innovation, specifically participative processes, citizens’ empowerment, and collaborative activities between private public and third sectors. Research by Oosterlynck et al. (2013), examined the literature addressing socially innovative policies and actions to overcome poverty and social exclusion. During the same year, Van Dyck and Van den Broeck (2013) identified social innovation approaches as forming a strand belonging to the literature dealing with governance and development, while Seyfang and Longhurst (2013) identified what they considered to be two main types of research namely the socio-technical innovation in markets and civil society led innovation in social institutions and arrangements. Three years later, Van der Have and Rubalcaba (2016) also examined the governance and development area of social innovation research and found the field to be based on four different aspects: community psychology, creativity research, social and societal challenges, and local development.

Recently, Weerakoon and McMurray (2020), in examining the coverage of research in the field of social innovation, suggested that social entrepreneurship and knowledge confirmed the existence of three main research strands, namely motives, mission, and processes of social value creation; co-creation through networks and partnerships; and the effects of institutional actors on social entrepreneurial processes (p. 68). They identified six areas of such research that they called clusters. These clusters encompassed the areas of transformative social innovation, social transformation, and transformative social innovation theory with a co-evolutionary perspective of transformative social innovation, including social innovation, system innovation, game changers and narratives of change. These areas were reported to comprise socio-technical innovation in markets and civil society-led innovation in social institutions and social arrangements. Sustainability transitions in the form of grassroots innovations are an important social innovation and have been a key focus. In addition, grassroots innovation, transition towns, actor-network theory, social movement theory and an evolutionary resilience framework, as well as grassroots innovation, urban niches, socio-technical transitions, strategic niche management, dynamics of grassroots innovation, socio-technical innovation niches in an organizational setting, and civil society and transition theory, were reported to be other areas of research, while grassroots innovation and niche management, political forms and diffusion success, and urban sustainability transitions and sustainable urban mobility were also reported to have been an area of focus by various researchers.

Adela J. McMurray, Ashokkumar Manoharan and Don Scott

Strands of social innovation research  47

Critical reflection

As identified by Godin (2015), innovation has been a subject of research for a very long time. However, as Ruede and Lurtz (2012) noted, there often is confusion about what it represents, and much of the research conducted is at an early stage of development. In this regard, research tends to follow a three-stage process of development. The early stages are characterized by what could be considered a theoretical discussion of the area, which is inevitably potentially biased by the researchers’ perceptions and beliefs. The stages of research that have been followed in the social innovation field are no different from this with a majority of articles and chapters in books, devoted to what could be called discussion documents where the discussion does not reflect a clear overall examination of the field and the ongoing research but addresses the suggestions that some writers have made. These strands can be divided into two themes: (1) external or societal strands and (2) internal strands. External or societal, which include solving societal challenges, local development, social economy, and collaborative activities between private, public, and third sectors. Social innovation aims to solve societal challenges and local development (Brandsen et al. 2016). These challenges can be identified through social networks. Social innovators must continue to engage with multiple stakeholders, which will enable them to identify the various societal issues. Besides, networks facilitate the development of innovations, and the establishment of such networks could draw in skill sets that will materially assist in the development of social innovations (Moore and Westley 2011). In addition, institutional entrepreneurs have abilities that enable them to overcome obstacles, and these skills should be used within networks to achieve better social innovation outcomes (Moore and Westley 2011). Once an issue has been identified, the next strand plays a vital role in solving the issue. Even though social innovation benefits society, it is essential that collaboration should occur between private, public and third sectors to solve the problem (Gallouj et al. 2018). This strand is similar to the concept proposed by Phillips et al.’s (2015) ‘systems of innovation’ to understand social

innovation. Collaborative activities lead to social innovation (Buur and Matthews 2008). Thus, collaboration among all sectors will lead to social innovation, which will solve the societal problem. The internal factors complement the external factors. For instance, creativity and innovativeness are integral to social innovation (García et al. 2015). Besides, self identity ‘an individual to and for oneself’ forms the basis for social innovation (Coopey et al. 1998, p. 272). The role of communication within innovation processes was discussed by Leeuws and Aarts (2011). They concluded that communication plays an important role in innovation development and design and that such communication extends beyond deliberate communications in respect of innovations to include everyday communications as a part of general social interaction. González and Healey (2005) considered that social innovation refers to changes in the governance of institutions and agencies aimed at improving the quality of life experiences in a socially inclusive and socially just way. The authors found that promoting socially innovative governance initiatives has the greatest potential to expand and develop the power to transform established governance practices.

Conclusion

The topic of social innovation is well researched. Although the idea of social innovation is a long-standing one, there is a lack of clarity as to what it stands for, and research in the field is often at an early stage of evolution. Seven categories of social innovation were identified, concluding that future research should focus on clarity in respect of what was examined (Ruede and Lurtz 2012). Furthermore, it was noted that knowledge about social innovation is fragmented (Van der Have and Rubalcaba 2016). In addition, researchers explicitly stated that social innovation has emerged as a new concept and field of study and that its study has been fragmented and diversified (Edwards‐Schachter et al. 2012). This entry addresses this issue and presents nine strands of social innovation. These strands are interconnected to achieve social innovation. Future researchers

Adela J. McMurray, Ashokkumar Manoharan and Don Scott

48  Encyclopedia of social innovation

and entrepreneurs can use these strands as a model to assess social innovation. Adela J. McMurray, Ashokkumar Manoharan and Don Scott

Note 1.

Social innovation, social innovation system, social entrepreneurship, social enterprise, social value, social technology, and strands of social innovation.

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Adams, D. and Hess, M. (2010), ‘Social innovation and why it has policy significance’, Economic Labour Relations Review, 21 (2), pp. 139–56. Bennett, E. E. and McWhorter, R. R. (2019), ‘Social movement learning and social innovation: empathy, agency, and the design of solutions to unmet social needs’, Advances in Developing Human Resources, 21 (2), pp. 224–49. Brandsen, T., Evers, A., Cattacin, S. and Zimmer, A. (2016), ‘Social innovation: a sympathetic and critical interpretation’, in T. Brandsen, S. Cattacin, A. Evers and A. Zimmer (eds), Social innovations in the urban context, Cham: Springer, pp. 3–18. Buur, J. and Matthews, B. (2008), ‘Participatory innovation’, International Journal of Innovation Management, 12 (3), pp. 255–73. Coopey, J., Keegan, O. and Emler, N. (1998), ‘Managers’ innovations and the structuration of organizations’, Journal of Management Studies, 35 (3), pp. 264–84. Domanski, D., Howaldt, J. and Kaletka, C. (2020), ‘A comprehensive concept of social innovation and its implications for the local context: on the growing importance of social innovation ecosystems and infrastructures’, European Planning Studies, 28 (3), pp. 454–74. Edwards-Schachter, M. and Wallace, M. L. (2017), ‘“Shaken, but not stirred”: sixty years of defining social innovation’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119, pp. 64–79. Edwards‐Schachter, M. E., Matti, C. E. and Alcántara, E. (2012), ‘Fostering quality of life through social innovation: a living lab methodology study case’, Review of Policy Research, 29 (6), pp. 672–92. Gallouj, F., Rubalcaba, L., Toivonen, M. and Windrum, P. (2018), ‘Understanding social innovation in services industries’, Industry and Innovation, 25 (6), pp. 551–69. García, M., Eizaguirre, S. and Pradel, M. (2015), ‘Social innovation and creativity in cities: a socially inclusive governance approach in two

peripheral spaces of Barcelona’, City, Culture and Society, 6 (4), pp. 93–100. Godin, B. (2015), Innovation contested: the idea of innovation over the centuries, New York and London: Routledge. González, S. and Healey, P. (2005), ‘A sociological institutionalist approach to the study of innovation in governance capacity’, Urban Studies, 42 (11), 2055–69. Leeuwis, C. and Aarts, N. (2011), ‘Rethinking communication in innovation processes: creating space for change in complex systems’, Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 17 (1), pp. 21–36. Mair, J. (2010), ‘Social entrepreneurship: taking stock and looking ahead’, in A. Fayolle and H. Matlay (eds), Handbook of research on social entrepreneurship, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 15–28. Moore, M. L. and Westley, F. (2011), ‘Surmountable chasms: networks and social innovation for resilient systems’, Ecology and Society, 16 (1), p. 5. Moulaert, F. and Nussbaumer, J. (2005), ‘Defining the social economy and its governance at the neighbourhood level: a methodological reflection’, Urban Studies, 42 (11), pp. 2071–88. Mulgan, G. (2006), ‘The process of social innovation’, Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1 (2), pp. 145–62. Mulgan, G. (2012), ‘The theoretical foundations of social innovation’, in A. Nicholls and A. Murdock (eds), Social innovation, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 33–65. Nicholls, A. (2018), ‘A general theory of social impact accounting: materiality, uncertainty and empowerment’, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 9 (2), pp. 132–53. Oosterlynck, S., Kazepov, Y., Novy, A., Cools, P., Barberis, E., Wukovitsch, F. and Leubolt, B. (2013), ‘The butterfly and the elephant: local social innovation, the welfare state and new poverty dynamics’, Antwerp: Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy, University of Antwerp, April. Phillips, W., Lee, H., Ghobadian, A., O’regan, N. and James, P. (2015), ‘Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: a systematic review’, Group & Organization Management, 40 (3), pp. 428–61. Rüede, D. and Lurtz, K. (2012), ‘Mapping the various meanings of social innovation: towards a differentiated understanding of an emerging concept’, EBS Business School Research Paper, 12–03 (2012), pp. 1–51. Seyfang, G. and Longhurst, N. (2013), ‘Desperately seeking niches: grassroots innovations and niche development in the community currency field’, Global Environmental Change, 23 (5), pp. 881–91. Van der Have, R. P. and Rubalcaba, L. (2016), ‘Social innovation research: an emerging area

Adela J. McMurray, Ashokkumar Manoharan and Don Scott

Strands of social innovation research  49 of innovation studies?’, Research Policy, 45 (9), pp. 1923–35. Van Dyck, B. and Van den Broeck, P. (2013), ‘Social innovation: a territorial process’, in F. Moulaert, D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood and A. Hamdouch, International handbook on social innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 131–41.

Weerakoon, C. and McMurray, A. (eds) (2020), Theoretical and practical approaches to social innovation, Hershey, PA: IGI Global. Westley, F. and Antadze, N. (2010), ‘Making a difference: strategies for scaling social innovation for greater impact’, Innovation Journal, 15 (2), pp. 1–19.

Adela J. McMurray, Ashokkumar Manoharan and Don Scott

9.

System thinking for social innovation

Systems and systems thinking appear in broader innovation systems and managerial scholarship, offering both promise and limitation. While often geographically bounded (Carlsson and Stankiewicz 1995) and lacking agency discussions (Hekkert et al. 2007), innovation systems literature has deepened the understanding of where innovations can (and do not) emerge. Peter Senge’s The fifth discipline (2006) applies systems thinking to organizational culture; he identifies organizations’ need to adopt systems thinking to shift from survival learning to transformation.

Introduction The search for a theory of emergence Approaches to understanding and changing systems fall into distinct schools, each seeking to grasp systems dynamics currently and possible futures. Different theoretical frameworks use some element of systems, including but not limited to socio-technical systems, social-ecological systems, social systems theory, general systems theory, world systems theory, with varying degrees of mutual intelligibility and complexity. This entry will focus particularly on a complex adaptive systems (CAS) approach to systems thinking and its implications for social innovation (SI) scholarship (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION AND THE REMAKING OF STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS AND REGIMES). Systems thinking’s maxim is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The interest in holism is ancient: some point to Aristotle’s teleology as antecedent (von Bertalanffy 1972); others emphasized Descartes, Newton and Leibniz looking for universal systems, albeit not in those terms (Serrat 2021). The theory’s recent history is more coherent. In the interwar period, biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy sought a gestalt mathematics to explain emergence without divine manifestation (von Bertalanffy 1972). In 1954, the Society for General Systems Research combined von Bertalanffy’s work, cybernetics and complexity into general systems theory (Midgley 2006). As real world problem complexity has become increasingly apparent, systems are a useful meeting ground (Nabavi et al. 2017). CAS in particular combines Meadows’ (2008) general systems theory, resilience and ecology (Folke 2006; Folke et al. 2016) and the Sante Fe Institute’s ‘school’ of complexity. Social innovation scholars have integrated discussions of agency (Westley et al. 2011), capacities (Olsson et al. 2017), power (Avelino et al. 2019) and the multi-phased, multi-dimensional, and multi-scalar nature of systemic change (Olsson et al. 2017).

What is a system? Simply, a system is made up of related/ interconnected parts that achieve a purpose (Meadows 2008). Systems thinkers, those employing systems theory or a systems lens, focus on the dynamics between the interacting and intertwined parts, including stocks, flows and feedback. Stocks are a system’s quantitative elements, and flow is the stocks’ pace/rate of change. A feedback loop occurs when a change in a stock affects the flow of another stock, creating endogenous dynamics (Meadows 2008). Loops are accelerating/positive/reinforcing and stabilizing/negative/regulatory. Stock market bubbles or crashes are accelerating loops, as people buying or selling encourages others to do the same. Stabilizing loops occur when a change triggers an opposite reaction, partially or completely ‘correcting’ the initial action. As people sell shares and their price drops, some investors buy what they perceive as undervalued shares, halting the crash. These dynamics partially explain why a system functions as a whole rather than simply an additive function of its parts. Some loops occur organically (i.e. some crowd dynamics), while others are a function of deliberate effort (i.e. laws); all may be unstable, and may require taking into account multiple time horizons. Systems are nested; they are contained within, and themselves contain other systems. Each subsystem has a purpose, but collectively they create an overall system with a distinct purpose (Meadows 2008; Günther and Folke 1993). Tension between subsystems’ purpose and the overall system frequently draws social innovator’s attention as signs of problems. 50

System thinking for social innovation  51

Much of the above seems complicated, but ultimately mechanistic. However, systems thinkers frequently grapple with messy realities that defy easy categorization and reject centralized control. These are CAS that display learning and adaptation, and have the capacity to develop novelty via interaction between both the elements within a system and with the broader environment (Serrat 2021). In this, systems thinking becomes intertwined with core concepts of complexity theory, which emphasizes nonlinearity and the role of boundaries in understanding systems dynamics (Midgley 2006). While CAS are open (information, resources, people (i.e. enter/leave)), they have boundaries and parameters. Determining boundaries is usually related to defining a system’s purpose, and when new relationships no longer contribute to that purpose (Dash and Murthy 1994). Parameters are the maximum or minimum of stock a system can handle without hitting a crisis; how much quantitative change can happen in a system before triggering a qualitative change, transforming into a new systems arrangement (Stroh 2015; Westley et al. 2011; Scoones et al. 2020). Another key concept is leverage points, specific dynamics and opportunity contexts where intervention/change may occur, potentially triggering a transformation in the system itself (Scoones et al. 2020; Carpenter et al. 2019). In some contexts, social innovators seek tipping points (Tàbara et al. 2018), while in others, they seek to avoid ones that push us further into a trajectory of unsustainability and injustice (e.g. Biggs et al. 2009).

Key findings How systems thinking informs social innovation research and theory Systems thinking proposes ways to research complexity without having to engage in reductionism and dichotomies, especially between nature and humans, helping address grand challenges like climate change (Leventon et al. 2021). Similarly, social innovation responds to complex problems (Howaldt et al. 2017; Domanski et al. 2019); some conceptual framings of social innovation explicitly link social innovation to shifting or transforming systems (Westley

et al. 2017). While social innovation can include many new social practices, these systems-informed social innovations emphasize shifts in resource and/or authority flows, as well as changes in norms, beliefs and values as critical; under this school of thought, successful social innovations change the systems in which they occur (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION AND SOCIAL CHANGE). Systems thinking promises that, while complex and messy, patterns and dynamics can be observed across systems. Such dynamics have been identified within ecology, where scientists have observed features such as tipping points, hysteresis and trophic cascades (Meadows 2008; Carpenter et al. 2019). Early attempts to identify some of the same dynamics at work in social innovation are promising (Westley et al. 2017), but remain tentative. However, we see the value in taking a systems approach to social innovation research in order to re-think topics such as scaling and agency. Scaling is critical for a social innovation to achieve durability and impact, but is too often assumed to follow linear patterns of diffusion. While this form of scaling – referred to in social innovation scholarship as scaling out – can be important, the focus on simply achieving larger numbers misses key dynamics of complex systems. Integrating a systems thinking approach to scaling, scholars have demonstrated the importance of other strategies including scaling up and scaling deep, which focus less on a specific number of people adopting a social innovation, and more on collective set of innovations (or building blocks) that can be combined and recombined to effect change at different scales (Lam et al. 2020; Moore et al. 2015). Understanding social innovation as an ‘ensemble performance’ (Domanski et al. 2017, p. 310), this involves working across (with and against) those systems dynamics discussed above. To capture a system’s ‘diversity of observed phenomena’, systems thinkers need to ‘accommodate such wide ranging interests within the vocabularies of a unified discourse’ (Halsall 2008, p. 23). Therefore, systems thinking embraces participatory research methods, diverse cultural perspectives, and citizen-led transformation efforts (Halsall 2008). Similarly, while other approaches fixate on the different actor groups bringing

Katharine McGowan, Michele-Lee Moore and Ola Tjörnbo

52  Encyclopedia of social innovation

about, enabling, or hindering social innovation, systems thinking reminds us that no single actor can control a complex system, taking insights from network theory’s distributed agency (Butzin and Terstriep 2018). It moves us away from determinism, and reminds us that strategic agency and resource mobilization is possible, shaped by the opportunity context, and that it still will largely involve navigating emergent dynamics rather than be a controlled, highly managed process (Westley et al. 2013). Increasingly, attention is being focused on transformative social innovation, which more than affects their systems but actually changes those systems in qualitative ways (Scoones et al. 2020). Transformative social innovation, in addition to CAS, links resilience theory, transitions management theory and innovation process theory among others to understand how transformation has happened, and can be driven towards identified and desirable goals (Howaldt et al. 2017). Understanding transformative social innovation is contingent on the researcher applying a systems thinking approach.

A critical reflection on systems and its limitations

One new direction of systems thinking builds on a critique of the approach itself; that systems thinking builds on Western scientific traditions, and replicates its blind spots, regardless of claims to holism. Indigenous scholars have sought to decolonize and reclaim systems theory and thinking as tools to elevate relationality and Indigenous epistemology (e.g. Soma et al. 2020). Goodchild’s (2021) relational systems thinking approach is illustrative of an anticolonial- and reconciliation-informed approach: this approach elevates and (re)centres Elders knowledges and Indigenous ontologies and epistemologies while working in concert with natural and social sciences knowledge to re-think social innovation approaches. The critique of systems approaches speaks to the question of the researcher’s power. Take for instance the judgment of where to draw a system’s boundary. This is a crucial decision, in terms of both developing insights and triggering just transformation, rather than reinforcing existing power dynamics, or silencing critical qualitative indicators and data (Nabavi et al. 2017). If a systems thinker

draws boundaries that limit their need to engage with new ideas and different voices, or worse justify a predetermined conclusion, little of value has occurred. Future systems thinkers will have to think critically and self reflectively about understanding and expressing power in a system. Undermining any effort to grapple with power for both systems thinking and social innovation is a pluralism problem; social innovation has been characterized by a definitional fuzziness for decades, as has the broad interest in systems language, which has potentially undermined the holism of its origins and approaches. While social innovation’s fuzziness has likely been overstated (Howaldt et al. 2017), too much time has been expended on this question to the detriment of meaningful empirical research and theoretical development. Similarly, the range of schools and frameworks associated with systems can undermine efforts at grasping complexity if the former becomes an end in itself. This is particularly concerning given the grand challenges that systems and social innovation both claim to tackle, such as climate change, economic inequality and colonialism – these issues simply cannot wait. Katharine McGowan, Michele-Lee Moore and Ola Tjörnbo

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J. M., Pel, B., Weaver, P., Dumitru, A., Haxeltine, A., Kemp, R., Jørgensen, M. S., Bauler, T., Ruijsink, S. and O’Riordan, T. (2019), ‘Transformative social innovation and (dis)empowerment’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, pp.  195–206. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​ .techfore​.2017​.05​.002. Biggs, R., Carpenter, S. R. and Brock, W. A. (2009), ‘Turning back from the brink: detecting an impending regime shift in time to avert it’, Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences, 106 (3), pp. 826–31. Butzin, A. and Terstriep, J. (2018), ‘Actors and roles in social innovation’, in Howaldt et al. (eds), Atlas of social innovation: new practices for a better future, Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle, TU Dortmund University, pp. 77–80. Carlsson, B. and Stankiewicz, R. (1995), ‘On the nature, function and composition of technological systems’, in B. Carlsson (ed.), Technological

Katharine McGowan, Michele-Lee Moore and Ola Tjörnbo

System thinking for social innovation  53 systems and economic performance: the case of factory automation, vol. 5, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 21–56. Carpenter, S. R., Folke, C., Scheffer, M. and Westley, F. R. (2019), ‘Dancing on the volcano: social exploration in times of discontent’, Ecology and Society, 24 (1), p. 23. https://​doi​ .org/​10​.5751/​ES​-10839–240123. Dash, D. and Murthy, P. (1994), ‘Boundary judgment in system dynamics modeling: an investigation through the science of complexity’, Systems Practice, 7 (4), pp. 465–75. https://​doi​ .org/​10​.1007/​BF02169367. Domanski, D., Howaldt, J. and Kaletka, C. (2019), ‘A comprehensive concept of social innovation and its implications for the local context: on the growing importance of social innovation ecosystems and infrastructures’, European Planning Studies, 28 (3), pp. 454–74. https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1080/​09654313​.2019​.1639397. Domanski, D., Howaldt, J. and Schröder, A. (2017), ‘Social innovation in Latin America’, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 18 (2), pp.  307–12. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​19452829​ .2017​.1299698. Folke, C. (2006), ‘Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems analyses’, Global Environmental Change, 16 (3), pp.  253–67. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​ .gloenvcha​.2006​.04​.002. Folke, C., Biggs, R., Norström, A. V., Reyers, B. and Rockström, J. (2016), ‘Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science’, Ecology and Society, 21 (3). https://​ doi:​10​.5751/​ES​-08748​-210341. Goodchild, M. (2021), ‘Relational systems thinking: that’s how change is going to come, from our earth mother’, Journal of Awareness-Based Systems Change, 1 (1), pp. 75–103. https://​doi​ .org/​10​.47061/​jabsc​.v1i1​.577. Günther, F. and Folke, C. (1993), ‘Characteristics of nested living systems’, Journal of Biological Systems, 1 (3), pp. 257–74. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1142/​S0218339093000173. Halsall, F. (2008), Systems of art: art, history & systems theory, New York: Peter Lang. Hekkert, M. P., Suurs, R. A., Negro, S. O., Kuhlmann, S. and Smits, R. E. (2007), ‘Functions of innovation systems: a new approach for analysing technological change’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74 (4), pp.  413–32. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​ .techfore​.2006​.03​.002. Howaldt, J., Schröder, A., Butzin, A. and Rehfeld, D. (eds) (2017), Towards a general theory and typology of social innovation. SI-DRIVE Deliverable 1.6, accessed 31 August 2022 at https://​www​.si​-drive​.eu/​wp​-content/​uploads/​

2018/​01/​SI​-DRIVE​-Deliverable​-D1​_6​-Theory​ -Report​-2017​-final​-20180131​.pdf. Lam, D. P., Martín-López, B., Wiek, A., Bennett, E. M., Frantzeskaki, N., Horcea-Milcu, A. I. and Lang, D. J. (2020), ‘Scaling the impact of sustainability initiatives: a typology of amplification processes’, Urban Transformations, 2 (3), pp.  1–24. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1186/​ s42854–020–00007–9. Leventon, J., Abson, D. J. and Lang, D. J. (2021), ‘Leverage points for sustainability transformations: nine guiding questions for sustainability science and practice’, Sustainability Science, 16, pp.  721–6. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​ s11625–021–00961–8. Meadows, D. H. (2008), Thinking in systems: a primer, Chelsea, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing. Midgley, G. (2006), ‘Systems thinking for evaluation’, in B. Williams and I. Imam (eds), Systems concepts in evaluation: an expert anthology, Point Reyes, CA: EdgePress, pp. 11–34. Moore, M. L., Riddell, D. and Vocisano, D. (2015), ‘Scaling out, scaling up, scaling deep: strategies of non-profits in advancing systemic social innovation’, Journal of Corporate www​ .jstor​ Citizenship, 58, pp. 67–84. http://​ .org/​stable/​jcorpciti​.58​.67. Nabavi, E., Daniell, K. A. and Najafi, H. (2017), ‘Boundary matters: the potential of system dynamics to support sustainability?’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, pp. 312–23. https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.jclepro​.2016​.03​.032. Olsson, P., Moore, M. L., Westley, F. R. and McCarthy, D. D. (2017), ‘The concept of the Anthropocene as a game-changer: a new context for social innovation and transformations to sustainability’, Ecology and Society, 22 (2). http://​www​.jstor​.org/​stable/​ 26270142. Scoones, I., Stirling, A., Abrol, D., Atela, J., Charli-Joseph, L., Eakin, H., Ely, A., Olsson, P., Pereira, L., Priya, R. and van Zwanenberg, P. (2020), ‘Transformations to sustainability: combining structural, systemic and enabling approaches’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42, pp.  65–75. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1016/​j​.cosust​.2019​.12​.004. Senge, P. (2006), The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization (2nd edn), New York, NY: Currency/Doubleday. Serrat, O. (2021), ‘Five notes on systems theory’, in O. Serrat (ed.), Leading solutions, Essays in Business Psychology, Singapore: Springer, pp.  311–19. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​ 978–981–33–6485–1​_39. Soma, T., Li, B., Xavier, A. L., Geobey, S. and Gutierrez, R. F. (2020), ‘All my relations: applying social innovation and indigenous methodology to challenge the paradigm of food waste’, in C. Reynolds et al. (eds), Routledge

Katharine McGowan, Michele-Lee Moore and Ola Tjörnbo

54  Encyclopedia of social innovation handbook of food waste, London: Routledge, pp. 311–25. Stroh, D. P. (2015), Systems thinking for social change: a practical guide to solving complex problems, avoiding unintended consequences, and achieving lasting results, Chelsea, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing. Tàbara, J. D., Frantzeskaki, N., Hölscher, K., Pedde, S., Kok, K., Lamperti, F., Christensen, J. H., Jäger, J. and Berry, P. (2018), ‘Positive tipping points in a rapidly warming world’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 31, pp. 120–29. Von Bertalanffy, L. (1972), ‘The history and status of general systems theory’, Academy of Management Journal, 15 (4), pp. 407–26. Westley, F., McGowan, K. and Tjörnbo, O. (eds) (2017), The evolution of social innova-

tion: building resilience through transitions, Celtenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Westley, F., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Homer-Dixon, T., Vredenburg, H., Loorbach, D., Thomson, J., Nilsson, M., Laubin, E., Sendzimir, J., Banerjee, B., Galex, V. and Van der Leeuw, S. (2011), ‘Tipping toward sustainability: emerging pathways of transformation’, Ambio, 40 (7), pp.  762–80. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​ s13280–011–0186–9. Westley, F. R., Tjornbo, O., Schultz, L., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Crona, B. and Bodin, Ö. (2013), ‘A theory of transformative agency in linked social-ecological systems’, Ecology and Society, 18 (3), https://​www​.jstor​.org/​stable/​ 26269375.

Katharine McGowan, Michele-Lee Moore and Ola Tjörnbo

PART II CONCEPTS AND TYPES

10. Exnovation

relations as well as in materials and techniques required for this. While the ending of problematic medical practices is the field in which exnovation has been taken seriously early on (Bynum et al. 2019), the uptake of exnovation in sustainability studies shows a much wider applicability, notably in relation to ending fossil fuel consumption and unsustainable lifestyles. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2022) refers to exnovation noting that ‘low carbon transitions are more effective when they include elements to phase out carbon-intensive technologies and practices.’ Such exnovation processes rely on a complex constellations of actors. Social movements pushing for a health and environmental problem to be taken seriously, incumbent industries fighting back, newcomers providing alternative products and services, as well as policymakers using bans, ending of subsidies, procurement policies and public investment to enforce the change. Social exnovation overlaps with a focus on the destabilization, discontinuation and termination of policies and regimes (Kivimaa and Kern 2016). For example, ending subsidies for fossil fuels and banning car engines powered by these fuels. Exnovation is about more than substituting technologies. Advocates of sustainable energy transition (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION IN ENERGY SYSTEM TRANSFORMATION) question notions of economic development and progress, drawing on ideas of degrowth (Davidson 2019). Social exnovation therefore also overlaps with research on world views and values, such as critical discussions of capitalist, patriarchal, racist and speciesist world views in anthropology, philosophy and sociology. The definition of (social) exnovation used here does not include a reference to past investment in innovation as a necessary element. To be sure, as the energy examples show, there will frequently be a link to innovation. However, there is also a space for the termination of practices now viewed as problematic, for example slavery (Tremel 2015), no matter how innovative, technologically or otherwise, they were in the past. Exnovation puts the emphasis on the creativity required to push through the termination of the practice, and on associated topics of motivation, means of overcoming resistance, social value and relation to social change familiar from

Introducing exnovation

Exnovation ‘occurs when an organization divests itself of an innovation in which it had previously invested’ (Kimberly 1981, p. 91). Kimberly offers the example of an organization, which adopted videotape equipment to record staff meetings. Subsequently, the organization no longer actively uses the equipment, its popularity fades away, but the equipment is still there, and costs the organization space and money. Exnovation, in Kimberley’s sense, is the active divestment of the innovation (i.e. here the videotape equipment), not just discontinued use. He observes that there are several reasons for exnovating: another innovation replaces the old one, for example the organization in the example might switch to Zoom recordings, or the innovation might turn out not to be justified (perhaps, it was just a bad idea to record the meetings in the first place). The underlying reasons for exnovating might be due to beliefs about the performance of different technologies, due to imitation of other organizations, or result from a change in policy support. In short, exnovation is a rich and complex topic. It is also a topic that is widely ignored due to the prevailing pro-innovation bias in innovation studies (more on this below). In a few pages of his 1981 article, Kimberly introduced exnovation along with key considerations for further development. Subsequent research extended the scope of the definition beyond organizations and technology. ‘Expanding on Kimberley’s definition, we understand exnovation as the purposive termination of existing (infra) structures, technologies, products and practices’ (Heyen et al. 2017, p. 326). In this wider sense, exnovation depends on actors across social spheres. The extended definition provides a fertile soil for social innovation research since the latter calls for a shift from a reductive focus on technological change in business contexts to one on change of practices across social spheres (Howaldt et al. 2014) (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION AND SOCIAL CHANGE). In the light of these developments, social exnovation can be defined as the deliberate termination of social practices, and the change in goals and 56

Exnovation  57

the Schumpeterian analysis of entrepreneurship (Swedberg 2009). There is a need to disambiguate the use of exnovation. Some articles and internet sources introduce exnovation as standardization and routinization. They typically refer to a 1978 study of innovation in urban bureaucracies focused on a late stage of innovation: routinization, ‘when an agency can no longer return to a previous way of doing business’ (Yin et al. 1978, p. 4). The authors speak of a disappearance stage where the innovation is no longer recognized as an innovation but has become a standard practice (ibid., p. 57). They do not speak of exnovation and to avoid misunderstanding, it seems more useful to speak of routinization and perhaps ‘dinovation’ to highlight the point that innovations can disappear as innovations, and that we therefore need to ‘excavate’ them (Ziegler 2020, p. 47). A sustainability example illustrates the point: dryland agriculture is taken for granted in Northern and Central Europe, even though this part of Europe is naturally full of mires. A massive land-use innovation, the drainage and ‘melioration’ of mires was required to enable the diffusion of dryland agriculture. These interventions created the landscape that is now taken for granted (ibid.). The idea of a disappearance stage and associated routinization enriches the analysis of change processes, but it should not be confused with exnovation. On the use preferred here, exnovation in this example would rather refer to the deliberate cessation of the practice (i.e. of draining mires), so as create space for the restoration of mires and wetlands.

Overview of the research field and key findings

This section introduces the research field via a presentation of four major topics in current research. The presentation moves from exnovation in capitalist change processes to the wider topic of transformation for sustainability. It concludes with the need for equal consideration of innovation and exnovation in research on social change. Interdependent role of exnovation and innovation in change processes Is exnovation causally important for enabling innovation or does innovation enable exnovation (Denk 2015)? On the one hand,

exnovating products and practices creates spaces for new products and practices. On the other hand, the promise of a new product or practice helps eliminate old products and practices. A bidirectional analysis is called for. For example, the exnovation of nuclear power in the German energy system is enabled by market prices for renewable energies becoming more competitive; at the same time, expansion of renewables in this case was also enabled by cultural pre-conditions such as an early opposition of the German peace movement that in the post-Second World War period mobilized against nuclear energy (David and Gross 2019). Both sides of the innovation–exnovation relation in this energy transition merit attention. The contribution of exnovation is to direct attention to the ‘negative’, more conflictual dynamic of ‘creative destruction’, which is often overlooked due to the dominating attractiveness of innovations as profit-promising, fictional expectations in capitalist markets (Beckert 2016). In fact, the capitalist model can integrate exnovation as the following, stylized example of exnovation as reduction shows (Ziegler 2020, p. 96): a barbecue restaurant from the 1940s reduced its menus to burgers, potato chips and potato pie, and eliminated custom orders, porcelain dishes, jukeboxes and cigarette machines. It became the new, family-friendly McDonald’s restaurant. Exnovation merged with innovation in the creation of a commercial burger empire. While exnovation is woven into economic change, rather than initiating transformative change of production and consumption habits, the change can also be reproductive of capitalist innovation society. Exnovation as an independent mode of social change The frequent interrelation of innovation and exnovation in change processes should not obscure a logical point: a critical use of innovation leaves space for exnovation tout court (i.e. the discarding or ending of an innovation without the next innovation lined up). Exnovation is ‘an independent principle for solving problems’ (Paech 2012, p. 257). Three exnovation scenarios demonstrate this point. (1) Exnovation and substitution by innovation: this is the familiar case, with an innovation replacing a past innovation; for example, if renewable energy would replace Rafael Ziegler

58  Encyclopedia of social innovation

fossil fuels. (2) Exnovation and substitution without innovation: a practice is terminated and replaced by an equivalent practice. Consider the example (from Paech 2012) of the consumption of a fruit such as a kiwi, not available seasonally or all year, and hence imported from elsewhere; we can imagine the kiwi consumption to be ended, perhaps to cut emissions from transport, and to be replaced by the consumption of a local fruit, say apples. (3) Exnovation as pure reduction or ending a practice without any substitution. An example would be a pure reduction of energy production such as the termination of nuclear power achieved by more sufficient and efficient energy consumption only. In short, there is a logical place for exnovation as an ideal type of social change without a necessary reference to innovation. The example in the third scenario suggests that this likely depends on changes in cognitive frames and world views, and that it will be a political rather than a purely economic process (as already evidenced in the example of the abolition of slavery; Tremel 2015). Exnovation and sustainability While exnovation remains the lesser-known sibling of innovation, this is changing in sustainability research, especially in relation to energy. Exnovation is, for example, studied as a real experiment for phasing out nuclearand coal-based energy systems (David and Gross 2019). Such research concludes that exnovation should be systematically included in sustainability scenario-making, that attention should be paid to social and cultural aspects that are important to understand regional and national differences in successful or failed exnovation processes (ibid.), and that there is a need to pay attention to groups that are hurt by ‘overall’ beneficial exnovation processes so that transition is sustainable and just (Davidson 2019). Based on research on digitization, mobility and food, Heyen (2019) highlights the link between exnovation and sustainability governance, notably the responsibility to improve planning security via exit periods and deadlines that are communicated clearly and early on. Both national and municipal politics have options, for example via the subsidy of active and public transportation complementing the exit from fossil fuel-based mobility. Rafael Ziegler

Research on exnovation in the context of water management and land use points to the role of civic networks in exnovation (Ziegler 2017). Members of a grassroots network of associations and municipalities in Southern Germany first introduced filters to meet water quality standards, and then de-installed them later to the surprise of the responsible authorities. The reason for the de-installation was that the goal, water quality protection via ecological land use, had been achieved. The filters were no longer necessary. The network put the strategic priority on a different land use and saw filters and associated technical innovations as a tactical option only. The example suggests that support for coordination capacities of networks and coaching (about technical and ecological measures) is important for a sustainability-oriented balance of innovation and exnovation (ibid.). The focus on networks and social relations is important for a reason that directly speaks to social innovation research. Since ending practices is usually conflictual, it is important to understand who is hurt by the change, who might be vulnerable groups and what could be done in anticipation or accompaniment of the likely negative impact of the exnovation on these groups (Davidson 2019; Callorda Fossati and Fransolet 2021). Equal consideration of innovation and exnovation in a comprehensive conception of the economy Research on exnovation is one way to counteract the prevailing pro-innovation bias. Rogers (1983, p. 92) defines the bias as ‘an innovation should be diffused and adopted by all members of a social system, it should be diffused more rapidly, and the innovation should neither be re-invented nor rejected.’ Excluding exnovation from innovation research amounts to the gamble that innovation will indeed turn out to be good, or somehow not move from invention to innovation if problematic – only with this bet in place would it not be necessary to consider exnovation processes. Exnovation adds a critical correction to the prevailing modes of stages and linear thinking about innovation, also in evidence in social innovation with its frequent funder-driven preoccupation with scaling and accelerating the impact of social innovation.

Exnovation  59

Exnovation involves ‘coalitions of government parties, environmental groups and innovators of sustainable alternatives’ (Heyen et al. 2017, p. 328). It is important to consider innovation–exnovation not only in relation to exchange markets and business cycles but also in communal and public modes of provision as well as across them (Ziegler 2020). Otherwise, the full scope of exnovation will not be grasped, to the detriment of actual sustainability transformation (Feola et al. 2021).

Outlook

Social exnovation enriches social innovation research as well as related research into social change, transition and transformation. There is a recent increase in attention to exnovation, especially in relation to energy transitions. Such research could be extended fruitfully to other sectors and spheres of action. As so often in innovation research, exnovation is partly old wine in new bottles. Future exnovation would benefit from ‘implicit’ exnovation research (i.e. research on the exnovation of social practices in all but name) (Ziegler et al. 2022, p. 8). A wide variety of disciplines and specialities offer insights into exnovation, though without necessarily framing them as exnovation. Examples are research in social marketing on the deliberate ending of consumer practices, in environmental psychology on waste reduction, as well as the already mentioned literature on policy termination, destabilization and discontinuation. Once exnovation as a mode of change is recognized, it is also likely that typologies, models and theories from innovation research can be used for thinking symmetrically also about exnovation processes. Most ambitiously, social exnovation touches the cognitive level, challenging deeply held assumptions about economy, its actors and societal dynamics. There might even be a cognitive bias that disposes humans to prefer adding things when solving problems rather than solving them by reduction, to search for ‘additive transformations’ and to neglect ‘subtractive transformation’ (Adams et al. 2021). The near-absolute neglect of exnovation in comparison to innovation suggests – paraphrasing Freud – that exnovation is a major blow to humanity’s narcissism: we are not the centre of the universe, we have evolved with other species, and our innovations are not necessarily improvements. True

progress is to unbuild a part of the building of progress. Rafael Ziegler

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Adams, G., Converse, B., Hales, A. and Klotz, L. (2021), ‘People systematically overlook subtractive changes’, Nature, 592 (7853), pp. 258–61. Beckert, J. (2016), Imagined futures, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bynum, J., Passow, H., Carmichael, D. and Skinner, J. (2019), ‘Exnovation of low value care: a decade of prostate-specific antigen screening practices’, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 67 (1), pp. 29–36. Callorda Fossati, E. and Fransolet, A. (2021), The transition towards a circular economy in Brussels from an exnovation perspective, Gosete, Université Libre de Bruxelles (Bruxelles). David, M. and Gross, M. (2019), ‘Futurizing politics and the sustainability of real-world experiments: what role for innovation and exnovation in the German energy transition’, Sustainability Science, 14, pp. 991–1000. Davidson, D. (2019), ‘Exnovating for a renewable energy transition’, Nature Energy, 4 (4), pp. 254–6. Denk, M. (2015), ‘Fundamente von Exnovations-Governance im Transformationsdiskurs: Ein erster disziplinübergreifender Literaturvergleich’, in A. Arnold, M. David, G. Hanke and M. Sonnenberg (eds), Innovation – exnovation, Marburg: Metropolis, pp. 77–100. Feola, G., Koretskaya, O. and Moore, D. (2021), ‘(Un)making in sustainability transformation beyond capitalism’, Global Environmental Change, 69, 102290. Heyen, D. (2019), ‘Governance-Ansätze für nachhaltige Transformationen auf dem Prüfstand dreier Praxisfelder’, Gaia-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 28 (S1), pp. 198–203. Heyen, D., Hermwille, L. and Wehnert, T. (2017), ‘Out of the comfort zone! Governing the exnovation of unsustainable technologies and practices’, Gaia-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 26 (4), pp. 326–31. Howaldt, J., Kopp, R. and Schwarz, M. (2014), Zur Theorie sozialer Innovationen: Tardes vernachlässigter Beitrag zur Entwicklung einer soziologischen Innovationstheorie, Weinheim: Beltz Juventa. IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] (2022), Climate change 2022.

Rafael Ziegler

60  Encyclopedia of social innovation Mitigation of Climate change. Working Group III contribution to the IPCC 6th Assessment Report (AR6), Geneva: IPCC. Kimberly, J. (1981), ‘Managerial innovation’, in P. Nystrom and W. Starbuck (eds), Handbook of organizational design, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 84–104. Kivimaa, P. and Kern, F. (2016), ‘Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions’, Research Policy, 45 (1), pp. 205–17. Paech, N. (2012), Nachhaltiges Wirtschaften jenseits von Innovationsorientierung und Wachstum: Eine unternehmensbezogene Transformationstheorie, 2nd edn, Marburg: Metropolis. Rogers, E. (1983), Diffusion of innovations, 3rd edn, New York: Free Press of Glencoe. Swedberg, R. (2009), ‘Schumpeter’s full model of entrepreneurship’, in R. Ziegler (ed.), An introduction to social entrepreneurship: voices,

Rafael Ziegler

preconditions, contexts, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 155–75. Tremel, L. (2015), ‘Logik des Aufhörensʼ, in A. Arnold, M. David, G. Hanke and M. Sonnenberg (eds), Innovation – exnovation, Marburg: Metropolis, pp. 213–22. Yin, R., Quick, S., Bateman, P. and Marks, E. (1978), Changing urban bureaucracies: how new practices become routinized, Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Ziegler, R. (2017), Wer zur Quelle will, muss gegen den Strom schwimmen: Innovation aus Bürgerhand für eine demokratisch-ökologische Wasserwirtschaft, München: Oekom verlag. Ziegler, R. (2020), Innovation, ethics and our common futures : a collaborative philosophy, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Ziegler, R., Balzac-Arroyo, J., Hölsgens, R., Holzgreve, S., Lyon, F., Spangenberg, J. and Thapa, P. (2022), ‘Social innovation for biodiversity: a literature review and research challenges’, Ecological Economics, 193, 107336.

11. Joseph A. Schumpeter: innovation and society

economic growth and thereby economic (as well as societal) development. He calls his approach: Theory of the transition of the national economy from one given centre of gravity to another (‘dynamics’) in contrast to the theory of the cycle itself, to the theory of the economy’s constant adaptation to changing centres of equilibrium and ipso facto also to the effects of this change (‘statics’). (Schumpeter 1983 [1911], p. 99)

Schumpeter’s theory of innovation

Schumpeter is one of the most innovative economists of the last century. His work Theory of Economic Development (Schumpeter 1983 [1911]), his essay Der Unternehmer (Schumpeter 1928) and his book Business Cycles (1939) became equal important for the economic sciences and for economic sociology and sociology of science and technology. In addition, his last publication Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (Schumpeter 2010 [1942]) is regarded by many scholars as a provocative prediction of the future of capitalism – in the sense of its failure to overcome its own success. These dynamics are triggered, among other things, by the institutionalization of innovation, at least in large companies, and by managers taking the role of entrepreneurs. In his innovation concept, Schumpeter links the personal element in economic life with processes of economic development. He is thus regarded as a representative of a methodological individualism which places the actor at the centre of the analysis and views economic and social facts as a consequence of individual action, as the result of the situational relationships between different actors, for example on the market. Schumpeter is also regarded as idea provider for evolutionary economics, a strand of thinking in economics whose members assume that the development of the economy is inherent in it (cf. Pyka 2021).

The pure entrepreneur who undertakes this recombination of the stock of means of production is neither necessarily the owner of means of production nor the inventor of the product or process on which the innovation is based (i.e. Schumpeter externalizes the invention or idea that leads to innovation). We visualize new production functions as intruding into the system through the action of new firms founded for the purpose, while the existing or ‘old’ firms for a time work on as before, and then react adaptively to the new state of things under the pressure of competition from downward shifting cost curves. (Schumpeter 1939, p. 92)

According to Schumpeter, ‘creative destruction’ initiates a new business cycle and destroys competitors who do not follow the innovation (i.e. imitate it, do not stand up to competition and disappear from the market). The phase up to the first imitation of competitors is characterized by entrepreneurial profit, in the sense of profit from a specific monopoly position. Pure entrepreneurship in this sense is seen as deviant and confronted with resistance from the relevant environment. ‘Overcoming this resistance is always a task of a special kind, which does not exist in the usual course of life, a task which also requires special behaviour’ (Schumpeter 1983 [1911], p. 127). The motives of the entrepreneur are manifold, he1 wants to establish a private empire, he enjoys creating and taking risks, and he strives to acquire goods. Thus, Schumpeter discovers an inherent contradiction between innovation (i.e. the entrepreneurial function), as significant for economic development and entrepreneurship as deviant behaviour that disrupts a desired equilibrium and confronts actors with novelty that they first resist.

The pure entrepreneur

Schumpeter understands economic development through innovation as a process that emerges from within the economy (i.e. in an evolutionary way). In this context, he addresses not only technical, but also process, organizational and market or resource innovations as triggers for economic development. According to him, innovations happen discontinuously and disrupt the pursuit of economic equilibrium on the market. At the same time, innovations initiate a phase of 61

62  Encyclopedia of social innovation His economic motive – striving for the acquisition of goods – is not anchored in the feeling of pleasure which is triggered by the consumption of the acquired goods. And if in this sense the satisfaction of needs is the rational of economic activity, the behaviour of our type is irrational or of a different kind of rationalism in general. (ibid. p. 134)

Entrepreneurship following Schumpeter

The pure entrepreneur according to Schumpeter innovates and thus initiates a process of creative destruction on the (national) market, in which he enforces a new combination of the existing means of production. As far as I can see there is only one predecessor of Schumpeter’s concept of entrepreneurship. According to Cantillon (1755 [1732–4]), a protagonist of classical economic theory, the market functions through supply and demand. On the one hand, landowners and workers keep the flow of income and expenditure going. On the other hand, there is the entrepreneur willing to take risks and there are non-entrepreneurial actors in the market as well. With this approach, Cantillon influenced the Austrian school of economic theory, from which Schumpeter emerged. Among other things, Schumpeter adopted the distinction made by Cantillon between normal price (actual costs) and market price (depending on the ratio of supply and demand). Cantillon describes the entrepreneurial function as a supplier of goods acting in a market under uncertainty, and he legitimizes entrepreneurial profit as an incentive to take entrepreneurial risk. Cantillon does not speak of novelty or innovation, but of a perpetual stream of goods that the entrepreneur skilfully places on the market. More or less at the same period as Schumpeter, Sombart (1909) stresses the role of the ‘foreigner’ for carrying out the function of entrepreneurship. Less integrated population groups look for a niche and find it in entrepreneurship as an activity that is hardly taken up by the majority society. Sombart is thinking here above all the Jews. In his so called ‘Protestantism Thesis’ (1992 [1922]) Weber, having read Schumpeter’s Theory of Economic Development, asserts that protestant ethics generates the urge to innovate. The coincidence of Protestant Birgit Blättel-Mink

ethics or Calvinist doctrine of predestination and capitalist spirit has been promoting, in Weber’s view, capitalism in the Western world. Barnett (1991 [1953]) sees ‘dissatisfaction’ as the cause of entrepreneurship and innovation and thus has a similar approach to Sombart. Like Schumpeter, Barnett also pursues the connection between innovation and economic development. Innovation is not only something new, but also something better. Another approach to the position of innovation in society from an individualistic perspective comes from Rogers (1962), who emphasizes the early adoption of innovation by entrepreneurs who belong more or less to the same class as the innovator. McClelland (1961) postulates that people with a high need for achievement are more inclined to be creative and to innovate than to perform routine work. A high level of performance in a country is then accompanied by strong economic growth. The entrepreneur, whom Kirzner (1973) describes as ‘homo agens’, uses windows of opportunities that other market participants have not realized, which is why the balance in the market has been shaken. However, this does not necessarily mean that the entrepreneur also innovates. Entrepreneurship for him, keeps the market process going. Like Schumpeter, Kirzner reduces the entrepreneur to the pure entrepreneurial function and sees the economic process as specifically discontinuous. Heertje (1982) aims to integrate the entrepreneur as Kirzner sees him into Schumpeter’s concept of innovation. He does this by relating the entrepreneurial function to finding new solutions to economic and social problems (→ SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP). It needs alertness or resourcefulness for the economic process to develop. Stamm and Gutzeit address the more recent development, which increasingly conceives of individual entrepreneurship as part of an entrepreneurial team. They define entrepreneurship […] as a dynamic process in which the opportunity (discovered or created) is seized to implement an idea for something new. This process consists of interrelated but diverse bundles of activities that require coordination; in this process, entrepreneurial groups are created and reproduced, allowing for diverse constellations of relationships among group members (e.g. family, friends, acquaintances). Such an under-

Joseph A. Schumpeter: innovation and society  63 standing of entrepreneurial activity distances itself from the charismatic individual entrepreneur, but nevertheless ascribes importance to the individual as the bearer of a role within the entrepreneurial group. (Stamm and Gutzeit 2021, p. 351)2

Institutionalization of the entrepreneurial function

Already Schumpeter (2010 [1942]) saw the process of institutionalization (‘Veralltäglichung’) of innovation especially in large companies that no longer rely on pure entrepreneurship, but on the organized form of management (cf. Burnham 1941). A process of rationalization sets in that makes innovation an everyday task of single departments in the enterprise. Schumpeter predicted that the entrepreneurial function will fall more and more to bureaucratization, that the market share of large companies will be more and more significant in the course of the industrial revolution, and that the majority of radical/disruptive (and incremental) innovations will take place there. He also claimed that small companies will have virtually no innovative power in such a context. Against Schumpeter’s vision of the loss of function of pure entrepreneurship, it is argued (cf. Heertje 1982) that every innovation once reaches its end (cf. business cycles) and that it requires the typical entrepreneurial shrewdness to foresee this end and to improve the competitive situation of the company through implementing new ideas or technologies. In addition, it is argued that the innovative power of small and medium-sized companies cannot be neglected (see, among others, Acs and Audretsch 1987). It is then Audretsch and Thurik (2000) who predict a renewed shift from the managed economy to the entrepreneurial economy for the twenty-first century. From actor to (open) system Parallel to this strand of thinking, an approach has been developing, especially in the English-speaking world, that asks about the conditions of technical development (i.e. analyses technical innovations in more detail). In doing so, science reacts to the following changes of entrepreneurial everyday life: research and development departments are established, and technical progress is internalized (i.e. invention as well

as diffusion as two crucial phases of innovation become part of companies’ practices). Tushman and Rosenkopf (1992) differentiate industries in relation to the complexity of the technology applied: the more complex the technology, the greater the need for coordination. They further identify four phases in the process of technical development, which in turn have an influence on the composition of the actor systems of innovation: variation (basic research, e.g. locomotion), fermentation (technology development, e.g. mechanical locomotion; competition of different options), selection (dominant design, e.g. two-wheeler instead of unicycle), and retention (expansion of dominant design options; technological inertia based on improvement innovations). This modifies the innovation process as presented by Schumpeter to a sequence of different, successive and interdependent phases in which different actors are involved. In economics, the work of Dosi (1982), Nelson and Winter (1982) and Freeman (1992) on technological change can be seen as a step towards the conceptualization of a ‘national innovation system’ (cf. Lundvall 1992). Step by step, the Schumpeterian pure entrepreneur, the personal element in economic life, is replaced by a network of economic and extra-economic actors and lifted out of its extra-economic status. The first step deals with interaction within the economy, within the market, with interaction and cooperation in the field of research and development and between consumers and producers. In a second step, non-economic institutions are included in the innovation network. Economic forces alone are not sufficient to institutionalize innovation. Social systems of research, education, industrial policy and civil society as a whole must help to create and maintain an innovative atmosphere (→ INNOVATION SYSTEMS). Open and user innovation represent kind of preliminary highlights of this dynamics: the basic idea is to move away from the notion of a vertically integrated innovation model of ‘closed innovation’ to an emphasis on open, distributed innovation processes of ‘open’ or ‘user innovation’ (see Chesbrough 2003; von Hippel 2005; Bogers and West 2012). Interactive and collaborative innovation strategies change actor constellations and patterns Birgit Blättel-Mink

64  Encyclopedia of social innovation

of action (cf. Fichter 2009; Baldwin and von Hippel 2011).

Outlook

The process of innovation since Schumpeter’s writings has increasingly detached from the individual actor. The innovator is now part of a complex, heterogeneous network, if not system. However, individual creativity and resourcefulness still play a role, for example when it comes to contributions to solving tricky business problems, as in the case of open and user innovation. Schumpeter’s ignorance of the phases of invention and diffusion has given way, in a first step, to an understanding of successive phases, each with specific constellations of actors. In a second step, we are dealing with heterogeneous actor networks in open innovation processes, which no longer follow predetermined sequences or phases in their innovation activities. Nevertheless, the relevance of Schumpeter in innovation research is still immense. Why is this so? Schumpeter has a broad concept of innovation that is not reduced to technical innovations. This facet has often been overlooked in the literature, but Schumpeter makes it relevant for current analyses of the founding of innovative companies in the manufacturing, service or information sectors, the implementation of organizational innovations in companies or the expansion of markets. Entrepreneurship, as described by Schumpeter, is also and especially developing in the countries of the global South or in countries that follow the capitalist logic of opening up communist countries such as China or Cuba (see Audretsch and Thurik 2000). Even today, the individual actor still plays a role in the innovation process, however networked the actors in the single phases of the process may be. Van de Ven et al., among others, consent to this idea by arguing that the innovation process ‘[…] typically includes entrepreneurs, who, with support and funding of managers or investors, undertake a sequence of events that creates and transforms a new idea into an implemented reality’ (1999, p. 3) . This includes the concept of intrapreneurship (cf. Faust et al. 2000). Finally, Schumpeter is still worth reading because he addressed the embedding of ecoBirgit Blättel-Mink

nomic development in social processes and because current debates on social or societal innovations are also fertilized by his ideas. Schumpeter sees a close correspondence between economy and society, which in turn is fostered by a protective layer in society (cf. Schumpeter 2010 [1942]). Schumpeter’s concept of creative destruction then suggests the question of what cultural bias is at stake when social actors imitate or ignore radical innovations. According to Rammert (2008), it makes sense to use borrowings from various theoretical traditions to cover the entire spectrum of the course of social innovations and to examine them in a differentiated manner. While the neoclassical production function theory, which makes the decision for or against a (technical) innovation dependent on rationally calculable factors, is less relevant for the investigation of (radical) social innovation, the evolutionary neo-Schumpeterian approach, according to Rammert (2008), can provide hints about possible innovation paths. The decisive factor here is no rational choice, but the variation of routines, which in turn results in a socio-cultural selective process. Experiencing routines produces variations, which are evaluated to see whether they represent a satisfactory solution to a distinct problem. For the implementation of a social innovation, it is not the technological momentum or the rational orientation towards increasing efficiency that are the central criteria, but the social balance of power. Rammert gives an example: The mechanisation (today: digitalisation) of labour advances only as far as the use of the technical means pays off in comparison to the substituted labour. Therefore, under certain conditions, it is in the interest of the capital side to leave mechanisation gaps with burdensome working conditions or to store product innovations in the drawer until the previous investments have been amortised. (2008, p. 310)

In his so-called ‘Walgren Lectures’, Schumpeter, among other things, dealt with the relationship between economic factors and social institutions. Swedberg reads Schumpeter: ‘Marx is wrong in assuming that it is always the economy that changes the social institutions; it is just as much the other way round’ (2000, p. 76) . Birgit Blättel-Mink

Joseph A. Schumpeter: innovation and society  65  

Notes

1. 2.

In this context the male form is adequate! Quotations from German-language sources were translated into English by the authors.

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Acs, Z. J. and D. B. Audretsch (1987), ‘Innovation, Market Structure, and Firm Size’, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 69 (4), pp. 567–74. Audretsch, D. B. and A. R. Thurik (2000), ‘Capitalism and Democracy in the 21st Century: From the Managed to the Entrepreneurial Economy’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 10, pp. 17–34. Baldwin, C. Y. and E. von Hippel (2011), ‘Modeling a Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation to User and Open Collaborative Innovation’, Organization Science, 6 (22), pp. 1399–417. Barnett, H. G. (1991 [1953]), Innovation: The Basis of Cultural Change, New York: McGraw-Hill. Bogers, M. and J. West (2012), ‘Managing Distributed Innovation: Strategic Utilization of Open and User Innovation’, Creativity and Innovation Management, 1 (21), pp. 61–75. Burnham, J. (1941), The Managerial Revolution, New York: Day. Cantillon, R. (1755 [1732–4]), Essai sur la nature du commerce en général, Frankfurt am Main: Wirtschaft und Finanzen. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003), Open Innovation: The new Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Dosi, G. (1982), ‘Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajec­ tories: A Suggested Interpretation of the Determinants and Directions of Technological Change’, Research Policy, 11, pp. 147–62. Faust, M., P. Jauch and P. Notz (2000), Befreit und entwurzelt. Führungskräfte auf dem Weg zum “internen Unternehmer”, München und Mering: Rainer Hampp Verlag. Fichter, K. (2009), ‘Innovation Communities: The Role of Networks of Promotors in Open Innovation’, R&D Management, 4 (39), pp. 357–71. Freeman, C. (1992), ‘Formal Scientific and Technical Institutions in the National System of Innovation’, in B.-Å. Lundvall (ed.), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of

Innovation and Interactive Learning, London: Pinter, pp. 169–87. Heertje, A. (1982), ‘Schumpeter’s Model of the Decay of Capitalism’, in H. Frisch (ed.), Schumpeterian Economics, New York: Praeger, pp. 84–94. Kirzner, I. M. (1973), Competion and Entrepreneurship, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lundvall, B.-Å. (ed.) (1992), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, London: Pinter. McClelland, D. C. (1961), The Achieving Society, New York: The Free Press. Nelson, R. R. and S. G. Winter (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pyka, A. (2021), ‘Evolutorische innovationsökonomik’, in B. Blättel-Mink, I. Schulz-Schaeffer and A. Windeler (eds), Handbuch der Innovationsforschung, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, pp. 83–101. Rammert, W. (2008), ‘Technik und Innovationʼ, in A. Maurer (ed.), Handbuch der Wirtschaftssoziologie, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, pp. 291–319. Rogers, E. M. (1962), Diffusion of Innovations, New York: The Free Press. Schumpeter, J. A. (1928), ‘Der Unternehmerʼ, in J. Conrad, F. von Wieser and A. Weber (eds), Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften, Jena: Gustav Fischer (4th edn, vol. 8), pp. 476–86. Schumpeter, J. A. (1939), Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical Analysis of the Capitalist Process, New York: McGraw-Hill. Schumpeter, J. A. (1983) [1911], Theory of Economic Development: An Enquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and Business Cycles, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Schumpeter, J. A. (2010 [1942]), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis. Sombart, W. (1909), ‘Der kapitalistische Unternehmerʼ, Archiv für Sozialwissenschaften und Sozialpolitik, 29, pp. 689–95. Stamm, I. and M. Gutzeit (2021), ‘Unternehmertum und Innovationʼ, in B. Blättel-Mink, I. Schulz-Schaeffer and A. Windeler (eds), Handbuch der Innovationsforschung, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag, pp. 347–62. Swedberg, R. (ed.) (2000), Entrepreneurship: The Social Science View, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tushman, M. and L. Rosenkopf (1992), ‘Organizational Determinants of Technological Change: Toward a Sociology of Technological

Birgit Blättel-Mink

66  Encyclopedia of social innovation Evolutionʼ, Research in Organizational Behaviour, 14, pp. 311–47. Van de Ven, A. H., E. P. Douglas, G. Raghu and S. Venkataraman (eds) (1999), The Innovation Journey, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Birgit Blättel-Mink

von Hippel, E. (2005), Democratizing Innovation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Weber, M. (1992 [1922]), The Capitalist Spirit and Protestant Ethics, London, New York: Routledge.

12. Open social innovation

Lakhani et al. 2020; Mair and Gegenhuber 2021).

What is open social innovation?

The emergence of open social innovation to tackle complex social issues

Open innovation was originally defined as ‘a paradigm that assumes that firms can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as the firms look to advance their technology’ (Chesbrough 2003, p. xxiv). With its promises to tap into a diverse pool of knowledge, talent and perspectives for addressing complex problems, it has emerged as a promising model for tackling complex social issues and facilitating collective action and social impact. The realization that current problems are too difficult to be solved by a handful of individuals has led some not-for-profit organizations and public agencies to expand collaborative efforts beyond their ecosystem and to explore how to engage with members of civil society (Nambisan 2009; Chesbrough and Di Minin 2014). Chesbrough and Di Minin (2014), who coined the term ‘open social innovation’, argue that the implementation of open innovation strategies by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and public sector organizations can increase their effectiveness and impact by tapping into the resources of various partners and incorporated external ideas to provide better or new services. For instance, organizations like the NGOs Emergency and Ashoka and the City of Birmingham implemented open innovation strategies by tapping into the resources of various partners and incorporating external ideas to provide better or new services. An open innovation approach not only provides access to a diverse set of skills and ideas, but also helps cohere diverse groups with limited resources that could not individually produce the required change (Chalmers 2013; Chesbrough and Di Minin 2014). The potential of open innovation for social innovation seems very promising for addressing societal challenges, especially with the development of crowdsourcing for innovation, a form of open innovation where an organization invites a ‘crowd’, or unspecified group, to solve problems identified by an organization (Boudreau and Lakhani 2013; Fayard et al. 2016). With crowdsourcing, organizations are leveraging the varied expertise of participants to develop innovative solutions for specific problems, such

Poverty, climate change, ageing populations, women’s safety, education, epidemics: the list of large, complex societal issues is long. Because of their complexity and scale, these issues cannot be overcome by individuals, teams, or single organizations (Nambisan 2009; Gray and Purdy 2018). Instead, they demand cross-sector collaborations that leverage multiple skills and diverse resources, and engage multiple stakeholders – governments, not-for-profits and businesses (Bryson et al. 2015; Pache et al. 2022). Moreover, public participation is critical to finding solutions to social issues (Neumeier 2012). Indeed, to create sustainable and meaningful solutions, and to achieve the required systemic change, it is essential to engage diverse individuals, families and communities as empowered participants (Ferraro et al. 2015). Lately, there has been a focus on how to engage individuals and civil society through open social innovation, a process by which individuals are invited to collaboratively ideate on complex social issues in (online) innovation challenges sponsored by governments and international agencies and/or companies (→ COLLABORATIVE SPACES FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION). In light of studies that look at crowdsourcing for innovation where companies partner with communities to develop innovative products and services (Boudreau and Lakhani 2013), the nascent field of open social innovation (Chalmers 2013; Chesbrough and Di Minin 2014) suggests new modes of organizing for social innovation. Open social innovation is viewed as a generative mechanism to bring together participants from multiple sectors across the globe. Hence, open social innovation is increasingly popular, with not-for-profit organizations, governments and the public sector as well as with for-profit organizations: they engage in social innovation and public good by inviting diverse and passionate individuals to collaboratively ideate about social issues (Martins and de Souza Bermejo 2015; Lakhani et al. 2013; 67

68  Encyclopedia of social innovation

as solving difficult scientific challenges or developing new product ideas (e.g. Baldwin and von Hippel 2011). Open social innovation expands the nature of the problems to solve (i.e. from technical problems to complex societal issues), and promises to tap into a diverse community of passionate volunteers who may be able to provide multiple perspectives, skills and insights that have the potential to generate new solutions and engage members in developing and implementing solutions in their local contexts. Organizations such as USAID, Humanity United, or the Rockefeller Foundation, have sponsored challenges on InnoCentive, a crowdsourcing platform where individuals were asked to develop solutions to specific social challenges (Nambisan 2009; Brown and Wyatt 2009). The Rockefeller Foundation reported an 80 per cent success rate to the not-for-profit that posted the challenges to InnoCentive (Brown and Wyatt 2009). Moreover, several online open innovation platforms that focus on social challenges e.g. Climate CoLab (in 2009), OpenIDEO (in 2010) and Ashoka Change Makers (in 2012)) have been established in the last decade (Beucler et al. 2013). Hence, while originally defined as a strategy for NGOs and public sector organizations that helps cohere diverse groups with limited resources that could not individually produce change (Chesbrough and Di Minin 2014), open social innovation has become mainly associated with a technology-enabled process that encourages individuals to find solutions to a problem posed by sponsors (not-for-profits, governments, and/or for-profit organizations). This trend has been reinforced by the multiplication of online hackathons during the COVID-19 pandemic (Mair and Gegenhuber 2021). However, the technology-enabled component is not what makes open social innovation distinct from other forms of technology-enabled innovation processes, such as crowdsourcing for innovation. Indeed, crowdsourcing for innovation tends to encourage individual rather than collaborative participation, the focus being on multiplying ideas that can help the sponsor rather than generating collective action among participants (Boudreau and Lakhani 2013). What makes ‘online’ open social innovation distinctive is its focus on collaboration Anne-Laure Fayard

between multiple stakeholders – individuals participating in and sponsors of the challenge – not-for-profit organizations, for-profit organizations, and/or governments. In other words, open social innovation ‘orchestrates the participation of multiple stakeholders in the process from generating ideas to scaling solutions’ (Mair and Gegenhuber 2021, p. 26). Hence, in-person hackathons which invite participants to collaborate with others during an intense and discrete period (from a couple of days to a week or two) in developing solutions to address social, healthcare, or environmental issues (Lifshitz-Assaf et al. 2021; Silver et al. 2016) can also be described as forms of open social innovation. Beyond the outcomes (i.e. the development of solutions) open social innovation is a powerful process to engage individual actors and nurture collective action. Indeed, open social innovation events – whether in-person, online or hybrid – reflect a belief that open social innovation provides a mechanism to enhance openness and participation in social innovation processes. In particular, governments have realized that open innovation provides a way to engage citizens, stimulating new democratic practices as well as generating solutions that are more relevant and thus more sustainable for the public (Murray et al. 2010; Martins and de Souza Bermejo 2015). In sum, as a collaborative process, open social innovation not only addresses a social need (Murray et al. 2010), but also creates systemic change (Howaldt and Schwarz 2010) and allows the building of collective action (Howaldt et al. 2016).

Two examples of open social innovation

In this section, in order to illustrate the main dimensions and practices of open social innovation, I present two examples of open social innovation – one is OpenIDEO, an online platform that has run multiple challenges since its launch in 2011, and the other is #WirVsVirus, an online hackathon that was run during the COVID-19 crisis and invited people from diverse backgrounds to generate ideas on complex social issues. Various organizations (not-for-profit, for-profit and private) were also involved either as sponsors or in providing resources to help prototype and/or implement ideas.

Open social innovation  69

OpenIDEO OpenIDEO is an open social innovation platform, which was launched in August 2010 by IDEO, a globally recognized design and innovation consultancy. Since then, it has hosted more than 50 challenges (Lakhani et al. 2013; Fayard, forthcoming). By July 2020, the OpenIDEO community comprised over 100,000 members located in more than 185 countries who were actively participating in challenges ranging from food waste and plastic waste to early childhood education and ageing. OpenIDEO invited participants to engage for a period of time (two to three months) on a specific challenge using the design thinking process to collaboratively generate ideas. These challenges were sponsored by for-profit organizations, not-for-profits and governmental organizations such as Nokia, Steelcase, Oxfam, Amnesty International, and the Queensland Government in Australia. Several ideas were turned into concrete products and services. For example, the NextGen Cup Challenge, which aimed at eliminating the use of single-use to-go cups and designing cups that were reusable, recyclable or compostable led to a year-long, OpenIDEO-led accelerator programme through which four start-ups ran pilots in 14 cafes across three cities (Lakhani et al. 2020). In the Accessible Election Challenge, one of the sponsors, L.A. county, was inspired by the ideas developed during the challenge and partnered with IDEO on a follow-up project that led to a new voting system. The power of engaging a global community like the one found on OpenIDEO facilitates more sustainable social change. Indeed, as Mair et al. (2016) emphasize, solutions to grand challenges always manifest locally. It is only through understanding local context (setting and governance structures, for instance) that impactful solutions can be enacted; community members have such knowledge of their local context. #WirVsVirus #WirVsVirus is an open social innovation initiative that was launched in Germany during the first COVID-19 lockdown by seven civil society organizations with the support of the German government. #WirVsVirus invited citizens to participate in a 48-hour virtual hackathon to generate solutions to critical

issues related to COVID-19. For instance, how might we help people to handle the isolation resulting from the lockdown or how might we rapidly digitalize services in healthcare? #WirVsVirus became one of the world’s largest hackathons with 28,000 participants who created teams to post more than 1,500 ideas; 20 ideas were selected by an expert jury. The organizers of #WirVsVirus were very aware of the need to support selected ideas beyond the online hackathon. Therefore, after the ideation phase, thanks to resources (financial, mentoring, etc.) provided by foundations, philanthropists, federal governments and companies, they curated a programme to help teams prototype and develop their ideas. These two cases show how open social innovation is a form of cross-sector collaboration: both initiatives engaged multiple stakeholders – diverse and passionate individuals, for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, as well as public or governmental institutions – to tackle multifaceted social issues and create social change. As a process, open social innovation provides a mechanism that can potentially connect civil society with businesses and governments. And such a connection is essential for social innovation (Howaldt et al. 2016).

Discussion and conclusion

Recent research suggests that open social innovation can be a generative mechanism to engage diverse and passionate individuals to tackle multifaceted social issues, inspire collective action and create social change. Yet, three main areas require the attention of researchers interested in studying open social innovation as well as those planning to implement open social innovation. ● How to nurture collective action and move from ideation to implementation The literature on open innovation (Baldwin and von Hippel 2011; Chesbrough 2003; Boudreau and Lakhani 2013) focuses on the importance of diversity for idea generation and on how to attract diverse participants in order to generate new ideas and invite communities to innovate from the bottom up (Martins and de Souza Bermejo 2015). We know from the literature on online communities how to continuously engage volunteers through the Anne-Laure Fayard

70  Encyclopedia of social innovation

balancing between structure and fluidity, the nurturing of a collaborative culture, and the creation of roles to sustain governance (e.g. Faraj et al. 2011; Fayard and DeSanctis 2010). What we know less about is what processes and practices are required to move from idea generation to implementation. This is particularly critical when social impact and change are the goals. While some organizations have experimented to increase the likelihood of implementation and impact by providing a range of resources – from financial to mentoring – and creating ecosystems to support and mentor innovators (Fayard, forthcoming; Mair and Gegenhuber 2021), research on open innovation challenges and hackathons shows that open innovation tends to fall short when it comes to implementation and sustainable impact (Zukin and Papadantonakis 2017). It is therefore important to explore what happens to the ideas generated during open innovation events and to investigate why so few are implemented, as well as what organizational processes might support implementation and trigger collective action. ● Turning small changes into sustainable ones: whose role is it? Open social innovation helps to raise awareness and trigger behavioural changes as well as trigger bottom-up approaches to innovation (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION, CIVIL SOCIETY AND DEMOCRACY-BUILDING). This is particularly relevant in the case of complex social issues that require changes in behaviours and perceptions at the individual level (Mair et al. 2016). Although the engagement of individuals in collective action and social change is crucial for addressing the multifaceted societal problems that define grand challenges, it should not overshadow the importance of other actors in the background. Open social innovation is not a magic bullet. If involving individuals is crucial to generating solutions that provide answers to communities’ needs and are adapted to local contexts, individuals alone cannot pilot and implement solutions. To create the long-term social changes required for solving grand challenges, we cannot count only on individual actors, civil society and the third sector. There is a role Anne-Laure Fayard

for government, public sector, and policymakers along with businesses to support and nurture innovative ideas generated by individuals or communities. It would be worth unpacking the role and relationships of multiple stakeholders. For instance, OpenIDEO – a community of volunteers who collaborate on a proprietary platform to address social challenges articulated by a partnership of corporations (i.e. IDEO and the sponsors) – poses ‘the question of the dependence or independence of peer mutualism, or peer production, from the liberal state and market’ (Benkler 2013, p. 244). Future research could explore further how some organizations might play the role of facilitator and catalyst of collective action in addressing complex social and environmental issues. ● Rethinking of our definition of participation and work Open models of production and sourcing of ideas like open innovation and the growth of technology-enabled contingent work had changed the nature of work (Barley et al. 2017; Fayard 2021). In the case of social innovation when governments experiment with open social innovation in the context of increasing budget constraints (Muray et al. 2010), it is important to recognize and compensate the work done by all actors involved. Indeed, open innovation platforms and hackathons invite participants to join voluntarily and without payment, often attracting students who want to hone their skills and/or create social impact (Martins and de Souza Bermejo 2015). While leveraging people’s interests in collaboration for social good is not necessarily flawed, it is important for sponsors of open social innovation initiatives to recognize and compensate in some ways people’s work and support their implementation efforts. It might be worth further analysing several platforms for social innovation and citizen engagement in order to identify the forms of engagement they offer participants and how it reflects and shapes a certain meaning of work. As a new form of cross-sector collaboration where organizations use technology to engage with communities (O’Mahony and Lakhani 2011) to generate new ideas that create long-term social impact, open social

Open social innovation  71

innovation calls for more research on interactions and power dynamics between partners (Fayard and Bechky 2018; Gray and Purdy 2018) and the governance structure enacted by the boundary organizations facilitating the open innovation process (O’Mahony and Bechky 2008). Anne-Laure Fayard

communities’, Organization Science, 22 (5), pp. 1224–39. Fayard, A.-L. (2021), ‘Notes on the meaning of work: labor, work, and action in the 21st century’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 30 (2), pp. 207–20. Fayard, A.-L. (forthcoming), ‘Making time for social innovation: How to interweave clock-time and event-time in open social innovation to nurture idea generation and social impact’, Organization Science. References Fayard, A.-L. and B. Bechky (2018), ‘A tale of two continents and multiple sectors: spanEntries marked in bold are further reading ning boundaries for cross-sector collaboration’, material. paper presented at the Rethinking Cross-Sector Social Innovation Conference organized by Baldwin, C. and E. von Hippel (2011), ‘Modeling the Social Innovation and Change Initiative, a paradigm shift: from producer innovation Harvard Kennedy School. to user and open collaborative innovation’, Fayard, A.-L. and G. DeSanctis (2010), ‘Enacting Organization Science, 22 (6), pp. 1399–417. language games: the development of a sense Barley, S. R. B. A. Bechky and F. J. Milliken of “we-ness” in online forums’, Information (2017), ‘The changing nature of work: careers, Systems Journal, 20, pp. 383–416, accessed identities and work lives in the 21st century’, 18 August 2022 at https://​doi​.org/​10​.1111/​j​ Academy of Management Discoveries, .1365–2575​.2009​.00335​.x. pp. 111–15. Benkler, Y. (2013), ‘Practical Anarchism: Peer Fayard, A.-L., E. Gkeredakis and L. Levina (2016), ‘Framing innovation opportunities while Mutualism, Market Power, and the Fallible staying committed to an organizational episState’, Politics & Society, 41 (2), 213–251. temic stance’, Information Systems Research, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​0032329213483108 27, pp. 302–23. Beucler, P., G. Mishra and N. Makhija (2013), ‘Now and next: future of engagement’, Ferraro, F., D. Etzion and J. Gehman (2015), ‘Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: accessed 18 August 2022 at https://​ issuu​ robust action revisited’, Organization Studies, .com/​mslgroupofficial/​docs/​now​-next​-future​ 36 (3), pp. 363–90. -engagement. Boudreau, K. J. and K. R. Lakhani (2013), ‘Using Gray, B. and J. Purdy (2018), Collaborating for our Future: Multistakeholder Partnerships for the crowd as an innovation partner’, Harvard Solving Complex Problems, Oxford: Oxford Business Review, 91 (4), pp. 60–69. University Press. Brown, T. and J. Wyatt (2009), ‘Design thinking for social innovation’, Stanford Social Howaldt, J. and M. Schwarz (2010), Social Innovation: Concepts, Research Fields, and Innovation Review, 8 (1), pp. 31–5. International Trends, IMA/ZLW. Bryson, J. M., B. C. Crosby and M. M. Stone (2015), ‘Designing and implementing Howaldt, J., D. Domanski and C. Kaletka (2016), ‘Social innovation: towards a new innovation cross-sector collaborations: needed and chalparadigm’, RAM, REV. ADM. MACKENZIE lenging’, Public Administration Review, 75 (5), (Mackenzie Management Review), 17 (6), pp. 647–63. Special Edition, pp. 20–44. Chalmers, D. (2013), ‘Social innovation: an exploration of the barriers faced by innovating Lakhani, K. R., A. L. Fayard, N. Levina and S. H. Pokrywa (2013), ‘OpenIDEO’, Harvard organizations in the social economy’, Local Business School Case 612–066, February 2012 Economy, 28 (1), pp. 17–34. (revised October 2013). Chesbrough, H. W. (2003), Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Lakhani, K. R., A. L.,Fayard, M. Gkeredakis and J. H. Paik (2020) ‘OpenIDEO (B)’, Harvard Technology, Boston, MA: Harvard Business Business School Supplement, #621–058. Press. Chesbrough, H. and A. Di Minin (2014), ‘Open Lifshitz-Assaf, H., S. Lebovitz and L. Zalmanson (2021), ‘Minimal and adaptive coordination: social innovation’, in H. W. Chesbrough, W. how hackathons’ projects accelerate innovation Vanhaverbeke and J. West (eds), New Frontiers without killing it’, Academy of Management in Open Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Journal, accessed 18 August 2022 at https://​ Press, pp. 169–88. journals​.aom​.org/​doi/​abs/​10​.5465/​amj​.2017​ Faraj, S., S. L. Jarvenpaa and A. Majchrzak .0712. (2011), ‘Knowledge collaboration in online Mair, J. and T. Gegenhuber (2021), ‘Open social innovation’, Stanford Social Innovation

Anne-Laure Fayard

72  Encyclopedia of social innovation Review, 19 (4), pp. 26–33, accessed 18 August 2022 at https://​doi​.org/​10​.48558/​Q78Z​-F094. Mair, J., M. Wolf and C. Seelos (2016), ‘Scaffolding: a process of transforming patterns of inequality in small-scale societies’, Academy of Management Journal, 59 (6), pp. 2021–44. Martins, T. C. M. and P. H. de Souza Bermejo (2015), ‘Open social innovation’, in Ć. Dolićanin, E. Kajan, D. Randjelović and B. Stojanović (eds), Handbook of Research on Democratic Strategies and Citizen-Centered E-Government Services, Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 144–63. Murray, R., J. Caulier-Grice and G. Mulgan (2010), The Open Book of Social Innovation, London: National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Art. Nambisan, S. (2009), ‘Platforms for collaboration’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, 7 (3), pp. 44–9. Neumeier, S. (2012), ‘Why do social innovations in rural development matter and should they be considered more seriously in rural development research? Proposal for a stronger focus on social innovations in rural development research’, Sociologia Ruralis, 52 (1), pp. 48–69, accessed 18 August 2022 at https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1111/​j​.1467–9523​.2011​.00553​.x. O’Mahony, S. and B. Bechky (2008), ‘Boundary organizations: enabling collaboration among

Anne-Laure Fayard

unexpected allies’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 53 (3), pp. 422–59. O’Mahony, S. and K. R. Lakhani (2011), ‘Organizations in the shadow of communities’, Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 33, pp. 3–36. Pache, A. C., A. L. Fayard and M. Galo (2022), ‘How can cross-sector collaborations foster social innovation? A review’, in A. Vaccaro and T. Ramus (eds), Social Innovation and Social Enterprises, Issues in Business Ethics series, vol. 62, Cham: Springer, https://​doi​.org/​ 10​.1007/​978​-3​-030​-96596​-9​_3. Silver, J. K., D. S. Binder, N. Zubcevik and R. D. Zafonte (2016), ‘Healthcare hackathons provide educational and innovation opportunities: a case study and best practice recommendations’, Journal of Medical Systems, 40 (177), accessed 18 August 2022 at https://​link​.springer​ .com/​article/​10​.1007/​s10916–016–0532–3​ #auth​-Julie​_K​_​-Silver. Zukin, S. and M. Papadantonakis (2017), ‘Hackathons as co-optation ritual: socializing workers and institutionalizing innovation in the “new economy”’, in A. L. Kalleberg and S. P. Vallas (eds), Precarious Work, Research in the Sociology of Work series, vol. 31, Bingley: Emerald Publishing, pp. 157–81.

13. The politics of conceptualizing social innovation

tions that seem novel and fresh) never seems to grow old. The conceptual imprecision of social innovation serves to make it attractive to different actors across the political spectrum, since it can disguise a wide range of policy objectives. Various definitions of social innovation, such as those put forward by the European Union or Social Innovation Canada, tend to stress the power of collaboration, but also convey an implicit belief in the power of human knowledge and agency to change the world for the better. This is despite never specifying what ‘better’ might look like. Working to achieve (some unspecified form of) social change (Howaldt and Schwarz 2016; Teasdale et al. 2021a) might be considered as problematic in some quarters. As Avelino (2021, p. 1) points out, ‘In this enthusiasm-for-social-change, the “dark” and “unintended” effects of social change and innovation often tend to be underemphasized, as well as the fierce power struggles and inequalities that come with it.’ Issues around democratic change and the difficulties involved in restructuring power relations tend to be ignored (von Jacobi et al. 2017), while issues of power, conflict and contrasting opinions about the directions of transformative social change remain concealed, unaddressed and unexplored (Avelino 2021; Avelino et al. 2019; Pel et al. 2020). By our count there are at least three (admittedly quite broad) different ‘flavours’ of social innovation, and thus directions of social change, in contemporary use by academics and practitioners today: (1) a technocratic social innovation discourse (Montgomery 2016) which emphasizes a liberal, non-interventionist ‘market is king’ approach (exemplified by Ashoka – see Teasdale et al. 2021b); (2) a collaborative discourse, where civil society, markets and the state need to work together (Ziegler 2017) to ‘co-produce’ solutions; and (3) a radical discourse, where capitalism is at the root of the problem (Moulaert et al. 2010) and needs replacing. The radical discourse tends to have a utopian vein: resistance is not (always) futile and realities can potentially be re-imagined and re-shaped, as exemplified, for example, by Erik Olin Wright’s ‘Real Utopias’ Project (Wright 2013), albeit not without great difficulty.

Introduction

After the prominent historian of science and technological concepts, Benoît Godin, died in early 2021, an obituary explained that ‘He was passionate about the use of words at various times, the transformation of their meaning, their circulation, their reappropriation and the political significance they could have’ (Vinck 2021, p. 7). It is therefore apt that in this entry we explore how the meaning of social innovation can vary and shift through a process of continual contestation, and how the fascinating power and political dimensions of this contestation can be revealed and explored. Any social innovation which seeks to improve outcomes for people, or provide an alternative vision of the future, is inherently normative. Social change does not come about in an apolitical vacuum. Social innovation is a process that is thus inherently political, and thus deserving of robust debate and negotiation involving a diverse array of voices and opinions. The entry is organized as follows: firstly, we explore how most definitions of social innovation tend to ignore that social change is a political process with winners and losers. We then explore the politics of social innovation, drawing on the concept of strategic action fields (SAFs) to reveal how social innovation can be thought of as a site of contestation over what the direction of change ought to be. We close by setting out some of the critical research questions that occur to us through conceptualizing social innovation as an SAF, suggesting a future research agenda focused on power, politics and contestation within social innovation processes.

Different ‘flavours’ of social innovation

The term ‘social innovation’ has a long academic heritage (Ayob et al. 2016; Godin 2012; McGowan and Westley 2015), but only became central to policy debates at both national and supranational levels in recent years. The fetishizing of novel solutions to social problems (or, more accurately, solu73

74  Encyclopedia of social innovation

Revealing the dynamics of social innovation: strategic action fields

But simply identifying that different flavours of social innovation exist only takes us so far. We also need to discuss the politics of social change, recognizing that social change is a highly political process which tends to benefit some and not others. The concept of social innovation itself could be considered an ‘arena’ where the battle for what the nature of social change ought to be is played out. Such an arena of contestation (or SAF) would consist of a variety of actors, all with different levels of power and influence to set and shape the agenda. According to Fligstein and McAdam (2011, p. 3), SAFs are the fundamental units of collective action in society. An SAF is a meso-level social order where actors (who can be individual or collective) interact with knowledge of one another under a set of common understandings about the purposes of the field, the relationships in the field (including who has power and why), and the field’s rules. All collective actors (e.g. organizations, extended families, clans, supply chains, social movements and govern-

mental systems) are themselves made up of SAFs. When they interact in a larger political, social, or economic field, that field also becomes an SAF. In this way, SAFs look a lot like Russian dolls. Field actors seek to gain power, influence, and resources from different positions as incumbents or challengers. Figure 13.1 shows the conceptual arrangement of such, with both stability and conflict arising from continual contestation and domination exercised through cognitive framing and counterframing contests, where ‘hearts and minds’ within institutions and social movements are continually fought over. Returning to the idea of social innovation as an SAF, we can see how Figure 13.1 shows the connections between the vertical nested ‘governance’ layer (e.g. that would be where the EU or Social Innovation Canada might be placed) to the ‘authority’ layer (represented by the likes of Ashoka, the Social Innovation Exchange, NESTA, and even academic communities such as ISIRC – the International Social Innovation Research Conference), down to various publics, and then on to other SAFs. In the centre of the diagram, we

Source: Adapted from Laamanen and Skålén (2015).

Figure 13.1

Social innovation as a strategic action field

Michael J. Roy, Simon Teasdale and Lars Hulgård

The politics of conceptualizing social innovation  75

can see how these different ‘flavours’ and those pushing them might come up against each other, create conflict or stability for a time, perhaps shove some incumbents out, creating space for challengers to prevailing social innovation orthodoxy to emerge. The power to shape agendas should not only be thought of as being arranged hierarchically, though, but diffused within and across the various layers too. As Avelino (2021) explains, certain groups shape the interests and preferences of other groups, but they do not necessarily have to intervene to keep certain issues ‘off the agenda’, as regularly these issues are prevented from emerging in people’s minds in the first place.

A new way of thinking about social innovation? An emerging research agenda

Conceptualizing the social innovation arena of contestation as an SAF allows us to recognize that different actors and groups of actors (incumbents and challengers) are manoeuvring for power and resources to lead others towards different visions of a world transformed by the type of social change they aspire to. This way of thinking opens new research possibilities driven by an appreciation of power and conflict within the social innovation field, shaped by the overarching principle that (→ POWER AND EMPOWERMENT IN SOCIAL INNOVATION): Rather than ‘choosing sides’ within these power debates or attempting to ‘solve’ them, the challenge is to acknowledge the different dimensions of these power contestations, and on that basis distil empirical questions that can be used to systematically and meaningfully explore the role of power in processes of social change and innovation, remaining sensitive to various dimensions of power as discussed in the literature. (Avelino 2021, p. 3)

We have identified five different areas for future empirical inquiry inspired by considering social innovation as a form of SAF, which we have grouped under the following headings: (1) contestation and collaboration; (2) the politics of social innovation; (3) social innovation fields in context; (4) social innovation ecosystems; and (5) ideational travel. We discuss each in turn.

Contestation and collaboration Future research could usefully be focused on a variety of questions related to the process and practice of contestation and collaboration. For example: how do actors negotiate fields? Which strategies (e.g. rhetorical frames, visualization methods, strategic partnerships) do they employ to reach broad acceptance of their ideals and methods? In what ways and under what circumstances do actors collaborate within fields? How do coalitions emerge? In what ways, and under what circumstances do actors compete within fields? What do they struggle for and against? How do ruptures and crises emerge? The politics of social innovation Future research can usefully draw attention to the underlying ideas or theories of social change conveyed by actors within social innovation fields by asking: how do they express, promote, or hinder ideas of justice and sustainability? What visions of justice and sustainability can we identify, and how do they differ across levels, countries and across main actor groups in field building and renewal? Social innovation fields in context How do social innovation fields include and negotiate top-down liberal democratic perspectives with bottom-up communitarian visions? How do they deal with varieties of populism as well as the risk of ‘ungovernability’? How do such ecosystems include/ exclude radical sustainability demands associated with post-growth and de-growth visions of transformation for just and sustainable societies? Social innovation ecosystems When thinking about the various constellations of actors that comprise a social innovation field, which are regularly thought of as comprising an ‘ecosystem’, to borrow a metaphor from biological science, how should such ecosystems be successfully designed and coordinated to ensure vital collaboration happens without stifling innovation? What is the role of intermediary bodies in facilitating this collaboration and the flow of resources? How can the political or ideological tensions that can arise be mitigated or reconciled? Can such tensions, and the energy that often arises

Michael J. Roy, Simon Teasdale and Lars Hulgård

76  Encyclopedia of social innovation

from such, be channelled and/or harnessed for positive ends? Ideational travel Drawing, for example, on critical economic geography, how do ideas around what social innovation is, and what social change ‘should be’, travel across national boundaries and between actors within emerging transnational fields? What is the role played by different actors (notably boundary-spanning actors) in this process? How are ideas mediated and transformed by the fields into which they are imported?

Conclusion

In this entry, we have explained that the meaning of social innovation varies and shifts through processes of continual contestation, but also that the fascinating power and political dimensions of such contestation could be critically explored through thinking about social innovation as a form of strategic action field. Through doing so, this presents a variety of possibilities for future empirical inquiry, and we have set out an initial research agenda to provoke discussion and debate on this topic. Our aim is not to push readers into ‘taking sides’, but less ambitiously, to simply acknowledge that there are sides to be taken; that social innovation is not a neutral concept, and for researchers to embrace and reveal the inevitable power dimensions of social change. Michael J. Roy, Simon Teasdale and Lars Hulgård

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Avelino, F. (2021), ‘Theories of Power and Social Change: Power Contestations and Their Implications for Research on Social Change and Innovation’, Journal of Political Power, 14 (3), pp. 1–24. Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J. M., Pel, B., Weaver, P., Dumitru, A., Haxeltine, A., Kemp, R., Jørgensen, M. S., Bauler, T., Ruijsink, S. and O’Riordan, T. (2019), ‘Transformative Social Innovation and (Dis)empowerment’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, pp. 195–206. Ayob, N., Teasdale, S. and Fagan, K. (2016), ‘How Social Innovation “Came to Be”: Tracing

the Evolution of a Contested Concept’, Journal of Social Policy, 45 (4), pp. 635–53. Fligstein, N. and McAdam, D. (2011), ‘Toward a General Theory of Strategic Action Fields’, Sociological Theory, 29 (1), pp. 1–26. Godin, B. (2012), Social Innovation: Utopias of Innovation from c.1830 to the Present, Montréal: Working Paper 11 Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation. Howaldt, J. and Schwarz, M. (2016), Social Innovation and Its Relationship to Social Change, Dortmund: SI-DRIVE. Laamanen, M. and Skålén, P. (2015), ‘Collective– Conflictual Value Co-Creation: A Strategic Action Field Approach’, Marketing Theory, 15 (3), pp. 381–400. McGowan, K. and Westley, F. (2015), ‘At the Root of Change: The History of Social Innovation’, in A. Nicholls, J. Simon, and M. Gabriel (eds), New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 52–68. Montgomery, T. (2016), ‘Are Social Innovation Paradigms Incommensurable?’, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27, pp. 1979–2000. Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., Swyngedouw, E. and Gonzalez, S. (2010), Can Neighbourhoods Save the City? Community Development and Social Innovation, Abingdon: Routledge. Pel, B., Haxeltine, A., Avelino, F., Dumitru, A., Kemp, R., Bauler, T., Kunze, I., Dorland, J., Wittmayer, J. and Jørgensen, M. S. (2020), ‘Towards a Theory of Transformative Social Innovation: A Relational Framework and 12 Propositions’, Research Policy, 49 (8), 104080. Teasdale, S., Roy, M. J. and Hulgård, L. (2021a), ‘Power and Conflict in Social Innovation: A Field-Based Perspective’, in J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka, and A. Schröder (eds), A Research Agenda for Social Innovation, Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 169–88. Teasdale, S., Roy, M. J., Ziegler, R., Mauksch, S., Dey, P. and Raufflet, E. B. (2021b), ‘Everyone a Changemaker? Exploring the Moral Underpinnings of Social Innovation Discourse Through Real Utopias’, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 12 (3), pp. 417–37. Vinck, D. (2021), ‘Benoît Godin (1958–2021)’, Engineering Studies, 13 (1), 6–7. von Jacobi, N., Edmiston, D. and Ziegler, R. (2017), ‘Tackling Marginalisation through Social Innovation? Examining the EU Social Innovation Policy Agenda from a Capabilities Perspective’, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 18 (2), pp. 148–62. Wright, E. O. (2013), ‘Real Utopias’, Politics & Society, 41 (2), pp. 167–9. Ziegler, R. (2017), ‘Social Innovation as a Collaborative Concept’, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 30 (4), pp. 388–405.

Michael J. Roy, Simon Teasdale and Lars Hulgård

14. Social innovation in the digital age

tinguishing two basic dimensions of these emerging relations. The first dimension refers to the contrasting views structuring what social may mean:

Demystifying digital social innovation

– social as being essentially linked to the objective of reducing inequalities, protecting vulnerable groups, promoting inclusiveness and what it takes to envisage human beings as essentially equal in rights; innovation, in this sense, is produced by new and hopefully more efficient ways of reaching such objectives, and the digital contribution, just the same, as a technological resource enhancing this capacity (by optimizing, accelerating, sharing, etc.). – social as suggesting that innovation is produced through the effect of inter-individual contributions or socially undertaken processes, considered as an intrinsic value worth pursuing; digitally enabled social innovation, in this sense, is then a process in which technology helps boost social interaction capacities, and facilitates the desired outcomes.

This entry aims at articulating social innovation with digital technologies. We will first clarify what the social innovation concept may involve, before examining how digital means may transform it, modifying previous working perspectives or possibly opening new avenues. What is evident when examining social innovation is the diversity of meanings and viewpoints associated with it, which the digital factor, as demonstrated in previous works (e.g. Misuraca et al. 2017), enables, within a rich landscape of applications and policy orientations. We will therefore start by mapping and analysing the main stakes and controversies linked with social innovation, before evaluating how digital means may actually transform, positively or negatively, its outreach. This clarification is meant to help make the best out of the concept and support its implementation into actual practices, benefiting policymakers and ultimately citizens in the design of their interventions. The idea of innovation is used by all fields of science, each one in their own terms. In this plural arena, social innovation, as a minimum, suggests that beside other forms of innovation (e.g. process, product, technological, cultural, organizational) exists a space for creating novelty that can be considered as specifically social, even though its usages do not converge. If we want to document, value and share knowledge concerning social innovation at large, we need to capture all these perceptions and realities in a structured and exploitable form.

The second dimension concerns the creation pattern of social innovation, which can also be seen from two alternate viewpoints: – processes in which social innovation is organized, exploited and strengthened by initiatives enacted by governing agents or their specialized agents (e.g. urbanists, planners, policy implementation officers, evaluators), ending up in a form of collective benefit qualifying for social in the sense of enhanced cohesion, increased protection, fewer inequalities, new options for exerting ones’ citizen rights, and so on; digital, in this approach, helps diffuse information, construct platforms for citizen participation, measure and report on progress made in terms of efficiency, fairness, transparency, and so on. – processes through which, upon an objective of social change regarding an existing state of affairs envisaged as unsatisfactory, groups of individuals or existing communities of practices propose new ways of doing, experimenting, sharing knowledge concerning their views, accomplishments and visions of how what they do could help change things for a specific domain or issue; digital, in

Towards a reference framework

We are, of course, not the first ones to suggest a typology of social innovation (Howaldt and Schwarz 2010; Milosevic et al. 2018), but we want to propose a critical reflection on this concept in connection with the challenges posed by the digital transformation of our societies, and the opening of new options, building on our previous work (see Misuraca et al. 2017). Our approach consists in dis77

78  Encyclopedia of social innovation

this context, means using technology that can facilitate and accelerate information dissemination and communicate on the value of particular change results; it can also help these groups manage internally what it takes to be efficient transformative agents in their given contexts. These different perceptions of social innovation are summarized in Figure 14.1. On the horizontal axis, we have, on the left-hand side the view of social as a goal and on the right-hand side, social as a means. Social as a goal means that a group of individuals or authorized state representatives decide on and take measures to bring to success measures meant to bring social benefits to target populations (in particular, what it takes to assume protection, inclusiveness, caring services, with a universal service approach); social as a means, that a group of individuals manages to undertake something together towards a certain goal, together (e.g. collaboration, community work). On the vertical axis, the opposition is between, in the top section, social innovation promoted by authorized or/and specialized government agents, and deploying, if necessary, forms of encouraged participation to

Figure 14.1

legitimate or improve experts’ and policymakers’ initiatives; and in the bottom section, social innovation felt as a necessary change by groups of individuals, more or less organized, and shaped through a grass-root action. Both types of actors (experts/representatives of policymakers and grass-root activists), at some point, starting from the particular perspective of what social means to them, (1) may want to get closer to the other perspective and (2) must engage in some form of participatory action to positively share, capitalize on and transform their action in a broader type of social impact. In the centre of the vertical axis, there is room for diverse intermediation activities and roles to harmonize the different perspectives, within a range of possible participatory dynamics between very formal and almost passive forms, to innovative and potentially transformative processes (on this, see Dalakiouridou et al. 2009; Barreda et al. 2012). Actually, intensely negotiated processes can take place, in which governing agents have to open their offer to allow for participation to become truly social, including in the community-building sense, and in which grass-roots practitioners have to conceive

Different meanings and creation perspectives underpinning social innovation

Gianluca Misuraca and Pierre Rossel

Social innovation in the digital age  79

ways of making their initiatives also acceptable to policymakers. At this crossroads, the digital dimension may involve a broad range of applications, tools and even platforms, with different types of usages and ecosystemic impacts, from purely communication-minded to collaborative and even expert applications (for more details on this particular view of social innovation, see Durance 2011; Institut Jean-Baptiste Godin 2013; European Social Innovation Competition 2021).

Digital contributions to social innovation

The angles and viewpoint described so far account for social innovation at large, but emphasizing more precisely what digital factors may mean within that landscape is a critical challenge (Quintarelli et al. 2021). For most of these participatory moves, social media computing may provide the capacity to communicate and collaborate, directly (e.g. through emails) or bypassing social networks or dedicated service platforms; it then tends to accelerate and amplify the efficiency of social innovation endeavours, helping increase the number of persons likely to be involved in a process and the range of audiences that can be reach in a given lapse of time, but also the accomplishment of more complex tasks like a more optimized allocation of resources. In our digitalized society, this multi-usage toolbox constitutes a basic asset accessible to large majority of the population, with efficient mobile and decentralized capacities, which can be in addition enriched by various other digital technologies (Internet of things, geo-location or even extended reality or QR codes, for instance). However, digital resources may also convey other types of change. Non-specialized actors, with time and motivation, and the mentoring help of friendly experts, may become to a certain extent practitioners of tools which normally pertain to the expertise of particular professions (CAD/CAM, graphical means, algorithmic treatments, visual rendering, etc.) or seem still to remain for a while the exclusive capability of ‘geeks’. This is, for instance, the case of blockchain applications such as decentralized autonomous organizations, smart contracts or local virtual currencies, pushing the interactions taking place in

a social innovation process to a new level of effectiveness. While the first category of digital usages ends up in an acceleration and amplification of social innovation endeavours, the second category, which involves a higher level of lay expertise, suggests rather for digital technologies a role of enabler, augmenting the capabilities of non-specialists in their interaction with experts and as such increasing the potential and effectiveness in their deeds, and thereupon their participatory value. Coming back to our two main usages of social (in the horizontal axis in Figure 14.1 this time), we can, for instance, distinguish: – how digital tools can bring governance new capabilities and options to integrate citizens and provide them with more means to exert their rights and access public services, with personalized social provisions of several kinds; – how dedicated groups manage to accumulate relevant knowledge (for instance in health, on environmental measurements, in knowing how remote groups solve similar problems), to get organized and better negotiate, as a collective body, with recognized specialists (medical doctors, architects, planners, biologists, agricultural professionals, security experts, etc.), or, if needed, wisely use counter-experts for their own social transformation goals.

Applying the reference framework: digital social innovation in action Eco-neighbourhoods The trend consisting in conceiving housing and neighbourhoods involving multiple environmental objectives is not new, but the way to do it thanks to innovative communities of practice is. This involves, on the one hand, the overall efficiency and credibility needed for these initiatives to overcome the limits of their marginal status and, on the other hand, the sharing of knowledge and experience across communities that make particular groups participate not only locally but also more globally to the ecological transition, implying a sophisticated use of digital applications and services. Most of these projects need local authority support and national policy measures concretely encourGianluca Misuraca and Pierre Rossel

80  Encyclopedia of social innovation

aging certain environmentally consistent approaches, more and more eco-neighbourhood projects becoming part of innovative urban policymaking (Tianhu et al. 2021). However, without the capacity to trigger, among future or actual eco-inhabitants, the motivation to contribute in their own terms, thanks to their lifestyle, consumption choices and sense of attachment, to the maintenance and even qualitative development of their housing, digital management alone, even if extremely efficient, will miss the target, while policy effectiveness will be harder to attain. There is a need for a negotiation space and time, opening a real margin of maneuvering (in the centre of Figure 14.1) in which learning (technological, organizational, cultural and even political), information sharing and collaboration among stakeholders, for better collective management of the commons and communication upon problems as well as successes, can take place. For that, socially efficient digital tools and even artificial intelligence (AI) solutions, for optimized resource allocation, anomaly detection and specialized interest group profiling, may help a great deal. They can in particular support the effective blending of the different eco-neighbourhood actors’ contributions, namely the design and monitoring expertise provided by the different urban specialists, on the one side, and the quality of life aspirations from the groups of active citizens involved, on the other side. In the energy sector, they can even dynamically link stakeholders thanks to smart contracts. AI-enabled innovation for predictive and personalized social services AI offers multiple opportunities to governments, at all levels, to support streamlined administrative operations and processes, gather better knowledge and generate insights by applying advanced predictive analytics. In principle, AI has the potential to benefit disadvantaged groups in society by providing tailored applications and personalized services (Davide et al. 2021). As an example (see Misuraca and van Noordt 2020), the AI system developed since 2014 by the Flemish Agency for Child and Family (Kind en Gezin) in the Flanders region, has helped support more accurate predictions to detect day-care services requiring further inspection. These inspections enable the agencies to keep the quality of day-care services high and improve Gianluca Misuraca and Pierre Rossel

children’s well-being. The predictive system developed uses a supervised machine learning method to analyse various internal and external data from the Health Care Inspection Unit, combining the predictive system recommendations with existing staff experience and expertise, eventually enabling more targeted and data-relevant interventions. During the development phase, the Agency worked closely together with the Data Science team of the Department of Welfare, Public Health and Family, which had some expertise in text mining, as well as with the Health Care Inspection Unit which provided the dataset. A small budget of the Child and Family Agency for IT data science projects was used, but employees had to work on the model in their spare time as volunteers, showing the social innovation potential and co-creation characteristics of this approach based on a collaborative innovation network. While the system was envisaged as useful by civil servants, it was nevertheless necessary to convince colleagues of the value of the concept. In particular, the staff had to be persuaded that it was meant to empower them, not to replace their expertise or control their work. The combination of statistical proof of the system’s validity with the emphasis on how it was supporting human workers rather than replacing them, further improved the acceptance of the public sector end-users. Of course, the model and the underlying data need to be maintained, implying the creation of a consistent ecosystem to ensure that the social innovation produced keeps being need-driven/outcome oriented and generating public value across the board (Misuraca 2020). This particular digitally enabled transformation made good use of AI, established a new working relationship between stakeholders, as a truly constructive social innovation (Misuraca and Viscusi 2020).

Key lessons from digitally enabled social innovations

The analysis of how the overall social innovation framework applies to the two illustrative cases described above shows the following. Firstly, if we want to connect an effective digital transformation of social practices with environmental transition endeavours, we need not only to use digital tools to optimize, accelerate and facilitate existing processes, but also learn how to combine several digital

Social innovation in the digital age  81

resources to that end. This implies the necessary alignment of different stakeholders, which ultimately will turn a social endeavour into a social innovation or an innovative idea into a truly socially implicating form of change. Secondly, digitally enabled innovation is, of course, following the path of innovation in the digital transformation realm at large, with all the different technological components, dilemmas, paradoxes and risks involved; but when it comes to triggering an effective transformation of lifestyles and behaviour, recognized specialists need to interact with end-users and citizens and for that, digitally enabled tools are extremely helpful, in particular to reach the necessary blend of hard and soft skills (against the idea that beneficiaries of social innovation are mere recipients, just satisfied with having computer or smartphone access to the new service provisions). In addition to these key lessons, and positively, we must also take into account all the possible negative effects as part of the collective learning. First, let’s stress that the same digital technologies evoked above can also end up in socially unacceptable forms of change (→ AMBIVALENCE AND SIDE-EFFECTS OF SOCIAL INNOVATIONS). Second, all digital activities increase carbon footprints. Third, digitally enabled social innovations may generate social successes at local level or even improvements regarding vulnerable people’s condition, but at the same time tend to create digital divides among marginalized categories and more broadly, concerning regions or countries which have less resources. There are also other forms of risks involved like dependencies and cybersecurity issues. All these problems need to be identified and taken into account (for a full case presentation balancing positive and more problematic aspects of digitally enabled social innovation, see Digital Future Society 2021). Digitization and digitalization will most likely continue to expand and, accordingly, we have to learn how to make good use of the opportunities and efficiencies they may trigger, in terms of social innovation, but also cope with new risks and ethical issues they may convey. Gianluca Misuraca and Pierre Rossel

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Barreda M., Batlle, A., Cerrillo, A., Padró-Solanet, A., Peña-López, I. and Serrano, I. (2012), ‘From Policy-Making to Community Building: A Survey on 19 Experiences of eParticipation’, in M. Gascó (ed.), Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on eGovernment. Institute of Public Governance and Management ESADE Barcelona Campus Sant Cugat Barcelona, Spain, 14–15 June 2012, vol. 1, Reading: Academic Publishing International, pp. 93–101. Dalakiouridou, E., Tambouris, E. and Tarabanis, K. (2009), Mapping the State of Play in eParticipation in the EU, Brussels: European Commission. Davide, F., Gaggioli, A. and Misuraca, G. (eds) (2021), Perspectives for Digital Social Innovation to Reshape the European Welfare Systems, vol. 13, Amsterdam, Berlin, Washington, DC: IOS Press, accessed 8 ebooks​ .iospress​ August 2022 at https://​ .nl/​volume/​perspectives​-for​-digital​-social​ -innovation​-to​-reshape​-the​-european​ -welfare​-systems. Digital Future Society (2021), Governing Algorithms: Perils and Powers of AI in the Public Sector, Barcelona, Spain, accessed 8 digitalfuturesociety​ August 2022 at https://​ .com/​report/​governing​-algorithms. Durance, P. (2011), L’innovation sociale ou les nouvelles voies du changement, CNAM, accessed 8 August 2022 at https://​base​.socioeco​ .org/​docs/​is​_ra​pportphili​ppedurance​_jv11​.pdf. European Social Innovation Competition 2021 (2021), European Social Innovators’ Insight Report: Spotlighting Europe’s Ecosystem for Social Innovation, Brussels: European Innovation Council. Howaldt, J. and Schwarz, M. (2010), ‘Social Innovation: Concepts, Research Fields and International Trends’, IMO International Monitoring. Institut Jean-Baptiste Godin (ed.) (2013), L’innovation sociale en pratiques solidaires. Emergence, approches, caractérisation, définition, évaluation, accessed 8 August 2022 at https://​www​.avise​.org/​sites/​default/​files/​ atoms/​files/​20140204/​201301​_InstitutGodin​_I​ SPratiques​Solidaires​.pdf. Milosevic N., Gok, A. and Nenadic, G. (2018), ‘Classification of Intangible Social Innovation Concepts’, in M. Silberztein et al. (eds), Natural Language Processing and Information Systems, NLDB 2018, Lecture Notes in

Gianluca Misuraca and Pierre Rossel

82  Encyclopedia of social innovation Computer Science, vol. 10859, Cham: Springer, pp. 407–18. Misuraca, G. (2020), ‘Rethinking Democracy in the “Pandemic Society”: A Journey in Search of the Governance with, of and by AI’, in P. Feletig et al. (eds), Proceedings of the 1st International Forum on Digital and Democracy: Towards A Sustainable Evolution 2020 (IFDaD2020), Venice, Italy, 10–11 December 2020, CEUR Workshop Proceedings, pp. 1–13. Misuraca, G., Pasi, G. and Urzi Brancati, C. (2017), ICT-Enabled Social Innovation: Evidence & Prospective, Luxemburg: Publications Office of the European Union, https://​doi​.org/​10​.2760/​ 61005. Misuraca, G. and van Noordt, C. (2020), AI Watch – Artificial Intelligence in Public Services: Overview of the Use and Impact of AI in Public Services in the EU, EUR 30255 EN, Luxembourg: Publications Office

Gianluca Misuraca and Pierre Rossel

of the European Union, https://​doi​.org/​10​.2760/​ 039619. Misuraca G. and Viscusi, G. (2020), ‘AI-Enabled Innovation in the Public Sector: A Framework for Digital Governance and Resilience’, in G. Viale Pereira et al. (eds), Electronic Government. EGOV 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 12219, Cham: Springer, pp. 110–20. https://​doi​.org/​ 10​.1007/​978–3​-030–57599–1​_9. Quintarelli, S., Misuraca, G., McBride, K. and de Biase, L. (2021), Policy Brief 2. Resilience in Turbulent Times. Global Happiness Council. Thematic Group: Digital Well-being, accessed 8 August 2022 at https://​s3​.amazonaws​.com/​ happinesscouncil​.org/​PB2​_Digital​.pdf. Tianhu D., Keren, Z. and Zuo-Jun, S. (2021), ‘A Systematic Review of a Digital Twin City: A New Pattern of Urban Governance Toward Smart Cities’, Journal of Management Science and Engineering, 6 (2), pp. 125–34, https://​doi​ .org/​10​.1016/​j​.jmse​.2021​.03​.003.

15. Social innovation and technological innovation

The traditional take on (technology-centric) innovation research

Research on technological innovation has a long history that can be traced back at least to Schumpeter’s path-breaking work on the Theory of Economic Development (1912) with its emphasis on the notion of creative destruction as the main force driving social and economic change (→ JOSEPH A. SCHUMPETER: INNOVATION AND SOCIETY). He recognized that the forces behind creative destruction were often technological in nature. While his work may be a key root for research on the economics of innovation, later on also labelled as neo-Schumpeterian economics (Hanusch and Pyka 2007), it is also widely recognized in other disciplines that have made major contributions to innovation research. In parallel with these theoretical developments, innovation activities started to become more institutionalized at the beginning of the twentieth century (Mowery and Rosenberg 1999). The establishment of industrial research and development (R&D) labs in the chemicals and other industries, complemented subsequently by targeted innovation efforts in the military and agricultural domains, paved the way towards a period of dominance of science- and technology-led innovation after the Second World War (Bush 1945). Next to military and strategic considerations, the surge of interest in technological innovation was driven by concerns over economic productivity in the pre- and post-war period, and the recognition that technological change was a key ingredient of productivity improvements (Maclaurin 1953; Solow 1957; Godin 2012). These insights fuelled the further industrialization of technological innovation activities, which was also the focus of Schumpeter’s later works (Schumpeter 1946). Contrary to his early research, which emphasized the role of entrepreneurs for creative destruction, Schumpeter argued that the key agents that drive innovation and economic change are large companies. They have the capital to invest in research and development of new products and services, and they are able to deliver them to customers more cheaply, thus ultimately raising the standard of living. The focus of his later works was thus not so much on technological innovation, but on social

Introduction

The research strands on technological innovation and on social innovation are engaged in an uneasy relationship that is characterized by over-simplistic perceptions of the merits and shortcomings of the respective other stream. This alienation between the two streams is due to a significant extent to their respective historical origins and underdeveloped knowledge exchange. At the same time, current research agendas in both streams seem to be partially converging, and they could benefit from intensified mutual exchange and alignment. The origins and key characteristics of technological innovation research and social innovation research are elicited, in order to highlight the commonalities and complementarities that should be further explored in the future. As shown in this Encyclopedia, there are several different definitions of social innovation (→ STRANDS OF SOCIAL INNOVATION RESEARCH) that put the emphasis either on the nature or the purpose of social innovation. Definitions of technological innovation do also vary, but a common standard has been established with the Oslo Manual to guide data collection on innovation in business in particular (OECD 2018, p. 20): ‘An innovation is a new or improved product or process (or combination thereof) that differs significantly from the unit’s previous products or processes and that has been made available to potential users (product) or brought into use by the unit (process).’ Earlier versions of the Oslo Manual tied innovation explicitly to technological changes, but with the 2005 edition the definition of innovation was opened up to include also organizational and marketing innovations. However, the focus on technology- and business-centric innovations continues to be at the core of the Oslo Manual definition.

83

84  Encyclopedia of social innovation

and technological production factor as well as on new forms of organization. Since the 1960s, technological innovation has been studied at the confluence of different disciplines which are often subsumed under the headline of innovation studies, with strong roots in economics, geography and policy studies, but also in sociology (in particular, science and technology studies), (innovation) management and organizational studies (Fagerberg and Verspagen 2009). Economic and social historians have also played a pivotal role in improving the understanding of how technological innovations emerge, are shaped and come to change society, while being embedded in prevailing socio-economic structures, cultures and institutions and influenced by sudden historical turnings like wars and revolutions. The economics of innovation and new technology put a strong emphasis on the role of R&D as the driving force behind innovation, often dubbed as Science and Technology push, even though demand-pull factors were also considered prominently (Schmookler 1966). Markets play an important role as mechanisms that enhance diffusion and enable creative destruction, and lead to economic development and productivity growth. The economics perspective has dominated the debates about the benefits of innovation for society over the past decades, underpinned by analyses focusing on the link between technological innovation and economic performance at different levels. The interest in innovation as a means of enhancing economic development is shared by regional studies and economic geography, which stress the importance of spatially bound determinants of innovation performance as well as of various forms of proximity (Boschma and Frenken 2006). Both economics and geography of innovation have also been very influential in terms of informing government policy. This focus on the impact of innovation on economic performance and growth has been one of the features for which the innovation economics have been criticized by other disciplines; a criticism that may have been true for the past, but which is more difficult to maintain in view of recent developments in innovation studies in general, and in innovation economics in particular. The sociological perspective of science and technology studies (STS) is a second Matthias Weber

major ingredient of research on technological innovation, but it has always pursued a more critical stance on the relationship between technology and socio-economic change. While sharing the initial interest in technology with the economics of (technological) innovation, it equally focused on the social, cultural and political forces – for instance, in terms of structures, agency and power – that are shaping the emergence of new technology and determining the directions of technological trajectories (Bijker et al. 1987). Much of this work has been critical in the sense that it focused on the potentially problematic repercussions of technology for society, such as the re-production of prevailing social, political, economic and cultural patterns. Other strands of STS research have focused on the role of social practices in giving meaning to technological artefacts (Shove et al. 2012). In fact, the relationship between ‘the social and the technical’ has been an issue of major interest in STS for a long time (Rohracher 2015). The elicitation of these social, and often implicitly normative, underpinnings of technology is crucial because they reflect inscribed purposes and ambitions. Management and organizational studies have focused on the changing patterns and practices of doing research and innovation at the micro level, and at the organizational options to improve and accelerate innovation, for instance through new and more open processes, new (digital) tools and new forms of intra- and extra-organizational cooperation.

The new generation of innovation studies

While it may be true that, historically, the majority of research on innovation within these streams of innovation studies was based on a technology-centric understanding of innovation and an emphasis on R&D as the main driving force behind it, aiming to strengthen social and economic development, innovation studies have evolved quite considerably over the past 20 years, with much more emphasis being put on the social dimensions, means and purposes of innovation. The caricature of innovation studies, which has sometimes been drawn by proponents of social innovation research to clearly distinguish themselves from the mainstream, can no longer be sustained.

Social innovation and technological innovation  85

This argument can be substantiated by highlighting what has changed in innovation studies in recent years. First, with the growing interest in the environmental consequences of innovation and technology, environmental economics has triggered a shift in the underlying normative assumptions underpinning the economics of innovation. Innovation and new technology are not regarded as positive contributions to growth and employment only, but increasingly also as forces that threaten the environmental sustainability of our societies and economies. Transition studies have further broadened this normative re-positioning of innovation studies (Köhler et al. 2019) by considering also other impact dimensions of innovation and calling for more transformative policy approaches to overcome existing path-dependencies and lock-ins. Second, this shift meant not only a departure from the ends pursued by innovation (i.e. growth, productivity and employment) but also of the means considered necessary for innovation (i.e. from a technology-centric to a much broader understanding of innovation). This broadening of the scope of innovation has brought with it a much stronger emphasis on the service, organizational, institutional and social dimensions of innovation (van der Have and Rubalcaba 2016; Djellal and Gallouj 2012), as well as a widening of the range of actors considered relevant for innovation, referring to notions such a quadruple helix or mode 3 of knowledge production (Carayannis and Campbell 2012). In particular, civil society organizations and citizens are now taken considered more and more as active contributors to innovation activities, rather than just as potential users. Third, and associated to the previous points, the new generation of innovation studies reconsiders the role of major driving forces relevant for innovation. Of course, R&D activities continue to play a major role in this context, but demand-side factors and societal needs are attracting much attention as pull factors, which is also reflected in the more participatory approaches that have become common in innovation and innovation policy (BEPA 2010). Finally, from a dynamic perspective, technological and social dimensions of innovation are interpreted as co-evolving processes, covering a spectrum of predominantly

technological to purely social innovations. Moreover, social, organizational, and institutional innovation and change are considered crucial for the widespread uptake and scaling (technological) innovations, in particular in light of the growing calls for system innovation and system transformations to address societal challenges, or more recently under the headline of mission-orientation in policies for innovation and transformation. Common across these approaches is the recognition of inter-dependence of behavioural, organizational and institutional changes next to technological ones. In other words, the new generation of innovation studies has given notable place to the social dimensions of innovation, and both regarding the means and the ends of innovation.

Social innovation research as inspired by practical problems

From a historical perspective, research on social innovation has a longer trajectory than on technological innovation. Its origins can be traced back to the early nineteenth century (Godin 2012), but a technology-centric perspective on innovation came to dominate our twentieth-century understanding of innovation, in particular since the Second World War, when the power of technology (and research) was fully mobilized for economic and social, but also for political and military purposes. The more recent resurge of interest social innovation research was inspired by a range of concrete social problems, in particular as related to poverty, inequality and limited access to education. This strand of research can be seen in a tradition of research on social change and social reform agendas dating back to the nineteenth century, in particular in areas where state-led action was regarded insufficient to remedy social deficits (Godin 2012). In recent decades, these kinds of problems were particularly pressing in developing and emerging economies, for instance in Latin America and India, but they were and still are also present in industrialized societies like in Europe or North America. As social innovation was very much driven by practical needs, it is of little surprise that social innovation research was built up by practitioners rather than by academics, and at least in its early Matthias Weber

86  Encyclopedia of social innovation

years it was definitively practice- and not science-driven (Mulgan 2012). Therefore, technology played at best an ancillary role in the formation of novel social and organizational practices, also because solutions had to be found under low-cost and frugal conditions, where sometimes even very basic social needs could hardly be satisfied. Tied to such precarious conditions, the empowerment of disadvantaged groups in society is often an important ambition of social innovation. In this light, social innovation was positioned as an alternative, or at least adjustment, to technological innovation. Both forms of innovation were understood as ingredients of broader theories of social change in sociology (Ogburn 1969) and economics (Freeman 1974). From today’s perspective, this representation may well be a too narrow and simplistic characterization of social innovation, because in the meantime, several types of novel practices are subsumed under the headline of social innovation. What is common to them is the main focus on the social ends and/or social means of innovation,1 independently of the respective specific labels under which social innovation is addressed. This emphasis on social means and social ends is also a major difference to the early generations of research work in innovation studies, but which – as sketched above – have evolved in the meantime towards taking various societal challenges as well as social, organizational and institutional dimensions more prominently into account. In particular, the growing attention to a much wider range of actors relevant to innovation is an important issue of convergence between research on technological and on social innovation. Another important difference refers to the main mechanisms through which innovations get expanded or propagated more widely (generalization). Innovation studies strongly emphasize the importance of market mechanisms to propel the generalization and embedding of innovations in economy and society, while recognizing the influence of legal, cultural, cognitive and institutional factors. Market mechanisms are also very important for some segments of social innovation activities (e.g. social entrepreneurship), but much less relevant in others. Social change as the guiding ambition of social innovation tends to rely to a large extent on the consolidation, possibly also the scaling of very specific local solutions, their Matthias Weber

replication-adaptation in other local contexts (e.g. workplace innovation) or on institutionalization processes that open up the space for novel social practices to be adopted more widely (e.g. in the education system). The transforming power of commercialization or scale economies, which are key to technological innovations, are not as relevant and effective in relation to social innovations, but there are other non-market mechanisms in place that can make social innovation transformative (Pel et al. 2020).

The new generation of social innovation research: towards convergence

In recent years, social innovation research has acquired a more prominent role in relation to the political ambitions to address societal challenges, and this has led to a widening of our understanding of what counts as social innovation. This needs-driven approach to innovation policy calls for combining the potentials of technological and social innovation. These converging interests are also reflected in attempts to map social innovation activities, showing that the vast majority of social innovations include a significant technological component.2 From the perspective of social innovation research, the social dimensions of these innovations are foregrounded (i.e. technology is regarded as playing an enabling role only for changes of social practices). Overall, it cannot be denied that the nexus of the social and the technological in innovation is getting tighter, both in terms of the means and the ends of innovation, even if there are major differences across various innovation domains. While in some areas the role of technology may still be moderate (e.g. in relation to poverty or education issues), the pervasive nature of digital technology in particular tends to leave hardly any field unaffected. In other areas (e.g. energy, mobility, health, environment), technological, behavioural, organizational and institutional change tend to be closely connected, and increasingly in a fully integrated rather than a sequential manner. In other words, the co-creation of the social and the technological is becoming a common practice. It is important to stress that these recent shifts imply a significant change in terms

Social innovation and technological innovation  87

of the forces that drive innovation agendas. Even if science-led research and innovation agendas continue to remain important, we can observe the rise of a major new pillar of innovation agendas emerging, which are driven by social needs, and often the ambition to transform socio-technical systems in a very fundamental manner. This is reflected, for instance, in the new and transformative mission areas that the European Commission has proclaimed as part of its new research and innovation framework programme Horizon Europe. Inclusivity and empowerment are important elements of these agendas, not least in order to ensure that innovation remains on track towards addressing societal challenges. One of the open questions for the future concerns the generalizations mechanisms that will help ensure that social (or socio-technical) innovations are taken up, adapted to new circumstances and embedded. Market forces, collective learning and institutionalization processes are likely to play an important role in this context, but their specification and balance remain to be better understood.

By way of conclusion

Overall, we can see much scope for convergence and complementarity between social and technological innovation. This can be observed in research as well as in policy, where both dimensions are increasingly addressed in an integrated manner, and in relation to both the means and the ends of innovation. While there may still be some social innovations without much technological content, as well as some (incremental) technological innovations that may well do without significant social innovation, the vast majority of innovations reside on both pillars. This complementarity of social and technological dimensions of innovations is particularly important when it comes to addressing systemic changes in society, such as in relation to the transformation of major systems of provision (e.g. energy, food, housing, sanitation, mobility). What differs are the sources of innovation that are foregrounded and that determine research and innovation agendas (i.e. whether they are driven by the demand side of social needs or by the supply side of science and technology development). Therefore, rather than regarding social innovation as the one new and overarching

innovation paradigm, the dichotomy of social and technological innovation should be overcome right from the outset. An integrated perspective is needed to give equal justice to social and technological dimensions of innovation, understood as complementary inroads for satisfying economic and social needs, while respecting the ecological limits of our planet. This perspective still leaves enough room for curiosity-driven scientific research, which provides a reservoir of novel possibilities in search of future societal needs and challenges to be addressed. Matthias Weber

Notes

1. This is reflected in the various normative and analytical interpretations and definitions of social innovation (Howaldt and Schwarz 2017). 2. The mapping of social innovations as part of the EU-funded project SI-DRIVE (Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change) identified more than 1,000 examples of social innovations. Almost 90 per cent of these (social) innovations had some form of technological component to them (Howaldt et al. 2016).

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. BEPA (2010), Empowering People, Driving Change: Social Innovation in the European Union, Bureau of European Policy Advisers, European Commission. Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P. and Pinch, T. (eds) (1987), The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology, MIT Press. Boschma, R. A. and Frenken, K. (2006), ‘Why is economic geography not an evolutionary science? Towards an evolutionary economic geography’, Journal of Economic Geography, 6 (3), pp. 273–302. Bush, V. (1945), Science, the Endless Frontier: A Report to the President, US Government. Carayannis, E. G. and Campbell, D. F. J. (2012), Mode 3 Knowledge Production in Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems. 21st-Century Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Development, Springer. Djellal, F. and Gallouj, F. (2012), ‘Social Innovation and Service Innovation’, in H.-W. Franz et al. (eds), Challenge Social Innovation: Potentials for Business Social Entrepreneurship, Welfare and Civil Society, Springer, pp. 119–37. Fagerberg, J. and Verspagen, B. (2009), ‘Innovation studies – the emerging structure

Matthias Weber

88  Encyclopedia of social innovation of a new scientific field’, Research Policy, 38, pp. 218–33. Freeman, C. (1974), The Economics of Industrial Innovation, Penguin. Godin, B. (2012), Social Innovation: Utopias of Innovation from c.1830 to the Present. Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation, Working paper no. 11. Intellectual History of Innovation Series, Montreal. Hanusch, H. and Pyka, A. (eds) (2007), Elgar Companion to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics, Edward Elgar Publishing. Howaldt, J., Kaletka, C., Schröder, A., Rehfeld, D. and Terstriep, J. (2016), Mapping the World of Social Innovation: Key Results of a Comparative Analysis of 1.005 Social Innovation Initiatives at a Glance, SI-DRIVE Project Report, Dortmund. Howaldt, J. and Schwarz, M. (2017), ‘Social innovation and human development—how the capabilities approach and social innovation theory mutually support each other’, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 18 (2), pp. 163–80. Köhler, J. et al. (2019), ‘An agenda for sustainability transitions research: state of the art and future directions’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, pp. 1–32. Maclaurin, W. R. (1953), ‘The sequence from invention to innovation and its relation to economic growth’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 76 (1), pp. 97–111. Mowery, D. C. and Rosenberg, N. (1999), Paths of Innovation: Technological Change in 20th-Century America, Cambridge University Press. Mulgan, G. (2012), ‘Social innovation theories: can theory catch up with practice?’, in H.-W. Franz et al. (eds), Challenge Social

Matthias Weber

Innovation: Potentials for Business Social Entrepreneurship, Welfare and Civil Society, Springer, pp. 19–42. OECD (2018), Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Ogburn, W. (1969), Kultur und sozialer Wandel. Ausgewählte Schriften, Soziologische Texte 56, Luchterhand. Pel, B., Haxeltine, A., Avelino, F., Dumitru, A., Kemp, R., Baulera, T., Kunzef, I., Dorland, J., Wittmayer, J. and Søgaard Jørgensen, M. (2020), ‘Towards a theory of transformative social innovation: a relational framework and 12 propositions’, Research Policy, 49, 104080. Rohracher, H. (2015), ‘History of science and technology studies’, in J. D Wright (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier, pp. 200–205. Schmookler, J. (1966), Invention and Economic Growth, Harvard University Press. Shove, E., Pantzar, M. and Watson, M. (2012), The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life Aand How It Changes, Sage. Solow, R. M. (1957), ‘Technical change and the aggregate production function’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 39, pp. 312–20. Schumpeter, J. (1912), Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, Duncker & Humblot (6th edition 1964). Schumpeter, J. (1946), Kapitalismus, Sozialismus und Demokratie, Francke. Van der Have, R. P. and Rubalcaba, L. (2016), ‘Social innovation research: an emerging area of innovation studies?’, Research Policy, 45 (9), pp. 1923–35.

16. Social innovation research and innovation studies

innovations can only have impacts in a wider circle when they are diffused, that is, introduced by ever more actors. Space limits, however, prevents the discussion of diffusion processes in this entry (→ DIFFUSION). The concluding section identifies opportunities for mutual learning for IS and SI scholars.

Introduction

Innovation studies (IS) focus on business innovations. This school of thought has gained coherence from the 1980s onwards, through the influence of evolutionary economics (Hall and Rosenberg 2010), the recognition of the non-linearity of innovation processes, and the systemic perspective on innovation. That has provided the basis for developing standards of data collection and indicator development by statistical offices, primarily in OECD countries, thus establishing a shared understanding and an extensive infrastructure for harmonized data collection and comparative analyses across countries. It has led to a nuanced understanding of how innovations emerge and diffuse. Social innovation (SI) research, in contrast, still struggles with problems of definition (Edwards-Schachter and Wallace 2017) and lacks a shared analytical framework and measurement methods. This lack of coherence is reflected in two bold, diametrically opposing views on social innovation. ‘SI is an eclectic area, since differences still prevail also within the same research communities, revealing some intra-group fragmentation’ (van der Have and Rubalcaba 2016, p. 1932). In contrast, other authors propose that SI can – and should – be the main building block of a new, comprehensive innovation paradigm (Howaldt 2019). This entry aims to revisit the conceptual frameworks underpinning these two strands of literature.1 Both IS and SI research analyse innovation processes, while their further key features are distinct: (i) the motivations to innovate, and thus the principal purpose of innovations, as well as the main actors and their interactions during an innovation process; (ii) the subject and levels of change induced by innovation; (iii) the sources and types of knowledge (co‑)produced, utilized and exchanged during the innovation processes; (iv) how success and impacts are defined and measured. The following sections discuss how these issues are addressed in the innovation studies and social innovation literature. Both business and social

The principal purpose of innovation

Although many scholars studying SI tend to juxtapose social and technological innovations, a different distinction seems to be appropriate, based on the primary purpose of innovation activities. When the primary objective is improving the performance of a firm, we can speak of ‘business innovation’ (Havas 2016; Windrum et al. 2016). When innovation is aimed at tackling a societal problem, actors are engaged in social innovation. A societal problem, in turn, is caused and reproduced by social forces, that is, institutions (‘the rules of the game’), social networks and cognitive frames. These are the key building blocks of the extended social grid model developed to analyse social innovations (Ziegler et al. 2019). For example, being handicapped is not a social problem on its own, but in societies where handicapped people are marginalized, it is a societal problem.2 Hence, this entry proposes to distinguish the objective of innovation (the ambition pursued) and its ‘nature’ or ‘subject’ (what is being changed by innovation activities). The joint Eurostat–OECD definition of business innovations (i) takes it for granted that these innovations serve business purposes, and (ii) includes both technological and non-technological innovations: ‘A business innovation is a new or improved product or business process (or combination thereof) that differs significantly from the firm’s previous products or business processes and that has been introduced on the market or brought into use by the firm’ (OECD 2018, p. 20). This approach is followed by Havas and Molnár (2020, p. 9) when proposing a simple, nominal social innovation definition: ‘Social innovations are novel initiatives or novel combinations of known solutions, aimed at tackling a societal problem or creating new societal opportunities, applied in practice.’3 A core element of this definition is the intention of social innovators, 89

90  Encyclopedia of social innovation

but it does not ‘request’ that a given SI must achieve its objectives. Hence, it can be applied to analyse failed social innovations, partially successful ones, or those with mixed impacts. Further, it draws the attention of SI policymakers and practitioners to those SI processes, which intend to create new societal opportunities (i.e. it goes beyond the approach when only efforts to tackle societal problems are considered). Both technological innovations (new goods and processes) and non-technological ones (new organizational and managerial solutions, marketing, and financial methods, entering new markets, changing existing social networks and structures, the ‘rules of the game’, etc.) can serve either business or societal objectives.4 Institutions (rules of the game) often co-evolve with new technologies and business models, but also change – and indeed, need to be changed – through SI. The principal actors in business innovation processes are – existing or newly established – firms that introduce modified or new goods, processes, organizational forms, financial or marketing methods, or business models. In contrast, there are no main actors in SI processes: various types of actors need to cooperate to tackle a societal problem. At the local level these include the social group in need; other social groups that could be potentially targeted by, or initiate, a social innovation; architects of an SI initiative; other social innovation practitioners (e.g. staff members of the organization performing a given social innovation and volunteers); local politicians and local ‘strong men’ more generally; local business people; NGOs; opinion leaders, both within and outside the affected social group; and the media. Politicians and other decision-makers play a decisive role in setting the formal rules, but also influence the emergence and use of informal rules, at all levels: micro, meso, and macro.

The subject and level of change

The IS community has introduced various classifications concerning the level of change; one of the best known was developed already back in the late 1980s (Freeman and Perez 1988). Business innovations at the level of goods can be incremental or radical. Although this distinction is not applied to analyse process, organizational, marketing, financial or business model innovations, it Attila Havas

can be readily extended to characterize those changes as well. At a deeper level, a ‘bundle’ of radically new goods and/or production equipment and processes are introduced, which can be termed as the emergence of a new technological system. A new technological system deeply affects several existing sectors at the same time or creates new ones. The diffusion of technological innovations necessitates financial and organizational innovations, as well as behavioural changes and modified or new curricula in the education and training system. Hence, a new technological system is a system; indeed, its elements on their own, or in isolation, would not be sufficient to induce significant changes. When all crucial elements of an economic system – major inputs, decisive technologies, business models and processes, the structure of the economy (both in terms of its sectoral composition and the structure of supply and demand), interactions among businesses, mindset of decision-makers, behaviour and preferences of consumers – are being fundamentally changed, a new techno-economic paradigm evolves. As for SI research, the distinction between different levels of change is largely missing: ‘Previous works have failed to clearly state their level of analysis and where the social innovation analysed occurs’ (Cajaiba-Santana 2014, p. 48). Instead, this aspect is ‘subsumed’ in many SI definitions, ranging from the micro to the macro level (Godin 2012; Heiskala 2007; Moulaert et al. 2013; Murray et al. 2010). As the level of change is not considered systematically, attempts to classify SI definitions try to compensate for this (Schartinger et al. 2020). Common sense suggests that different types of societal problems can be tackled at different levels: in a community, town or city, region, country, or groups of countries.

Sources and types of knowledge (co‑)produced, utilized, and diffused

Jensen et al. (2007) distinguished two modes of innovation: one based on the production and use of codified scientific and technological knowledge (in brief, the Science and Technology (S&T) mode), and another one relying on informal processes of learning and experience-based know-how (called DUI

Social innovation research and innovation studies  91

mode: learning by doing, using, and interacting). The best-performing firms use both modes of innovation (ibid.). Hence, contrary to the previously dominant view, not only codified S&T knowledge is crucial for successful innovation processes but practical, often tacit, knowledge as well. An essential claim of the innovation systems approach is that successful innovation processes require many different types of knowledge, stemming from various sources (from formalized research and development (R&D) activities conducted by the innovating firm, its business partners, universities, other publicly funded R&D organizations, or commercial labs; as well as from practical activities) and these pieces of knowledge and experience are rarely – if at all – possessed by a single actor. Cooperation among these actors is, therefore, indispensable. Identifying the types and sources of knowledge is not a major issue in SI research. It can be safely generalized, though, that both theoretical and practical knowledge are crucial for SI processes, in many cases probably with a stronger emphasis on the latter. Clearly, scientific knowledge applied in SI should include social science knowledge on societal challenges and their root causes.

Defining and measuring success

A closely related issue to the principal purpose of innovation is what is considered as success – and, in turn, who and how defines criteria for success. For business innovations, it is straightforward: success at the micro level is improved firm performance, thanks to innovations. Success can materialize in enhanced productivity, increased sales, higher market share, entry to a new market, creation of a new market, and higher profits. Success criteria are determined by a business logic, without subjective, value-laden elements. An important dilemma persists, though: the tension between short-term vs. long-term performance. Improved performance in the longer run is certainly relevant from a strategic angle, yet market mechanisms that determine which firms are successful, apply a strong pressure on managers to pursue short-term objectives to satisfy investors. At a macro level, IS assume that innovation activities enhance the international competitiveness of a given economy. It is not accepted by all economists, though, that competitiveness can

be a relevant concept beyond the level of products or firms. A more direct measure of innovation activities at a national level are the various composite indices, such as the Summary Innovation Index derived from the European Innovation Scoreboard and the Global Innovation Index. These composite indices are criticized on methodological grounds (e.g. by Edquist et al. 2018; Grupp and Schubert 2010; Havas 2014). These methodological weaknesses also imply that relying merely on composite indices without a thorough analysis can lead to deceptive policy conclusions. It is worth distinguishing success vs. impacts, both intended and unintended impacts: what is success for one firm might have negative repercussions for other firms, people – employees or other social groups – or the environment. The IS literature has assumed for long that business innovations have favourable impacts. This view is shared by many policymakers, beyond the science, technology and innovation policy domain as well. Business innovations are supposed to lead to improved goods, enhanced productivity and performance of firms, better health conditions of people, more efficient use of inputs and so forth. Ultimately, these changes amount to an increase in the wealth of nations. However, business innovations, characterized by Schumpeter as ‘creative destruction’, have a destructive element as well: incumbent firms need to adjust by abandoning some of their previous activities, shedding labour, changing management and other practices. In market economies firms are driven out of business by more efficient competitors (→ JOSEPH A. SCHUMPETER: INNOVATION AND SOCIETY). Optimistic assumptions concerning business innovations have been questioned more recently. The 2008–09 global financial crisis was caused by financial innovations introduced in the name of ‘dispersing the risk’, but in essence allowing a few, well-informed and well-positioned actors to achieve substantial profits while putting a huge burden on society. The environmental burden of new products and technologies is also rather high in many cases. As for social innovations, the bulk of social innovation definitions postulate a success, that is, positive societal impacts. It is a methodological flaw: (i) the impacts of any social Attila Havas

92  Encyclopedia of social innovation

innovation should be assessed ex post, on a case-by-case basis; and (ii) these definitions exclude the existence of unsuccessful social innovations. Social innovation may also have a ‘dark side’ (Nicholls et al. 2015, pp. 5–6). Clearly, no society is homogeneous, not even those social groups that are marginalized and disempowered: their members still have their own values and views, and thus might perceive a certain change process and its effects in different ways. Moreover, a particular solution that improves the situation of some groups can affect other groups negatively – and not just because they perceive the improvement for other social groups as a relative worsening of their situation, but in some cases as an absolute impact (e.g. when their access to certain support schemes or services becomes more limited). Inadequate interventions can even further aggravate the position of marginalized groups (consider the negative impacts of microcredit schemes on poor people in several continents). For these reasons the measurement of social innovations and their impacts is a much more demanding task than measuring business innovations (Terstriep et al. 2021).

Conclusions

This entry has aimed to identify possibilities for mutual learning to analyse and better understand innovations as intentional change processes. Thus, it has considered the key notions and approaches used in the innovation studies and social innovation literatures: the principal purpose of the change processes analysed; the typical main actors in innovation processes; the subject and levels of change; the sources and types of knowledge (co‑)produced, utilized, and diffused during the change processes; as well as how success and impacts are defined and measured. For historical and sociological reasons these two schools of thought have evolved in isolation, and thus possibilities for mutual learning have been hardly seized – despite their common fundamental intellectual quest to understand intentional change processes. Innovation studies still limits its analytical efforts to business innovations, despite its ‘all-encompassing’ label. This paradigm would need to put more emphasis on considering the various actors’ cognitive frames as major driving forces shaping innovation processes: cognitive frames are of relevance Attila Havas

when innovation strategies, perceptions of innovations by customers (users), the mindset of policymakers, or the rationales applied to justify policy measures are analysed. Further, it is firmly rooted in the business logic, and thus its normative dimension is underdeveloped yet. More recently there have been some attempts to consider innovations not only as sources of commercial success but also to recognize and assess their – often unintended – social and environmental impacts. Social innovation research lacks the conceptual sophistication of innovation studies. It tends to downplay the role of science and technology as major drivers of social change, as well as that of top-down institutional changes as drivers of innovation. Further, SI research does not distinguish different levels of change in a systematic way. Measurement of SI remains a largely unresolved task. This relative ‘underdevelopment’ is to a large extent due to intrinsic difficulties: the complex and complicated nature of SI processes and the social issues that SI initiatives attempt to tackle. We also need to realize that not everything that is important can be measured, and not everything that can be measured is relevant. The above deficiencies clearly show that mutual learning among IS and SI scholars is needed as a foundation of a deeper and more germane understanding of innovation processes in economy and society. Attila Havas

Notes

1. Financial support provided by the NRDI Fund, Momentum of Innovations (contract number K 124858) is gratefully acknowledged. 2. Besides business and social innovation, ‘hybrid’ innovations, that is, applying a business logic, and thus using business organizational forms, methods and approaches when addressing societal problems, are also of prime importance in real life. Examples include goods provided on a market basis by a firm, but – on purpose – employing people suffering from various types of disadvantages. These firms are social enterprises. Given space limits, hybrid innovations are not discussed in this entry. 3. A seemingly similar SI definition is proposed by Howaldt and Hochgerner (2018, p. 19): ‘social innovation is seen as a new combination of social practices in certain areas of action or social contexts’. It should be noted, however, that SI is restricted to social practices in this definition, that is, neglecting the diversity of SI activities, means, and processes. 4. When analysing business innovations, it is crucial to consider both technological innovations and

Social innovation research and innovation studies  93 24 May 2022 at https://​kti​.krtk​.hu/​wp​-content/​ uploads/​2020/​06/​CERSIEWP202024–1​.pdf. Heiskala, R. (2007), ‘Social innovations: structural and power perspectives’, in T. J. Hämäläinen and R. Heiskala (eds), Social Innovations, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 52–79. Howaldt, J. (2019), ‘Rethinking innovation: social References innovation as important part of a new innovation paradigm’, in J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka, Entries marked in bold are further reading A. Schröder and M. Zirngiebl (eds), Atlas of material. Social Innovation, 2nd Volume: A World of New Practices, München: Oekoem verlag, Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014), ‘Social innovation: pp. 16–19. moving the field forward, a conceptual framework’, Technological Forecasting and Social Howaldt, J. and Hochgerner, J. (2018), ‘Desperately seeking: a shared understanding Change, 82, pp. 42–51. of social innovation’, in J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka, Edquist, C., Zabala-Iturriagagoitia, J. M., Barbero, A. Schröder and M. Zirngiebl (eds), Atlas of J. and Zofio, J. L. (2018), ‘On the meaning Social Innovation: New Practices for a Better of innovation performance: is the synthetic Future, Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle, TU indicator of the Innovation Union Scoreboard Dortmund University, pp. 18–21. flawed?’, Research Evaluation, 27 (3), Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E. and pp. 196–211. Lundvall, B.-Å. (2007), ‘Forms of knowledge Edwards-Schachter, M. and Wallace, M. L. and modes of innovation’, Research Policy, 36 (2017), ‘Shaken, but not stirred: sixty years (5), pp. 680–93. of defining social innovation’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119, Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D. and Hillier, J. (2013), ‘Social innovation: intuition, precept, pp. 64–79. concept, theory and practice’, in F. Moulaert, D. Freeman, C. and Perez, C. (1988), ‘Structural MacCallum, A. Mehmood and A. Hamdouch crises of adjustment, business cycles and invest(eds), The International Handbook on Social ment behaviour’, in G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning R. Nelson, G. Silverberg and L. Soete (eds), and Transdisciplinary Research, Cheltenham: Technical Change and Economic Theory, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 13–24. London: Pinter, pp. 38–66. Godin, B. (2012), ‘Social innovation: utopias of Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J. and Mulgan, G. (2010), The Open Book of Social Innovation, innovation from c.1830 to the present’, Project London: NESTA and the Young Foundation. on the Intellectual History of Innovation, Nicholls, A., Simon, J. and Gabriel, M. (2015), Working Paper No. 11, Montreal. ‘Introduction: dimensions of social innovation’, Grupp, H. and Schubert, T. (2010), ‘Review and in A. Nicholls, J. Simon and M. Gabriel (eds), new evidence on composite innovation indiNew Frontiers in Social Innovation Research, cators for evaluating national performance’, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–26. Research Policy, 39 (1), pp. 67–78. Hall, B. and Rosenberg, N. (eds) (2010), OECD (2018), Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, Innovation, 4th edition, Paris: OECD. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Havas, A. (2014), ‘Trapped by the high-tech myth: Pavitt, K. (1999), Technology, Management and Systems of Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward the need and chances for a new policy rationElgar Publishing. ale’, in H. Hirsch-Kreinsen and I. Schwinge (eds), Knowledge-Intensive Entrepreneurship Schartinger, D., Rehfeld, D., Weber, M. and Rhomberg, W. (2020), ‘Green social innovain Low-Tech Industries, Cheltenham: Edward tion – towards a typology’, European Planning Elgar Publishing, pp. 193–217. Studies, 28 (5), pp. 1026–45. Havas, A. (2016), ‘Recent economic theorising on innovation: lessons for analysing social inno- Terstriep, J., Krlev, G., Mildenberger, G., Strambach, S., Thurmann, J.-F. and Wloka, vation’, CrESSI Working Papers, No. 27/2016, L.-F. (2021), ‘Measuring social innovation’, in accessed 24 May 2022 at http://​dx​.doi​.org/​10​ J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka and A. Schröder (eds), .2139/​ssrn​.2938513. A Research Agenda for Social Innovation, Havas, A. and Molnár, G. (2020), ‘A multi-channel Elgar Research Agendas, Cheltenham: interactive learning model of social innovation’, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 263–86. CERS-IE Working Papers 2020/24, accessed van der Have, R. P. and Rubalcaba, L. (2016), ‘Social innovation research: an emerging non-technological ones. Thorough empirical analyses of business innovations show that technological innovations are introduced rarely – if at all – without organizational innovations. Quite often marketing innovations are also required and entering – or even creating – new markets is also crucial, particularly when radically new products are introduced (Pavitt 1999).

Attila Havas

94  Encyclopedia of social innovation area of innovation studies?’, Research Policy, 45 (9), pp. 923–35. Windrum, P., Schartinger, D., Rubalcaba, L., Gallouj, F. and Toivonen, M. (2016), ‘The co-creation of multi-agent social innovations: a bridge between service and social innovation research’, European Journal of Innovation Management, 19 (2), pp. 150–66. Ziegler, R., Nicholls, A., Aro, J., van Beers, C., Chiappero-Martinetti, E., Edmiston, D., Havas,

Attila Havas

A., Heiskala, R., von Jacobi, N., Kubeczko, K., van der Linden, M. J., Maestripieri, L., Mildenberger, G., Molnár, G. and Schimpf, G.-C. (2019), ‘The extended social grid model revisited’, in A. Nicholls and R. Ziegler (eds), Creating Economic Space for Social Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 341–62.

17. The South American concept of tecnologia social

ured as a tecnologia social, an initiative needs to be inclusive and emancipatory – thus, naturally connected to social and solidary economy values, as we will see later. This also explains why a South American spelling of the concept is retained as a symbolic stance against epistemic coloniality of the global North and the hegemonic ethnocentrism of management and organization knowledge (Alves and Pozzebon, 2013). The preference for keeping the term tecnologia social in Spanish/Portuguese also serves to distinguish its meaning from the term’s usage in English, where social technologies are often associated with social network platforms like Twitter, Instagram, Tinder, and so on (Pozzebon and Fontenelle 2018). Based on these main aspects and building on the rich work produced by authors like Rodrigues and Barbieri (2008), Dagnino (2009), Albuquerque (2009), Thomas (2011), Neder and Thomas (2010), Freitas and Segatto (2014) and Valadão et al. (2017), tecnologia social can be defined as the result of a political process of socio-technical reconfiguration, through which social practices mobilize methods and tools with the aim of promoting social transformations necessary to address the problems and needs encountered in the fight against exclusion and poverty (Souza and Pozzebon 2020).

Introduction

The South American concept of tecnologia social has a long history that evolved in parallel to social innovation marked by political struggles (Pozzebon et al. 2021). These political struggles involve critical discussion of technological production and consumption, taking as a starting point the social movement (→ SOCIAL MOVEMENTS) initiated in 1930 by Mahatma Gandhi against British domination (Dagnino 2009). Gandhi dreamed of a world without large-scale technologies and emphasized the importance of preserving/ improving artisanal and culturally situated artefacts and adapting modern technological processes to India’s environmental and social realities (Albuquerque 2009). The spinning wheel became a symbol of national unity and resistance (Neder and Thomas 2010) and might be therefore considered as one of the first examples of tecnologia social. Although Gandhi himself had not applied the term social to technology, he knowingly lit the torch for critical and decolonial thinking that would be taken up by other scholars in succeeding decades and which continues today. Gandhi’s movement inspired various scholars who, in turn, proposed additional perspectives for critical discussion of the role of technology in society, with a resultant proliferation of conceptualizations. In addition to appropriate (Herrera 1983), other adjectives – including intermediate, democratic, alternative, popular, utopic – have aimed at redefining technology as something that needs to respond to the local population’s wishes and needs, rather than benefiting large capitalist corporations, as is usually the case (Thomas 2011; Pozzebon and Fontenelle 2018). All these predecessors of the tecnologia social concept have in common the explicit objective of establishing an epistemic and pragmatic struggle: challenging the unequivocal paths proposed by Western-based conventional technologies and knowledge by drawing on techno productive alternatives in socioeconomic scenarios of poverty and exclusion (Souza and Pozzebon 2020). Dagnino (2014) emphasizes that to be config-

Key findings Tecnologia social and social innovation: what is the difference? Tecnologia social refutes views inspired by Schumpeter’s concept of innovation that is commonly associated with social innovation (Bignetti 2011; Cajaiba-Santana 2014; Howaldt and Schwarz 2010). Instead, it proposes, as previously mentioned, a decolonial political perspective, thus promoting a vision at odds with neoliberalism. Coming under fire are a number of neoliberal Western-based premises such as linear progress, focus on profit, exploitation development, and the presumed superiority of universal technoscientific types of knowledge over situated native/ indigenous ones (Pozzebon et al. 2021). Similarly, a tecnologia social is not necessarily ‘new ideas that meet unmet needs’ (Mulgan et al. 2007, p. 4). In that regard, ‘newness’ (Garcia and Calantone 2002) for tecnologia social has much more to do with 95

96  Encyclopedia of social innovation

adaptation or reapplication (Saldanha et al. 2019). More specifically, the emphasis is placed on sociotechnical reconfiguration: a process in which a technological artefact or a methodology is built or adapted according to the political interests of relevant social groups (Novaes and Dias 2009). Pozzebon et al. (2021) summarize three main points distinguishing tecnologia social from social innovation. The first element is precisely the biography of tecnologia social inscribed in a historical path of decolonization, as previously noted. From its roots in Gandhi’s resistance to British imperialism, tecnologia social has called into question the hegemony of occidental technologies and the presumed superiority of occidental knowledge, which have somehow come to be imposed as universals. Second, when a tecnologia social is conceived or implemented, the local takes the role of protagonist. The emergence of peripheries as protagonists implies the valorization of popular knowledge and local resources, without neglecting the careful integration of external/scientific knowledge/resources, if needed. The local protagonist role should be to transform production/consumption relations so as to guarantee more autonomy and solidary ties to local communities (→ GRASSROOTS INNOVATION FOR TRANSFORMATIVE SOCIAL CHANGE). Finally, it is worth emphasizing that at a broad conception of technology lies at the heart of the matter – one that ranges from a needle to a software package, and encompasses methodologies, forms of organization, practices, and routines (Pozzebon and Fontenelle 2018). Hence, in keeping with a sociotechnical tradition (e.g. Callon and Law 1989; Hughes 1987; Pinch and Bijker 1987), technology is represented by an artefact having both material and non-material properties. Thus, to be termed a tecnologia social, a given social innovation should have some type of recognizable artefact – material and/or non-material – with identifiable core principles of functioning and, more importantly, capable of being re-appropriated or reconfigured in different contexts. Recently, Lachapelle (2021) included tecnologia social in his review of social innovation approaches. For him, tecnologia social represents an emancipatory stream of social innovation that occurs through the values, intentions, and effects of actors’ actions.

Additionally, emancipatory social innovation looks for changing societies and promote structural changes beyond just to ‘solve problems’. To conclude, tecnologia social might be seen as ways of doing things that resist colonialism and neoliberalism, and revalorize popular knowledge and local resources, in a vision close to that of solidary economy. Practices and mechanisms of a tecnologia social: empirical work In terms of applied research, there exist a huge number of articles – primarily published in Portuguese and Spanish – describing case studies and research activities involving tecnologias sociais. The subjects covered include housing, environment, education, food, health, and wealth generation, among others. Within each area, authors try to identify practices and mechanisms that allow for a deeper understanding of a tecnologia social’s mode of action. Souza and Pozzebon (2020) analysed Adel, a nonprofit agency for local economic development created by a small group of rural youth in Ceará, Brazil. Adel develops methodologies to work with family farmers and rural youth having entrepreneurial potential. The authors advance a framework for identifying the practices of the social groups involved in terms of the tools, methods and key mechanisms that characterize this particular tecnologia social. This example indicates some convergences among tecnologia social and social innovation when regional development is placed at the centre (Moulaert et al. 2013; Van Dyck and Van den Broeck 2013). Silva et al. (2020) present the experience of community participatory management in an indigenous fishing community (Pirarucu, in the Brazilian Amazon), demonstrating that it is based on knowledge accumulated since time immemorial, and involves the different actors in all discussions leading to its implementation, even those dealing with accounting and commercialization. Hence, it represents the outcome of a dialogic collective action involving riverside populations and their efforts to protect the lakes. Through this specifically indigenous management, species are preserved and communities that depend on fish for food are not harmed by overfishing. This experience can be consid-

Marlei Pozzebon, Ana Clara Souza and Fabio Prado Saldanha

The South American concept of tecnologia social  97

ered a major public policy implementation of tecnologia social in the Amazon region. Mattos et al. (2020) analysed the experience of an extension course in critical training for ecological sanitation systems, in a small remote city in Brazil. The authors describe types of tecnologia social developed according to Paulo Freire’s pedagogical principles, including systems for collective harvest, cooking and water treatment that fertilize rather than contaminate the soil. Solving these sociotechnical problems is crucial, since the absence of sanitary sewage disposal in the region affects food production and health. It also involves a political decision to build a sustainable community. Still in the Brazilian context, a platform was created in 2001 by the Banco do Brasil foundation, a governmental organization that had invested heavily in social projects from 1988 until recently. The main goal of this platform is to document and disseminate royalty-free solutions that generate social transformation through the processes, methods or tools provided by different social technologies. This fulfils the ultimate intention of this movement, since a tecnologia social needs to cope with requirements such as simplicity, low cost, easy implementation and proven social impact (Pena and Mello 2004).

Critical reflection and outlook

The term tecnologia social has evolved since the 1990s, opening new discussions and reconceptualizations. One recent current deal with solidary technoscience (tecnociência solidária, in Portuguese), a term that has been introduced by Renato Dagnino, a leading authority in this tradition: Solidary technoscience is the cognitive consequence of the action of a collective of producers on a work process that, due to a socioeconomic context (which engenders collective ownership of the means of production) and a social agreement (which legitimizes associativism), which entail, in the productive environment, control (self-management) and cooperation (voluntary and participatory), provoke a modification in the product generated, whose material result can be appropriated according to the collective decision (solidary enterprise). (Dagnino 2019, pp. 61–2)

For Dagnino, solidary technoscience deals with a way in which knowledge should be used with an eye to the production and consumption of goods and services. Respecting values and satisfying needs lie at the interface between policy and politics, where actors develop strategies and create impact on public policies. Dagnino (2019) holds that only through such political processes can governmental initiatives be forged, in order to steer states towards a political orientation wherein a solidary focus serves as a common basis for building knowledge – particularly in the case of solidary enterprises that are emerging in the peripheral capitalist economy. The intention here is to advocate for a new paradigm in which solidary technoscience is an overall framework for R&D efforts and investments. Flowering from seeds sown by Mahatma Gandhi, tecnologia social’s current focus on solidary economy draws strong support in both academia and the ranks of social activism. As a living and evolving concept, tecnologia social will continue to redefine and reshape itself in the decades to come. Marlei Pozzebon, Ana Clara Souza and Fabio Prado Saldanha

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Albuquerque, L. C. (2009), ‘Tecnologias sociais ou tecnologias apropriadas? O resgate de um termo’, in A. Otterloo et al. (eds), Tecnologias sociais: caminhos para a sustentabilidade, Brasília, DF: Rede de Tecnologia social, pp. 15–24. Alves, M. A. and Pozzebon, M. (2013), ‘How to resist linguistic domination and promote knowledge diversity?’, RAE-Revista de Administração de Empresas, 53 (6), pp. 629–33, http://​dx​.doi​ .org/​10​.1590/​S0034–759020130610. Bignetti, L. P. (2011), ‘As inovações sociais: Uma incursão por ideias, tendências e focos de pesquisa’, Ciências Sociais Unisinos, 47 (1), pp.  3–14, https://​doi​.org/​10​.4013/​1040. Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014), ‘Social innovation: moving the field forward. A conceptual framework’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82, pp.  42–51, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​ j​.techfore​.2013​.05​.008. Callon, M. and Law, J. (1989), La proto-histoire d’un laboratoire ou le difficile mariage de la science et de l’économie, Paris: PUF. Dagnino, R. (ed.) (2009), Tecnologia social: ferramenta para construir outra sociedade,

Marlei Pozzebon, Ana Clara Souza and Fabio Prado Saldanha

98  Encyclopedia of social innovation Campinas: Unicamp, accessed 8 August 2022 at https://​idl​-bnc​-idrc​.dspacedirect​.org/​bitstream/​ handle/​10625/​47974/​%20IDL​-47974​.pdf​ ?sequence​=​1​#page​=​18. Dagnino, R. (2014), Tecnologia social: contribuições conceituais e metodológicas, vol. 2, EDUIEPB, accessed 8 August 2022 at http://​ books​.scielo​.org/​id/​7hbdt. Dagnino, R. (2019), Tecnociência solidária: um manual estratégico, Marília: Lutas Anticapital, accessed 8 August 2022 at https://​www​.fclar​.unesp​.br/​Home/​Pesquisa/​ GruposdePesquisa/​nepesc7290/​ts​-manual​ -estrategico​.pdf. Freitas, C. C. G. and Segatto, A. P. (2014), ‘Ciência, tecnologia e sociedade pelo olhar da tecnologia social: um estudo a partir da teoria crítica da tecnologia’, Cadernos EBAPE. BR, 12 (2), pp.  302–20, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1590/​ 1679–39517420. Garcia, R. and Calantone, R. (2002), ‘A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19 (2), pp.  110–32, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1111/​ 1540–5885​.1920110. Herrera, A. (1983), Transferencia de tecnología y tecnologías apropiadas: contribución a una visión prospectiva a largo plazo, Campinas, SP: Editora da Unicamp. Howaldt, J. and Schwarz, M. (2010), Social innovation: concepts, research fields, and international trends, accessed 21 March 2021 at https://​www​.asprea​.org/​imagenes/​IMO​ %20Trendstudie​_Howaldt​_englisch​_Final​ %20ds​.pdf. Hughes, T. P (1987), ‘The evolution of large technological systems’, in W. E. Bijker et al. (eds), The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology, Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press, pp. 51–82. Lachapelle, M. D. (2021), ‘Emancipatory social innovation: within and beyond the innovative society’, VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 32 (5), pp. 1113–25. Mattos, C. A. S., Gelio, M. M. P., Lima, R. O. and Addor, F. (2020), ‘Tecnologia social e reforma agrária: reflexões a partir do curso de formação crítica em sistemas de saneamento ecológico’, Revista Terceira Margem Amazônia, 6 (14), pp. 103–19, http://​dx​.doi​.org/​ 10​.36882/​2525–4812​.2020v6i14p103–119. Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., Mehmood, A. and Hamdouch, A. (eds) (2013), The international handbook on social innovation. collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research, Cheltenham, UK and Northhampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R. and Sanders, B. (2007), Social innovation: what it is,

why it matters and how it can be accelerated, Oxford: Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, accessed 8 August 2022 at https://​youngfoundation​.org/​wp​-content/​ uploads/​2012/​10/​Social​-Innovation​-what​-it​ -is​-why​-it​-matters​-how​-it​-can​-be​-accelerated​ -March​-2007​.pdf. Neder, R. T. and Thomas, H. (2010), ‘The movement for social technology in Latin America (its meaning for the research about degrowth and ecologicial sustainability)’, UNB: Centro de Desenvolvimento Sustentável, pp. 1–14. Novaes, H. T. and Dias, R. (2009), ‘Contribuições ao marco analítico-conceitual da tecnologia social’, in R. P. Dagnino (ed.), Tecnologias sociais: ferramenta para construir outra sociedade, Campinas, Unicamp, pp. 17–53, accessed 8 August 2022 at https://​idl​-bnc​-idrc​ .dspacedirect​.org/​bitstream/​handle/​10625/​ 47974/​%20IDL​-47974​.pdf​?sequence​=​1​#page​=​ 18. Pena, J. O. and Mello, C. J. (2004), ‘Tecnologia social: a experiência da Fundação Banco do Brasil na disseminação e reaplicação de soluções sociais efetivas’, in Fundação Banco do Brasil (ed.), Tecnologia Social: uma estratégia para o desenvolvimento, Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Banco do Brasil, pp. 83–8. Pinch, T. J. and Bijker, W. E (1987), ‘The social construction of facts and artifacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other’, in W. E. Bijker et al. (eds), The social constructions of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 11–44. Pozzebon, M. and Fontenelle, I. A. (2018), ‘Fostering the postdevelopment debate: the Latin American concept of tecnologia social’, Third World Quarterly, 39 (9), pp. 1750–69, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​01436597​.2018​ .1432351. Pozzebon, M., Tello-Rozas, S. and Heck, I. (2021), ‘Nourishing the social innovation debate with the “tecnologia social” South American research tradition’, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, pp. 1–15, https://​doi​ .org/​10​.1007/​s11266–021–00314–0. Rodrigues, I. and Barbieri, J. C. (2008), ‘A emergência da tecnologia social: revisitando o movimento da tecnologia apropriada como estratégia de desenvolvimento sustentável’, Revista de Administração Pública, 42 (6), pp.  1069–94, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1590/​ S00​34–7612200​8000600003. Saldanha, F. P., Delgado, N. A. and Pozzebon, M. (2019), ‘Tecnologia social and social change: the case of Agência de Redes in Rio de Janeiro’, Revista Brasileira de Casos de Ensino em Gestão, 9 (2), Doc. 8, accessed 8 August 2022

Marlei Pozzebon, Ana Clara Souza and Fabio Prado Saldanha

The South American concept of tecnologia social 99 at http://​bibliotecadigital​.fgv​.br/​ojs/​index​.php/​ gvcasos/​article/​view/​79136/​77238. Silva, N. M. G., Addor, F., Lianza, S. and Pereira, H. S. (2020), ‘O debate sobre a tecnologia social na Amazônia: a experiência do manejo participativo do pirarucu’, Revista Terceira Margem Amazônia, 6 (14), pp. 79–91, http://​dx​.doi​.org/​ 10​.36882/​2525–4812​.2020v6i14p79–91. Souza, A. C. A. A. and Pozzebon, M. (2020), ‘Práticas e mecanismos de uma tecnologia social: proposição de um modelo a partir de uma experiência no semiárido’, Organizações & Sociedade, 27, pp. 231–54, https://​doi​.org/​ 10​.1590/​1984–9270934. Thomas, H. (2011), ‘Tecnologías sociales y ciudadanía socio-técnica: notas para la construcción de la matriz material de un futuro

viable’, Ciência & Tecnologia social, 1 (1), pp. 1–22, accessed 8 August 2022 at https://​ periodicos​.unb​.br/​index​.php/​cts/​article/​ view/​7797/​6416. Valadão, J. A. D., Cordeiro Neto, J. R. and Andrade, J. A. (2017), ‘Bases sociotécnicas de uma tecnologia social: O transladar da pedagogia da alternância em Rondônia’, Organizações & Sociedade, 24 (80), pp. 89–114, https://​doi​ .org/​10​.1590/​1984–9230805. Van Dyck, B. and Van den Broeck, P. (2013), ‘Social innovation: a territorial process’, in F. Moulaert (ed.), The international handbook on social innovation: collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 131–41.

Marlei Pozzebon, Ana Clara Souza and Fabio Prado Saldanha

18. Sustainable innovation Introduction

There is largely consensus in the scientific community that most current lifestyles and economies are not sustainable but exacerbate existing and foreseeable crises and disasters as a cause of climate change, biodiversity loss, poverty, social exclusion, global migration and resource wars. As a result, possibilities for sustainable transformation constitute a research priority in many disciplines and fields of action. In this context, sustainable innovation fuels the hope of safeguarding social, environmental and economic livelihoods worldwide and for future generations through creative inventions and their successful diffusion. From the perspective of a strong sustainability concept, those changes are considered sustainability innovations that modify products, processes, practices and infrastructures to significantly reduce or eliminate ecological, social and health risks, resource exploitation and emissions (Kropp 2019). However, a weak concept of sustainability is often used as a basis, arguing that the environment has instrumental value as it provides ecosystem services, can be substituted and must necessarily be linked to social justice and economic development in order to make corresponding change socially acceptable and economically feasible (Chaminade 2020). From this perspective, innovations are also considered sustainable if they at least slow down the unsustainable use of resources and the loss of biodiversity (e.g. in the sense of a Green Deal). In any case, sustainability is a target value that cannot be determined in absolute terms, but needs to be defined for the respective areas in social processes on the basis of existing knowledge. Since the first declaration in the UN Brundtland Report ‘Our common future’ from 1987, sustainable development is understood as long-term preservation of opportunities in the social, environmental and economic dimension to meet the basic needs of all people today and tomorrow (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION RESEARCH AND PRACTICE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT). Yet to this day, sustainability is merely a guiding principle for which there is neither a simple definition nor gen-

erally accepted evaluation parameters, often provoking critique on the term being a label for everything and nothing. While the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with 169 targets that integrate social and environmental imperatives (UN General Assembly 2015), articulate priorities, goals and requirements, they too were highly controversial in their conception and need to be fleshed out for each case of developing policies, strategies and change processes. Despite this underdetermination, some general requirements for the development of sustainable innovations are seen (Backhaus et al. 2018; Chaminade 2020; Grin et al. 2010; Kropp 2019; Loorbach et al. 2020). There is broad consensus that sustainability cannot be achieved with single solutions or from a single perspective. Rather, the interconnectedness of environmental, social and economic aspects, as well as long-term and indirect effects must be taken into account, so that a more fundamental transformation is called for. This transformation should not be limited to individual process stages or actors, but must encompass all involved practices to ensure robust sustainability outcomes. For this reason, strategies for sustainability innovations must necessarily deal with multi-perspective complexity and uncertainty, and explicitly address normative goals such as human well-being, social justice, and ecological integrity. As a result, they call for inclusive and participatory multi-actor innovation processes to consider relevant perspectives, which makes them comparable to social innovations (Avelino et al. 2019; Schlosberg and Coles 2016).

Common grounds of social innovation and sustainable innovation

Social innovation, in turn, is regarded as a transformative process and social adjustment capable of counteracting poverty and exclusion, the undesirable effects of structural change and one-sided innovation, driven by collaborative organizations whose primary means and ends are social (Godin 2012; Klein and Harrison 2007; Mouleart et al. 2013; Mulgan et al. 2019). Among the merits of the initiatives being flagged under the concept of social innovation and particularly transformative social innovation is the high

100

Sustainable innovation  101

degree of creativity with which the existing is challenged and the new is advanced in terms of doing, framing, organizing and knowing (Avelino et al. 2019). Its value is often seen primarily in pioneering and making imaginable sustainable alternatives to established solutions, consciously developing new social practices, and pushing for change. Although there are indications of a close connection between social and sustainable innovations, until recently sustainability has gained only little attention in the literature on social innovation (Angelidou and Psaltoglou 2017; Schartinger et al. 2020; Smith and Seyfang 2013). Besides the commonalities between social and sustainable innovation discussed below, there are also differences and potential conflicts of interest. These arise in particular from the tension between the needs for social integration and social capacity-building, on the one hand, and the goal of environmental sustainability up to degrowth, on the other hand: sustainability innovations can jeopardize social justice, for example, if organic farming excludes groups with lower purchasing power. Conversely, social innovations may prove unsustainable, such as if forms of collaborative self-organization lead not to less consumption or abandonment of unsustainable practices, but to an increase in the consumption of land or resources, as some alternative housing collectives are said to do. That said, the following section discusses how social innovation often acts as a driver for sustainable innovation, sustainability is a typical goal of social innovation, and participatory coordination is a core prerequisite for both social and sustainability innovation. Research on the adoption of sustainable technologies or sustainable product innovation by companies is not covered here. Social innovation as a driver of sustainable innovation Social innovations can be seen to act in many ways as a driving force for the necessary transformation towards sustainability. Perhaps most importantly, they address needs, concerns and issues that typically lie outside of state responsibility and market attention or are not satisfied by them due to a lack of corresponding lobbying and profit opportunities. This lack of representation of environmental concerns is a basic problem of

sustainable development. Correspondingly, many initiators of social innovation are motivated by their perception that caring for biodiversity, nature, social and climate justice is against the interests of incumbent industries and not sufficiently pursued by policymakers (Schartinger et al. 2020). Meanwhile, also governments and third-party funders expect social innovation to make an important contribution, including to kick-start incumbent actors, such as the European Commission’s (EU) strategies for sustainable (green) and inclusive growth. In detail, there are several reasons for this expectation. Firstly, social innovations are seen ‘game-changing’ (Angelidou and Psaltoglou 2017; Mouleart et al. 2013) in terms of targets, organizational structures and their ability to visibly change the basic principles and rules of action. There remains definitional ambiguity around the broad concept of social innovation. A central feature, however, is to initiate and intentionally reconfigure social practices in order to better achieve social goals and facilitate the satisfaction of needs and concerns that are not met by existing infrastructures, services and institutions (Howaldt and Schwarz 2017; Mouleart et al. 2013; Mulgan et al. 2019). In doing so, they articulate concerns and perspectives neglected by established problem-solving routines and business-driven innovation, a key reason for their lack of sustainability. If social movements and initiatives are termed social innovation, it is precisely because they develop creative answers to pressing challenges that societies are confronted with, as in the case of climate change and shrinking welfare states (Avelino et al. 2019; Mouleart et al. 2013; Smith et al. 2016). Secondly, social innovation is usually place-based (i.e. location-specific and socio-culturally embedded). It relies on mobilizing actor networks, local resources and the spatial environment. The resulting re-localization of production and consumption is therefore part of many social innovations and at the same time an important driving force for sustainability. Nonetheless, their relevance as drivers of sustainable transformation has increased beyond local place-making, both spreading the word and benefiting greatly from social media and information and communication technology. Their typically strong interconnections across Cordula Kropp

102  Encyclopedia of social innovation

space and sectors enable social innovation initiatives to bridge organizational boundaries and create broader collaborations, which is an advantage over many managerial problem-solving routines in their isolated, organizationally constrained rationalities and worlds. Thirdly, in contrast to technical sustainability innovations mainly driven by universities and industrial companies, social innovations have been found to rather rely on citizens and communities, on civil society organizations, non-governmental organizations and pioneering companies (Kropp et al. 2021; Schlosberg and Coles 2016). These often cross sectoral and political silos and transform underlying paradigms in integrative ways that are helpful for tackling sustainability issues which require transgressive approaches. At the same time, they empower citizens and civic communities towards engaging for environmental and social interests (Angelidou and Psaltoglou 2017; Haxeltine et al. 2017; Smith et al. 2016; Smith and Seyfang 2013). Finally, in some cases, social innovations bridge the gaps in innovation diffusion where sustainable alternatives initially have limited acceptance, cannot yet be offered at cost, or are not competitive. Occurring in sensitized milieus ready to accept first ugly prototypes, they act as typical niches that help to open up established regimes for sustainability transitions (Grin et al. 2010; Kropp et al. 2021; Smith and Seyfang 2013). However, there is also scepticism. Some critics argue that their impact remains largely symbolic (urban gardens), small-scale (community supported agriculture), or more tokenistic-simulative (care sharing) and therefore unsatisfactory restricted (Blühdorn and Deflorian 2019). Even worse, social initiatives can serve as a repair mechanism taking care of negative externalities of the capitalist profit motive (Schubert 2019), thus unintentionally contributing as its fig leaf to the persistence of unsustainable economies and policies. In this sense, the euphoria about social innovations in the media and politics could also be interpreted as symbolic politics (Blühdorn 2007), which propagates sustainability but is ultimately not willing to engage in a fundamental socio-ecological transformation with reduced resource consumption, prosperity and self-realization. Moreover, if participatory forms of problem-solving substitute sanction-proven top-down politics, Cordula Kropp

state government offload unpopular decisions to forms of mixed governance, but these subsequently lack the necessary enforcement motifs and power (Blühdorn and Deflorian 2019). Sustainability transitions as a field of practice for social innovation With the concept of ‘transformative social innovation’, the connection between social and sustainable innovations in research has become closer in the last decade (Avelino et al. 2019; Haxeltine et al. 2017). In this research, the transformative capacity of social innovations, initiatives, and movements comes into focus (Kropp 2018; Smith and Seyfang 2013). In many fields of sustainability research, especially in the energy, mobility and food transition, social innovations gain attention (Schlosberg and Coles 2016), for instance by developing organizational forms for sustainable energy supply and distribution (Hewitt et al. 2019), for sustainable food provision and food sovereignty (Kropp et al. 2021), sustainable transportation (Bencardino and Greco 2014) or solution models for sustainable urban development (Angelidou and Psaltoglou 2017). Case studies show that social and sustainable innovations converge in terms of concerns, practices and goals. A key feature is the development of new relationships between producers and consumers, between politics and citizenship, between top-down and bottom-up. Depending on the theoretical lens, these processes are determined to be social or sustainable innovations, without drawing a clear distinction between the two. The many links between social innovation and sustainability transitions become even more tangible as soon as the goals and means of social innovations are considered from a sustainability perspective: sharing resources, addressing hitherto ignored social and environmental needs, ensuring social and climate justice, value-based learning in relation to sustainability and more-than-human needs as well as building and sustaining commons play a prominent role. With a focus on environmental sustainability, there are numerous social innovation initiatives addressing, for example, the challenges of sustainable modes of production and consumption or prevention of nature degradation and water pollution, while providing models of environmental

Sustainable innovation  103

education and biodiversity conservation or recycling and circular economy, to mention just a few of the tackled issues. It comes as no surprise that researchers on sustainability have underlined the importance of civil society initiatives, social movements and social innovation when it comes to open up new ways of problem-solving in the face of the grand challenges, or at least to flank and enforce technically enabled sustainability (Grin et al. 2010; Loorbach et al. 2020; Smith and Seyfang 2013). Reflexive governance of sustainable innovations It has been argued that sustainability transitions require more than incremental technological improvements but radical changes in the way we think, act, frame and organize (Kemp and Loorbach 2006). Such structural transformation cannot be achieved within established maxims of the growth paradigm, competitive forms of decision-making and neoliberal self-understandings. Instead, forms of reflexive governance are required, first, to shield transformative innovation processes from existing innovation regimes and their powerful instrumentalization, co-optation and pressure to adapt, second, to deal reflexively and experimentally with multiple uncertainties, and finally, to facilitate the diffusion of transformative innovations (Avelino et al. 2016; Kemp et al. 1998; Loorbach et al. 2020). Accordingly, scholars of the Sustainable Transition Research Network point to strategic niche management to foster novel relationships and reflexive governance of new networks, shared visions, collaborative experiments and new informal rules for coordinating transformative activities (Geels et al. 2008; Loorbach et al. 2020; Voß et al. 2009). Research on the transition to sustainability shows that transition processes must be co-evolutionary, visionary, and multidimensional (Beck et al. 2021). Geels et al. (2008, p. 524) use the term ‘innovation journeys’ to emphasize that the many actors in these transition processes have to ‘navigate, negotiate and struggle’, and the final destination can never be known despite shared visions of sustainability. Accordingly, social innovation processes are often accompanied by processes of collaborative experimentation with different forms of management and organization – includ-

ing working groups, social entrepreneurship, grassroots organizations, neighbourhood associations, all the way to foundations and cooperatives. With a focus on community organizing and niche self-organization, they develop strategies for providing value-based integration that facilitate the transition process in a hostile environment (Seyfang and Haxeltine 2012). Motivated by collective norms and empowered by a shared vision, they are better able to deal with setbacks and rejection when it comes to providing sustainable food, energy, and transportation infrastructure, for example, against the dominant mainstream (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION IN ENERGY SYSTEM TRANSFORMATION). Social innovation initiators often strive for policy impact to drive and institutionalize the needed change. Therefore, they favour inclusive, collaborative experimentation where many can learn, over predetermined agendas and solutions (Kropp et al. 2021; Schlosberg and Coles 2016). A stated goal is to ‘unlearn the normality of unsustainable practices’ (author’s interviewee). In this way, the emerging citizen-led transformations can motivate municipalities and cities to create more sustainable services and involve citizens in local government institutions, which has a lasting impact on policymaking to promote sustainability, as the example of transition towns shows. The outcomes differ from private sector innovations in that they are less focused on technological solutions and more about triggering behaviour change and encouraging communities to co-create neighbourhoods and influence relevant decisions. A wide range of sustainability issues is addressed, ranging from local procurement, economic development and awareness-raising to promoting food sovereignty, energy justice and local democracy. If, in addition, critical links with powerful regime actors can be established, success is more likely.

Negotiating social needs vs sustainability criteria

However, my case studies repeatedly show that sustaining and developing the social community (i.e. inventing suitable forms of coordination, motivation and group solidarity) is more vital for social innovations in the longer term than meeting all the self-imposed sustainability criteria. One respondent Cordula Kropp

104  Encyclopedia of social innovation

asked, ‘What good is it if the greywater toilet meets the highest standards, but the solidarity-based community is broken by its implementation?’, expressing a fundamental problem with social sustainability innovations. Therefore, it is considered crucial to balance the internal formation of solidarity and visions with the external expectations and environmental impact, and to focus attention on group cohesion and its conditions (Kropp et al. 2021). Time and again, this leads to the fact that the committed groups are relatively homogeneous and hardly reach other milieus and lifestyles. There is the immense challenge to build up integrative social relations as well as sustainable relations with nature. Hence, it remains to be seen whether social innovation processes can deliver the deep transformations needed to avoid catastrophes, collapses and wars, but bring about sustainable societies on planet Earth. Cordula Kropp

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Angelidou, M. and A. Psaltoglou (2017), ‘An empirical investigation of social innovation initiatives for sustainable urban development’, Sustainable Cities and Society, 33, pp. 113–25. Avelino, F., J. Grin, B. Pel and S. Jhagroe (2016), ‘The politics of sustainability transitions’, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 18(5), pp. 557–67. Avelino, F., J. M. Wittmayer, B. Pel, P. Weaver, A. Dumitru, A. Haxeltine, R. Kemp, M. S. Jørgensen, T. Bauler, S. Ruijsink and T. O’Riordan (2019), ‘Transformative social innovation and (dis)empowerment’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, pp. 195–206. Backhaus, J., A. Genus, S. Lorek, E. Vadovics and J. M. Witmayer (eds) (2018), Social Innovation and Sustainable Consumption: Research and Action for Societal Transformation, London/ New York: Routledge. Beck, S., S. Jasanoff, A. Stirling and C. Polzin (2021), ‘The governance of sociotechnical transformations to sustainability’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 49, pp. 143–52. Bencardino, M. and I. Greco (2014), ‘Smart communities: social innovation at the service of the smart cities’, TeMA – Journal of Land

Cordula Kropp

Use, Mobility and Environment Special Is, pp. 39–51. Blühdorn, I. (2007), ‘Sustaining the unsustainable: symbolic politics and the politics of simulation’, Environmental Politics, 16, pp. 251–75. Blühdorn, I. and M. Deflorian (2019), ‘The collaborative management of sustained unsustainability: on the performance of participatory forms of environmental governance’, Sustainability, 11, pp. 1–17. Chaminade, C. (2020), ‘Innovation for what? Unpacking the role of innovation for weak and strong sustainability’, Journal of Sustainability Research, 2, pp. 1–16. Geels, F. W., M. P. Hekkert and S. Jacobsson (2008), ‘The dynamics of sustainable innovation journeys’, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 20, pp. 521–36. Godin, B. (2012), Social Innovation: Utopias of Innovation from c.1830 to the Present, Working Paper 11 Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation, Montreal. Grin, J., J. Rotmans and J. Schot (eds) (2010), Transition to Sustainable Development: New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change, New York/London: Routledge. Haxeltine, A., B. Pel, J. Wittmayer, A. Dumitru, R. Kemp and F. Avelino (2017), ‘Building a middle-range theory of Transformative Social Innovation: theoretical pitfalls and methodological responses’, European Public and Social Innovation Review, 2, pp. 59–77. Hewitt, R. J., N. Bradley, A. B. Compagnucci, C. Barlagne, A. Ceglarz, R. Cremades, M. McKeen, I. M. Otto and B. Slee (2019), ‘Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence’, Frontiers in Energy Research, 7, https://​doi​.org/​10​.3389/​fenrg​.2019​ .00031. Howaldt, J. and M. Schwarz (2017), ‘Social innovation and human development: how the capabilities approach and social innovation theory mutually support each other’, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 18, pp. 163–80. Kemp, R. and D. A. Loorbach (2006), ‘Transition management: a reflexive governance approach’, in J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht and R. Kemp (eds), Reflexive Governance for Sustainable Development, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 103–30. Kemp, R., J. Schot and R. Hoogma (1998), ‘Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the appraoch of Strategic Niche Management’, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 10, pp. 175–95. Klein, J.-L. and D. Harrison (eds) (2007), L’innovation sociale: émergence et effets sur la

Sustainable innovation  105 transformation des sociétés, Québec: Presses de l’Université de Québec. Kropp, C. (2018), ‘Urban food movements and their transformative capacities’, Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 24, pp. 413–30. Kropp, C. (2019), ‘Nachhaltige Innovationenʼ, in B. Blättel-Mink, I. Schulz-Schaeffer and A. Windeler (eds), Handbuch Innovationsforschung, Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien, pp. 1–18. Kropp, C., I. Antoni-Komar and C. Sage (eds) (2021), Food System Transformations: Social Movements, Local Economies, Collaborative Networks, New York/London: Routledge. Loorbach, D., J. Wittmayer, F. Avelino, T. von Wirth and N. Frantzeskaki (2020), ‘Transformative innovation and translocal diffusion’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 35, pp. 251–60. Mouleart, F., D. MacCullam and J. Hillier (2013), ‘Social innovation: intuition, precept, concept, theory and practice’, in F. Moulaert, D. MacCullam, A. Mehmood and A. Hamdouch (eds), The International Handbook on Social Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 13–24. Mulgan, G., S. Tucker, R. Ali and B. Sanders (2019), Social Innovation: What It Is, Why It Matters and How It Can Be Accelerated, Oxford: Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, https://​youngfoundation​.org/​wp​-content/​ uploads/​2012/​10/​Social​-Innovation​-what​-it​ -is​-why​-it​-matters​-how​-it​-can​-be​-accelerated​ -March​-2007​.pdf. Schartinger, D., D. Rehfeld, M. Weber and W. Rhomberg (2020), ‘Green social innovation:

towards a typology’, European Planning Studies, 28, pp. 1026–45. Schlosberg, D. and R. Coles (2016), ‘The new environmentalism of everyday life: sustainability, material flows and movements’, Contemporary Political Theory, 15, pp. 160–81. Schubert, C. (2019), ‘Innovation als Reparaturʼ, in B. Blättel-Mink, I. Schulz-Schaeffer and A. Windeler (eds), Handbuch Innovationsforschung, Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien, pp. 1–13. Seyfang, G. and A. Haxeltine (2012), ‘Growing grassroots innovations: exploring the role of community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30, pp. 381–400. Smith, A., T. Hargreaves, S. Hielscher, M. Martiskainen and G. Seyfang (2016), ‘Making the most of community energies: three perspectives on grassroots innovation’, Environment and Planning A, 48, pp. 407–32. Smith, A. and G. Seyfang (2013), ‘Constructing grassroots innovations for sustainability’, Global Environmental Change, 23, pp. 827–9. UN General Assembly (2015), ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’, A/Res/70/1, https://​www​.un​.org/​ en/​development/​desa/​population/​migration/​ generalassembly/​docs/​globalcompact/​A​_RES​ _70​_1​_E​.pdf. Voß, J. P., A. Smith and J. Grin (2009), ‘Designing long-term policy: rethinking transition management’, Policy Sciences, 42, pp. 275–302.

Cordula Kropp

PART III SOCIAL INNOVATION PROCESSES

19. Co-creation in social innovation Introduction

Co-creation is an approach to policymaking that sets out to involve stakeholders in the decision-making process. It has emerged along with a growing understanding in the late twentieth century and early twenty-first century, of the complexity of the problems that public policy seeks to tackle. In this entry, we describe this approach more fully and reflect upon the findings of recent research and experiments in co-creation. Background to co-creation In the late twentieth century, a series of policy issues, such as climate change, poverty and obesity, were labelled wicked problems since they were seemingly impossible to solve. In particular, wicked problems were defined as having no clear start or end, are often not understood until after a solution has been produced (or could be framed in such different ways that the definition of the problem depends on the solution) and which therefore have multiple possible solutions (Conklin 2005). These problems are also multifaceted, with many different stakeholders who often have very different outlooks or understandings of the problem. Partly in response to this, demands for more, better and enhanced citizen participation in policymaking emerged across Europe as part of a participatory revolution in the 1960s (Abels 2007), giving rise to new forms of political participation, such as formal processes to involve citizens in local planning decisions. In the 1990s, a renewed focus on participatory approaches reappeared, this time in response to growing concern around an emerging democratic deficit. Participation in elections was falling and cynicism about politics was rising (Barnes et al. 2007) as a result of publics becoming disillusioned with traditional decision-making processes and a perceived concentration of power in central government. Participation in specific local initiatives was seen to lead to increased levels of public interest, involvement and influence in local issues, as well as a way to raise standards and find the best possible fit between local needs and local capacity (Barnes et al.

2007). As a consequence, numerous public and citizen participation opportunities and exercises were started: in the UK, communities were involved in decisions around regeneration through the New Deals for Communities initiatives, and a variety of methods such as deliberative polling, citizens juries and citizens panels were used to inform local healthcare priority-setting decisions (Abelson et al. 2013) for instance. Most recently, and partly as a result of experiences with co-creation, our understanding of the complexity of policymaking has grown. While constructing and implementing policy was once seen to be the task of politicians and civil servants, it is now clear that multiple stakeholders – including different levels of government, the private sector and service users themselves – are involved in shaping services. New questions have arisen about whose voices should be heard and how to give traditionally silenced voices a meaningful say in these policymaking and innovation processes. Involving all these stakeholders in planning and implementing policy relating to these services is increasingly seen to be a necessary requirement for delivering services right, and co-creation processes have been seen as key to achieving this. This desire to address complex social challenges in a way that enhances democracy by developing more participatory and bottom-up approaches to innovation and policymaking has strong parallels to the normative goals of social innovation of reconfigured social relations and empowerment or political mobilization (Moulaert et al. 2013; Domanski et al. 2020). What is co-creation? Definitions of co-creation vary according to the situation and context in which co-creation is being used. There are also a number of different terms to refer to co-creation activities, including: public engagement; stakeholder engagement; participatory processes; inclusive engagement; multi-actor dialogue; participatory involvement; societal engagement; citizen involvement; and public deliberation and consultation (Pfotenhauer et al. 2019). Co-creation therefore is a flexible term that broadly refers to a process that aims to improve efficiency, effectiveness and acceptability by involving stakeholders in

107

108  Encyclopedia of social innovation

identifying, developing, implementing and assessing products, services, policies and systems. The recent European-funded project SISCODE defined co-creation as ‘A non-linear process that involves multiple actors and stakeholders in the ideation, implementation and assessment of products, services, policies and systems with the aim of improving their efficiency and effectiveness, and the satisfaction of those who take part in the process’ (Real and Schmittinger 2022, p. 14). The connections to the process of social innovation, with its focus on complexity of policymaking and stakeholder involvement, are perhaps most clear here. Beyond that, Voorberg et al. (2015) have produced a classification of co-creation according to three levels of citizen involvement: 1. Citizens as co-implementers, in which citizens are involved in service delivery 2. Citizens as co-designers, whereby stakeholders can help define the design of a service 3. Citizens as initiators, where citizens formulate and propose initiatives for government action. Benefits of co-creation Like social innovation, co-creation is generally seen as a way to develop user-centred approaches to solving societal challenges (Deserti et al. 2020). Reviewing the literature around co-creation, Steen et al. (2011) argue that benefits can accrue across broad stakeholder groups. They map out the benefits in terms of the co-creation process: 1. Improving the creative process through better idea generation and better knowledge of customers 2. Improving the service by creating better fits for service users and higher quality of service 3. Improving project management through better and faster decision making, lowering development costs and instigating processes of continuous improvement 4. Improving longer term effects though higher satisfaction, more successful innovation and improved relationships. Melanie Smallman and Cian O’Donovan

However, others (for instance Blomkamp 2018; Smallman 2016) have pointed out that many of the perceived benefits of co-creation are aspirational, that the benefits are unlikely to be distributed evenly and that the evidence base to support these aspirations is still thin.

Key findings from research on co-creation

Over the past five years, co-creation has been adopted in a number of international, European and national projects looking at issues from shaping local social care or health services to governing climate change, developing international policy on biodiversity and shaping the research, design and innovation of new technologies. In the following section we draw together some of the key lessons learned from these co-creation programmes, or, as they are increasingly called, experiments. Redistribution of power Policymakers are often concerned that co-creation adds uncertainty to the policymaking process by taking power from institutions and putting it into the hands of stakeholders. Less often acknowledged, but no less serious, is the risk of participation as a form of control of citizen or stakeholder perception or support, to secure control of funding and resources locally, or merely as cosmetic labelling to look good (Chambers 1994). Asking citizens to be involved with all stages of project – from problem conception and framing through to solution development, testing and evaluation – is vital for good co-creation. When that isn’t possible (for instance when limited resources are at stake), being clear with citizens that they are only being consulted and how their participation will affect the outcomes is important. One size does not fit all Recent experiments in co-creation have shown that one size does not fit all and that a standard approach to co-creation is likely to be difficult. Research by the European-funded SCALINGS project found that scaling co-creation into new places or policy domains will only be successful if the specificities of local social and cultural contexts are taken into account (Müller et al. 2021). Transplanting an approach to

Co-creation in social innovation  109

another topic or situation does not work as the methods and objectives for the participation activity need to be appropriate to the context and people involved. Deserti and Rizzo (2020) argue that this includes structural questions bound to established cultures, mindsets and practices of diverse sectors, places, systems and typologies of organizations need to be taken into account as there are differences that can make particular kinds of co-creation activities more successful in certain contexts. For instance, Biegelbauer and Hansen (2011) found that participatory approaches are better suited to more open and less paternalistic political systems. In our work with local politicians, lack of capacity and the specific skills available within UK Local Councils was cited as a barrier to wider uptake of co-creation approaches. Similarly, Deserti et al. (2020) described how a project to codesign (→ DESIGN FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION) air quality measures in Cracow ran into difficulties when the policymakers lacked experience of participatory processes and so found managing the different roles, responsibilities and needs of different groups challenging. They conclude that in countries where co-creation is new (they cite Poland, Serbia and Greece from their research), an understanding of the capacity that needs to be built and the cultural changes necessary is important. Geographies and place also seem to be important factors in decisions about co-creation approaches. For instance, in our meetings with local politicians, large scale approaches such as citizens’ assemblies were seen to be less appropriate for more geographically spread areas, as they were considered too centralized. Instead, rural and dispersed areas appeared to prefer approaches such as citizens’ panels or community network panels. This raises a question of what is considered to be co-creation practices. Do they need to be formal processes following particular structures or is there room for more social, frugal and grassroots approaches to co-creation? Such questions also relate to issues around representativeness and legitimacy of co-creation exercises, which we will discuss later. Co-creation can change the pace of action Co-creation also has the potential to change the pace of action – to both speed up and

slow down thinking – as well as to help tackle longer term problems. For instance, on climate change, local authorities need to move faster but the next steps are not necessarily obvious. A number of councils in the UK have been turning to co-creation, both to help produce plans of action that are collectively acceptable, but also to generate the community support for action that is needed to drive policy change through the system and to address long-term problems now.

A critical reflection and outlook for co-creation in policy

Three lessons may be drawn from recent co-creation experiments for policy. Establishing the credibility and value of public perspectives and inputs Within co-creation approaches, the boundary between expert and non-expert knowledge becomes blurred, as the views of citizens and service users are valued as much as more professional groups. However, recent reviews of participatory approaches suggest that policymakers do not consider lay expertise to be of equivalent value or usefulness to that of traditional experts, and that citizens’ opinions tend to be limited to matters of values and ethical issues, not scrutinizing expertise (Smallman 2019). For example, Deserti et al. (2020) describe how difficult it was to get policymakers to attend and take part in the participatory activities, instead seeing themselves as recipients of the outcomes of co-creation exercises, rather than co-creators themselves. Smallman (2019) has described how policymakers express a clear preference for expert advice, which related to a particular way of knowing and understanding the world that was typically found amongst scientists or other professionals. Perspectives that brought the first-hand experience of services were seen to be simply drawing on life experience and non-technical (and therefore less valuable) in relation to matters of judgement. Looking at international policymaking contexts, specifically intergovernmental projects to manage global biodiversity, Montana (Montana 2017; Montana and Borie 2016) describes how, in order to achieve the scale of change necessary for sustainability, on the one hand there is a move to open up what is Melanie Smallman and Cian O’Donovan

110  Encyclopedia of social innovation

considered to be expertise to a wider range of perspectives, including indigenous and culturally specific knowledge; on the other hand, the rigid procedures for selecting experts meant that experts needed to be well connected and recognized by nominating governments as credible experts in biodiversity and ecosystem services, thereby narrowing down definitions of expertise. This raises an important tension in the co-creation enterprise – effective co-creation needs to put power in the hands of stakeholders who are often excluded from the policymaking process. But to be effective, co-creation needs to win the support of policymakers – and perhaps work within their conceptions of what expertise and credible sources of evidence look like. Legitimacy, representation and diversity As with social innovation, co-creation exercises are often seen as ways of improving policymaking by increasing the diversity of perspectives involved (Jasanoff 2003; Montana 2017) and improving the legitimacy of policy decisions by including all of the stakeholders affected. However, questions arise about representativeness of participants. In many instances co-creation participants are not representative of any particular population, so does this make these exercises more or less legitimate? Some have argued that the question of representativeness confuses what is at stake in those exercises (Stirling 2007). Rather than seeking to mediate the most acceptable response, the purpose of co-creation might be to explore the full range of options or possible futures available to us, which requires a focus on diversity of stakeholders or perspectives, rather than a representative sample. Similarly, co-creation can be an important way in which otherwise excluded or silenced voices can be heard in decision making processes, creating legitimacy by giving power to these voices. In this context, a focus on a particular group or population is perhaps key. Co-creation is not a substitute for democracy Co-creation is not a substitute for democracy. Co-creation must work hand in hand with existing democratic structures. In particular, when it comes to policy it is important to give thought to how policymaking Melanie Smallman and Cian O’Donovan

mechanisms really (rather than theoretically) work. Deserti et al. (2020) argue that even though the idea of sequential policy cycles has been criticized for its over-rationalization of the policy process (Everett 2003), the idea that policies can be rationally driven – from identifying problems, to developing solutions, to implementation – has underpinned various tools for co-creation. For example, they described a co-creation project involving a variety of stakeholders to address mental health issues in young adults. The project found that, despite many years of movement towards joined-up services, the structures in place were far from joined-up and instead created a disorganized and traumatic transition between child and adult mental health services. The point here is that co-creation practices and settings may open up processes of politics or innovation to those usually excluded, but co-creation on its own cannot address deep-seated structural exclusions and inequalities (O’Donovan and Smith 2020). For that, further institutional interventions and correctives are required, along with collective action to overcome unsustainable practices and drives towards irresponsible innovation. Melanie Smallman and Cian O’Donovan

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Abels, G. (2007), ‘Citizen involvement in public policy-making: does it improve democratic legitimacy and accountability? The case of pTA’, Interdisciplinary Information Sciences, 13 (1), pp. 103–16. Abelson, J., Blacksher, E., Li, K., Boesveld, S. and Goold, S. (2013), ‘Public deliberation in health policy and bioethics: mapping an emerging, interdisciplinary field’, Journal of Public Deliberation, 9 (1), https://​doi​.org/​10​.16997/​ jdd​.157. Barnes, M., Newman, J. and Sullivan, H. C. (2007), Power, Participation and Political Renewal: Case Studies in Public Participation, Bristol: Policy Press. Biegelbauer, P. and Hansen, J. (2011), ‘Democratic theory and citizen participation: democracy models in the evaluation of public participation in science and technology’, Science and Public Policy, 38 (8), pp. 589–97, https://​doi​.org/​10​ .3152/​0302​34211X1309​2649606404. Blomkamp, E. (2018), ‘The promise of co-design for public policy’, Australian Journal of Public

Co-creation in social innovation  111 Administration, 77 (4), pp. 729–43, https://​doi​ .org/​10​.1111/​1467–8500​.12310. Chambers, R. (1994), ‘Paradigm shifts and the practice of participatory research and development’, University of Sussex, Institute of Development Studies (UK), https://​ opendocs​ .ids​.ac​.uk/​opendocs/​handle/​20​.500​.12413/​ 1761. Conklin, J. (2005), Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems (1st edition), Chichester: Wiley. Deserti, A. and Rizzo, F. (2020), ‘Context dependency of social innovation: in search of new sustainability models’, European Planning Studies, 28 (5), pp.  864–80, https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1080/​09654313​.2019​.1634005. Deserti, A., Rizzo, F. and Smallman, M. (2020), ‘Experimenting with co-design in STI policy making’, Policy Design and Practice, 0 (0), pp.  1–15, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​25741292​ .2020​.1764692. Domanski, D., Howaldt, J. and Kaletka, C. (2020), ‘A comprehensive concept of social innovation and its implications for the local context – on the growing importance of social innovation ecosystems and infrastructures’, European Planning Studies, 28 (3), pp. 454–74. Everett, S. (2003), ‘The policy cycle: democratic process or rational paradigm revisited?’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62 (2), pp.  65–70, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1111/​ 1467–8497​.00325. Jasanoff, S. (2003), ‘Technologies of humility: citizen participation in governing science’, Minerva, 41, pp.  223–44, https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1023/​A:​1025557512320. Montana, J. (2017), ‘Accommodating consensus and diversity in environmental knowledge production: achieving closure through typologies in IPBES’, Environmental Science & Policy, 68, pp.  20–27, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.envsci​ .2016​.11​.011. Montana, J. and Borie, M. (2016), ‘IPBES and biodiversity expertise: regional, gender, and disciplinary balance in the composition of the interim and 2015 multidisciplinary expert panel’, Conservation Letters, 9 (2), pp. 138–42, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1111/​conl​.12192. Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., Mehmood, A. and Hamdouch, A. (2013), ‘General introduction: the return of social innovation as a scientific concept and a social practice: collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research’, in F. Moulaert, D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood and A. Hamdouch (eds), The International

Handbook on Social Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 1–7. Müller, R., Ruess, A. K., Eisenberger, I., Buocz, T., Damjanovic, D., Hofer, A. and Sedef, A. (2021), Co-creating European Futures – SCALINGS Team Publishes Policy Roadmap – SCALINGS, accessed 18 May 2022 at https://​ scalings​.eu/​co​-creating​-european​-futures​ -scalings​-team​-publishes​-policy​-roadmap/​. O’Donovan, C. and Smith, A. (2020), ‘Technology and human capabilities in UK makerspaces’, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 21 (1), pp. 63–83, https://​doi​.org/​ 10​.1080/​19452829​.2019​.1704706. Pfotenhauer, S. M., Juhl, J. and Aarden, E. (2019), ‘Challenging the “deficit model” of innovation: framing policy issues under the innovation imperative’, Research Policy, 48 (4), pp. 895–904. Real, M. and Schmittinger, F. (2022), ‘A framework for experimenting co-creation in real-life contexts’, in A. Deserti, M. Real and F. Schmittinger (eds), Co-creation for Responsible Research and Innovation: Experimenting with Design Methods and Tools, Cham: Springer Nature, pp. 11–24. Smallman, M. (2019), ‘“Nothing to do with the science”: how an elite sociotechnical imaginary cements policy resistance to public perspectives on science and technology through the machinery of government’, Social Studies of Science, 50 (4), pp.  589–608, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​ 0306312719879768. Smallman, M. L. (2016), ‘What has been the impact of public dialogue in science and technology on UK policymaking?’ [PhD, UCL], accessed 18 May 2022 at http://​discovery​.ucl​.ac​ .uk/​1473234/​. Steen, M., Manschot, M. and De Koning, N. (2011), ‘Benefits of co-design in service design projects’, International Journal of Design, 5 (2), pp. 53–60. Stirling, A. (2007), ‘“Opening up” and “closing down”: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology’, Science, Technology & Human Values, 33 (2), pp.  262–94, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​ 0162243907311265. Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M. and Tummers, L. G. (2015), ‘A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey’, Public Management Review, 17 (9), pp. 1333–57, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​14719037​.2014​ .930505.

Melanie Smallman and Cian O’Donovan

20. Democratic experimentalism and social innovation Introduction

Nowadays the governmental and non-governmental actors and institutions intervening in public sector are not only facing complex but turbulent public problems, characterized by surprising, unpractical, intersectional and uncertain situations, as we lived with the COVID-19 pandemic (Ansell et al. 2020). This scenario became more challenging if we consider the democratic crises in countries of the global North and South that put in check the traditional forms of power regulation and exposed the fissure between the sources of authority and legitimacy in public administration and mechanisms and practices of governance able to respond and present solutions to these wicked social and environmental problems (Ansell 2011). The challenge involves (re)thinking and (re)building the way we understand and look at democracies and their forms of renewing, considering them beyond their formal aspect. This means considering the potential of the different patterns of social interaction or public action that make up democracies as a source of creative action, social innovation and institutional transformation (Andion and Magalhães 2021). That said, we explore in this entry the emergence and importance of democratic experimentalism as a notion and mainly as a practice that could permit to explore the interface between the exercise of democracy coproduction and social innovation.

Democratic experimentation: definition and importance to social innovation studies

There is a vast potential for advancement in the debate on social innovation when we bring them closer to recent studies in the fields of public administration, public policies analyses and public governance studies (→ GOVERNANCE OF SOCIAL INNOVATION). In these fields, many authors emphasize the importance of looking at the relationships between the state and

civil society facing public problems with new analytical lengths.1 These studies offer clues to reinterpret civil society actors, collective actions and public experimentation promoted by them as an intrinsic and constitutive vector of the democratic state. In this way, ‘public actions’ are not limited to governmental actions that the state determines and controls; it has relative autonomy, which is promoted in loco and in the intersection between what is instituted and social autonomy through societal-state interactions and solutions co-constructed for public problems faced in local contexts (Andion 2020). These new approaches do not emerge in a vacuum and are situated in a broader movement of renovation that occurs in contemporary social sciences (Cefaï 2009; Chateauraynaud 2021; Corrêa 2019; Frega 2016). This movement has been characterized as a plural set of ‘sociological pragmatisms’ that make way for new epistemes, postures and methodological practices for social scientists and proposes new lengths to interpret social change. Inspired by this movement and based in the precursor work of John Dewey (1927), recent studies that emphasize ‘public action’ denaturalize the classic notion of the state. They relate the dimensions of representation and legitimacy, typical of the idea of government, with the response to public problems (governance), not focusing only in a functional but also in a critical perspective. This approach implies broadening the interpretation of how public administration, its institutions and democracy itself function (Ansell 2011). This means to consider the codetermination of the state and civil society (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION, CIVIL SOCIETY AND DEMOCRACY-BUILDING), focusing on the dynamics and logics that compose these societal-state interactions in a dynamic and reciprocal manner (Lavalle and Szwako 2015). As a result, this interconnection between civil society and the state becomes central for an experimentalist style of governance (Sabel and Zeitlin 2011, p. 3), which became crucial in a world where the complexity of public problems requires constant re-adaptation. According to the authors, experimentalist governance refers to a ‘recursive process of provisional goal-setting and its constant redefinition, based on collaborative learning’. This form of governance could be put

112

Democratic experimentalism and social innovation  113

forward as a direct ‘deliberative polyarchy’. It is deliberative because it is open to argument, to inquiry and review of established concepts and practices. It is a polyarchy because, in the absence of a final and central decider, the various players of the governance systems have to learn and define their goals to face problems based on their relationships with others, in a collaborative manner (Andion 2020). While they face, learn from and act to respond to public problems, the distinct collectives could be constituted as ‘publics’ (Dewey 1927) which perform the ‘public arenas’. So, the public policies systems are perceived not as homogeneous fields (Zittoun 2021), but composed of a myriad of public arenas configured by different actors, logics of action and engagement, devices and practices. These public arenas are described by Cefaï (2012) at the same time as spaces of conflict and agreements, in which public actions are performed. Therefore, what is public is no longer a monopoly of the state and the democratic exercise becomes something to be investigated, followed and viewed in light of public facts and situations while these are being generated. Observing public arenas, by empirical studies, became a central research strategy to better understand how social innovations emerge, spread and their effects. In other words, it can permit access to how actors face each other and commit themselves (or not) to a collective effort to define and control ‘problematic situations’ as well as their effects promoting or not social innovation and social change (Andion 2020; Andion et al. 2020). In this sense, ‘democratic experimentation’ is, at the same time, a notion and a practice that permits observation of how the institutions are transformed, a process that is essential to reinventing democracy. As discussed by Frega (2019), it provides theoretical and analytical insights to comprehend how democracy is related to social innovation. In addition to identifying the extent and limits of participative processes, it means to recognize the way in which the design of institutions occurs to face undesirable consequences of the life in common. The word ‘experimentation’ refers to seeking more innovative solutions, inquiring and testing in order to diminish the errors in responses to problematic situations which are contex-

tualized. The word ‘democratic’ is related to the processes of mutual collaboration and learning, valuing various forms of knowledge and expertise, especially of the affected publics. This process of collective and evolutionary learning, based on public inquiry, is considered by the authors to be an important element in the revitalization of public actions in current democracies (Ansell 2011, 2012). So, to observe the processes of democratic experimentation by following the public actions where they occur could be a way to understand the interface between democracies and social innovation processes (Frega 2019). It means observing how and in what conditions the various publics engage (or not) in processes to face public problems and reinvent the instituted and what are the aspects that promote or prevent these dynamics. As discussed by Ansell (2012) the social transformation/innovation won’t always happen, and therefore, the focus of the analyses is more on understanding and fostering the conditions for these transformations to take place, something we discuss later.

Democratic experimentalism as a research approach in social innovation studies

More than a new concept or a notion, ‘democratic experimentalism’ constitutes an approach, from a pragmatist perspective, that brings scientific experimentation closer to the experiences and situations in real life (Ansell 2012; Cefaï 2020; Chateauraynaud 2021). It is about testing in practice (and not simply in a discursive way) the working hypotheses (and not just theoretical axioms) to determine the validity of what is observed. In this sense social innovations refer not only to ‘concepts’, ‘norms’ or ‘values’, defined once and for all by researchers or even by social actors, but mainly to the consequences produced by social change processes and experiences. This consequentialist perspective, central to sociological pragmatism, points to the need for changes in the researcher’s posture, whether in terms of ontology, epistemology or methodology (Chateauraynaud 2021; Corrêa 2019). The first posture refers to a break with the dominant social ontology, understanding that all that constitutes the social is a problem and has to be inquired. As stated by Latour Carolina Andion and Graziela Alperstedt

114  Encyclopedia of social innovation

(2012), like other pragmatist authors, there is not a social dimension separated from others dimensions of the real life. The ‘social’ is then (re)defined based on the principle of ‘ontological freedom’ that includes not only what is human, or what can be seen and interpreted by the assumptions or models conceived by the researcher. In this sense, it proposes an image of the social, and of social innovation, which is self-constituting, embedded, plural, broad and inclusive. The second posture is epistemological and refers to the respect for the metrics and justifications produced by the researched actors. For Corrêa (2019, p. 268) this implies an attitude of ‘delegating what is pertinent, fair, real, true authentic, etc. to the actors’ themselves. The construction of knowledge so occurs neither by a rationalist perspective in a deductive way (from the hypothetical definitions by the researcher or the theory), nor by the empirical rigour of inductivism, defended by the positivists and neo-positivists. Here, the co-construction of knowledge is emphasized through the interaction between researchers and the communities studied and between theory and practice, focusing lived experiences and abductive forms of analysis (Timmermans and Tavory 2012). Finally, the emphasis on the social being built (in the experiences) requires from researchers changes in their methodological posture. It means to give importance to the situations or moments of proof or controversies experienced by the researched subjects. It is a matter, as Corrêa (2019, p. 269) argues, of giving space not only for regularities and for what is already stabilized in the social, but also ‘non-determined situations, conflicts, proof situations and alerts’. This is justified because in these moments of bifurcation actors question the status quo and present their justifications, their arguments and also redefine the course of their actions, opening space for invention, new possibilities of agency and new visions about the future. With regard to the field of social innovations, these changes in attitude can make it possible to consider the real ‘construction sites’ that work to solve public problems as ‘living laboratories’ of social innovation (Magalhães et al. 2020). This is because in these spaces we can observe in loco the dynamics of co-construction of knowledge and confrontation and co-domain of the problematic situations. Carolina Andion and Graziela Alperstedt

So, democratic experimentalism is about valuing the real-life processes promoted by different groups and organizations, from different sectors, to respond to public problems, which differ to a great extent from the randomized and controlled experimental processes traditionally studied in the laboratories of universities. The research agenda on social innovation can be reinforced and put forward if it considers democratic experimentalism not only as a conceptual notion but as an analytical and methodological approach that is characterized by: (1) focusing on real and lived experiences, and not on those produced in intramural university ‘laboratories’; (2) promoting the interaction between subject and object and its importance in research, by valuing and taking seriously the justifications, knowledge and practices of the actors; (3) taking into account the multiple forms of cause–action links, measurements and tests, in particular the metrics developed by the different audiences and the people affected, considered as experimenters; (4) allowing space for error, learning, formulation and reformulation of hypotheses, discussion, debate and validation of research results in collaboration with the subjects studied; (5) promoting theoretical ‘excavation’ and methodological craftsmanship, dialogue and triangulation of different approaches and methodologies of qualitative and quantitative research; (6) favouring the idea of ​​ a ‘political ecology’ and a plurality of relations and interactions over an ideal of universality. It presupposes not only to change the analytical lengths of the research in social innovation studies, but also a modification in the comprehension of social innovation itself and its relation with the governance of public problems in practice. In this sense, we can explore the idea of a general theory of innovation, because it is impossible to think the innovation process without consider the question of social change as a central issue. So, the experimentations of social innovations in different domains of public policy (health, education, energy, food security,

Democratic experimentalism and social innovation  115

etc.) could be vectors to renew public action and to exercise democracy combined with the co-production of responses to local challenges in view of sustainability (Andion et al. 2020, 2022). This approach has been experimented with and validated by the authors in the creation and implementation of the Observatory of Social Innovation of Florianopolis (OBISF) (http://​www​.observafloripa​.com​.br) (Andion et al. 2020, 2022). In this experience we put in practice a living lab of social innovation, articulating teaching, research and community services, promoting public inquiry and co-construction of knowledge about the city’s public problems and observing the collective actions promoted to respond to them. The OBISF is materialized by a collaborative digital platform that presents the cartography of the social innovation ecosystem of the city composed of a network of collective actions (more or less formalized) that responds to public problems and the actors that support them. In addition to retracing these networks, the work of the OBISF team has made it possible to carry out ethnographies of the city’s public arenas (Magalhães et al. 2020; Andion 2022), allowing a better understanding of the interface between the dynamics of social innovation and public policies, focusing on the exercise of public governance dynamics that occur by the interaction between governmental and non-governmental actors in different fields of public policy. In this sense, the interface between social innovation, democratic experimentalism and public governance arises as a new analytical avenue for thinking and acting to address today’s complex and urgent public problems, as well as to promote more democratic and sustainable practices at the local level. But this approximation should not be treated as a miracle formula or a ‘magic concept’ (Bragaglia 2021), but a new way to study public action co-production (Lascoumes and Le Galès 2007), contributing to deepening and strengthening democracy.

Conclusion

This text has explored the relevance of social innovation dynamics and its potential to generate democratic experimentation and to produce consequences in the public

sphere. The iterative nature of democratic experimentation process in real life shows that social innovation experiences are more creative, unpredictable and non-determined than discussed in the literature and it is very difficult to observe and understand their consequences in a single-shot laboratory test. By breaking down the boundaries between researchers, practitioners and subjects, the democratic experimentalism could reinforce new forms of co-creation of knowledge and public inquiry and new ways of doing research and reinforce social innovation in practice, related with democracy and sustainability. As stated by Ansell, experimentation is provisional (openness to learning; realization of limits of human knowledge; expansive progression beyond the expectations of previous generations), probative (preparedness to use various moral consideration without seeing a singular theory), creative (creative element in hypothesis formation), and jointly defined (acceptance that all persons are sources of insight). (2012, p. 166)

It is important to problematize and better explore the relation between social innovation and democracy. This relation must be seen as a research problem, exploring the consequences of the social innovation’s experiences. It means not taking for granted the ‘positive and pervasive’ character that predominates in the academic debate and policies that relate social innovation and public governance and presupposes a reflection about these notions and ‘its normative charge, its ability to so quickly generate consensus and its global marketability’ (Bragaglia 2021, p. 102). The interface between the exercise of democratic co-production and social innovation must be investigated by empirical studies that take in account the diversity of social realities, the factors that foster or hinder these dynamics and the consequences produced by them. As Sabel (2012, p. 51) points out, the experimentations dissociated are not ‘self-sustained and they do not by themselves engender democratic politics’ and policies. But, embedded in their political ecosystem, they could contribute to promoting the relation about means and ends and put in practice our ideals that, as stated by John Dewey, are

Carolina Andion and Graziela Alperstedt

116  Encyclopedia of social innovation

genuine only in so far as they are possibilities of what is now moving.2 Carolina Andion and Graziela Alperstedt

Notes 1.

2.

For example, Ansell (2011, 2012); Bohman (2013); Briggs (2008); Fung and Wright (2003); Frega (2019); Lavalle and Szwako (2015); Lascoumes and Le Galès (2007); Porto de Oliveira and Hassenteuffel (2021); Sabel (2012); Sabel and Zeitlin (2012); Shields (2008); Zittoun (2021). This chapter is inspired in the fieldwork and in texts previously elaborated and most developed by authors such as Andion et al. (2017); Andion (2020); Andion et al. (2020, 2022); Magalhães et al. (2020); Andion (2021, 2022).

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Andion, C. (2020) ‘Civil society mobilization in coping with the effects of COVID-19 in Brazil’, Brazilian Journal of Public Administration, 54 (4), 936–51. Andion, C. (2021), ‘L’Observatoire d’innovation sociale de Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brésil. Enquêter et expérimenter au cœur de la vie civique’, Pragmata, 4, pp. 482–526. Andion, C. (2022), ‘Social innovation, experimentalism and public governance: an ethnographical approach to study public arenas in the city’, Anais do IX Encontro Nacional de Gestão Pública e Governanca – ENAPG, accessed 16 September 2022 at http://​anpad​.com​.br/​pt​_br/​ event/​details/​119. Andion, C., Alperstedt, G. D. and Graeff, J. F. (2020), ‘Social innovation ecosystems, sustainability, and democratic experimentation: a study in Florianopolis, Brazil’, Brazilian Journal of Public Administration, 54 (1), pp. 181–200. Andion, C., Alperstedt, G. D., Graeff, J. F. and Ronconi, L. (2022), ‘Social innovation ecosystems and sustainability in cities: a study in Florianopolis, Brazil’, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24, pp. 1259–81. Andion, C. and Magalhães, T. (2021), ‘Aproximando os pragmatismos da análise das políticas públicas. Experimentação e investigação pública em um cenário de crise democrática’, Sociedade E Estado, 36 (2), pp. 513–43. Andion, C., Ronconi, L., Moraes, R. L., Gonsalves, A. K. R. and Serafim, L. B. D. (2017), ‘Civil society and social innovation in the public sphere: a pragmatic perspective’,

Carolina Andion and Graziela Alperstedt

Brazilian Journal of Public Administration, 51 (3), pp. 369–87. Ansell, C. (2011), Pragmatist Democracy: Evolutionary Learning as Public Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford Scholarship. Ansell, C. (2012), ‘What is democratic experiment?’, Contemporary Pragmatism, 9 (2), pp. 159–80. Ansell, C., Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. (2020), ‘The COVID-19 pandemic as a game changer for public administration and leadership? The need for robust governance responses to turbulent problems’, Public Management Review, 23 (7), pp. 949–60. Bohman, J. (2013), ‘Democratic experimentalism: from self-legislation to self-determination’, Social Philosophy Today, 29, pp. 7–20. Bragaglia, F. (2021), ‘Social innovation as a “magic concept” for policy makers and its implications for urban governance’, Planning Theory, 20, pp. 102–20. Briggs, X. (2008), Democracy as Problem Solving: Civic Capacity in Communities Across the Globe, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cefaï, D. (2009), ‘Como nos mobilizamos? A contribuição de uma abordagem pragmatista para a sociologia da ação coletiva’, Dilemas, 2 (4), pp. 11–48. Cefaï, D. (2012), ‘Qu’est-ce qu’une arène publique? Quelques pistes pour une approche pragmatiste’, in D. Cefaï and I. Joseph (eds), L’Héritage du pragmatisme: conflits d’urbanité et épreuves de civisme, La Tour d’Aigues, Vaucluse: Éditions de l’Aube. Cefaï, D. (2020), ‘La naissance de l’experimentation démocratique: quelques hypotheses de travail du pragmatisme’, Pragmata, 3, pp. 270–355. Chateauraynaud, F. (2021), ‘Des expérimentations démocratiques en tension. L’oeuvre des citoyens dans le travail politique des bifurcations’, Texte pour Les Cahiers du GRM, n°18, septembre. Corrêa, D. (2019), ‘A sociologia pragmática em três gestos’, in R. Cantu, S. Leal, D. S. Corrêa and L. Chartain (eds), Sociologia, Crítica e Pragmatismo: diálogos entre França e Brasil, Campinas: Pontes Editores, pp. 265–302. Dewey, J. (1927), The Public and Its Problems, Chicago, IL: Swallow Press. Frega, R. (2016), ‘Qu’est-ce qu’une pratique?’, in F. Chateauraynaud and Y. Cohen (eds), Histoires Pragmatiques, Paris: Éditions de l’EHESS, pp. 321–48. Frega, R. (2019) Pragmatism and the Wide View of Democracy, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Fung, A. and Wright, E. O. (2003), Deepening Democracy: Institutional Innovations in

Democratic experimentalism and social innovation  117 Empowered Participatory Governance, London: Verso. Lascoumes, P. and Le Galès, P. (2007), Sociologie de l’Action Publique, Paris: Armand Colin. Latour, B. (2012), Reagregando o social: uma introdução à Teoria do Ator-Rede, Salvador: Edufba. Lavalle, A. G. and Szwako, J. (2015), ‘Sociedade civil, Estado e autonomia: argumentos, contra-argumentos e avanços no debate’, Opinião Pública, 21 (1), 157–87. Magalhães, T., Andion, C. and Alperstedt, G. (2020), ‘Social innovation living labs and public action: an analytical framework and a methodological route based on pragmatism’, Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 18 (spe), pp. 680–96. Porto de Oliveira, O. and Hassenteufel, P. (2021), Sociologia Política da Ação Pública: teorias, abordagens e conceitos, Brasília: ENAP. Sabel, C. (2012), ‘Dewey, democracy and democratic experimentalism’, Contemporary Pragmatism, 9 (2), pp. 35–55. Sabel, C. F., and Zeitlin, J. (2011), ‘Experimentalist governance’, in D. Levi-Faur (ed.), The Oxford

Handbook of Governance, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–22. Shields, P. (2008), ‘Rediscovering the taproot: is classical pragmatism the route to renew public administration?’, Public Administration Review, 68 (2), pp. 205–21. Timmermans, S. and Tavory, I. (2012), ‘Theory construction in qualitative research’, Sociological Theory, 30 (3), pp. 167–86. Zittoun, P. (2021), ‘A abordagem pragmática de políticas públicas’, in O. Porto de Oliveira and P. Hassenteufel (eds), Sociologia Política da Ação Pública: teorias, abordagens e conceitos, Brasília: ENAP, pp. 114–34.

Carolina Andion and Graziela Alperstedt

21. Design for social innovation Introduction

Design is emerging as a rich resource to social innovation, as evidenced in the vast use of design tools and approaches by a growing intermediary system (e.g. innovation labs, think tanks, and research centres/consortiums). Most of these toolkits provide a sort of roadmap and a collection of tools to be used in the different phases of the social innovation design process. The rise in popularity of design as a resource for innovation can be attributed to a push away from material objects to the application of the methods and processes of expert designers to solve just about any problem (Kimbell 2009). By diffusing ‘designerly ways of thinking and doing’ (Archer 1979; Cross 1982) through a modelized process and set of tools, design thinking has become a sort of innovation formula that promises creative solutions to a wide range of issues: heralded as the competitive advantage of companies (Martin 2009), the strategy of business management and the collaborative partner in solving social and environmental problems (Manzini 2015). This is evident in the wide uptake of design thinking by management consultancies (Deserti and Rizzo 2014) and its widespread use in the intermediary systems of social and public sector innovation (Deserti and Rizzo 2019). Considering the widespread uptake of design tools, methods and approaches across sectors, understanding the role of design research and its contribution to these sectors is a timely pursuit. The question takes particular interest given that design is not a theoretical discipline nor is it tied to any particular epistemological basis (Durrant et al. 2017, p. 3). Design is rather engaged in the act of doing and making things. This is not to imply that design is practised without theory but rather that its relationship with theory is different from other disciplines. While in early writings of design research, some scholars (Simon 1969; Alexander 1964; Jones 1970) tried to pin down design from a rationalistic perspective in the design methods movement, today, it is in great part bound to experimentation and piloting in real contexts, moving away from the scientific method and opting

for more socially robust and practice-based forms of knowing. As a discipline, it borrows theory from other disciplines to better its own practice and through reflection produces theory through design practice (Koskinen et al. 2011, pp. 118–19). Design theory, in consequence, can be seen as an emergent property of the design process: theory is used to provide form and process, but through it, new and diverse theories are used to fully explore the research question. Given the complexity of the problems facing society, design has entered into the business space but also into government as a way of finding new solutions to unmet needs. Likewise, civil society itself has made use of design to meet these needs by themselves in the form of social innovation and/ or social entrepreneurship. Common to all of these applications are the following features: (1) the urgency to address ‘wicked’ problems; (2) the imperative to work in networked environments to meet needs often built into complex socio-technical systems; and (3) a desire to reduce risk, and also serve better, by anticipating use. For these reasons, design, and particularly participatory design, has proven itself well-adept as a process to enhance and diffuse social resources (Ehn 2008; Manzini and Rizzo 2011); put more simply, it engages relevant actors – citizens, consumers, suppliers, and so on – in the design process, empowering each as a valid contributor of a form of expert knowledge – whether that be of lived experience or more explicit, technical forms of knowledge – and providing a shared experience through which to relate and create common knowledge and understanding (→ CO-CREATION IN SOCIAL INNOVATION). Moreover, it provides artefacts that act as ‘boundary objects’ (Star and Griesemer 1989) and conversational tools (Manzini and Rizzo 2011) to encourage knowledge sharing, discussion and reflection on different accounts and perspectives of the problem that foster understanding in the diverse constellations of actors that often form and/or support social innovations. The challenge for design in social innovation – as paralleled in other sectors – is the fact that the world is changing and requires more input and ‘on the field’ confrontation that goes against the more traditional, studio work of designers. It requires opening the design process up to more sources of knowledge and diffuse designers (Manzini 2015). These

118

Design for social innovation  119

non-designers take part in co-designing the solution, in teams in which an expert designer may or may not be present. We can therefore notice a dialectic between different epistemological fields in which each is (hopefully) nudging the other to co-evolve and expand in the new paradigms emerging and shaping the twenty-first century (a clear example of such can be observed in the unfolding global Covid-19 pandemic whose full effects are yet to be seen at the time of writing, but whose immediate effects are dramatically changing – or perhaps merely accelerating changes in some cases – how we work, provide services, interact and support each other).

Design for social innovation: some research findings

In order to gain some research insight on how design is being used in developing social innovations, we can look at two examples that serve to (1) better understand the importance of design for social innovation in general, and (2) to contextualize current research streams. The case will help to frame an understanding of design for social innovation that builds a strong connection with the roots of social design, which was already bridging social and environmental questions, and looking at complex systems as objects of design and planning, an attitude coming from studies linking design and cybernetics (Pask 1969). One example can be found in the use of design to co-create the library of the future, Dokk1 Urban Mediaspace, in Aarhus, Denmark. The main objective was to re-conceptualize the public library system given that access to online resources is more and more diffused. The digitalization of knowledge and content has effectively stripped libraries of their foundational purpose. The innovation of the case lies in: (1) the participatory design method adopted to develop the project over the years that combined the need of engaging citizens and stakeholders with the presence of professional designers, (2) the experimentation of a new form of governance of public services and spaces by social engagement, (3) the new concept of public library. First, citizens were involved in the creation of the vision and values of the project. The services and activities in the Mediaspace were further developed with a broad par-

ticipation of users, employees, children, and other possible users of the building in co-design workshops and activities. The case demonstrates the key role that design (meant as a set of professional competences) played in creating inclusive growth in which citizens and other local stakeholders co-defined the vision, physical spaces and services offered. On the one hand, the relationship between citizens and institutions improved and, on the other hand, the offered services improved thanks to the contribution and experience brought by the direct input of citizens and staff. In this first example, we can see design methods used to anticipate future use, for which the engagement of users and other system actors in the design process is pivotal for success. In the second example, we look at a case of policy as a social innovation (Reynolds et al. 2020). In 2014, Bologna issued its Regulations on the collaboration between citizens and the Public Administration for the guardianship and regeneration of common goods (RCG). It marked the beginning of a journey towards a new vision of community life in Bologna. The RCG, along with a re-configuration of the Public Administration was part of the political project Collaborare è Bologna (Collaborating is Bologna), which sought to foster civic collaboration through both material and immaterial tools. The driving idea was to innovate and renew the identity of the city around a new model of citizen engagement based on a tradition of subsidiarity and de-centralization of political action. The creation of spaces for dialogue was instrumental to this objective. The RCG, as of 2018, has enabled 400 active Collaboration Agreements, translating to around 15,000 square metres of cleaned urban walls and the requalification of 20 schools and 40 green areas. Part of this plan saw the creation of Quarter Labs to carry out citizen-public administration activities like the annual Participatory Budget, in which citizens work with public officials to make a proposal on how and what to spend a specified budget each year. These labs employ co-design tools in their workshops with citizens and city officials to define the projects to pursue. Here the project developed without an explicit design leadership but tools and methodology from co-design were imported and applied. Alessandro Deserti and Francesca Rizzo

120  Encyclopedia of social innovation

In this second example, we can observe the robustness of co-design methods to catalyse and direct participatory processes and provide structure that allows for the multiple voices and perspectives to be heard, accounted for and valued in the journey towards a shared vision. Similar to Dokk1, the engagement of different actors along the process was strategic in order to make effective use of the social resources (Ehn 2008) at hand. But differently from Dokk1 here design methods were used by non-designers (civil servants and practitioners from the field of social innovation). The second case points then to a different research area, particularly the need to understand how design tools and methods are adapted to fit local contexts, how co-design is used by non-professional designers in the implementation process and how this ‘disrupts’ traditional innovation practices in the identified contexts, as well as a reflection on the links between theory and practice. These examples show how design research conceive social innovation as collaborative and innovative services that can be designed, prototyped, tested and implemented (Rizzo et al. 2020; Brown and Wyatt 2010). Design research and design competences can contribute to social innovation development by providing a unique approach to it as a form of innovation that is based on a dialectic between theory and practice: put simply, design affords institutions the possibility of experimenting, while also reducing risk by providing an iterative method, that values knowledge in its many forms (i.e. lay, explicit, tacit, visual, lived, etc.) and favours probing and intuition to instruction and protocol, in which theories are (co‑)developed, tested and re-worked in tandem with solutions. In short, it guides a process that grants foresight by engaging service providers, end users and other system actors in the co-design of the solution while satisfying the mandate of urgency to meet pressing needs. In regard to the implementation of social innovation, there is often a gap. Design tools and methods are often used in the idea generation phase (where there is one) but rarely in its implementation. The two phases are disconnected, carrying with it implications on the development of the original value proposition and the final design. Prototyping is also emerging as a key component of the process, and the investigation of its meaning in contexts that are quite diverse and difAlessandro Deserti and Francesca Rizzo

ferent from the ones in which they were originally used is becoming urgent (Kimbell and Bailey 2017; Campo Castillo and Rizzo 2020). In design research, prototypes can be understood as enablers of experimental research. Through prototyping, social innovation can be observed before it exists or when it is under construction, which allows for an approach which is not based on ex-post observation alone, but also on ex-ante simulation. In other words, design allows for foreseeing, testing and ex-ante assessment. A reflection about the specificity of the object to be prototyped (social innovation) and the changes in the required knowledge that this specificity brings about is needed. Some barriers to prototyping in social innovation exist in the idea that the entire solution needs to be prototyped. This is problematic given the large number of actors involved, the urgency to get it done, and the limited resources at disposal. This presumption, however, negates the very nature of prototyping in design in which these artefacts act as mediums to test imagination, remaining as knowledge holders of lessons learned, possible alternatives and tangible representations of knowledge for continued interaction and iteration. In other words, prototypes can test single interactions at different touchpoints of the service or be paper-based requiring very little financial investment. Entire services can also be tested in fairly economic terms when provided the right conditions. In conclusion, design can help social innovations in the initial phases of the social innovation process by providing a methodology that directs experimentation and bricolage. Through fast, iterative prototyping and participatory design tools, it can help reduce risk by anticipating certain needs (or nuances of those needs) that remain on the more tacit level. Moreover, by engaging diverse stakeholders around the solution at an early stage, design can ease implementation difficulties by creating buy-in and advanced knowledge on the innovation. Research in design for social innovation stands to play an important and decisive role in the future of social innovation development.

The role of design research in social innovation development

Given the project-based nature of design research (Findeli et al. 2008) or rather its

Design for social innovation  121

focus on construction – product, system, space or media – as a means to build knowledge (Koskinen et al. 2011, p. 5), design research methods and tools have been used in the field of social innovation as an operative approach towards its implementation. Due to the nature of social innovation, which is made up of services and interaction among people, design methods and tools primarily come from the fields of service and interaction design, and include a co-design approach as a key feature, even if it can be problematized. Rooted in the tradition of participatory design co-design brings users into the design team (Visser et al. 2005) as experts of their experiences (Sanders and Stappers 2008) in a joint enquiry of the problem/needs and the possible solutions. Co-design can be defined as ‘designers and people not trained in design working together in the design development process’ (Sanders and Stappers 2008, p. 9). As such, it threatens existing power structures by dismissing and going beyond the ‘expert’ mindset. In fact, while user-centred design was widespread in the 1990s in consumer product development, it fails to address the complexity of twenty-first century problems that require a shift towards a more egalitarian viewpoint on idea sharing and knowledge holding, regarding future users as experts and active co-designers rather than passive participants. The shift in designing with people rather than for people has led to the increased use of design for social good (Brown and Wyatt 2010; Manzini 2015) and design in the public interest (Junginger 2013). While co-design promises a more democratic participation in public value creation processes, Mintrom and Luetjens (2016, p. 393) point out that the issue of representation in who is actually participating in these processes and the knowledge they bring with them is not clear. Resolving this is particularly important for the future of design in social and public sector innovation, especially as it is being evaluated against other strategies, namely evidence-based policymaking (McGann et al. 2018). An emerging problem regarding the uptake of design can be seen in the ‘legitimacy’ of decisions based on the ‘depth and breadth of involvement’ (O’Rafferty et al. 2016, p. 3586) of citizens and other end users in the design process rather than the rigour

of more analytical techniques (McGann et al. 2018, p.254), highlighting once again issues regarding different forms of knowing. The inclusion of non-designers, or diffuse designers (Manzini 2015) in design processes and activities is a relevant issue as design seeks to respond to emerging problems nested in complex, sociotechnical systems (Norman and Stappers, 2015). In sum, design research has the potential of offering social innovation a way to be informed and led by theory and method, while actively engaging in the development of the innovation. This is a unique contribution compared with other disciplines; moreover, as a truly multi-disciplinary approach, it promises to include different approaches and methods in the process. Alessandro Deserti and Francesca Rizzo

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Alexander, C. (1964), Notes on the Synthesis of Form, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Archer, B. (1979), ‘Design as a discipline’, Design Studies, 1 (1), pp. 17–20. Brown, T. and Wyatt, J. (2010), ‘Design thinking for social innovation’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter 2010. Campo Castillo A. and Rizzo, F. (2020), ‘Prototyping in design for policy: uncertainty and policymakers’ engagement’, Proceedings of ICERI2020, 13th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation, 9–10 November. Cross, N. (1982), ‘Designerly ways of knowing’, Design Studies, 3 (4), pp. 221–7. Deserti, A. and Rizzo, F. (2014), ‘Design and the cultures of enterprises’, Design Issues, 30 (1), pp. 36–6. Deserti, A. and Rizzo, F. (2019), ‘Context dependency of social innovation: in search of new sustainability models’, European Planning Studies, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​09654313​ .2019​.1634005. Durrant, A. C., Vines, J., Wallace, J. and Yee J. S. R. (2017), ‘Research through design: twenty-first century makers and materialities’, Design Issues, 33 (3), pp. 3–10. Ehn, P. (2008), ‘Participation in design things’, in D. Hakken, J. Simonsen and T. Robertson (eds), Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary

Alessandro Deserti and Francesca Rizzo

122  Encyclopedia of social innovation Conference on Participatory Design 2008, Bloomington: Indiana University, pp. 92–101. Findeli, A., Brouillet, D., Martin, S., Moineau, C. and Tarrago, R. (2008), ‘Research through design and transdisciplinarity: a tentative contribution to the methodology of design research’, paper presented at the Focused: Swiss Design Network Symposium, Berne, 30 May. Jones, J. C. (1970), Design Methods: Seeds of Human Futures, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Junginger, S. (2013), ‘Design and innovation in the public sector: matters of design in policy-making and policy implementation’, paper presented at the 10th European Academy of Design Conference – Crafting the Future, 17 April. Kimbell, L. (2009), ‘Beyond design thinking: design-as-practice and designs-in-practice’, paper presented at the CRESC Conference, Manchester, pp. 1–15. Kimbell, L. and Bailey, J. (2017), ‘Prototyping and the new spirit of policy-making’, Codesign, 13, pp. 214–26. Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redström, J. and Wensveen, S. (2011), Design Research through Practice: From the Lab, Field and Showroom, Waltham, MA: Morgan Kaufmann. Manzini, E. (2015), Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Manzini, E. and Rizzo, F. (2011), ‘Small projects/large changes: participatory design as an open participated process’, CoDesign, 7 (3–4), pp. 199–215. Martin, R. (2009), Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. McGann, M., Blomkamp, E. and Lewis, J. (2018), ‘The rise of public sector innovation labs: experiments in design thinking for policy’, Policy Sciences, 51, pp. 249–67. Mintrom, M. and Luetjens, J. (2016), ‘Design thinking in policymaking processes: opportu-

Alessandro Deserti and Francesca Rizzo

nities and challenges’, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 75 (3), pp. 391–402. Norman, D. A. and Stappers, P. J. (2015), ‘DesignX: complex sociotechnical systems’, She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 1 (2), pp. 83–94. O’Rafferty, S., de Eyto, A. and Lewis, H. J. (2016), ‘Open practices: lessons from co-design of public services for behaviour change’, in P. Lloyd and E. Bohemia (eds), DRS2016: Design + Research + Society – Future-Focused Thinking, Brighton: Design Research Society, pp. 3573–90. Pask, G. (1969), ‘The architectural relevance of cybernetics’, Architectural Design, 7 (6), pp. 494–6. Reynolds, S., Gabriel, M. and Heales, C. (2020), D5.3: Annual State of the Union Report – Part 1: Social Innovation Policy in Europe: Where Next? Deliverable No. D5.3, Brussels: European Commission, accessed 3 June 2022 at https://​media​.nesta​.org​.uk/​documents/​social​ _innovation​_policy​_in​_europe​_​-​_where​_next​ .pdf. Rizzo, F., Deserti, A. and Komatsu, T. T. (2020), ‘Implementing social innovation in real contexts’, International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 11 (1), pp. 45 – 67. Sanders, E. B.-N. and Stappers, P. J. (2008), ‘Co-creation and the new landscapes of design’, CoDesign, 4 (1), pp. 5–18. Simon, H. (1969), The Sciences of the Artificial, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Star, S. L. and Griesemer, J. R. (1989), ‘Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39’, Social Studies of Science, 19 (3), pp. 387–420. Visser, S. F., Stappers, P. J., Lugt, R. V. d., and Sanders, E. B. N. (2005), ‘Contextmapping: experiences from practice’, CoDesign, 1 (2), pp. 119–49.

22. Diffusion Diffusion theory

The term diffusion has several points of reference. Etymologically, it means something like flowing apart, scattering or spreading. In chemistry and physics, it describes the mixing of different substances in the form of an undirected, passive transport process. In the context of sociology, ethnology, diffusion research and theory it describes forms of ‘the spread and adoption of new cultural elements’ (Zwahr 2006).1 Diffusion research feeds on ‘a multitude of different scientific traditions […] which, largely isolated from each other, dealt with questions of the diffusion of innovations in their respective fields until the 1960s’ (Karnowski 2011, p. 33). The sources include anthropology, communication science and business administration, as well as sociology in particular. In Diffusion of Innovations, first published in 1962, Everett M. Rogers analysed the state of research on diffusion phenomena as part of processes of social change. Based on this, he was the first who developed a theoretical framework for understanding the diffusion of innovations outside the context of the natural sciences. He conceptualizes diffusion as a complex, largely unplannable, risky process in a social system based on communication. Rogers characterizes diffusion as ‘a kind of social change, defined as the process by which alteration occurs in the structure and function of a social system. […] We use the word “diffusion” to include both the planned and the spontaneous spread of new ideas’ (Rogers 2003, p. 6). Rogers’ initially universal approach is subsequently increasingly narrowed to the economic sector, which is shaped by market logic (Evers and Brandsen 2016, p. 171). He focuses his interest on factors that influence the willingness to adopt an innovation, how the adoption rate develops over time, and which communication channels are important for that process (Karnowski 2011, p. 36). This programmatic core was formative for many researchers in subsequent decades. Despite considerable successes in the field of research and practice, this approach led to theoretical and methodological stagnation. ‘There is an apparent paradox at work: the

number of diffusion studies continues at a high rate while the growth of appropriate theory is at an apparent standstill’ (Katz 1999, p. 145). Diffusion research works with ‘(1) quantitative data, (2) concerning a single innovation, (3) collected from adopters, (4) at a single point in time, (5) after widespread diffusion had already taken place’ (Meyer 2004, p. 59). Further points of criticism are the conceptual separation of invention, innovation and diffusion, the ex-post orientation, the assumed linearity of the process, the dichotomization of adoption (acceptance/ rejection), the primary focus on correlative relationships, and the loss of diversity of diffusion objects: ‘Early research on dissemination of news, ideas information, culture, networks, and health behaviour is no longer the focus of diffusion research. Rather, the current focus is generally limited to the diffusion of new technologies’ (Vishwaneth and Barnett 2011, p. 1). Although Rogers’ concept of innovation initially also encompassed social innovations, no specific diffusion mechanisms were developed.

Diffusion in the focus of social innovation research

Diffusion is an important but fuzzy term in the social innovation literature with a long history (Banks 1972). The meanings vary between condition, main goal, crucial feature, process phase and success factor of social innovation. The core question of whether and how initially singular, locally limited social innovations spread beyond their immediate context of origin (possibly worldwide) cannot be adequately answered by concepts such as diffusion or scaling, which originate from the social entrepreneurship context and are placed in the life cycle of social innovations as a precursor and condition for systemic change (Murray et al. 2010). Social innovations cover a wide range of topics. Accordingly, the specific configuration, features, and processes of diffusion and institutionalization differ strongly from each other (Howaldt and Schwarz 2010, pp. 64 ff.). Social inventions can be introduced via the market or via the public sector (e.g. as new services, business models, supply and utilization concepts), via technological infrastructures (web-based social networking), via social networks, social movements, initiatives, via state guidelines and so on.

123

124  Encyclopedia of social innovation

Such processes from first ideas to the implementation of a social innovation or a change in social practice are complex, discontinuous and contradictory. They are usually processed over long periods of time in a kind of endless loop. Greenhalgh et al. (2004) confirm the singular character of diffusion processes on the basis of their empirical studies of innovations in service organizations. Social innovations in local welfare showed clear differences depending on the object of innovation (e.g. goals, contents, concepts, structures, instruments) and the degree of innovation (copy, minor inspiration, hybrid variations of both) (Evers and Brandsen 2016). Their results underpin the importance of local intermediaries as innovation drivers. More important than high diffusion rates (as usually referred to in the economic field) are the cumulative effect of small changes and initiatives to change people’s ways of thinking and acting bringing new insertions into existing everyday practices (through bricolage, reconstruction and translation). Innovation, diffusion and institutionalization of the new are interwoven in unpredictable processes and do not follow sequentially one after the other, as with Rogers (Rogers 2003, p. 5).

Diffusion of social innovation as part of a theory of social change

There is a growing recognition in international research on social innovation that a deeper understanding of how social innovation comes about requires a social theory-based understanding of the relationship between social innovation and social change (Mulgan 2015; Howaldt and Schwarz 2021) (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION AND SOCIAL CHANGE). A diffusion theory is needed that clarifies the relationship between social innovation and social change. Against this background, a number of approaches have emerged in recent years that focus on the relationship between both. In this respect, Gabriel Tarde has done fundamental work. ‘From an analytic viewpoint, Tarde is interested in the modes of diffusion of novel ideas (namely imitation …) and the obstacles they encounter, both making up the dynamics of social change he seeks to analyse’ (Godin and Schubert 2021). He transforms systematically the everyday

language term of imitation into a precise and multidimensional scientific-analytical construct (Tarde 2009a, 2009b). In this sense, the concept of imitation underpins an understanding of innovation, which focuses on social practices. Only these can be imitated. Practices of organization, consumption and production, and use of technological artefacts are the focus of analytical interest. The imitative spread of social ideas or initiatives tend to connect and combine with other inventions forming increasingly complex and extensive social innovations. Social innovations become the starting point for understanding social conditions and how they change. Development and change are enabled by invention, by successful initiatives that are imitated and hence become (social) innovations. These initiatives are key drivers in social transformation processes. Already Rogers was inspired by Tarde’s reflections (Rogers 2003, p. 41). But whereas Tarde’s sociology is interested in the genesis of the new as social practice, Rogers takes innovation (as generally rational problem-solving produced by science and technology) for granted and focuses on its transfer into different areas of application. Society as source of innovation and creativity is a blind spot. What Rogers defines as diffusion of an idea or technology, for example, means that diffusion follows innovation (Rogers 2003, p. 11). According to Tarde, innovation and diffusion (respectively, invention and imitation) are not to separate. Inventions open up new opportunities, expose problems and shortcomings in established practices, initiate processes of learning and reflection, and ultimately enable new social practices (Tarde 2009b).

Perspectives from practice theories

Whereas traditional diffusion research offers ex-post explanations of how individual innovations have ended up in social practice, theories of social practices focus on the genesis of innovations and their role in processes of social change. They claim to overcome the dichotomies structure/action, subject/ object, rule/application, society/individual by focusing on social practices as the central theoretical and analytical category and last unit of sociality. The social world is therefore composed of very different practices: practices of governance, practices of organizing, practices of partnership, practices of

Jürgen Howaldt, Ralf Kopp and Michael Schwarz

Diffusion  125

negotiations, practices of self, and so on (Reckwitz 2003). Social practices are always present and reproduced, changed or modified by acting subjects. Schatzki (2019, pp. 135 ff.) distinguishes between social change and social changes, whereby the latter can be understood in sense of social innovation. Social changes operate at the level of linking chains of action, (material) events and processes and generate (significant) differences and changes in social life and social phenomena. Even simple and minor variances can initiate social change. More complex changes occur on the basis of dynamically interlocking social innovations. A competing approach to capture the complexity of socio-technical change is the multi-level perspective (MLP) dominating the field of innovation studies. System innovations refer to the change from one socio-technical system to another on the basis of co-evolutionary processes on three levels (Geels 2019). However, ‘MLP is not designed to understand the dynamics of social practice’ (Hargreaves et al. 2011, p. 18). The macro-theoretical evolutionary perspective needed a stronger (microfounded) relational process perspective. The challenge of advancing sustainable lifestyles and economic practices through innovation refers, at its core, to the theme of reconfiguring of social practices. To enforce ecologically sustainable routines and habits, Elizabeth Shove and colleagues developed a social-theoretical analytical framework. Instead of influencing individual behaviour and action, the key lever for a policy informed by practice theory is changing social practices and stimulating social innovations based on continuous new adaptation and configuration anchored in social practices themselves, which means real experiments with the participation of heterogeneous actors understood as carriers of social practices and in the context of an unequally self-organized co-evolutionary process (Shove et al. 2012, pp. 162 ff.). Centre of interest are context factors, social, collaborative as well as conflictual reconfigurations of (always ongoing) social practices within the framework of transdisciplinary communication, cooperation, real experiments and learning processes. They don’t appear as a result of transfer and diffusion, but as ‘outcome of socially embedded,

networked and gradual transformation processes, within the framework of which the creative impulse of the formative phase could be stabilised into new practices via cooperative forms of coordination with competing claims and restrictions on action, in order to lead to collective processes of (re)learning’ (Kropp 2013, p. 100). The exploration of these processes as intentional and reflexive reconfiguration of social practices is at the centre of the analysis of social innovations as generative mechanisms of social transformation processes. Summarizing the results of this debate, it becomes clear that the diffusion paths of social innovation cannot be adequately captured with the classic understanding of diffusion, but must be understood in the context of a general theory of social change.

Institutionalization and de-institutionalization

Practice theories and institutional theory show large overlaps and partly complementary strengths. While practice theory has strengths in describing processes of change and transformation, institutional theory is good at showing how new activities and practices become established. Against this ‘connecting practice theory with the institutional logics perspective provides a particularly attractive focal point for scholarship at this interface due to a variety of shared ontological and epistemological commitments, including the constitution of actors and their behavior’ (Lounsbury et al. 2021, p. 1). Against this background, institutionalization theories are important in that debate. Institutionalization and de-institutionalization are key concepts for describing the dynamics of social change (Zapf 1989; Pel et al. 2020) (→ THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF SOCIAL INNOVATIONS). Thus, different forms and degrees of institutionalization of social practices can be differentiated. This allows estimations about the stability or instability of social practices and requires an analysis of the parallel and interdependent processes of institutionalization and de-institutionalization through which social change is constituted. The relation between new and established social practices is relevant for investigating institutionalization dynamics. To analyse social innovations as

Jürgen Howaldt, Ralf Kopp and Michael Schwarz

126  Encyclopedia of social innovation

a driver of social change Cajaiba-Santana (2014) has proposed the merger of structuration theory (as a specific form of practice theory) and institutional theory. The combination of both approaches enables an analysis of how social institutions can favour or restrict the emergence of social innovations. Nilsson (2019) looks at ‘social innovation as institutional work’ and states a further development of social innovation from particular problem solving to a new socially critical movement in the twenty-first century. Institutional theory enables the study of the dynamics of social transformation involving a wide range of actors and interactions and assumes that micro and macro are mutually constitutive. The analysis of ‘institutional work’ includes all the ways actors deal with institutional structures (support, tear down, combine, transform, renew). A survey of institutionalization processes also requires consideration of the extent to which social movements are relevant as drivers for the realization and dissemination of social innovations (Moulaert et al. 2013).

Critical reflection and outlook

The expansion of the innovation zone (Rammert 2016) and a comprehensive understanding of innovation with emphasis on the particular importance of social innovation, poses new challenges to classic diffusion research with new challenges of a social theoretical (re)foundation. In the course of this change of perspective, recent approaches of the sociological theory of institutions and practice link up with classic concepts such as the social theory of Tarde (Howaldt et al. 2015) and become increasingly important. Rogers’ dualistic transfer-oriented diffusion approach of individual innovations is not able to cover a comprehensive understanding of innovation and innovation processes from the middle of society. What are missing are approaches illuminating the genesis and spread of innovations from the breadth of social practices. These approaches should be able to capture multiple innovation currents that are fed by an evolutionary interplay of invention, dynamics and experimental reconfiguration of social practices. The focus of attention is thus on the diverse, dynamically reinforcing, intersecting and contradictory

constellations of social practices as well as cross-sectoral actor constellations, learning processes, experiments and initiatives. Practice- and institutional-theoretical impulses should be taken up and further developed for analysis, explanation and dissemination of innovations as a referential process without beginning or end. Particularly in view of major social challenges, this by no means excludes the identification, publication and propagation of best practice cases and references to ‘pioneers of change’, but it does exclude misleading assumptions regarding the (simple) adoption of ready-made, exogenous solutions along the lines of: invented – tried – imitated (Kropp 2013). Crucial for the further theoretical-conceptual debate is the social-theoretical development of diffusion theory towards a comprehensive theory of social change. Jürgen Howaldt, Ralf Kopp and Michael Schwarz

Note 1.

Quotations from German-language sources were translated into English by the authors.

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Banks, J. A. (1972), ‘The diffusion of a social innovation’, in The Sociology of Social Movements. Studies in Sociology, London: Palgrave, pp. 29–40. Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014), ‘Social innovation: moving the field forward. A conceptual framework’, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 82 (C), pp. 42–51. Evers, A. and T. Brandsen (2016), ‘Social innovations as messages: democratic experimentation in local welfare systems’, in T. Brandsen, S. Cattacin, A. Evers and A. Zimmer (eds), Social Innovations in the Urban Context: Nonprofit and Civil Society Studies, New York and Cham: Springer, pp. 161–80. Geels, F. W. (2019), ‘Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: a review of criticisms and elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective’, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 39, pp. 187–201. Godin, B. and C. Schubert (2021), ‘Research on the history of innovation: from the spiritual to the social’, in J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka and A. Schröder (eds), A Research Agenda for Social

Jürgen Howaldt, Ralf Kopp and Michael Schwarz

Diffusion  127 Innovation, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 21–38. Greenhalgh, T., G. Robert, F. Macfarlane, P. Bate and O. Kyriakidou (2004), ‘Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations’, The Milbank Quarterly, 82 (4), pp. 1–37. Hargreaves, T., A. Haxeltine, N. Longhurst and G. Seyfang (2011), ‘Sustainability transitions from the bottom up: civil society, the multi-level perspective and practice theory’, CSERGE Working Paper 2011–01, University of East Anglia, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE). Howaldt, J., R. Kopp and M. Schwarz (2015), On the Theory of Social Innovations: Tarde’s Neglected Contribution to the Development of a Sociological Innovation Theory, Weinheim and Basel: Beltz, accessed 13 September 2021 at https://​www​.ssoar​.info/​ssoar/​handle/​ document/​41963. Howaldt, J. and M. Schwarz (2010), ‘Social innovation: concepts, research fields and international trends’. Studies for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment, Volume 5, Aachen, accessed 10 March 2022 at https://​sfs​.sowi​.tu​-dortmund​.de/​storages/​sfs​ -sowi/​r/​Publikationen/​Soziale​_Innovation​ _Publikationen/​Social​_Innovation​_Concepts​ _​_Research​_Fields​_and​_Trends​.pdf. Howaldt, J. and M. Schwarz (2021), ‘Social innovation and social change’, in J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka and A. Schröder (eds), A Research Agenda for Social Innovation, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 39–58. Karnowski, V. (2011), Diffusionstheorien, Baden-Baden: Nomos. Katz, E. (1999), ‘Theorizing diffusion: Tarde and Sorokin revisited’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566 (1), pp. 144–55. Kropp, C. (2013), ‘Nachhaltige Innovationen – eine Frage der Diffusion?’, in J. Rückert-John (ed.), Soziale Innovation und Nachhaltigkeit, Perspektiven sozialen Wandels, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 87–102. Lounsbury, M., D. A. Anderson and P. Spee (2021), ‘On practice and institution’, in M. Lounsbury, D. A. Anderson and P. Spee (eds), On Practice and Institution: Theorizing the Interface, Bingley: Emerald Publishing, pp. 1–28. Meyer, G. (2004), ‘Diffusion methodology: time to innovate?’, Journal of Health Communication, 9 (1), pp. 59–69. Moulaert, F., D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood and A. Hamdouch (2013), ‘General introduction:

the return of social innovation as a scientific concept and a social practice’, in F. Moulaert, D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood and A. Hamdouch (eds), The International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 1–6. Mulgan, G. (2015), ‘Foreword: the study of social innovation – theory, practice and progress’, in A. Nicholls, J. Simon and M. Gabriel (eds), New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. x–xx. Murray, R., J. Caulier-Grice and G. Mulgan (2010), The Open Book of Social Innovation, Social Innovator Series: Ways to Design, Develop and Grow Social Innovation, London: The Young Foundation, accessed 13 September 2021 at https://​youngfoundation​ .org/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2012/​10/​The​-Open​ -Book​-of​-Social​-Innovationg​.pdf. Nilsson, W. (2019), ‘Social innovation as institutional work’, in G. George, T. Baker, P. Tracey and H. Joshi (eds), Handbook of Inclusive Innovation: The Role of Organizations, Markets and Communities in Social Innovation, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 284–304. Pel, B., A. Haxeltine, F. Avelino, A. Dumitru, R. Kemp, T. Bauler et al. (2020), ‘Towards a theory of transformative social innovation: a relational framework and 12 propositions’, Research Policy, 49 (8), 104080. Rammert, W. (2016), ‘Die Ausweitung der Innovationszone’, in W. Rammert, A. Windeler, H. Knoblauch and M. Hutter (eds), Innovationsgesellschaft heute: Perspektiven, Felder und Fälle, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 3–14. Reckwitz, A. (2003), ‘Grundelemente einer Theorie sozialer Praktiken. Eine sozialtheoretische Perspektiveʼ, Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 32 (4), pp. 282–300. Rogers, E. M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edition, New York: Free Press. Schatzki, T. R. (2019), Social Change in a Material World, London and New York: Routledge. Shove, E., M. Pantzar and M. Watson (2012), The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How It Changes, Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Tarde, G. (2009a), Die sozialen Gesetze: Skizze einer Soziologie, Marburg: Metropolis. Tarde, G. (2009b), Die Gesetze der Nachahmung, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Vishwanath, A. and G. Barnett (2011), ‘Introductionʼ, in A. Vishwanath and G. Barnett (eds), The Diffusion of Innovation.

Jürgen Howaldt, Ralf Kopp and Michael Schwarz

128  Encyclopedia of social innovation A Communication Science Perspective, New York: Peter Lang, pp. 1–7. Zapf, W. (1989), ‘Über soziale Innovationenʼ, Soziale Welt, 40, pp. 170–83.

Zwahr, A. (2006), Meyers Großes Taschenlexikon, 10th edition, Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut & F.A. Brockhaus AG.

Jürgen Howaldt, Ralf Kopp and Michael Schwarz

23. Grassroots innovation for transformative social change Introduction: conceptualizing grassroots social innovation

Social change is a complex and dynamic process inherently located within local contextual realities. Therefore, social innovations that attempt to bring about social change need to understand the diversities and pluralities that might exist within such contexts (Banerjee and Shaban 2019). However, the mainstream narratives of social innovation and their techno-managerial approach often separate the problem from people and its context, system and location (Behar 2018). Grassroots innovations have therefore emerged as a counter-narrative that centres the local actors within their contexts. Banerjee (2019) further mentions that grassroots innovations primarily focus on the processes of intervention in addressing social, economic and political problems at the local level through peoples’ participation and community-led solutions. Further, it has been conceptualized as community-driven social innovation aiming to develop local and sustainable solutions by mobilizing networks of neighbours, community groups, and organizations (Smith et al. 2016; Weerakoon and McMurray 2021). The centrality of actors and actor networks therefore emerges as a key understanding in the conceptualization of grassroots innovations. The centring of people’s voices, their needs and lived experiences in the process of social and grassroots innovation thus becomes especially relevant within the context of poverty, inequality and marginality in both the global South and North. Grassroots innovations aim to reflect a people-centric approach in social innovation which not only helps in integrating the epistemic diversities located in the specific context and intersectionality of people’s lived experiences, but also has the potential for epistemic inclusion (Banerjee and Shaban 2021). Smith and Seyfand (2013) define grassroots innovation as networks of activists and organizations generating bottom-up

solutions for sustainable development; solutions that respond to the local situation and the interests and values of the communities involved. The drivers of such grassroots innovations are often people from marginalized communities themselves, but they use their collective power and knowledge to drive social innovations. Gupta (2012) suggests that necessity, hardship and challenges in accessibility and sustainability of the system trigger the development of innovations at the bottom of the pyramid. Further, Bhaduri and Kumar (2010) mention that the need-driven grassroots innovation at the bottom of the pyramid focuses on individuals and marginalized groups as agents for innovation. Grassroots innovation is thus seen as a radical shift in the social innovation discourse that moves away from the glorified elite individual entrepreneur-/innovator-driven change to a change that is driven by community-based collectives/actor networks that identify their own needs and participate in the innovation processes. Grassroots innovation therefore can also be seen as a movement in itself, generating innovative activity that aims for practical expressions of core social values that contribute to alternative pathways (Smith et al. 2014). Thus, the key characteristics of grassroots social innovation could be identified as follows. 1. Priorities and drivers – innovations in addressing needs of specific local contexts, livelihoods, sustainable developments (Smith et al. 2014). 2. Actors/new actor networks – driven by local actors, community-based collectives, and actor networks. 3. Key resources and strategies – local and intersectional knowledge. 4. Social Value – collectivization, cooperation, challenging power hierarchies and structural inequities, participation of local/marginalized groups in local contexts, processes of empowerment. This entry is divided into three key sections. The introduction section outlines the concepts and relevance of grassroots social innovation. Section two highlights the key findings emerging from research and practice in grassroots social innovation and the concluding section elucidates a way forward. Some of the key objectives of this entry therefore include (1) building a critical and

129

130  Encyclopedia of social innovation

people-centred understanding on grassroots social innovation, (2) exploring and analysing the key findings from research and practice in grassroots social innovation within diverse contexts and (3) understanding the ways and challenges to re-politicize social innovation through grassroots social innovation and exploring a future research and practice agenda for the same.

Key findings

This section explores the key findings, including concepts and complexities of grassroots social innovation emerging from research and practice, and their relation to transformative social change. It further attempts to unpack the inherent perspectives, dilemmas and contestations within the same and identifies specific sub-themes for systematically reimagining social innovation through grassroots social innovation. Power, politics and collective action in grassroots social innovation Seyfand, Smith and Longhurst (2010) talks of collective action and sustainability in grassroots innovations through empirical evidence of community energy projects in UK and elaborates that such collective initiatives vis-à-vis individual ones help in overcoming a sense of powerlessness. The understanding of power and politics is increasingly gaining importance in discussions on social innovation and social change (→ POWER AND EMPOWERMENT IN SOCIAL INNOVATION) (Avelino 2021; Moulaert et al. 2007; Teasdale et al. 2021; Banerjee and Shaban 2021), and this becomes especially relevant within the micro-context of grassroots social innovation. Power thus forms an important analytical perspective in grassroots social innovation, which is explained as follows: We can think of power dialectically as the (in) capacity of actors to mobilise means to achieve ends. Hence, the challenge for social change and innovation research is to approach the notion of power dialectically and broadly in terms of the human (in)capacity to change what ‘is’ into that which humanity thinks ‘ought to be’. This comes with a complex set of dimensions, in which capacity by one actor at one level can imply incapacity elsewhere, and in which power is both enabling and constraining.

This includes both power to and power over ... (original emphasis; Avelino 2021, p. 440)

Thus, within a context of ‘power over’, where one group has absolute power over another due to structural inequalities (including gender, caste, class, race, identity), ‘power with’ is that collective power which creates new possibilities to address ‘power over’. This is the idea central to empowered actor networks within the context of grassroots social innovation, which also helps to expand the ‘power within’ and agency of individual actors, creating increased participation in the innovation process. Further, Smith and Seyfand (2013) through an example of people’s participation in low energy earth-sheltered dwelling, talk of how not only the outcome, but processes themselves are empowering and transformative for those participating in the same. Recognizing social inequality and diversities for inclusive grassroots innovation While community plays a crucial role in grassroots innovation and the focus is on collective action, it is important to recognize the challenges of social inequality and local complexities within which people participate or are unable to participate in social innovations. The experiences of people within these micro-contexts are often shaped by a complex constellation of mutually reinforcing social hierarchies, such as, patriarchy, caste and kinship, landownership, religious identities, and the politics of patronage (Naveed 2021). Cornwall (1998) discusses the dynamics of community engagement and participation and mentions that without an understanding of the context of social inequalities, community action plans can easily become plans of powerful minority. Banerjee, Santos and Hulgard (2021) reiterate that social inequality, diversities and everyday struggles of people’s lives require a deeper understanding within the discourse of social innovation for a more inclusive process at the grassroots. We further assume that diversities that enable grassroots social innovation, therefore, consist of the cultural diversity of empowered actor networks, where groups are placed horizontally and not vertically in unequal structures. Diversity and socio-economic and political empowerment of actors thus helps community groups to develop innovative

Swati Banerjee, Abdul Shaban and Shrirang Chaudhary

Grassroots innovation for transformative social change  131

ways to build solidarities and negotiate with their unequal socio-political and economic contexts, including the market. This is especially relevant in poverty-driven rural areas globally (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION AND POVERTY AND MARGINALIZATION), especially in the global South, that suffer from lack of opportunities to access the market and other institutions (Vachani and Smith 2008). These insights are important to build a perspective of grassroots social innovation that moves away from an instrumental perspective of social and grassroots innovation to a transformative understanding of the same. Innovations in complex local contexts: learnings from the grassroots Banerjee, Santos and Hulgard (2021) articulate those grassroots innovations which occur within complex micro-contexts, networks and spaces. Community awareness about their needs and their knowledge is the underlying premise for a variety of collaborative and innovative initiatives within these micro-contexts. A significant example of such grassroots innovation is Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA). SEWA, established in 1972 by women workers in Gujarat, is today globally recognized as one of the largest trade union of women workers in the informal economy that supports the formation of member-based collective organizations to secure economic, social and legal rights of marginalized women. SEWA is not only an innovation that focuses on socio-economic development but is also a community voice for equality, for thousands of marginalized women (May 2010; Datta 2000). In the context of socio-ecological innovation, PANI foundation emerged as a systematic programme to collaborate with the community in achieving water security in drought regions of Maharashtra. This programmatic social innovation successfully collectivized the communities to take personal efforts under the thought leadership of film-makers, communicators, advisors with rich experience in agriculture, water and soil conservation, and community mobilization (Devkar et al. 2020). The comparative study of four social initiatives in neighbourhoods of Nou Barris Nord and Sants in Barcelona, Spain (Eizaguirre and Parés 2019) also illustrates active local initiative in addressing their

needs. Within the context of Latin America, Smith and Seyfand (2013) discuss the relevance of grassroots innovation for inclusion of local communities by focusing on the technologies for social inclusion movement in the region. These territorial approaches of social innovation point to organisation in complex local contexts through active participation of diverse and marginalized groups and communities. Shaban and Narnaware (2020) frame it as neo-localism and context-based development, where there is a renewed sense of geographic belonging, which provides local groups and communities with the possibilities of cultivating a sense of local in a quickly globalizing world. They further add that this is what development and innovation is about – context-based, people-based and equity-based. Thus, these new emergences and models create new possibilities in an era of global shifts. Epistemologies of the grassroots for plural, creative and inclusive social innovation Smith and Seyfand (2013) re-establish the importance of local knowledge in the process of grassroots innovations and mention the significance of local actors/actor networks and their different forms of knowledge, including community-based and indigenous knowledge. Lived experiences and knowledge of local actors are thus important for collective action and innovation in relation to their micro-social contexts and needs. Santos (2016) further proposes the need for reconfiguration of plural knowledge of local actors through ecologies of knowledge. This is further reinforced by Naveed and Arnot (2019) by highlighting that an awareness of these local hierarchies, entangled within the global power relations of knowledge production could shape our abilities to listen to the ‘voices of the poor’ at the grassroots to understand their experiences and aspirations. The foundations and relevance of such plural knowledge has been identified by Chambers (2008, p. 177), where he identifies two foundations for eclectic pluralism. He mentions that the first is about flexibility, creativity, diversity, hybridization, and local and contextual fit and the second is about methodological pluralism and co-production of knowledge with local actors at the grassroots. This argument thus leads to an emergence of epistemologies of the grassroots, broadening

Swati Banerjee, Abdul Shaban and Shrirang Chaudhary

132  Encyclopedia of social innovation

the scope of grassroots innovation towards inclusion, grassroots democracy and epistemic justice.

Critical reflections for a future research and practice agenda

Increasingly grassroots innovation is gaining importance in national and international agenda for its potential for social change that attempts to focus on inclusion, agency, participation, social and epistemic justice and solidarities. Key questions that emerge from the above discussion for reimagining social innovation through grassroots innovation include: (1) How do we situate the micro-context and the real experiences and struggles of people to create empowered actor networks that respond to local needs? (2) How do we look at the holistic and transdisciplinary approach to social and grassroots social innovation that enables inclusion and people’s agency through an understanding of social inequality, diversity and intersectionalities? (3) How do we understand people’s knowledge and alternate world views and how can such world views through our research and action help in policy advocacy? (4) How do we support solidarity across groups, across organizations, across movements for creating possibilities of new action and wide-scale diffusion through collective values and vision? Chambers (2008, p. 174) conceptualizes people-centredness in grassroots and participatory research and innovation through an understanding of the ‘paradigm of people’ which he says can illuminate realities that are obscured or misperceived through linear, control oriented, standardized, top-down approaches. The effort is thus to look at and support collective actions of grassroots actors and especially marginalized groups through research and practice in social and grassroots innovations worldwide for building a change agenda that is transformative. The challenge is also to nurture the idea(lism) of grassroots innovation into reality; a reality that needs time, patience and commitment towards grassroots democracy and a reality that creates dreams and expands people’s agency. Another critical debate here is how grassroots innovations effect transformative social change through wide-scale diffusion. Smith et al. (2014) mention the struggles of many

grassroots innovation movements seeking wide-scale diffusion while being locally specific. However, as Hermans et al. (2016) mention, grassroots innovation movements may develop as sub movements over time to deal with their own ways of wide-scale diffusion. The distributed agency of several innovation movements highlights the potential of grassroots innovations to address the needs of the contexts better, and simultaneously facilitate participation of local actors at the grassroots, widening the scope for structural changes with wider application. Swati Banerjee, Abdul Shaban and Shrirang Chaudhary

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Avelino, F. (2021), ‘Theories of power and social change: power contestations and their implications for research on social change and innovation’, Journal of Political Power, 14 (3), pp. 425–48. Banerjee, S. (2019), ‘Social innovation in South Asia’, in J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka, A. Schröder and M. Zirngiebl (eds), Atlas of Social Innovation: New Practices for a Better Future, Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle, TU Dortmund University. Banerjee, S. and Shaban, A. (2019), ‘Reimagining the social enterprise through grassroots social innovations in India’, in P. Eynaud, J.-L. Laville, L. Lucas dos Santos, S. Banerjee, L. Hulgard and F. Dinis de Araujo Avelino (eds), Theory of Social Enterprise and Pluralism, New York: Routledge, pp. 116–29. Banerjee, S., Santos L. and Hulgard, L. (2021), ‘Intersectional knowledge as rural social innovation’, Journal of Rural Studies, available at https://​www​.sciencedirect​.com/​ science/​article/​pii/​S0743016721001078. Banerjee, S. and Shaban, A. (2021), ‘Unpacking epistemic diversities in grassroots social innovation and enterprises in India: a critical agenda for re-centering people’, in J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka and A. Schröder (eds), A Research Agenda for Social Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 133–48. Behar, A. (2018), ‘Social enterprise is eroding civil society’, accessed 24 November 2022 at https://​www​.alliancemagazine​.org/​analysis/​ social​-enterprise​-is​-eroding​-civil​-society/​. Bhaduri, S. and Kumar, H. (2010), ‘Extrinsic and intrinsic motivations to innovate: tracing the

Swati Banerjee, Abdul Shaban and Shrirang Chaudhary

Grassroots innovation for transformative social change  133 motivation of “grassroot” innovators in India’, Mind & Society, 10 (1), pp. 27–55. Chambers, R. (2008), Revolutions in Development Inquiry, London: EarthScan. Cornwall, A. (1998), ‘Gender participation and the politics of difference’, in I. Guijt and M. Kaul Shah (eds), The Myth of Community: Gender Issues in Participatory Development, London: Intermediate Technology Publications, pp. 46–57. Datta, R. (2000), ‘On their own: development strategies of the Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA) in India’, Development, 43 (4), pp. 51–5. Devkar, P., Bhat, V., Sutar, P., Kalkutagi, A., Kamble, R. and Chougule, R. S. (2020), ‘A research paper on Paani Foundation (Water Cup Village-Wagholi)’, International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology, 8 (2), pp. 121–5. Eizaguirre, S. and Parés, M. (2019), ‘Communities making social change from below: social innovation and democratic leadership in two disenfranchised neighbourhoods in Barcelona’, Urban Research & Practice, 12 (2), pp. 173–91. Gupta, A. K. (2012), ‘Innovations for the poor by the poor’, International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, 5, pp. 28–39. Hermans, F., Roep, D. and Klerkx, L. (2016), ‘Scale dynamics of grassroots innovations through parallel pathways of transformative change’, Ecological Economics, 130, pp.  285–95, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.ecolecon​ .2016​.07​.011. May, O. T. (2010), ‘The path to women’s empowerment: understanding the rise of the Self Employed Women's Association’, CUREJ: College Undergraduate Research Electronic repository​ .upenn​ Journal, available at https://​ .edu/​curej/​116/​. Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., González, S. and Swyngedouw, E. (2007), ‘Introduction: social innovation and governance in European cities: urban development between path dependency and radical innovation’, European Urban and Regional Studies, 14 (3), pp. 195–209. Naveed, A. and Arnot, M. (2019), ‘Exploring education and social inequality through the polyphonic voices of the poor: a Habitus Listening Guide for the analysis of social inequality’,

Comparative Education, 55, https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1080/​03050068​.2018​.1535644. Naveed, M. A. (2021), ‘Overriding social inequality: educational aspirations versus the material realities in rural families of Pakistan’, in P. Rose, M. Arnot, R. Jeffery and N. Singal (eds), Reforming Education and Challenging Inequalities in Southern Contexts: Research and Policy in International Development, London: Routledge, pp. 123–43. Santos, B. S. (2016), Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide, London: Routledge. Seyfand, G., Smith, A. and Longhurst, N. (2010), ‘Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: a new research agenda’, Economic Sociology, 12 (1), pp. 68–72. Shaban, A. and Narnaware, P. (2020), ‘Innovations in multistakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: fostering state-university-community nexus’, in S. Banerjee, S. Carney and L. Hulgård (eds), People Centered Social Innovation: Global Perspectives on an Emerging Paradigm, New York: Routledge, pp. 179–94. Smith, A., Fressoli, M., Abrol, D. and Arond, E. (eds) (2016), Grassroots Innovation Movements, Abingdon and New York: Routledge. Smith, A., Fressoli, M. and Thomas, H. (2014), ‘Grassroots innovation movements: challenges and contributions’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 63, pp. 114–24. Smith, A. and Seyfand, G. (2013), ‘Constructing grassroot innovation’, Global Environmental Change, 23 (5), pp. 827–9. Teasdale, S., Roy, M. J., Ziegler, R., Mauksch, S., Dey, P. and Raufflet, E. B. (2021), ‘Everyone a changemaker? Exploring the moral underpinnings of social innovation discourse through real utopias’, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 12 (3), pp. 417–37. Vachani, S. and Smith, C. (2008), ‘Socially responsible distribution: distribution strategies for reaching the bottom of the pyramid’, California Management Review, 50 (2), pp. 52–84. Weerakoon, C. and McMurray, A. (2021), ‘Transition management perspective of social innovation’, in C. Weerakoon and A. McMurray (eds), Theoretical and Practical Approaches to Social Innovation, Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 118–46.

Swati Banerjee, Abdul Shaban and Shrirang Chaudhary

24. The institutionalization of social innovations Introduction: institutionalization, how and why?

Social innovation is a relatively new concept that has recently become the header for various social policies and innovation programmes. Many studies have therefore reconstructed the institutionalization of the social innovation concept. Reconstructing its institutionalization is a matter of analysing the actors, interests and policies through which it became part of the institutional landscape. A recurring issue in these analyses is whether this institutionalization has established the concept in an appropriate way. Many critical social innovation scholars hold that the concept has become watered down through ideological appropriations of it (e.g. Moulaert and MacCallum 2019). The above discussions focus on the institutionalization of social innovation as a generic policy concept (Schubert 2014), or as a narrative of change. Beyond this institutionalization of social innovation discourses one can also consider broadly, however, how socially innovative ideas, practices, models and modes of organization are becoming less the exception and more the rule.1 This entry addresses the latter topic, the institutionalization of social innovations. It addresses the processes in which concrete innovations in social relations and practices become part of the institutional fabric of formal rules, steady routines, cultural habits and established knowledge. The institutionalization of social innovations is a key topic for social innovation scholarship. As Cajaiba-Santana (2014, p. 44) indicated, social innovation amounts to the purposeful creation of new ideas and actions that spawn new institutions and social systems. A more thorough engagement with institutionalization processes would therefore help social innovation research to address issues of societal transformation, the development of alternative social systems and changes in the rules of society. More specifically, social innovation research should engage with institutionalization processes. After all, institutionalization refers not to

static institutions, but to processes of social relations becoming the rule: it marks the gap between local, ephemeral and often fragile projects of social innovation, on the one hand, and broader, lasting and stable societal structures, on the other hand. In the terms of North (2014), social innovations are the proverbial ‘ten square miles surrounded by reality’: to institutionalize is to break out from the confines of these ten square miles. The institutionalization of social innovation is what diffusion and market penetration are to technological innovation – the generalization of novelty across society. As this spreading of social innovations (→ DIFFUSION) is generally considered to be a good thing, the institutionalization of social innovation tends to be approached through instrumental questions: How and under which conditions can social innovations become mainstream? Which are the dynamics that shape the institutionalization? How can the institutionalization be influenced, and what is the scope for institutional entrepreneurship and brokerage? Yet the answers to these ‘how-to institutionalize’ questions also tend to evoke further questions: Why should this particular social innovation become mainstream? What are the shadow sides of institutionalization? The latter normative questions underline the complexity of the topic: questions about institutionalization dynamics and institutional entrepreneurship presuppose certain understandings of what social innovations and institutions are, and certain normative assumptions on what they are good for. Instead of providing detailed answers on isolated aspects, this entry therefore rather highlights the connections between these three issues. The conclusion provides a critical reflection and outlook on future research. No final answers exist on this topic: highlighting the diversity of theoretical angles on social innovation institutionalization, the chapter stresses the importance of coherent reasoning.

Institutionalization of social innovation: dynamics and conceptualizations

The institutionalization of social innovations is – across the many different understandings of these two terms – commonly taken to refer to the process in which new, alternative

134

The institutionalization of social innovations  135

and experimental social practices become mainstream. Institutionalization marks how social innovations change ‘the basic routines, resource and authority flows, or beliefs of the social system in which it occurs’ (Westley and Antadze 2010, p. 2). Prominent empirical examples are the mainstreaming of institutionally hybrid social enterprises (Defourny and Nyssens 2013; Klein et al. 2016; Anheier et al. 2018), the institutional anchorage of participatory budgeting (Novy and Leubolt 2005), the cultural mainstreaming of Slow Food and the associated decelerated lifestyles (Pel et al. 2020), or the extra-institutional, organizationally fluid modes of existence of Transition Towns (Scott-Cato and Hillier 2010) or Ecovillages. One could also consider how many established institutions have earlier gone through institutionalization struggles similar to those of current social innovations: women’s suffrage is a well-documented example. The institutionalization of these social innovations has been analysed, diagnosed and problematized along a broad range of perspectives. This synthetic overview distinguishes diverse perspectives on (1) institutionalization dynamics, (2) conceptualizations of institutions, and (3) the finalities of social innovations. Institutionalization dynamics Much research has investigated how, through which mechanisms and interventions, and under which conditions, institutionalization may occur. Key works in social innovation research like Mulgan (2006) have framed the issue in innovation-theoretical terms, as a process of upscaling and diffusion. These innovation-theoretical approaches have been elaborated further through work on transformative social innovation (Moore et al. 2012; Klein et al. 2016; Pel et al. 2020). This work has explored mechanisms of ‘deep scaling’ (transforming the beliefs and ideologies behind formal institutions), institutional bricolage (piecing together and creatively recombining elements of existing institutions), and translation (adapting and appropriating social innovations in the process of institutionalization). Closely related are the sociological analyses of imitation dynamics (Howaldt et al. 2015), and the institutionalist analyses that consider how social innovations evolve through mechanisms of institutional isomorphism (e.g. Dey and Teasdale 2016):

there are various pressures and incentives towards conformity with new standards and fashions. Social innovation scholarship overall accords a particular importance to the dynamics of institutional hybridization (blending market, state and civil society rationales). Social innovation is both the result and the driver of such hybridization (Anheier et al. 2018). Furthermore, various scholars have identified societal framework conditions conducive to the emergence and institutionalization of social innovation: the CRISES network in Québec famously positioned social innovation as a response to deep socio-economic societal crisis, and since then it has been linked to a broad range of fundamental shifts in society (sustainability; social inclusion; participatory governance; degrowth, to name a few). Social innovation is thus often understood in political economy terms, as a phase in Polanyian dialectics (Moulaert and Ailenei 2005; Klein et al. 2016), as a result of the rise of the knowledge economy (Nicholls and Murdoch 2012), as part of current innovation society (Rammert et al. 2018), or as an epiphenomenon of shifts in governance towards New Public Management (Lévesque 2013) or deliberative governance (Swyngedouw 2005). The abundant planning/urbanism work on social innovation has similarly approached its institutionalization as processes of empowerment and inclusion in territorial development (Moulaert and MacCallum 2019). Social innovation research often starts from an ethos of societal engagement. The vast majority of analyses aims therefore to clarify how these institutionalization dynamics can be influenced and played into to serve progressive politics. Much social innovation institutionalization studies focus on the repertoires of ‘institutional entrepreneurship’ (Battilana et al. 2009), ‘institutional work’ and otherwise active development of institutional structures that have developed in social innovation experiments. Prominent examples are the longstanding work on ‘bottom-linked’ governance (Miquel et al. 2013) and civil society–state dialectics (Novy and Leubolt 2005), highlighting how social innovation institutionalization can result from the interactions between insiders and outsiders, incumbent actors and challengers. Other important streams of research on this Bonno Pel

136  Encyclopedia of social innovation

topic are the studies on the mainstreaming of grassroots innovation niches (Seyfang and Smith 2007) (→ GRASSROOTS INNOVATION FOR TRANSFORMATIVE SOCIAL CHANGE), on the ‘pre-figuration’, demonstration and experimentation activities to stimulate institutionalization, and on the ways in which broader societal changes can be induced through the development of ‘working utopias’ (Crossley 1999) and ‘real utopias’ (Wright 2010). The particular institutional entrepreneurship to normalize new ideas and alternative knowledge has been highlighted in Science and Technology Studies analyses of expertise construction (Pel and Backhaus 2020), and in research on digital social innovation and internet activism. This work reminds of the cognitive dimension of institutions. Meanwhile, much social innovation scholarship remains focused on initiatives of social entrepreneurship and attempts to institutionalize socio-economic alternatives. Accordingly, a rich literature exists on institutionalization strategies geared towards the survival on markets. Key notions here are economies of scale, standardization, social innovation ecosystems and social impact measurement. Specific literatures have developed on the Social Economy (Defourny and Nyssens 2013) and on the B Corps (Tabares 2021) as forms of institutionally hybrid enterprise. These are the market-oriented variations of the ‘institutional imagination’ (Unger 2015), the purposive experimentation with combinations of market, state and civil society institutions, that is emphasized in approaches of political philosophy, Third Sector Studies and studies of societal transformation. Conceptualizations of institutions The scholarship on institutionalization dynamics is abundant, but somewhat fragmented. This seems rather unavoidable, given the different conceptualizations that exist not only of social innovation but also of institutions. Social innovations are often portrayed as local, ephemeral, pre-institutional practices, existing as the ‘ten square miles, surrounded by reality’ (North 2014). Cajaiba-Santana (2014, p. 44) usefully points out how the scholarship on institutionalization dynamics hovers between agentic (underlining the scope for institutional change) and structuralist understandings. The institutional Bonno Pel

surroundings of social innovations are sometimes portrayed as chequered, fragmented and as such changeable webs, and sometimes as monolithic, inert blocks of constraint. The agentic, voluntarist interpretation is relatively prominent across social innovation scholarship. As emphasized in the key concept of institutional entrepreneurship (Battilana et al. 2009), such active renegotiation of rules is possible precisely as institutions tend to require active reproduction. Even the docile following of rules requires interpretation in light of new situations, and reconciliation of conflicting rules. Institutions tend to be partly overlapping, and they tend to accumulate into layers of institutions over time. Agentic views on institutionalization stress that this institutional complexity tends to come with certain institutional contradictions (Seo and Creed 2002; Wright 2010) and tensions. These tensions have often been associated with the existence of ‘institutional voids’ (Mair et al. 2012; Turker and Vural 2017; Agostini et al. 2020), the under-regulated, not entirely settled, or institutionally unstable contexts that as such open opportunities and needs for experiments and social innovations. The complexity-based perspectives on social innovation have highlighted how such institutional voids keep emerging. Instead of mistaking them for incidental defects, one can also consider them as quite regular phases in historical cycles of institutional decline and regeneration (Moore et al. 2012; Westley et al. 2017). The Third Sector Studies perspectives focus rather on the political, managerial and ethical implications of institutional complexity. They highlight the associated tensions between interdependent spheres of society – intertwined with each other, yet also operating with different institutional logics (Defourny and Nyssens 2013; Anheier et al. 2018). Nicholls and Murdock (2012) tellingly situate social innovation within the broader ‘blurring of boundaries’ between market, state and civil society. Related to the metaphor of institutional ‘voids’ is the idea of disenfranchised individuals and groups that are ‘falling through the cracks’ of the existing institutional structures. Very prominent in the early work on the Social Economy is the view that social innovation emerges out of the institutional failures of late-capitalist societies (Moulaert and Ailenei 2005). In contrast with the optimistic views on the scope for ‘institutional

The institutionalization of social innovations  137

bricolage’ (Pel et al. 2020; Westley et al. 2017) and experimentation with institutions, various analyses rather emphasize the rigidity, the inertia and the oppressive nature of current institutional structures. This speaks from the accounts that situate social innovation in ‘neoliberal’ or ‘capitalist’ hegemonic structures (Novy and Leubolt 2005; Swyngedouw 2005; Wright 2010; Moulaert and Maccallum 2019). The literatures on ‘diverse economies’ (North 2014), ‘grassroots innovations’ (Smith and Seyfang 2007) and ‘transformative social innovation’ (Avelino et al. 2019) similarly highlight how social innovation ‘niches’ are constrained by more or less coherent ‘regimes’ (sets of rules, guiding the development of societal sectors like energy, mobility or healthcare). It is striking how the accounts of monolithic ‘systems’ and of diversified institutional ‘webs’ are working with fundamentally different understandings of institutions. They work with different assumptions about the ways in which formal and informal rules can be changed and disobeyed. This theoretical cleavage helps to understand the puzzling situation that some analyses picture social innovations as ‘proto-institutions’ (van Wijk et al. 2019) that as such are on their way to becoming institutions, whilst other angles draw a hard distinction between established institutions and the alternatives to them. Several social innovation initiatives have indeed been characterized by their ‘alternative’, extra-institutional nature, and by their striving for institutional independence (Scott-Cato and Hillier 2010). The institutionally ‘nomadic’, footloose, existence forms a prominent part of the self-understanding of social innovation initiatives such as the Hackerspaces, the Ecovillages, and certain branches of the social solidarity economy (Pel et al. 2020). Finalities of social innovation The above conceptualizations of institutions indicate not only different analytical angles. Importantly, they also start from different normative commitments: Which purposes and political projects should social innovation be serving? The seminal Wright (2010) has established in this regard how social innovations (or in his terminology, ‘real utopias’) can be pursued through ‘interstitial’, ‘symbiotic’ and ‘ruptural’ relations with their

institutional surroundings. These fundamentally different stances – implying different degrees of conflict between social innovation initiatives and the institutional structures that they seek to change- are clearly recognizable across social innovation institutionalization research. The ‘ruptural’, confrontational stance is particularly present in the aforementioned accounts of rigid institutions and oppressive systems. Moulaert and MacCallum (2019) are very explicit in their counterhegemonic ethos: social innovations emerge as challenges to the dominance exerted by the institutional structures of the neoliberal order. Especially the territorial development studies have highlighted the shadow sides of institutions, and therewith of institutionalization: The formalization of social innovation alternatives often comes with the reproduction of institutionalized power inequalities. This has been elaborated in empirical analyses of exclusion, commodification, and tokenist forms of participation (Miquel et al. 2013; Swyngedouw 2005). Other analyses have interrogated the rationalization that tends to come with institutionalization. Whilst providing support and security, this also tends to go against the cultures and ideological roots of social innovation initiatives. A classic example of this tension is the inclination of Transition Towns towards ‘light’, ‘rhizomatic’ organizational structures rather than formal, rationalized, ‘arborescent’ institutions (Scott-Cato and Hillier 2010). The literatures on grassroots innovation (Seyfang and Smith 2007) and diverse economies (North 2014) have similarly considered how institutionalization may undermine trust and proximity. Finally, various analyses have addressed social innovation institutionalization as a two-sided sword (Westley et al. 2017). Rather than problematizing institutionalization as such (or assuming it to be a natural striving for ‘upscaling’), these studies focus on the ambiguity inherent to empowerment processes (Swyngedouw 2005; Avelino et al. 2019). Dey and Teasdale (2016), for example, have highlighted the associated strategic games of institutional mimicry: social innovation initiatives may simulate conformity with prevailing institutional requirements. Much work on the institutionalization of social innovations tilts towards middle-ground positions, or stances in which institutionalBonno Pel

138  Encyclopedia of social innovation

ization is at least not rejected categorically. Social innovations are considered as quite constructive, not too confrontational alternatives to the existing order – in the terms of Wright (2010), they are considered to have symbiotic-interstitial relations to existing institutions. The related idea of social innovations as ‘proto-institutions’ is widespread as well. Institutions are often appreciated as results of earlier social innovations, and social innovation can be understood to reinvigorate practices that have become de-institutionalized (Shove 2012). Do-it-yourself culture and the sharing economy are examples. This shows the sociological appreciation of institutions as simply those elements of society that last. Beyond this somewhat neutral, matter-of-fact stance there are also the approaches that consider institutionalization as the natural goal for social innovations. Especially the wide interest in dynamics of ‘upscaling’ and ‘diffusion’ displays a teleology towards institutionalization. Social innovation is approached from an innovation logic, in which survival and spreading are the natural motives. Accordingly, one seeks institutional embedding for innovations, to secure the broader introduction and the systematic implementation of socially innovative practices. Advocates of a universal basic income, women’s suffrage or participatory budgeting have underlined how state institutions can be indispensable vehicles for social innovation. Institutions are thus often considered as carriers of social innovation (Lévesque 2013; Westley et al. 2017), as elements of social innovation ‘ecosystems’, and as empowering structures. Key words in this regard are institutional ‘anchorage’, institutional ‘embedding’ and institutional ‘scaffolding’ (Mair et al. 2016). The widespread focus on institutional design and institutional hybridization shows how much social innovation scholarship portrays institutions less as ‘iron cages’ to break loose from (this metaphor from Weber has inspired much critical-theoretical thought on institutional constraints), and more as the media and the vehicles for societal transformation – the term ‘institutional imagination’ of social innovation advocate Unger (2015) expresses it well. The various institution-theoretical concepts clearly carry different tones and flavours. These nuances reveal the often somewhat implicit but essential normative dimension of research on social innovation institutionalizaBonno Pel

tion. Internationally comparative institutional studies have been particularly valuable to bring out the nuances involved. The research on institutional ‘voids’ for example comprises both studies on institutionally impoverished settings (Agostini et al. 2020), as well as studies of over-institutionalized settings. Over-institutionalized settings may still suffer from dysfunctions, and as such they display relative institutional voids (Mair et al. 2012). These different meanings of institutional ‘voids’ extend to social innovation institutionalization more generally: there are different ways of framing and problematizing the institutionalization challenges.

Critical reflection and outlook

This synthetic overview is unavoidably selective. Rather than providing an exhaustive mapping, it has rather identified the key concepts, schools of thought and disciplines through which the institutionalization of social innovations has been researched. Set up as a critical reflection, it has highlighted how the different accounts of (1) institutionalization dynamics are corresponding with (2) different understandings of institutions, and (3) different normative ideas about the finalities of social innovation. The main guideline for future research is therefore to increase consistency. The many nuances of institutional ‘embedding’, ‘isomorphism’, ‘anchorage’ and ‘bricolage’ indicate different stances towards the institutionalization of social innovations. As indicated, institutional ‘anchorage’ is quite essential for socially innovative reforms in the welfare state. One can consider the cases of participatory budgeting (Novy and Leubolt 2005) or the basic income (Pel and Backhaus 2020). Yet for various grassroots initiatives or forms of social entrepreneurship, ‘anchorage’ is not an obvious way of framing the institutionalization challenge. Out of similar concerns for consistency it is useful to consider first in what precise sense a social innovation could or should be filling an institutional void – before mobilizing existing repertoires of instruments and solution strategies (institutional entrepreneurship; institutional bricolage; ‘upscaling’). Is institutionalization the solution, the problem, or both? The many studies on institutionalization dynamics and social innovation instruments will not add up into more systematic understanding, as

The institutionalization of social innovations  139

long as basic underlying assumptions about purposes and strategic challenges remain implicit. This entry has disclosed a range of reasonable, coherent strategic orientations: Next to the quests for institutional support (for the re-integration of former inmates, for the subsidizing of recycling shops), institutional ‘nomads’ like the Hackerspaces raise fundamentally different institutionalization challenges. A second issue that has emerged is whether social innovation institutionalization, and social innovation research more broadly, should be undertaken as a sub-stream of institutional theory. Even if the bibliography has been constructed around explicit social innovation scholarship, much of the insights on this topic can be retraced to sociological, comparative, political, organizational, evolutionary institutionalism or institutionalist branches of social theory. Especially regarding the institutionalization mechanisms, one may wonder what the purchase is of coining new concepts and models: The existing conceptual apparatus (institutional layering, institutional isomorphism, institutional hybridization, institutional work, institutional voids, etc.) seems rich enough to cover a broad range of social innovation phenomena. Much of this institutionalist work is process-oriented. This makes it quite compatible with innovation-theoretical insights on diffusion, translation, innovation ecosystems and path dependency. Importantly, an institutionalist approach need not lead to a one-sided structuralist outlook on social innovation. Meso- and macro-level changes in institutions have been shown to be intimately linked to micro-level processes of reflection, emotions and identity formation (van Wijk et al. 2019; Westley et al. 2017; Pel et al. 2020). Social innovation could thus be considered as a fresh new branch of institutionalist thought. Focusing on innovation in social relations, social innovation research raises particular questions on the actors and processes of purposive institutional change. Bonno Pel

Note 1.

Institutions are defined as ‘systems of functioning social rules’. Accommodating various schools of institutionalist thought, this is the basic definition of the World Interdisciplinary Network for Institutional Research.

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Agostini, M. R., Bitencourt, C. C. and Vieira, L. M. (2020), ‘Social innovation in Mexican coffee production: filling “institutional voids”’, International Review of Applied Economics, 34 (5), pp. 607–25. Anheier, H., Krlev, G. and Mildenberger, G. (2018), Social Innovation: Comparative Perspectives, New York: Routledge. Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J. M., Pel, B., Weaver, P., Dumitru, A., Haxeltine, A., Kemp, R., Jørgensen, M. S., Bauler, T., Ruijsink, S. and O’Riordan, T. (2019), ‘Transformative social innovation and (dis)empowerment: towards a heuristic’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, August, pp. 195–206. Battilana, J., Leca, B. and Boxenbaum, E. (2009), ‘How actors change institutions: towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship’, The Academy of Management Annals, 3 (1), pp. 65–107. Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014), ‘Social innovation: moving the field forward. A conceptual framework’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82, pp. 42–51. Crossley, N. (1999), ‘Working utopias and social movements: an investigation using case study materials from radical mental health movements in Britain’, Sociology, 33 (4), pp. 809–30. Defourny, J. and Nyssens, M. (2013), ‘Social innovation, social economy and social enterprise: what can the European debate tell us?’, in F. Moulaert et al. (eds), The International Handbook on Social Innovation, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 40–53. Dey, P. and Teasdale, S. (2016), ‘The tactical mimicry of social enterprise strategies: acting “as if” in the everyday life of third sector organizations’, Organization, 23 (4), pp. 485–504. Howaldt, J., Kopp, R. and Schwarz, M. (2015), On the Theory of Social Innovations: Tarde’s Neglected Contribution to the Development of a Sociological Innovation Theory, Weinheim: Beltz Juventa. Klein, J. L., Camus, A., Jetté, C., Champagne, C. and Roy, M. (2016), La transformation sociale par l'innovation sociale, Quebec: Presses de l’Université du Québec. Lévesque, B. (2013), ‘Social innovation in governance and public management systems: toward a new paradigm?’, in F. Moulaert et al. (eds), The International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research, Cheltenham,

Bonno Pel

140  Encyclopedia of social innovation UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 25–39. Mair, J., Martí, I. and Ventresca, M. J. (2012), ‘Building inclusive markets in rural Bangladesh: how intermediaries work institutional voids’, Academy of Management Journal, 55 (4), pp. 819–50. Mair, J., Wolf, M. and Seelos, C. (2016), ‘Scaffolding: a process of transforming patterns of inequality in small-scale societies’, Academy of Management Journal, 59, pp. 2021–44. Miquel, M. P., Cabeza, M. G. and Anglada, S. E. (2013), ‘Theorizing multi-level governance in social innovation dynamics’, in Moulaert et al. (eds), The International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 155–68. Moore, M. L., Westley, F. R., Tjornbo, O. and Holroyd, C. (2012), ‘The loop, the lens, and the lesson: using resilience theory to examine public policy and social innovation’, in A. Nicholls and A. Murdock (eds), Social Innovation: Blurring Boundaries to Reconfigure Markets, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 89–113. Moulaert, F. and Ailenei, O. (2005), ‘Social economy, third sector and solidarity relations: a conceptual synthesis from history to present’, Urban Studies, 42 (11), pp. 2037–53. Moulaert, F. and MacCallum, D. (2019), Advanced Introduction to Social Innovation, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Mulgan, G. (2006), ‘The process of social innovation. Innovations: technology, governance’, Globalization, 1 (2), pp. 145–62. Nicholls, A. and Murdock, A. (eds) (2012), Social Innovation: Blurring Boundaries to Reconfigure Markets, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. North, P. (2014), ‘Ten square miles surrounded by reality? Materialising alternative economies using local currencies’, Antipode, 46 (1), pp. 246–65. Novy, A. and Leubolt, B. (2005), ‘Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre: social innovation and the dialectical relationship of state and civil society’, Urban Studies, 42 (11), pp. 2023–36. Pel, B. and Backhaus, J. (2020), ‘Realizing the basic income: competing claims to expertise in transformative social innovation’, Science & Technology Studies, 33 (2), pp. 83–101. Pel, B., Haxeltine, A., Avelino, F., Dumitru, A., Kemp, R., Bauler, T., Kunze, I., Dorland, J., Wittmayer, J. and Jørgensen, M. S. (2020), ‘Towards a theory of transformative social innovation: a relational framework and 12 propositions’, Research Policy, 49 (8), 104080. Rammert, W., Windeler, A., Knoblauch, H. and Hutter, M. (2018), Innovation Society Today:

Bonno Pel

Perspectives, Fields, and Cases, Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Schubert, C. (2014), Social Innovations: Highly Reflexive and Multi-Referential Phenomena of Today’s Innovation Society, Technical University Technology Studies – Working Papers, 2, Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin. Scott-Cato, M. and Hillier, J. (2010), ‘How could we study climate-related social innovation? Applying Deleuzean philosophy to Transition Towns’, Environmental Politics, 19 (6), pp. 869–87. Seo, M. G. and Creed, W. D. (2002), ‘Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: a dialectical perspective’, Academy of Management Review, 27 (2), pp. 222–47. Seyfang, G. and Smith, A. (2007), ‘Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: towards a new research and policy agenda’, Environmental Politics, 16 (4), pp. 584–603. Shove, E. (2012), ‘The shadowy side of innovation: unmaking and sustainability’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24 (4), pp. 363–75. Swyngedouw, E. (2005), ‘Governance innovation and the citizen: the Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state’, Urban Studies, 42 (11), pp. 1991–2006. Tabares, S. (2021), ‘Certified B corporations: an approach to tensions of sustainable-driven hybrid business models in an emerging economy’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 317, 128380. Turker, D. and Vural, C. A. (2017), ‘Embedding social innovation process into the institutional context: voids or supports’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119, pp. 98–113. Unger, R. M. (2015), ‘Conclusion: the task of the social innovation movement’, in A. Nicholls, J. Simon and M. Gabriel (eds), New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 233–51. van Wijk, J., Zietsma, C., Dorado, S., De Bakker, F. G. and Marti, I. (2019), ‘Social innovation: integrating micro, meso, and macro level insights from institutional theory’, Business & Society, 58 (5), pp. 887–918. Westley, F. and Antadze, N. (2010), ‘Making a difference: strategies for scaling social innovation for greater impact’, Innovation Journal, 15 (2), https://​www​.innovation​.cc/​scholarly​ -style/​2010​_15​_2​_2​_westley​-antadze​_social​ -innovate​.pdf. Westley, F., McGowan, K. and Tjörnbo, O. (2017), The Evolution of Social Innovation: Building Resilience Through Transitions, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Wright, E. O. (2010), Envisioning Real Utopias, London: Verso.

25. Power and empowerment in social innovation Introduction

are empowered or disempowered through processes of social innovation. This entry introduces three perspectives that have been especially designed to study power and empowerment in the context of processes of social innovation and transformation:

The field of social innovation research has drawn attention to the need to conceptualize and empirically investigate social innovation in relation to broader social changes and started to develop theories of transformative social innovation (e.g. Avelino et al. 2019; Pel et al. 2020). Social innovation is defined as changing social relations involving new ways of doing, thinking and organizing, and is considered transformative to the extent that it challenges, alters and/or replaces dominant institutional arrangements (Haxeltine et al. 2017; Pel et al. 2020). Some of this work is informed by the interdisciplinary field of research on sustainability transitions (Grin et al. 2010; Loorbach et al. 2017; Köhler et al. 2019). Interestingly, both the concepts of ‘transitions’ and ‘social innovation’ have been defined – either implicitly or explicitly – in terms of shifting societal relations. This makes the understanding of power relations – and how they change – a necessary condition for understanding processes of (transformative) social innovation. However, both the fields of social innovation and sustainability transitions (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION IN ENERGY SYSTEM TRANSFORMATION) have been elaborately critiqued for ignoring or downplaying the role of power in processes of innovation and transition (e.g. Swyngedouw 2005; Moulaert et al. 2017; Meadowcroft 2009; Smith and Stirling 2010; Kern 2011; Ayob et al. 2016). The issue of power relations is inextricably linked to the question about the transformative potential of social innovation – to the extent that it challenges, alters and/ or replaces existing power relations in the societal context (Moulaert and MacCallum 2019; Avelino and Wittmayer 2019; Teasdale et al. 2020). More precisely, we argue that understanding the transformative potential of social innovation thus requires us to study how existing power relations are altered and/ or reproduced in processes of social innovation, as well as the extent to which actors

● Multi-actor perspective (section 2) ● Seven power contestations (section 3) ● Six dimensions of empowerment (section 4)

Multi-actor perspective on social innovation

The multi-actor perspective is a heuristic to (1) specify the role of different actors and institutional logics within processes of change, and (2) analyse the (shifting) power relations between those actors and logics (Avelino and Wittmayer 2016, 2019; Wittmayer et al. 2021). Adapting the Welfare Mix model (Evers and Laville 2004), the multi-actor perspective distinguishes between four institutional logics (cf. Thornton et al. 2012): state, market, community, non-profit and an intermediary hybrid sphere (Figure 25.1). Each institutional logic acts as a site of struggle and/or cooperation between different individual and organizational actors and offers certain roles for them (e.g. the state logic including roles such as politician or voter). Importantly, these logics are not fixed; rather, the boundaries between them are contested, blurring, shifting and permeable (Figure 25.1, right). What makes the multi-actor perspective a power perspective is that it allows us to reflect on and analyse how power relations change both between different institutional logics, as well as within institutional logics between different organizational and individual roles. Such analysis is primarily an empirical matter. What kind of power relations exist between the state and the market, or between citizens and politics, consumers and producers, differs per historical and geographical context. Being aware of the limitations of generalizations, we might still argue that in modern Western societies, particularly in Europe, there is an overall dominance of the state and market logic (Figure 25.1, right; for a more elaborate analysis, see Avelino and Wittmayer 2019; Wittmayer et al. 2021).

141

142  Encyclopedia of social innovation

Source: Adapted from Avelino and Wittmayer (2016, 2019).

Figure 25.1

Multi-actor perspective: individual roles (left) and dominance of market and state logic (right)

A multi-actor perspective on the extent to which social innovation is transformative and thus challenges, alters and/or replaces dominant institutions invites us to look at it in explicit power terms. Such institutions turn problematic to the extent that they represent undesirable power relations between actors (e.g. power relations that are unequal, oppressive or unproductive). Such problematic power relations are those that are to be challenged, altered and/or replaced. It follows that the very notion of transformative is normative and contested, and that it requires us to be very precise about which power relations in which social context are considered problematic and by whom. Here the different levels of aggregation in the multi-actor perspective also become particularly pertinent. Power relations can change at the macro level of institutional logics (i.e. the relations between state, market, non-profit and community) (Figure 25.1, right). At the same time, power relations can also change at the micro level, between different actor roles within and across those institutional logics (Figure 25.1, left) (e.g. between consumers and producers, between citizens and politicians). This then raises the question to what extent power relations can be transformed at the micro level, without them being transformed at the macro level – or vice versa. Based on the multi-actor perspective, we propose to explore transformative change both at the macro level and the micro level, both having transformative potential in their own right, and then make

the interdependencies between these levels a matter for empirical analysis.

Seven power contestations for questioning power in social innovation

Power is one of the most contested concepts in social and political theory (Haugaard 2002; Hayward and Lukes 2008). One thing that most scholars tend to agree on is that power is relational and that people ‘possess power only in so far as they are relationally constituted as doing so’ (Clegg [1989] 2002, p. 257). While most power scholars agree that power is inherently relational, they fiercely disagree on how such power relations should be understood and studied. Table 25.1 identifies seven main ‘power contestations’ in the literature, synthesizing how different scholars have dealt with different dimensions of power, what we can learn from that, and, most importantly, what these power dimensions imply for empirically investigating power in the context of social innovation. Rather than ‘choosing sides’ within these power debates or attempting to ‘solve’ them, the proposal underlying Table 25.1 (Avelino 2021) is to acknowledge the different dimensions of these power contestations, and on that basis distil empirical questions that can be used to systematically explore the role of power in processes of social innovation from different perspectives. Acknowledging the many contestations of power also means that it is impossible to agree on one single

Flor Avelino, Julia M. Wittmayer and Adina Dumitru

Power and empowerment in social innovation  143 Table 25.1

Power contestations and research questions on social innovation

Power contestations

Questions about social innovation (SI)

Power ‘over’ < > power ‘to’

● Power over: Who is exercising power over whom? How are which structures of domina-

(e.g. Dahl, Parsons, Foucault, Morris,

tion/oppression/dependence changed or (re)produced?

Davis, Giddens, Arendt, Gordon,

● Power to: How is power exercised for/through/against SI?

Stewart)

● Power with: How do actors collaborate in the exercise of power for/against SI?

Centred < > diffused

● How are the three/four faces of power manifested in processes of SI?

(e.g. Dahl, Bachrach & Baratz, Lukes, ● How is power diffused, (de)centralized and/or recentralized in/by/for SI? Who is included Mann, Foucault, Gramsci)

and excluded? ● How & by whom is the agenda of SI decided? Which issues are kept of the agenda? How are underlying preferences shaped?

Consensual < > conflictual

● How are both consensus and conflict manifested in SI?

(e.g. Parsons, Arendt, Mann,

● Which conflicts are ‘hidden’ under seemingly consensual processes?

Haugaard)

● How and to what extent is consensus oppressive and conflict emancipatory (and vice

Constraining < > enabling

● How are both structure & agency manifested in SI?

versa) in processes of SI? (e.g. Foucault, Giddens, Clegg, Davis, ● Who/what is enabled and/or constrained by SI and how? Arendt, Hayward & Lukes)

● How/to what extent are which structures (a) an object of SI (to be transformed), (b) a con-

Quantity < > quality

● How and to what extent are what different kinds of power exercised for/through/against

straint for SI, (c) an enabler for SI? (Mann, Sewell, Arendt, Avelino)

SI, by and over whom? ● Which actor are exercising more/less power in/of/through SI, and how? Who has more/ less access to which resources? ● How do power relations/dynamics manifest in SI (e.g. cooperation, (in)dependence, competition, co-existence, synergy, antagonism)?

Empowerment < > disempowerment

● Who is (dis)empowered in/by SI, by whom or by what?

(e.g. Boje & Rosile, Hardy &

● (How) is (dis)empowerment manifested in SI as (a) intentional outcome (empowerment

Leiba-O’Sullivan, Follet)

as end), (b) constraining/enabling factor (empowerment as means), or (c) object/type of SI in itself?

Knowledge as power < >

● Which knowledges, discourses, ideologies underlie the process of SI?

prior to power

● How is knowledge on SI co-evolving with which power dynamics?

(e.g. Bourdieau, Flyvbjerg, Lukes,

● How is knowledge mobilized as (a) an object of SI, or (b) an instrument for enabling/

Foucault, Barnes)

constraining SI?

Source: Adapted from Avelino (2021).

definition of power. However, broadly speaking, we can think of power dialectically as the relational and structural (in)capacity of actors to mobilize resources and institutions to achieve a goal (Avelino 2017, 2021).

Six dimensions of empowerment in social innovation

Empowerment has often been addressed through a political theory lens as the process by which actors gain access to resources, both material and symbolic, that allow them to exercise power. Although the domain of power resources has been consistently expanded to include a wide array of symbolic

and relational resources the psychological dimensions of empowerment have generally been ignored, likely due to an implicit assumption that empowerment is the natural result of providing access to resources. Building on a combination of political theory and social psychology, and a body of work stemming from international development contexts (Friedmann 1992), we have defined empowerment as the process through which actors gain the capacity to mobilize resources to achieve a goal (Avelino et al. 2020; Avelino 2009, 2017; Sen, 1985, 1999; Alkire 2005, 2007). Beyond understanding the process by which the capacities to define meaningful goals and to mobilize resources

Flor Avelino, Julia M. Wittmayer and Adina Dumitru

144  Encyclopedia of social innovation Table 25.2

Dimensions of psychological empowerment

Dimension of empowerment

Ingredients

Capacity & willingness Relatedness

‘We are connected to each other/we belong’

to mobilize resources

Autonomy

‘We can determine what we do’

Competence

‘We are good at what we do’

Impact

‘We can make a difference’

Meaning

‘We believe in what we do/doing this is meaningful to us’

Resilience

‘We can adapt & recover’

Source: Adapted from Avelino et al. (2020).

to achieve them are gained, as well as the belief that one is capable of doing so, we also aimed to disentangle the results of this process, in terms of the psychological dimensions characterizing empowerment. We approach empowerment as a dynamic process, not an end-state. Said differently, one is never reaching a state of being fully empowered, unaffected by circumstances, but rather the set of psychological capacities that inform our understanding of empowerment are dependent upon enabling conditions that either allow or hinder individuals and groups to generate and maintain such capacities. The satisfaction of a set of three basic psychological needs, documented cross-culturally is a basic tenet of this empowerment framework, building on self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci 2000) and on recent attempts to incorporate them into definitions of agency and empowerment (Alkire 2007). Autonomy refers to the ability to choose one’s own acts and to act in line with personal values and identity, relatedness is about connection to social groups, and receiving support and recognition from it, and competence refers to developing mastery and the perception of effectiveness in carrying out actions (Bidee et al. 2013). Beyond the satisfaction of these psychological needs, empowerment requires the actual experience of having impact and the elaboration of a sense of meaning derived from the efforts to act on goals that matter. In processes of social innovation, an important source of a sense of meaning is the elaboration of a collective identity, captured in narratives and images that provide inspiration, especially in the face of challenges and opposition that is often encountered in attempts to transform existing power relations. In the face of such challenges, people develop psychological and behavioural strategies that allow them to maintain the motivation to pursue

their goals. This capacity to learn, adapt and recover from set-backs is resilience, the last dimension of empowerment. To summarize, we propose six dimensions of psychological empowerment: (1) relatedness, (2) autonomy, (3) competence, (4) impact, (5) meaning, and (6) resilience (Table 25.2). Although they manifest at the individual level, the conditions for them are constituted through relations, shared practices and collective action. In other publications, we further identify a set of local and translocal conditions and mechanisms through which these dimensions come to exist (Avelino et al. 2020).

Critical outlook and future research

This entry has aimed to summarize and introduce three perspectives that were designed to study power and empowerment in social innovation: (1) the multi-actor perspective (section 2), (2) seven power contestations (section 3), and (3) six dimensions of empowerment (section 4). Each of these power frameworks comes with a whole set of research challenges for the future. For the multi-actor perspective, for instance, more conceptual and empirical work is needed to unpack how new and old individual and organizational roles are emerging and changing across different institutional logics in processes of social innovation. Here it will be especially interesting to explore specifically hybrid roles that challenge the boundaries between different institutional logics (e.g. ‘prosumers’ or ‘social entrepreneurs’) and how they do so at both the micro level and macro level. For the seven contestations of power, the main challenge is to operationalize the empirical research questions into realistic research projects on social innovation. Here the idea

Flor Avelino, Julia M. Wittmayer and Adina Dumitru

Power and empowerment in social innovation  145

is not to try and apply all dimensions of all seven power contestations to each social innovation case, but rather to zoom in on specific contestations and frameworks that enable us to study power dialectically while acknowledging different dimensions. For instance, the distinction between power to, power over and power with could be useful to study how different power dimensions manifest in social innovation processes (Avelino et al. forthcoming). For the dimensions of empowerment, much future work is to be done to further unpack the psychological mechanisms behind social innovation processes. What types of conditions and organizational set-ups support the satisfaction of basic psychological needs in social innovation? How is a sense of meaning maintained and how does it change over time? If success means partial co-optation, to what extent do changes in shared meanings affect psychological empowerment? Besides these specific research questions, there are also a number of overarching research questions that span across all three perspectives. The first and most obvious challenge for future research is to explore how the three perspectives relate to each other, given their different epistemological and disciplinary backgrounds in institutional theory, public administration, political power theories and social psychology. To what extent can these different perspectives on power and empowerment be combined or possibly even integrated in social innovation research? A second challenge for future research lies in relating power and empowerment in social innovation processes to the question of directionality and normativity. While general concepts about power and empowerment can remain very abstract, there are obviously very tangible power inequalities and empowerment challenges around, for example, gender, race and class. To move beyond discussions about power relations and empowerment potentials in abstract terms, it is necessary to more deeply engage with ongoing scholarship on, for example, gender, race and class as found in, for instance, the fields of environmental and social justice. Here, the multi-actor perspective might be useful for specifying these debates in terms of power relations between and across different actors and institutional logics, and distinguishing

between micro-level and macro-level power relations. Last but not least, we identify a future challenge for transdisciplinary translation, that is, operationalizing the three perspectives for facilitating exchange not only between researchers but also with activists, policymakers, entrepreneurs and citizens. So far, all three perspectives have already been applied and experimented with quite elaborately in several workshops, masterclasses and labs (for instance, in the recent Transformative Power Lab – see De Geus et al. 2021). However, what is lacking so far is a systematic methodological analysis of this transdisciplinary process, also acknowledging the power relations between researchers and practitioners and the (dis)empowerment dynamics that unfold in such processes of knowledge co-production. Flor Avelino, Julia M. Wittmayer and Adina Dumitru

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Alkire, S. (2005), ‘Subjective quantitative studies of human agency’, Social lndicators Research, 74 (1), pp. 217–60. Alkire, S. (2007), ‘Concepts and measure of agency’, OPHI Working Paper 9, http://​www​ .ophi​.org​.uk/​wp​-content/​uploads/​OPHI​-wp09​ .pdf. Avelino, F. (2017), ‘Power in sustainability transitions: analysing power and (dis)empowerment in transformative change towards environmental and social sustainability’, Journal of Environmental Policy & Governance, 27 (6), pp. 505–20. Avelino, F. (2021), ‘Theories of power and social change: power contestations and their implications for social change research’, Journal of Political Power, 14 (3), pp. 425–48. Avelino, F., Dumitru, A., Cipolla, C., Kunze, I. and Wittmayer, J. (2020), ‘Translocal empowerment in transformative social innovation networks’, European Planning Studies, 28 (5), pp. 955–77. Avelino, F., Hielscher, S., Strumińska-Kutra, M., de Geus, T., Widdel, L., Wittmayer, J., Dańkowska, A., Dembek, A., Fraaije, M., Heidary, J., Iskandarova, M., Rogge, K., Stasik, A. and Crudi, F. (forthcoming), ‘Power to, over and with: exploring the transformative power of social innovations in energy transitions across

Flor Avelino, Julia M. Wittmayer and Adina Dumitru

146  Encyclopedia of social innovation Europe’, Environmental Innovation & Societal Transitions. Avelino, F. and Wittmayer, J. M. (2016), ‘Shifting power relations in sustainability transitions: a multi-actor perspective’, Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 18 (5), pp.  628–49, http://​dx​.doi​.org/​10​.1080/​ 1523908X​.2015​.1112259. Avelino F. and Wittmayer, J. M. (2019), ‘The transformative potential of plural social enterprise: a multi-actor perspective’, in P. Eynaud, J. L. Laville, L. L. Dos Santos, S. Banerjee, H. Hulgard and F. Avelino, Theory of Social Enterprise and Pluralism: Social Movements, Solidarity Economy, and Global South, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 193–222. Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J. M., Pel, B., Weaver, P., Dumitru, A., Haxeltine, A., Kemp, R., Jørgensen, M. S., Bauler, T., Ruijsink, S. and O’Riordan, T. (2019), ‘Transformative social innovation and (dis)empowerment’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, pp. 195–206. Ayob, N., Teasdale, S. and Fagan, K. (2016), ‘How social innovation “came to be”: tracing the evolution of a contested concept’, Journal of Social Policy, 45 (4), pp. 635–53. Bidee, J., Vantilborgh, T., Pepermans, R., Huybrechts, G., Willems, J., Jegers, M. and Hofmans, J. (2013), ‘Autonomous motivation stimulates volunteers work effort: a self-determination theory approach to volunteerism’, Voluntas, 24 (1), pp. 32–47. Clegg, S. R. ([1989] 2002), Frameworks of Power, London: Sage Publications. de Geus, T., Avelino, F., Hendrikx, L., Joshi, V., Schrandt, N., Loorbach, D. and Strumińska-Kutra, M. (2021), Unlocking the Transformative Power of Social Innovation in Energy: A Guide on the Transformative Power of Social Innovations in Energy, accessed 12 October 2022 at https://​sonnet​-energy​.eu/​power​ -guide/​. Friedmann, J. (1992), Empowerment: The Politics of Alternative Development, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Grin, J., Rotmans, J. and Schot, J. (2010), Transitions to Sustainable Development: New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change, New York: Routledge, pp. 221–319. Haugaard, M. (2002), Power: A Reader, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Haxeltine, A., Pel, B., Wittmayer, J., Dumitru, A., Kemp, R. and Avelino, F. (2017), ‘Building a middle-range theory of transformative social innovation; theoretical pitfalls and methodological responses’, European Public & Social Innovation Review, 2 (1), pp. 59–77. Hayward, C. and Lukes, S. (2008), ‘Nobody to shoot? Power, structure, and agency:

a dialogue’, Journal of Power, 1 (1), pp. 5–20, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​17540290801943364. Kern, F. (2011), ‘Ideas, institutions, and interests: explaining policy divergence in fostering “system innovations” towards sustainability’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 29 (6), pp. 1116–34. Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F., Avelino, F. … and Hess, D. (2019), ‘An agenda for sustainability transitions research: state of the art and future directions’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, pp. 1–32. Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N. and Avelino, F. (2017), ‘Sustainability transitions research: transforming science and practice for societal change’, Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 42, pp. 599–626. Meadowcroft, J. (2009), ‘What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions’, Policy Sciences, 42 (4), pp. 323–40. Moulaert, F. and MacCallum, D. (2019), Advanced Introduction to Social Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Moulaert, F., Mehmood, A., MacCallum, D. and Leubolt, B. (2017), Social Innovation as a Trigger for Transformations: The Role of Research, European Commission, DG for Research and Innovation, accessed 12 October 2022 at https://​doi​.org/​10​.2777/​68949. Pel, B., Haxeltine, A., Avelino, F., Dumitru, A., Kemp, R., Bauler, T., Kunze, I., Dorland, J., Wittmayer, J. and Jørgensen, M. S. (2020), ‘Towards a theory of transformative social innovation: a relational framework and 12 propositions’, Research Policy, 49 (8), 104080. Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2000), ‘Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being’, American Psychologist, 55 (1), pp. 68–78. Sen, A. K. (1985), ‘Wellbeing agency and freedom: the Dewey Lectures 1984’, Journal of Philosophy, 82 (4), 169–221. Sen, A. K. (1999), Development as Freedom, New York: Knopf Press. Smith, A. and Stirling, A. (2010), ‘The politics of social-ecological resilience and sustainable socio-technical transitions’, Ecology and Society, 15 (1), p. 11. Swyngedouw, E. (2005), ‘Governance innovation and the citizen: the Janus face of governance-beyond-the-state’, Urban Studies, 42 (11), pp. 1991–2006. Teasdale, S., Roy, M. J., Ziegler, R., Mauksch, S., Dey, P. and Raufflet, E. B. (2020), ‘Everyone a changemaker? Exploring the moral underpinnings of social innovation discourse through real utopias’, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship,

Flor Avelino, Julia M. Wittmayer and Adina Dumitru

Power and empowerment in social innovation  147 12 (3), https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​19420676​.2020​ .1738532. Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W. and Lounsbury, M. (2012), The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure and Process, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wittmayer, J. M., Avelino, F., Pel, B. and Campos, I. (2021), ‘Contributing to sustainable and just

energy systems? The mainstreaming of renewable energy prosumerism within and across institutional logics’, Energy Policy, 149, 112053, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.enpol​.2020​.112053.

Flor Avelino, Julia M. Wittmayer and Adina Dumitru

PART IV ECOSYSTEMS, ACTORS AND GOVERNANCE

26. Collaborative spaces for social innovation Social innovation through collaboration

The focus of this contribution is to highlight the variety of scholarly work in the field of social innovation and collaboration and to illustrate different ways in which collaborations create space to generate socially innovative ideas in tackling social problems. The term collaborative spaces for social innovation is introduced on the basis of similar terms from innovation studies, which speak of collaborative innovation spaces for the development of technological innovation. As a social phenomenon, collaborative spaces for social innovation have gained importance at least throughout the last two decades. The space for collaboration in this sense ranges from rather ad hoc, temporary and loose networks as well as transdisciplinary research projects to more institutionalized organizational forms. Nevertheless, there are some commonalities to be identified in the purpose and functioning of social problem-solving collaborations, cross-sector partnerships, collective impact, social alliances, multistakeholder processes, impact labs, change labs, social innovation labs, public sector labs as well as centres for social innovation (Dentoni et al. 2016; Logsdon 1991; Marcelloni 2019; McGann et al. 2021). Before investigating the notion of spaces, the relation between social innovation and collaboration needs to be clarified. From a sociological, practice theory-based view, social innovation can be framed as recently institutionalized social practices at a certain moment in time. With this, social innovation research focuses on changes in societal and institutional organization, as well as relations between people (Howaldt and Schwarz 2016). In following Jaeggi (2018), Howaldt and Schwarz (2016, p. 52) conceptualize ‘social change as rational, problem-induced and crisis-induced social learning processes’. Accordingly, the result of a successful societal learning process is an adequate solution to a certain problem. Here, it is important to note that what matters is not only the impact of the problem solution but also how the solution has been developed within society. Social

learning processes ‘are reflexive processes that take place neither inevitably nor by themselves, but instead are shaped by actors and are therefore open ended and inconcludable’ (Howaldt and Schwarz 2016, p. 54). In other words, more or less institutionalized new practices (the problem solutions) can be framed as the result of a learning process within social groups or even the whole of society and can be termed social innovation. A critical reflection about the problem solution is based on its normative attributions, including an understanding of the complex relationship between power imbalances that shape institutions and the complexity of interlinked practices (Jaeggi 2018). This is where the role of collaboration comes into play. In her seminal work, Gray (1989) shows under which conditions collaboration enhances the potential to discover novel, innovative solutions to social problems. She defines collaboration as ‘a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible’ (Gray 1989, p. 5). This being said, there is a strong link between the notion of collaboration and the notion of social innovation. Social innovation is mainly created collaboratively (i.e. in the interaction of actors that have previously often acted separately) (Sørensen and Torfing 2016; Ziegler 2020). Here, collaboration gains importance because new networks and partnerships are created. The adjective collaborative underlines the cooperation of the most diverse actors, some of whom can take very contrary positions (Ziegler 2020). The difference can be based on many criteria, for example the associated societal sectors (public administration, private sector, organized civil society), the policy fields to be considered (health, education, transport, agriculture, etc.), the scope for decision-making and personal characteristics like gender, origin and so on. In social innovation research, collaborations are inherent to all stages from socially innovative initiatives to widespread institutionalized practices. Spaces for collaboration can support these processes, starting from the emergence of socially innovative initiatives (a practice invention) to the widespread, even global uptake of a social innovation in a specific context (Howaldt and Schwarz 2016).

149

150  Encyclopedia of social innovation

Enabling collaboration for social innovation: insights from social innovation labs, hubs and centres

Following this understanding of social innovation and collaboration we can subsume different organizational configurations under the term collaborative space for social innovation. The literature identifies certain key characteristics that highlight commonalities of collaborative spaces for social innovation which can be summarized as follows: (1) the purpose of creating novelty in practices and institutions in very specific contexts, (2) collaboration as an organizational form and (3) the social (and often political) dimension of problems.1 The three key characteristics are explained in more detail below. The purpose of creating novelty in practices in specific contexts Collaborative spaces for social innovation such as social innovation labs (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION LABS) offer a space and method to organize and possibly optimize the process to create socially innovative initiatives (Mulgan 2014). There is a growing number of organizations that seek to be a breeding ground for social innovation. Therefore, these spaces are a possible starting point for social innovation as they help socially innovative inventions (e.g. a novelty to a practice or institution), to develop (Wascher 2021). As stated above, collaborative spaces for social innovation are a means to enable the starting point for social innovation. Their main impact is on the idea and invention level rather than on the diffusion and systemic change level. Changes on system level usually take decades to evolve and comprise more complex processes and complex dynamics than can be achieved by just a single innovation process (Westley and Laban 2015). Collaboration as an organizational form Furthermore, collaborative spaces for social innovation create the necessary organizational form for socially innovative initiatives to develop. Organizational form in this sense means a certain space where collaboration is initiated and facilitated. According to Roberts and Bradley (1991, p. 223) collaboration can be defined as ‘a temporary organizational form in which two or more social actors Eva Wascher

work together toward a singular common end that requires transmutation of materials, ideas, and/or social relations to achieve that end’. Hereby, partners intend to retain organizational autonomy while joining forces to tackle a shared social problem (Selsky and Parker 2005). Collaborative processes require skilled leadership for initiating and convening the process based on consensus decision-making and responsible stakeholder inclusion led by a skilled convener. Stakeholders need to be diverse in terms of social capital, shared resources and the visions and perspectives they bring into the process. Finally, a transparent and inclusive communication is key to promote trust and shared goals (Gray 1989; Marcelloni 2019; Steen et al. 2018). The difficulties in initiating and facilitating collaborations are manifold. Participants engaged in the process have differing agendas and institutional logics (Bryson et al. 2006; Tiesinga and Berkhout 2014). Therefore, these multistakeholder processes require a partnership formation process in order to dismantle obstacles for collaboration. This kind of ongoing realignment contributes to building trustworthy relationships. This relates to the level of commitment to participation in cross-sector collaboration (Logsdon 1991). Furthermore, the more diverse a multistakeholder partnership is, the more difficult it is to align values and find a common working ground (Selsky and Parker 2005; Manning and Roessler 2014). The social (and often political) dimension of problems Collaborative spaces for social innovation address challenges from all areas of society. These challenges are often articulated as political problems. Therefore, many social innovation processes fall in the context of (innovative) policymaking and public sector innovation labs (Bason 2018; Tõnurist et al. 2017). Furthermore, there is a strong relation between such spaces and participatory policymaking in emphasizing the need for citizens to actively contribute to policy issues (Clarke and Craft 2019). As social innovation often implies a political dimension it is relevant to discuss the role of mandating collaborative processes for social problem solving. When phrasing the problem or challenge that is supposed to be solved within

Collaborative spaces for social innovation  151

an innovation process one needs to identify actors who profit from the status quo of a problem and actors who are disadvantaged by the status quo. Theoretically, this opens up possibilities for participatory policymaking, including a strengthened role for organized civil society. However, it is questionable whether it is possible to always constitute a well-balanced group of participants in a collaboration where all parties that have a stake in a problem can equally contribute to its solution (Joy et al. 2019). Furthermore, funding structures (by private donors, public funding, etc.) might also impose a power bias which might prevent an open solution process (Tiesinga and Berkhout 2014). Despite all difficulties, some authors identify a collaborative advantage for social problem solving which is ‘superior to both authority and competition when it comes to producing innovative solutions in the public sector’ (Sørensen and Torfing 2016, p. 118).

Creating space for social innovation: acknowledging the value of collaboration in innovation systems Creating space for social innovation Collaborative partnerships have a long and broad tradition in building infrastructure and spreading technological innovation. But notably, in recent decades collaborative partnerships as a distinct organizational form for social and political problem solving have gained certain practical and scholarly attention, too. As mentioned above, collaborative spaces for social innovation create the necessary space for socially innovative initiatives to develop. This space can be virtual, physical or both, can last for a temporary period of time or be rather long-lasting and can geographically target innovations from neighbourhood level to global outreach. As an organizational form, these spaces can be organized in very different ways. For example, as a single, independent organization they can take the legal form of an association, a cooperative, or a not-for-profit social enterprise. As part of an existing organization they comprise staff units or intraorganizational networks. In addition, collaborative spaces for social innovation can also be organized as interorganizational networks, for example as a partnership

of different organizations or a community platform. Space also relates to locality. For physical spaces like hubs, labs and centres, the interior space in which work is carried out as well as the location of the facility in a specific neighbourhood are central elements of an organization’s self-perception (Tiesinga and Berkhout 2014). Creating collaborative space for social innovation is resource-intensive and it needs a support structure which includes significant funding to build collaborative teams. Therefore, collaborative spaces for social innovation are only seldom self-sustaining, most of them have a rather short-term lifecycle (Tiesinga and Berkhout 2014; Tõnurist et al. 2017). The role of intermediation for innovation The important role of intermediaries and the process of intermediation is highly acknowledged in innovation studies. However, the innovation literature discusses intermediation and collaborative innovation as concepts that refer to cooperation among different private business actors with the aim to enhance business opportunities (Howells 2006). Gay and Szostak (2020, p. 143) describe Collaborative Innovation Space as an umbrella term to refer to new organizational forms that ‘play an invaluable interface role as part of a largely open innovation, participating in the emergence of new innovation ecosystems’. With regard to ecosystems this links to the concept of microlocations. Physical proximity of collaborative innovation spaces facilitates informal exchanges which strengthens the innovation ecosystem (Gay and Szostak 2020). This also applies for intermediary actors in social innovation processes. Manning and Roessler (2014) describe intermediaries for social problem-solving collaborations as bridging agents. These bridging agents can also have different forms. For example, an external intermediary (e.g. a consultancy), can fulfil the function of a bridging agent. This involvement might have ambivalent effects because an external intermediary can support the creation of project opportunities across sectors but it might result in processes that are too standardized and based on narrow agendas. In contrast, they find that in single innovation processes that are initiated by an internal intermediary ‘representatives Eva Wascher

152  Encyclopedia of social innovation

of partner organizations, are more likely to promote social innovation’ (Manning and Roessler 2014, p. 528). Accordingly, collaborative spaces for social innovation can be framed as important intermediaries in innovation ecosystems.

Outlook

Intermediary organizations, such as labs and centres for social innovation, contribute to initiating, moderating and methodically shaping social innovation processes. They support the management of complex problems, especially those for which there is (usually) no clear formal responsibility. Collaborative spaces of social innovation offer opportunities and methods to meet challenges that arise for example at the level of municipalities, but also at political levels beyond. For example, through new forms of cooperation between urban actors, these challenges, such as the development of municipal mobility systems or the revitalization of vacant real estate, can be tackled in a promising way. Therefore, collaborative spaces for social innovation have an important role in contributing to transformations for sustainable development and as an instrument of collaborative governance (Keast and Mandell 2014; Schäpke et al. 2018; Marcelloni 2019). In the sustainability transitions literature, collaborative intermediary organizations are facilitators of innovation niche creation (Hamann and April 2013). They create a space for ‘articulating expectations around societal challenges and appraising these expectations’ (Ghosh et al. 2021, p. 742). Against this background, collaborative spaces for social innovation continue to gain in importance and in many places now form an important component of local innovation ecosystems (Domanski et al. 2020; OECD 2021). Eva Wascher

Note 1.

Of course, social innovation can also be related to new practices within organizations (e.g. as a focus in the management and innovation studies literature) (Gay and Szostak 2020). For example, intraorganizational processes such as intrapreneurial learning are a key feature here (Rosenow-Gerhard 2021).

Eva Wascher

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Bason, C. (2018), Leading public sector innovation (second edition), Bristol: Bristol University Press. Bryson, J. M., B. C. Crosby and M. M. Stone (2006), ‘The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: propositions from the literature’, Public Administration Review, 66 (s1), pp. 44–55. Clarke, A. and J. Craft (2019), ‘The twin faces of public sector design’, Governance, 32 (1), pp. 5–21. Dentoni, D., V. Bitzer and S. Pascucci (2016), ‘Cross-sector partnerships and the co-creation of dynamic capabilities for stakeholder orientation’, Journal of Business Ethics, 135 (1), pp. 35–53. Domanski, D., J. Howaldt and C. Kaletka (2020), ‘A comprehensive concept of social innovation and its implications for the local context’, European Planning Studies, 28 (3), pp. 454–74. Gay, C. and B. Szostak (2020), ‘From territorialised innovation to collaborative innovation space’, Journal of Innovation Economics & Management, 32 (2), pp. 135–58. Ghosh, B., P. Kivimaa, M. Ramirez, J. Schot and J. Torrens (2021), ‘Transformative outcomes: assessing and reorienting experimentation with transformative innovation policy’, Science and Public Policy, 48 (5), pp. 739–56. Gray, B. (1989), Collaborating: finding common ground for multiparty problems, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hamann, R. and K. April (2013), ‘On the role and capabilities of collaborative intermediary organisations in urban sustainability transitions’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, pp. 12–21. Howaldt, J. and M. Schwarz (2016), ‘Social innovation and its relationship to social change: verifying existing social theories in reference to social innovation and its relationship to social change’, accessed 2 March 2022 at https://​ eldorado​.tu​-dortmund​.de/​handle/​2003/​35207. Howells, J. (2006), ‘Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation’, Research Policy, 35 (5), pp. 715–28. Jaeggi, R. (2018), Critique of forms of life, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Joy, M., J. Shields and S. M. Cheng (2019), ‘Social innovation labs: a neoliberal austerity driven process or democratic intervention?’, Alternate Routes: A Journal of Critical Social Research, 30 (2), pp. 35–54. Keast, R. and M. Mandell (2014), ‘The collaborative push: moving beyond rhetoric and gaining evidence’, Journal of Management and

Collaborative spaces for social innovation  153 Governance, 18 (1), 9–28, https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1007/​s10997​-012​-9234​-5. Logsdon, J. M. (1991), ‘Interests and interdependence in the formation of social problem-solving collaborations’, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27 (1), pp. 23–37. Manning, S. and D. Roessler (2014), ‘The formation of cross-sector development partnerships: how bridging agents shape project agendas and longer-term alliances’, Journal of Business Ethics, 123 (3), pp. 527–47. Marcelloni, C. (2019), ‘The 3 T’s framework of social innovation labs’, CERN IdeaSquare Journal of Experimental Innovation, 3 (1), pp. 8–14. McGann, M., T. Wells and E. Blomkamp (2021), ‘Innovation labs and co-production in public problem solving’, Public Management Review, 23 (2), pp. 297–316. Mulgan, G. (2014), ‘The radical’s dilemma: an overview of the practice and prospects of social and public labs’, accessed 2 March 2022 at https://​media​.nesta​.org​.uk/​documents/​ social​_and​_public​_labs​_​-​_and​_the​_radicals​ _dilemma​.pdf. OECD (2021), ‘Building local ecosystems for social innovation: a methodological framework’, Local Employment and Economic Development (LEED) papers, accessed 2 March 2022 at https://​www​.oecd​.org/​cfe/​building​ -local​-ecosystems​-for​-social​-innovation​ -bef867cd​-en​.htm. Roberts, N. C. and R. T. Bradley (1991), ‘Stakeholder collaboration and innovation: a study of public policy initiation at the state level’, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 27 (2), pp. 209–27. Rosenow-Gerhard, J. (2021), ‘Lessons learned – configuring innovation labs as spaces for intrapreneurial learning’, Studies in Continuing Education, 43 (2), pp. 244–60. Schäpke, N., F. Stelzer, G. Caniglia, M. Bergmann, M. Wanner, M. Singer-Brodowski,

D. Loorbach, P. Olsson, C. Baedeker and D. J. Lang (2018), ‘Jointly experimenting for transformation? Shaping real-world laboratories by comparing them’, GAIA: Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 27 (1), pp. 85–96. Selsky, J. W. and B. Parker (2005), ‘Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: challenges to theory and practice’, Journal of Management, 31 (6), pp. 849–73. Sørensen, E. and J. Torfing (2016), ‘Collaborative innovation in the public sector’, in J. Torfing and P. Triantafillou (eds), Enhancing public innovation by transforming public governance, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 117–39. Steen, T., T. Brandsen and B. Verschuere (2018), ‘The dark side of co-creation and co-production: seven evils’, in T. Brandsen, T. Steen and B. Verschuere (eds), Co-production and co-creation: engaging citizens in public services, New York: Routledge, pp. 284–93. Tiesinga, H. and R. Berkhout (2014), Labcraft: how social labs cultivate change through innovation and collaboration, London/San Francisco, CA: Labcraft Publishing. Tõnurist, P., R. Kattel and V. Lember (2017), ‘Innovation labs in the public sector: what they are and what they do?’, Public Management Review, 19 (10), pp. 1455–79. Wascher, E. (2021), ‘Collaborative spaces for social innovation’, in J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka and A. Schröder (eds), Research agenda for social innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 211–28. Westley, F. and S. Laban (2015), ‘Social innovation lab guide’, Waterloo Institute for Social Innovation and Resilience, University of Waterloo. Ziegler, R. (2020), Innovation, ethics and our common futures: a collaborative philosophy, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Eva Wascher

27. Cross-sector collaboration for social innovation Introduction

Cross-sector collaboration (CSC) as an enabler of social innovation has been much vaunted by practitioners and widely researched. Typically grounded in a logic that responding to contemporary socio-ecological problems requires novel combinations of actors and resources and multiple points of intervention in societal systems, CSC forms part of the so-called collaborative paradigm of twenty-first-century management (Austin 2000) and the interpretive turn of contemporary approaches to public governance (Rhodes 2007). While all practices of social innovation may involve CSCs, they are particularly prevalent in co-design of services (→ DESIGN FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION), place-based approaches to creating social or sustainability transitions and social entrepreneurship. Reflecting the eclectic and hybrid nature of social innovation research, the scholarly literature on CSC is variously informed by policy studies, management, community psychology, and design thinking. As Brandsen and Honingh (2018) observe, the multidisciplinary nature of both research and practice of CSCs generates opportunities and challenges, as the languages and lenses applied as well as the phenomena being developed or studied are diverse and not always complementary. In this brief entry, we organize our discussion of current practice and evidence about CSCs and social innovation around their two main observable drivers: responding to wicked problems, where practice is typically stimulated by governments and civil society actors; and seeking to scale the impacts of discrete social innovations, where practice is typically stimulated by business and social economy actors.

Defining cross-sector collaboration

CSC refers to the linking or sharing of information, resources, activities, and capabilities by organizations in two or more sectors (e.g. business, government, third sector/social economy) to jointly achieve an outcome that

could not be achieved by organizations in one sector alone (Bryson et al. 2015). While documented Western examples of CSC go back to the mid-1800s (Barraket et al. 2016) and Indigenous peoples have practised forms of collaborative leadership for millennia (Spiller et al. 2020), this form of organizing has attracted considerable attention in policy and practice over the past 30 years. In relation to social innovation activities, forms of CSC include: local governance networks; public– private partnerships; private not-for-profit partnerships; and multilateral arrangements. Researchers have been observing CSC since the late 1980s (Vangen and Huxham 2013). Over the past 15 years, various frameworks for understanding CSC – such as shared value (Porter and Kramer 2006), collaborative value creation (Austin and Seitanidi 2014) and collective impact (Kania and Kramer 2011) – have been developed and critiqued by scholars, practitioners and consultants. As detailed by Keast and Mandell (2014) collaboration forms part of a relationship continuum, with not all forms of cross-sector practice constituting collaboration. Successful collaboration exists at the mature end of the spectrum (Figure 27.1) and is characterized by stable long-term and high-trust relationships with high levels of reciprocal interdependency, open and frequent communication and consensus building, shared risk and power, diverse competencies, commonly recognized goals and a need to work together for mutual success (Keast and Mandell 2014). In contrast, cooperation and coordination appear earlier on the relational spectrum and may involve shorter term, more informal and/or largely involuntary low-trust relations between people and organizations driven by individual or semi-independent goals. While not all cross-sector activity requires collaboration to meet shared goals, it is typically acknowledged that collaborations that move beyond the more transactional to transformational stages are better positioned to tackle complex social issues (Austin and Seitanidi 2014). Nevertheless, such arrangements are notoriously challenging to develop and sustain (Vangen and Huxham 2013).

Key findings: cross-sector collaboration in social innovation

In broad terms, CSC in social innovation is driven by (1) the need to address complex or

154

Cross-sector collaboration for social innovation  155

Source: Adapted from Keast (2016).

Figure 27.1

The collaboration continuum

wicked social problems in ways that cannot be achieved by individual or disparate actors, and (2) goals to scale or diffuse the positive social impacts of interventions and models that prove fruitful. A full review of the role of CSCs in social innovation activities would require a substantially longer contribution than we are able to provide here. To offer focused analysis, we concentrate on specific practices that accord with these two broad drivers in relation to place-based interventions, and social entrepreneurship. As we shall describe, social movements are another manifestation of social innovation which have played an historical role in advancing CSC practices across these domains. With regard to addressing complex or wicked social problems, place as a site of mobilizing assets and responding to socio-economic disadvantage has a long history, with renewed attention since the advent of globalization. The role of CSC in place-based approaches to socio-economic change harks back to the 1980s, when the emergence of community coalitions became a prevalent form of local development intervention, particularly in the United States. Stimulated by community activists and institutionalized over time through the influence of both governments and philanthropy, community coalitions focus on both coordinating the resources of communities, community and government agencies, and intervening at individual and meso levels of systems that produce inequalities (Butterfoss et al. 1993).

While the effectiveness of community coalitions has been largely queried in the evaluation literature (discussed further below), the logic of place-based CSC which they embody continued to resonate in emerging approaches to public governance. Under the so-called third way political agenda introduced by the former New Labour UK government led by Tony Blair, a renewed emphasis was put on place-based cross-sector partnerships as vehicles for ameliorating social exclusion and responding to the local effects of an increasingly globalized economy. Since this period, the role of place-based multilevel and cross-sector governance efforts has become prevalent in many jurisdictions as governments seek to redress the local effects of global problems, as well as supranational and national policy interventions that create new socio-ecological problems. While governments have played a substantial legitimizing function of CSCs in relation to place-based interventions for change, civil society has also been significant. In the context of integrated area development in Europe, for example, Nussbaumer and Moulaert (2004) observe that social movements play a central integrative role in brokering collaborations between different agencies and levels of government and social economy organizations. Beyond place, this resonates with past impacts of some social movements – such as the consumer health movement – which have been active in both illuminating the regressive effects of institutions (such Jo Barraket and Sally McGeoch

156  Encyclopedia of social innovation

as medical science based on exclusion of women from medical trials) and mobilizing coalitions across sectors and institutions to devise solutions through substantial reforms and new models of intervention (Sobnosky 2013). With regard to the role of CSCs in diffusing or scaling the impacts of social innovations, developments in social entrepreneurship offer salient examples. Here, CSCs have been recognized as vehicles for mobilizing resources to grow the impacts of particular social enterprises or social enterprise models. They have also emerged as policy and practice leaders have recognized the need to scale social entrepreneurial ecosystems (and system interventions) in order to scale social impacts. For example, Westley et al. (2014) differentiate between scaling out, which involves traditional models of scaling a social enterprise business model such as via replication, and scaling up where an enterprise seeks to challenge the underlying structures and systems which hold the social problem in place. They argue that alliance building and engaging with cross-sector partners are key success factors for enterprises seeking to achieve widespread systems change and refer to this practice as institutional entrepreneurship. However, they suggest that the move from social entrepreneurship to institutional entrepreneurship is significant and requires a reframing of the problem, adopting a mind-set of systems change, and re-evaluationg the enterprise’s role in addressing the social issue (Westley et al. 2014). An example is the Vancouver-based disability organization, Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network, shifting their focus from providing family-level support to advocating for policy change to address systemic issues affecting the longer-term financial security for people with disabilities (Westley et al. 2014). The substantial evaluation literature on older CSC approaches such as community coalitions finds that many have not been successful either in engaging a diverse array of actors or in fulfilling their stated goals for impact (Kadushin et al. 2005). Challenges have included not being able to address macro-systemic effects on place through local initiatives, and weak governance and decision-making. Evaluation research from the early approaches to CSCs under Third Way poliJo Barraket and Sally McGeoch

tics also found that truly addressing wicked problems through collaboration was difficult, with collaborations typically reverting to addressing less complex problems in order to avoid conflict or cultural challenges of working across divergent sectors and organizations (Lawless 2006). Reflecting its more recent evolution, there is less comprehensive research on CSCs in the context of social entrepreneurship. The empirical literature available suggests that this may be due to the small scale and early stage nature of the social enterprise sector, with a dominant partnership focus on resource dependence (Di Domenico et al. 2009). As such, social entrepreneurs’ approaches to CSC may start with more short-term and self-interested interactions, such as traditional philanthropic partnerships, and evolve over time to more collaborative engagements (Selsky and Parker 2005).

Critical reflection and outlook

The limitations and challenges of cross-sector collaboration can be broadly characterized as practical, cultural and systemic. Practically, effective cross-sector collaboration can be resource-intensive and requires effective governance arrangements. Potential partners often face a trade-off between seizing the opportunity to start such coalitions with investing the time and effort to explore the exact nature of the problem they are seeking to solve, their motivations and shared vision (Tulder et al. 2016). Rushing into such commitments can then further hamper the ability of the CSC to establish a framework to measure the effectiveness and impacts of CSCs, discussed further in relation to research challenges below. Culturally, effective CSCs require the development of shared language, common goals, a learning mindset, and ways of working that may challenge the usual norms of sectors or organizations participating in these activities. And systemically, CSCs require recognition and renegotiation of traditional power relationships and resourcing structures, as well as the exercise of collaboration within neoliberal settings that typically privilege competition. Past research has also noted that CSCs tend to gravitate to dealing with those problems that are collectively acceptable to address, rather than those that are the hardest to solve, thus undermining the very purpose of CSCs

Cross-sector collaboration for social innovation  157

as platforms through which to resolve wicked problems (Lawless 2006). Despite increased interest in the need for cross-sector approaches to tackle complex social issues, there is a lack of evidence of the impact of contemporary cross-sector collaborations, particularly those initiated through business and social economy actors. Collaborative value and impact has multiple dimensions based on who benefits from the collaboration internally and externally at the micro (impact on individuals), meso (impact on organizations), and macro (systemic impact) levels (Austin and Seitanidi 2012). Ironically, although the external benefits such as the betterment of society are the fundamental purpose for cross-sector collaboration, it is the value dimension that is least understood in theory and practice (Austin and Seitanidi 2012; Clarke and Crane 2018). This evidence gap is likely due to the dynamic and complex nature of cross-sector collaborations that require sophisticated methodologies, multi-level tools, and longitudinal research designs that are not easy to develop and implement. There is also the issue of attribution which involves discerning specific CSC impacts from other contributing influences (Tulder et al. 2016). However, as the interest in CSCs grows, an understanding of their impacts is essential to inform and support their legitimacy and credibility as effective and efficient approaches to solving complex social and environmental issues, as well as in determining their necessary limits.1 Jo Barraket and Sally McGeoch

Note 1.

The authors thank Ruby Doyle for her assistance with formatting.

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Austin, J. E. (2000), ‘Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and businesses’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29 (1_suppl), pp.  69–97, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​ 0899764000291S004. Austin, J. E. and M. M. Seitanidi (2012), ‘Collaborative value creation: a review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses. Part 2: partnership processes and outcomes’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,

41 (6), pp.  929–68, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​ 0899764012454685. Austin, J. E. and M. M. Seitanidi (2014), Creating Value in Nonprofit-Business Collaborations: New Thinking and Practice, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Barraket, J., R. Keast and C. Furneaux (2016), Social Procurement and New Public Governance, Abingdon: Routledge. Brandsen, T. and M. Honingh (2018), ‘Definitions of co-production and co-creation’, in T. Brandsen, T. Steen and B. Verschuere (eds), Co-Production and Co-Creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services, Abingdon,: Routledge, pp. 9–17. Bryson, J., B. Crosby and M. M. Stone (2006), ‘The design and implementation of cross sector collaborations: propositions from the literature’, Public Administration Review, 66 (sS), pp.  44–55, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1111/​j​.1540​-6210​ .2006​.00665​.x. Butterfoss, F. D., R. M. Goodman and A. Wandersman (1993), ‘Community coalitions for prevention and health promotion’, Health Education Research, 8 (3), pp. 315–30, https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1093/​her/​8​.3​.315. Clarke, A. and A. Crane (2018), ‘Cross sector partnerships for systemic change: systematized literature review and agenda for further research’, Journal of Business Ethics, 150 (2), pp. 303–13, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​s10551​-018​-3922​-2. Di Domenico, M., P. Tracey and H. Haugh (2009), ‘The dialectic of social exchange: theorizing corporate–social enterprise collaboration’, Organization Studies, 30 (8), pp. 887–907, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​0170840609334954. Kadushin, C., M. Lindholm, D. Ryan, A. Brodsky and L. Saxe (2005), ‘Why it is so difficult to form effective community coalitions’, City & Community, 4 (3), pp. 255–75, https://​doi​.org/​ 10​.1111/​j​.1540​-6040​.2005​.00116​.x. Kania, J. and M. Kramer (2011), ‘Collective impact’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter 2011, pp. 36–41. Keast, R. (2016), ‘Shining a light on the black box of collaboration: mapping the prerequisites for cross-sector working’, in J. R. Butcher and D. J. Gilchrist (eds), The Three Sector Solution: Delivering Public Policy in Collaboration with Not-for-Profits and Business, Canberra: ANU Press, pp. 157–78, http://​doi​.org/​10​.22459/​TSS​.07​.2016. Keast, R. and M. Mandell (2014), ‘The collaborative push: moving beyond rhetoric and gaining evidence’, Journal of Management & Governance, 18, pp.  9–28, https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1007/​s10997​-012​-9234​-5. Lawless, P. (2006), ‘Area-based urban interventions: rationale and outcomes: the new deal for communities programme in England’, Urban

Jo Barraket and Sally McGeoch

158  Encyclopedia of social innovation Studies, 43 (11), pp. 1991–2011, https://​doi​.org/​ 10​.1080/​00420980600897859. Nussbaumer, J. and F. Moulaert (2004), ‘Integrated area development and social innovation in European cities’, City, 8 (2), pp. 249–57, https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1080/​1360481042000242201. Porter M. E. and M. R. Kramer (2006), ‘Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility’, Harvard Business Review, 84 (12), pp. 78–92. PMID: 17183795. Rhodes, R. A. W. (2007), ‘Understanding governance: ten years on’, Organization Studies, 28 (8), pp.  1243–64, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​ 0170840607076586. Selsky, J. W. and B. Parker (2005), ‘Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: challenges to theory and practice’, Journal of Management, 31 (6), pp.  849–73, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​ 0149206305279601. Sobnosky, M. J. (2013), ‘Experience, testimony, and the women’s health movement’, Women’s Studies in Communication, 36 (3), pp.  217–42, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​07491409​ .2013​.835667. Spiller C., R. Maunganui Wolfgramm, E. Henry and R. Pouwhare (2020), ‘Paradigm war-

Jo Barraket and Sally McGeoch

riors: advancing a radical ecosystems view of collective leadership from an Indigenous Māori perspective’, Human Relations, 73 (4), pp.  516–43, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​ 0018726719893753. Tulder, R., M. Seitanidi, A. Crane and S. Brammer (2016), ‘Enhancing the impact of cross-sector partnerships’, Journal of Business Ethics, 135 (1), pp.  1–17, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​s10551​ -015​-2756​-4. Vangen, S. and C. Huxham (2013), ‘Building and using the theory of collaborative advantage’, in R. Keast, M. P. Mandell and R. Agranoff (eds), Network Theory in the Public Sector: Building New Theoretical Frameworks, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 51–67. Westley, F., N. Antadze, D. J. Riddell, K. Robinson and S. Geobey (2014), ‘Five configurations for scaling up social innovation: case examples of nonprofit organizations from Canada’, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50 (3), pp. 234–60, https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1177/​0021886314532945.

28. Ecosystems of social innovation What are social innovation ecosystems?

Understanding and unlocking the potential of social innovation and comprehending the complex reasons for an initiative’s failure or success are tasks, which feature prominently on both the innovation research and the innovation policy agenda. Social innovation ecosystems are an emerging theoretical approach, which has helped to make more prominent the notion of environment for social innovations within the scientific debate (Domanski et al. 2020). It is especially important regarding the question of how social innovations diffuse, how they are adopted, imitated, and translated to other contexts. As various scholars have shown, the ecosystem concept was originally applied to the broader subject of innovation with a focus on the environment of business and entrepreneurship (Andion and Alperstedt 2021; Lévesque 2016; Oh et al. 2016). With a focus on management studies, Thomas and Autio (2019) attribute the popularity of the ecosystem approach in innovation studies to its conceptual flexibility and present a typology of ecosystem concepts that does, however, not consider social innovation ecosystems as a distinct type. Drawn from ecology the term has also been applied to the field of social innovation in recent years. At the same time, the notion of ecosystems means not only a terminological but also a conceptual demarcation from widely used models of innovation systems (→ INNOVATION SYSTEMS). Social innovation ecosystems describe a multitude of factors supporting or hindering the development of social innovations and social innovation initiatives. Different concepts with varying perspectives on actors and actors’ roles, policy frameworks or normative settings have been developed to theoretically underpin the plethora of social innovation initiatives striving to overcome societal challenges in different local, national, or international contexts (Howaldt et al. 2016). There is a shared understanding that the interrelations between those elements are a constitutive factor of every social

innovation ecosystem. The concept of social innovation ecosystems is an emerging field of innovation research with strong implications for all efforts in which novel ideas are put into practice, and in which established social innovations are supposed to be transferred and institutionalized. Concepts of social innovation ecosystems help to overcome actor-centred approaches and the focus on the social innovator as the key agent of change. With its adaptation especially on the local and regional level, one of the most prominent areas in which the concept of social innovation has increasingly become a research focus in the social sciences (see e.g. Brandsen et al. 2016; Kropp 2015; Moulaert et al. 2005), the social innovation ecosystems approach recognizes the significance of the political and normative framework in which an initiative emerges, the cultural setting which can hinder or stimulate its development, institutional conditions as well as key actors and networks of the ecosystem. It also acknowledges the increasing importance of new infrastructures such as social innovation labs and centres (→ COLLABORATIVE SPACES FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION) and their capacity to understand and shape a social innovation ecosystem.

Concepts and key findings

Lévesque (2016) traces the genesis of the ecosystem concept in the context of economics back to the similarities to natural ecosystems, but also summarizes differences that distinguish business ecosystems from natural ecosystems. The common ground would be the context shared by the various elements of an ecosystem, which, despite all their differences, determine a common evolution. According to Levesque, a key difference to natural ecosystems is the ability of business ecosystem actors to act in a targeted and strategic manner (ibid.). While ecosystem concepts gained importance in Economics, it developed in parallel with more dominant discourses – first and foremost the discourse on innovation systems. This parallel development is also the basis for a critical reception of the ecosystem concept. For instance, Oh et al. (2016) criticize the body of literature on innovation ecosystems as being insufficiently differentiated overall from other discourse around innovation systems and other

159

160  Encyclopedia of social innovation

approaches to analysing business environments. In addition, they describe the analogy between innovation systems and natural ecosystems as inconsistent – among other aspects, as the latter are not intentionally designed. Although still influenced by the debate on innovation ecosystems and entrepreneurship ecosystems (Andion and Alperstedt 2021), in research on social innovation, the term has taken on a different status in recent years and, by now, competes far less with other approaches while it became also distinctive to them. On a common basis with innovation studies in general, ecosystem concepts in social innovation research attempt to answer the question of conditions for the success of social innovation but with a special emphasis of its social embeddedness, for instance in respect to factors for stimulation and successful diffusion of social innovation or the development of ecosystems (Pel et al. 2020). Other essential elements of ecosystem concepts in social innovation research are the focus on pathways for ‘transferability and scalability’ (Domanski 2018, p. 124), such as diffusion of social innovation, scaling of initiatives or replication and adaptation of approaches. The analysis of the institutionalization of social innovation is another central research focus in this context. Furthermore, actors and their networks are a main focus of Social Innovation Ecosystem research – be they exclusively human and collective (human) actors or, in an extended understanding, even human and non-human actors (Andion et al. 2020) in the sense of Latour’s (1987) approach to the Actor-Network Theory (ANT) concept. With this approach, Andion et al. thus also bridge the gap between actors, the networks, and the role of other factors. In a seminal work on understanding and changing ecosystems for social entrepreneurs, influenced by an upcoming discourse in management studies, Bloom and Dees (2008) came up with the idea that social environments are just as much characterized by interdependencies and mutual influence of its elements (here: ‘players’ and ‘environmental conditions’; ibid., p. 49f.) as biological ecosystems. In contrast to what they call the ‘traditional framework’ of ‘industrial organization economics’ (ibid., p. 47f.), here they also describe an understanding of framework conditions already that goes beyond limiting the perspective to actor-groups in

focus of the traditional approach from economics, namely ‘competitors, suppliers, and customers’ (ibid., p. 48). With this concept, they provided both a basis for distinction to traditional entrepreneurship and innovation studies and momentum for a number of new approaches on social innovation ecosystems that enclose and expand the analytical lens to a complex set of framework conditions for social innovation, for instance, the approach of Kaletka et al. (2016). By now, in social innovation research the ecosystem term is predominantly used when conceptualizing, discussing or analysing the context of social innovation. At the same time, while a distinct research field of social innovation developed, the different approaches to this research field and its research object (e.g. Ayob et al. 2016; Rüede and Lurtz 2012) with different thematic, sectoral, and disciplinary foci simultaneously grounded the development of different ecosystem concepts without a unified approach (Terstriep et al. 2020) despite the aforementioned commonalities. Given the diversity of the research field of Social Innovation and its ecosystem concepts, literature studies and systematizing studies on social innovation ecosystems have especially been published lately, trying to create a better picture of the meaning of social innovation ecosystems (Andion and Alperstedt 2021; Jütting 2020; Terstriep et al. 2020; Pel et al. 2020), partly for specific foci like sustainability (Jütting 2020). All of these works show that social innovation ecosystems can be differentiated and characterized by operationalizing varying criteria like a typology based on the relation between the levels of ‘local embedding’, ‘transnational connectivity’ and ‘discursive resonance’ (Pel et al. 2020, p. 312) for empowering social innovation initiatives, or the explorative approach to understanding what constitutes desirable ecosystems by Terstriep et al. (2020) through the analytical lens of regional innovation systems. Andion and Alperstedt (2021) identify three distinct streams of thinking and research on social innovation ecosystems. They distinguish these streams essentially in terms of the elements considered and the areas focused on. While two streams – among other factors – can be characterized overall by a predominant focus on social entrepreneurs and social enterprise and show particularly clear references to the innovation systems and

Dmitri Domanski, Christoph Kaletka and Daniel Krüger

Ecosystems of social innovation  161

business systems literature, they also identify a stream that takes a more open approach and considers ‘that research must consider the particularities of various contexts […] and their impacts’ (ibid., p. 155). Especially those concepts that consider openness to different factors in different contexts (e.g. territories) and pursue integrative approaches establish in this way a particularly distinct, yet not disconnected, approach to ecosystems compared to innovation system studies. Such concepts include (ibid.) the approaches of Kaletka et al. (2016), Terstriep et al. (2020) and of Andion et al. (2020). In this context, the model by Kaletka et al. (2016) can be considered an integrative approach, which takes into account the value of different research foci presented above. It is aiming to combine a wide range of ecosystemic elements including individual actors (e.g. social entrepreneurs as innovators) or networks, policies, regulations and laws, the dynamics of the environment and the dynamics of social innovation itself. In this way, the authors developed an ecosystem concept that accounts for the context-specificity of social innovation and its ecosystems. The model also takes into account the dynamic development of the research field and can integrate newly identified factors. In this respect, the so-called ‘onion model’ (ibid., p. 86), which was derived from a model developed for media studies (Weischenberg 1990), represents an open research heuristic for the analysis and further development of ecosystems. Specifically, the model encompasses the ‘context of norms’ at the macro level of a specific context, such as different ‘structures’ and ‘actors and [their] roles’ at the meso level, as well as concrete processes and how they function in the ‘context of functions’ (Kaletka et al. 2016, p. 85) at the micro level. The integrative character of a model such as that of Kaletka et al. is also based on its compatibility with different research logics and research traditions. Institutions can be taken into account just as much as actor networks in the sense of ANT, actors and their roles in the sense of Bloom and Dees (2008) or normative approaches to social innovation.

Reflection and outlook

Social innovation ecosystems is still a very recent concept in both research and practice,

but it has already proven to be crucial for further understanding and developing social innovations. The systemic character of social innovation, the consideration of a whole variety of actors and the focus on the different contexts within which social innovation processes occur – all these key features of the concept are moving social innovation research to the next level. They are also doing so because they help overcoming the frontiers between the different strands of social innovation research. Approaches from areas such as social entrepreneurship, social economy, territorial development, transition research and comprehensive socio-scientific social innovation research, they are all more and more finding themselves within the conceptual framework of social innovation ecosystems where they cannot just coexist but need to contribute in a constructive way to an emerging scientific discourse. There are some obvious reasons for the rise of social innovation ecosystems. Both social innovation research and practice are increasingly striving for overcoming the abstract level of social innovation as it is at least often perceived. There is a need for better conceptualizing and contextualizing social innovation – as a unique type of innovation on the one hand, but taking into account the interconnections with technological innovations on the other hand. Furthermore, it is important to show that social innovations do not just occur at a macro level and result in huge societal transformations but can be very concrete modifications in social practices in small environments (e.g. in cities and even neighbourhoods). Here, it is also related to the hope of better understanding how social innovations are adopted, imitated, and translated to other contexts. The promise of the concept of social innovation ecosystems is to obtain a clear view of the environments where social innovations emerge and hence to better explore (in research) and to be able to influence (in practice) the relevant conditions for the success of new social practices. Nevertheless, the attempts from different research perspectives to describe and to define social innovation ecosystems still cannot be understood as key elements or pillars of one robust and consistent concept. There are some important challenges the concept of social innovation ecosystems is facing. An evident weakness is the lack of

Dmitri Domanski, Christoph Kaletka and Daniel Krüger

162  Encyclopedia of social innovation

in-depth research and hence scarce availability of empirical knowledge that would be necessary to give a better fundament to the concept. Conducting case studies on social innovation ecosystems in different political, social, cultural or geographical contexts is a pending task. This would also allow for developing a systematic approach to social innovation ecosystems without ignoring the reality of the different specific contexts. In particular, establishing comparative research on social innovation ecosystems with learning from the different experiences in a systematic way would considerably help advancing the concept. Furthermore, developing a systematization of social innovation ecosystems would help integrating the territorial dimension into the concept, which is still often used in a more abstract way, without a clear relation to a territorial context. Empirical data show that many social innovations emerge at the regional and local level (Howaldt et al. 2016). The role of cities and regions in the development of social innovations has become an important research topic over decades. At the same time, social innovation ecosystems have been hardly introduced so far as a concept to explore the territorial conditions of social innovations. An urgent research issue would be to study the role of ecosystems in transfer of innovative solutions within territories, but also between different territorial levels. Is there something like ecosystemic learning? How can the concept of social innovation ecosystems help identifying the necessary mechanisms of imitation between territories? To what extent would it help clarifying the roles and functions of the different actors and elements at the local and regional level? However, the question who and which factors belong to a social innovation ecosystem and who does not also remains critical. Approaches with a more exclusive understanding of social innovation can be more focused, but at the same time they run the risk of disregarding relevant elements of the ecosystem. With quadruple helix (Carayannis and Campbell 2009) increasingly becoming a standard in innovation research, there are good reasons to believe that social innovation ecosystems will not be narrowed down to certain groups of actors or institutions. Finally, there is a question about the role of social innovation ecosystems in innovation research. From the perspective of compre-

hensive innovation research there is some criticism regarding the dominant approaches, due to the fact that they are mainly focusing on technological innovations (even though social innovation is increasingly taken into consideration, also particularly as an element of the concept of innovation system (see e.g. Botthof et al. 2020). Nevertheless, if social innovation ecosystems are supposed to consider only social innovations (as the name is unambiguously suggesting) there is a danger of making the same mistake: ignoring the variety of innovations within a certain environment. Especially given the fact that social and technological innovations are often intertwined there would be an incomplete picture of innovation reality. At the same time, the need for a clear focus on environments for social innovation cannot be neglected. What appears to be a dilemma for social innovation research can only be resolved through a comprehensive approach to innovation, an explicit view on the relationship between social and technological innovations as well as interdisciplinary research that would help connecting potentially isolated approaches. Dmitri Domanski, Christoph Kaletka and Daniel Krüger

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Andion, C. and G. D. Alperstedt (2021), ‘Social innovation ecosystems: a literature review and insights for a research agenda’, in J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka and A. Schröder (eds), A Research Agenda for Social Innovation, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 149–67. Andion, C., G. D. Alperstedt and J. F. Graeff (2020), ‘Social innovation ecosystems, sustainability, and democratic experimentation: a study in Florianopolis, Brazil’, Revista de Administração Pública, 54 (1), pp. 181–200. Ayob, N., S. Teasdale and K. Fagan (2016), ‘How social innovation “came to be”: tracing the evolution of a contested concept’, Journal of Social Policy, 45 (4), pp. 635–53. Bloom, P. and G. Dees (2008), ‘Cultivate your ecosystem’, SSIR, https://​ssir​.org/​articles/​entry/​ cultivate​_your​_ecosystem. Botthof, A., J. Edler, K. Hahn, H. Hirsch-Kreinsen, M. Weber and J. Wessels (2020), Transformation des Innovationssystems: Neue Anforderungen an die Innovationspolitik, Fraunhofer ISI Discussion Papers Innovation

Dmitri Domanski, Christoph Kaletka and Daniel Krüger

Ecosystems of social innovation  163 Systems and Policy Analysis Nr. 67, accessed 12 October 2022 at https://​www​.isi​.fraunhofer​ .de/​content/​dam/​isi/​dokumente/​cci/​innovation​ -systems​-policy​-analysis/​2020/​discussionpaper​ _67​_2020​.pdf. Brandsen, T., S. Cattacin, A. Evers and A. Zimmer (eds) (2016), Social Innovations in the Urban Context, Basel: Springer. Carayannis, E. G. and D. F. J. Campbell (2009), ‘“Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem’, International Journal of Technology Management, 46 (3–4), pp. 201–34. Domanski, D. (2018), ‘Developing regional social innovation ecosystems’, ISR-Forschungsberichte, 47, pp. 117–28. Domanski, D., J. Howaldt and C. Kaletka (2020), ‘A comprehensive concept of social innovation and its implications for the local context: on the growing importance of social innovation ecosystems and infrastructures’, European Planning Studies, 28 (3), pp. 454–74. Howaldt, J., C. Kaletka, A. Schröder, D. Rehfeld and J. Terstriep (2016), Mapping the World of Social Innovation: Key Results of a Comparative Analysis of 1.005 Social Innovation Initiatives at a Glance, accessed 17 June 2022 at www​ .si​-drive​.eu​/​wp​-​​content/​uploads/​2016/​12/​SI​ -​​DRIVE​-​​CA​-​​short​-​​2016​-​​11​-​​30​-​​Druckversion​ .pdf. Jütting, M. (2020), ‘Exploring mission-oriented innovation ecosystems for sustainability: towards a literature-based typology’, Sustainability, 12 (16), https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​ su12166677. Kaletka, C., M. Markmann and B. Pelka (2016), ‘Peeling the onion. An exploration of the layers of social innovation ecosystems. Modelling a context sensitive perspective on driving and hindering factors for social innovation’, European Public & Social Innovation Review, 1 (2), pp. 83–94. Kropp, C. (2015), ‘Local governance – Modewort oder wichtiger Ansatz für die Zukunft ländlicher Räume’ [‘local governance – buzzword or an important approach for the future of rural areas’], in S. Franke, M. Miosga and S. Schöbel-Rutschmann (eds), Impulse zur Zukunft

des ländlichen Raums in Bayern [Impulses for the Future of the Rural Areas in Bavaria] (pp. 31–6), München: Bayerische Akademie Ländlicher Raum e.V. Latour, B. (1987), Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lévesque, B. (2016), ‘Économie sociale et solidaire et entrepreneur social: vers quels nouveaux écosystèmes?’, Revue Interventions économiques. Papers in Political Economy, 54, https://​journals​.openedition​.org/​inter​ventionsec​ onomiques/​2802. Moulaert, F., F. Martinelli, E. Swyngedouw and S. González, S. (2005), ‘Towards alternative model(s) of local innovation’, Urban Studies, 42 (11), 1969–90, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​ 00420980500279893. Oh, D.-S., F. Phillips, S. Park and E. Lee (2016), ‘Innovation ecosystems: a critical examination’, Technovation, 54, pp. 1–6. Pel, B., J., Wittmayer, J. Dorland and M. Søgaard Jørgensen (2020), ‘Unpacking the social innovation ecosystem: an empirically grounded typology of empowering network constellations’, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 33 (3), pp. 311–36. Rüede, D. and K. Lurtz (2012), ‘Mapping the various meanings of social innovation: towards a differentiated understanding of an emerging concept’, EBS Business School Research Paper, No. 12–03, https://​papers​.ssrn​.com/​sol3/​ papers​.cfm​?abstract​_id​=​2091039. Terstriep, J., D. Rehfeld and M. Kleverbeck (2020), ‘Favourable social innovation ecosystem(s)? – An explorative approach’, European Planning Studies, 28 (5), pp. 881–905. Thomas, L. and E. Autio (2019), ‘Innovation ecosystems’, SSRN Electronic Journal, October 28, https://​papers​.ssrn​.com/​sol3/​ papers​.cfm​?abstract​_id​=​3476925. Weischenberg, S. (1990)‚ ‘Das “Paradigma Journalistik”. Zur kommunikationswissenschaftlichen Identifizierung einer hochschulgebundenen Journalistenausbildung’, Publizistik, 35 (1), pp. 45–61.

Dmitri Domanski, Christoph Kaletka and Daniel Krüger

29. Foundations and social innovations Introduction

Social innovations are a driving force of societal evolutions (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION AND SOCIAL CHANGE). Even though there are different approaches to describing or defining social innovations (Howaldt and Hochgerner 2019) a common understanding is that they are related to ideals such as inclusion, justice, social development, life quality, and ecological sustainability (Bethmann 2020). As such, social innovations appear as something desirable for most. One of the main questions then is who drives social innovations. While it is established that social innovations are mostly multistakeholder products (Mulgan 2010) some sectors and institutions seem to be more prone to take an active role in finding solutions to today´s pressing social and environmental problems. One of these institutions are foundations. Vested with a (presumable) high degree of independence and own resource they are often described as possible vanguards of society (Anheier and Leat 2006). A more in-depth look shows a more complex picture pointing towards inertial institutions that can play a strong supporting role instead of being the main driver of change (Bethmann 2020). As reliable partners foundations are important organization within ecosystems of social innovation. As ‘incomplete institutions’ (Hammack and Anheier 2013, p. 9) they themselves need other actors to fulfil their ideas of a better society. In the following the relation between foundations’ capacity to be innovators and the concept of social innovations are discussed. A better understanding of foundations allows for a clearer picture on the ability to innovate.

Foundations as institutions

The discourse that grant-making foundations have a great potential to act as social innovators is well-established (Jaskyte et al. 2018; Kasper and Marcoux 2014; Anheier and Leat 2006). Here we look at private foundations that have been endowed with significant resources and that do not rely on external funds for executing their operations. They do not raise funds or seek public

financial support the way public charities as community foundations must. Such foundations, following the structural-operational definition of Salamon and Anheier (1997) are identifiable as proper organizations, have no members, are private entities that are self-governed, and do not distribute profits to trustees, directors or the founder. They mostly fulfil their purpose by granting financial resources to others. The above researchers argue that due to foundations’ resources and political independence as well as self-governance structures, they can run ahead of public opinion, build rich networks, take risks others cannot, and build new institutions, structures, and practices as necessary. In this sense, they are portrayed as perfect social innovators. However, there are also cautious voices that speak of foundations as weak and encapsulated institutions, deprived of effective internal or external stimuli, unable to deal with broad social problems or advanced scientific issues (Jaskyte et al. 2018; Roelofs 2003). Some even speak of the theory of philanthropic failure (Thümler 2017). Both sides have valid arguments. The foundation world is quite diverse. While some foundations act as innovators, other foundations fulfil their purpose by giving out gifts to charities, museums, or zoos without any specific ambition for change (Leat 2016). The modern independent grant-making foundation as a special type of foundation emerged around the turn of the nineteenth century. Magnates like Rockefeller and Carnegie endowed their philanthropic organizations with shares of their companies instead of supporting existing institutions like universities, hospitals or foster homes. Originally established as operating foundations, the organizations slowly developed into grant-making institutions due to state pressure and the necessity to spend large amounts quickly (Leat 2016). Today grant-making foundations are seen as the prototype of foundations. More than 90 per cent of the roughly 120,000 US foundations are grant-making, giving around USD 72 billion to public beneficial purposes per year (Candid 2020). In Europe, on the other side, operational foundations are still very prevalent, often providing essential social services in their respective welfare regimes (von Schnurbein and Perez 2018). In the following, we will concentrate on grant-making foundations though as oper-

164

Foundations and social innovations  165

ational foundations can better be compared to more similar social service organizations. Broadly speaking, foundations are part of the third sector. As such, they serve a public purpose. Consequently, foundations are often given special tax benefits but are also forbidden to distribute any profits to their founders, directors, or staff members. Their grants must support public purposes exclusively in fields laid down in the foundations charter. The formulation of key documents of the foundation is very important. In the USA, the grant-making abilities of a foundation depends on the IRS-approved grant-making procedures. This document describes the main purpose of the foundations and the specific granting types they offer to fulfil their purpose. These documents can be changed, but the process is costly and timely. In other countries, such as Germany or Switzerland, the main purpose of the foundation is established in the articles of incorporation. These are very difficult to alter. The regulative authorities aim foremost at protecting the will of the original founder, restricting the ability of foundations to adopt more flexibility in changing times and circumstances. In this context, the expression ‘dictatorship of the dead hand’ best describes the perpetuity of the founder’s will. This practice certainly does not favour innovation. Just like any other organization, foundations are subject to external influences (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). They are part of a historically grown welfare system and act in regulatory and normative contexts. The political and normative culture of a country sets the boundaries of what is seen to be legitimate behaviour. In statist countries such as France or Belgium, foundations are under strict supervision and subject to tight regulations (Anheier and Daly 2006). In the USA and Switzerland, foundations are subject to relatively liberal regulations, giving foundations more room to manoeuvre (von Schnurbein and Perez 2018). Countries with more restrictive regimes like Russia, China or Hungary tend to be more suspicious of non-governmental organizations such as foundations and leave less space for foundations to support causes that are not aligned with state priorities.

Foundations as natural innovators

In the literature one can often find the assertion that foundations should take the role of the vanguards of society, acting as social innovators and creative problem-solvers (Kasper and Marcoux 2014; Anheier and Leat 2006). The claim originates from the description of foundations as the freest institutions in modern societies (Hammack and Anheier 2013; Anheier and Leat 2006; Prewitt 2006). Their independence of external funds allows them to run their programmes free of external requirements. They may choose to end or start programmes at any time. They do not have to justify their grant decisions publicly. Foundations have no external shareholder or members who have a say in the decision-making process of the board. Foundations largely govern themselves. Their financial independence and self-governing structures allow them to choose freely how they want to spend their funds and they can take risks others cannot. This flexibility is seen as the most important distinctive feature of foundations in comparison to other institutions (Hammack and Anheier 2016, p. 17). Some authors therefore even imply a moral obligation that foundations should act as social innovators (Sprecher et al. 2021). The question then is though: when and how do foundations act as social innovators? The answer depends to a great degree on what is considered to be a social innovation. Following a strong ethical viewpoint, social innovations are only such changes in the social structure that lead to new models of power-sharing and participation (Moulaert et al. 2013). According to this interpretation, foundations only innovate when their actions are directed towards changing social structures and empowering the most vulnerable segments of society. In a more pragmatic view, social innovations are generally seen as new solutions for social problems that are more effective, efficient, sustainable, or just than existing solutions (Phills et al. 2008, p. 34). The emphasis is less on social justice and puts more weight on different techniques of problem-solving. This approach also includes market-based solutions if profits are not privatized but reinvested into problem-solving. Following this logic, foundations would be regarded as social innovators when focusing on finding Steffen Bethmann

166  Encyclopedia of social innovation

pragmatic and just solutions to pressing social and environmental problems. In both cases, it is important to note that differing rationalities in subsystems of society make it challenging to see social innovation from a strict normative perspective (Howaldt et al. 2014; Nicholls and Murdock 2012) The interpretation of the innovation outcome depends on the individual’s perception of rationality (Gillwald 2000). Especially when it comes to highly controversial issues, what is considered to be a newer and better solution by one group might be forcefully opposed by others. The common denominator across all views is that social innovations disrupt established routines and challenge prevailing beliefs, norms and structures. Social innovations are new and better answers to today’s challenges (Bethmann 2020). In essence, they are re-combinations of existing and new elements. These elements can be new ways of analysing specific problems, new processes, policies, laws, usage of technologies, organizational arrangements, or new relations of social groups. They do not need to be entirely new in the sense that they never have existed before but need to be new for the system in which the recombination occurs. Social innovations differ in terms of the level of impact. On the micro level, they are changes in the action and interaction of groups and individuals. On the meso level, they refer to organizational and institutional changes. On the macro level, social innovations have consequences for society as a whole (Zapf 1989). Strictly speaking, a new solution to a problem can only be called a social innovation when it is implemented showing better results than previous routines. However, as Brandsen (2014) points out, the successful implementation of a social innovation is often only the last and not the most important step in a long process. The participatory processes and debates in the different stages of the solution development have value in themselves. Following an open and problem-solution-oriented understanding of social innovations allows considering various options foundations have to create an impact on the development and diffusion of social innovation.

Strategies for innovation

The literature proposes different strategies and tools on how foundations can create Steffen Bethmann

this impact. According to their focus, they carry labels such as ‘creative’ (Anheier and Leat 2006), ‘catalytic’ (Kramer 2009), ‘audacious’ (Wolf Ditkoff and Grindle 2017), or even ‘system changing’ (Ferris and Williams 2010). In general, these approaches differ in the degree to which they propagate rational processes in solving social challenges. The bureaucratic approaches argue for deliberately planned and executed strategies. The basis is well-elaborated and researched problem descriptions. The solutions are planned by using logic models that show how resources are used to achieve measurable goals, called outputs and outcomes (Brest and Harvey 2008). The extreme form is the venture philanthropy approach (Letts et al. 1997), where key performance indicators continuously measure progress. The approach foresees a solid working relationship with partners in which foundations have the power to intervene. The foundation staff closely monitors programmes and offers advice. Falling short of expectations, the bureaucratic models have come under considerable criticism in recent years. The main reason lies in the very nature of social innovation, which is hardly programmable and comes with many unknowns. Instead of relying on well-elaborated plans, the critics argue that foundations should take an experimentalist’s approach, adapting to changing circumstances (Thümler 2017; Anheier and Leat 2006). Their strategies should allow for the flexibility necessary to quickly discard false assumptions, including new knowledge and anticipating new developments in a field. Innovative foundations are described as self-critical organizations that engage in regular reviews, regard planning as progress, and emphasize the importance of moving beyond evaluation and performance measurement toward risky learning (Anheier and Leat 2006). To be innovative foundations ought to be quick and flexible organizations, harnessing their independence. However, even the critiques of formalized plans see the necessity for foundations to develop a robust theory of change that illustrates what a foundation wants to achieve and how to get there (Frumkin 2006). The theory includes an analysis of the problem, its key stakeholders, and a hypothesis about effective interventions. The more complex a problem, the more likely it is that the theory includes a mix of different grants meant to

Foundations and social innovations  167

lead to a greater, combined impact (Kasper and Marcoux 2014). Grant-making foundations must become operative to a certain extent, utilizing their convening power and bringing different stakeholders together as money alone does not bring system change. Different techniques to encourage innovation include offering incentives in the form of awards, providing risk capital for early-stage ideas, serving as thought leaders, supporting capacity building in the partner organizations, but also organizing forums of debate to advance issues (Jaskyte et al. 2018). Given their incompleteness, foundations need to build strong partnerships to reach their own goals. The challenge then is to create a mix of grants to often very different actors, when opting for more systemic change. These multiyear, multistakeholder grants are already complex to set up, but the even bigger challenge is to convene all actors together, so they work for a common goal over a longer period of time.

Reflection and outlook

Synthesizing the above foundation’s role in social innovation can be best described as social investors (Bethmann 2020). Foundations invest their financial and non-financial resources in the realization of a better society according to their own beliefs. Their dominant investment logic may be conservative or progressive, value-rational or means-end rational. Foundations cannot be innovative in all their activities. Most grant-making is directed towards supporting smaller projects or organizations. There, foundations can have a very important role in allowing for more financial independence for the innovators. As many social innovations do not have a revenue model, empowering the drivers of innovations to concentrate fully on their cause is an effective strategy to advance the innovation. Foundations are prone to strong inertia factors. Even though their innovation capacity is often hailed due to their independence, many foundations neither have the knowledge nor the staff to influence social innovations on a macro level. The few well-known big foundations are minorities in the world of foundations. The behaviour of foundations is strongly influenced by their historic imprint (the values of the founder, and the first strategy model adopted) and the personal skills

and affections of the people in leadership positions. As incomplete institutions, they can enhance their role when offering to be bridge makers, conveners and strong supporters of innovative causes. However, most foundations act risk-averse. When foundations seek change, it is mostly through incremental processes, rather than revolutionary actions (Bethmann 2020). Ultimately, we can expect foundations to be reliable partners. They are stable institutions that can make an important difference. However, it is not their flexibility but their predictability that makes them an indispensable part of the social innovation ecosystem. Steffen Bethmann

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Anheier, H. K. and D. Leat (2006), Creative Philanthropy, New York: Routledge. Anheier, H. K. and S. Daly (eds) (2006), The Politics of Foundations: A Comparative Analysis, New York: Routledge. Bethmann, S. (2020), Stiftungen und soziale Innovationen: Strategien zur Lösung gesellschaftlicher Probleme, Wiesbaden: Springer-Verlag. Brandsen, T. (2014), ‘Herausforderungen der Diffusion sozialer Innovationen’, Forschungsjournal Soziale Bewegungen, 27 (2), pp. 50–59. Brest, P. and H. Harvey (2008), Money Well Spent: A Strategic Plan for Smart Philanthropy, New York: Bloomberg Press. Candid (2020), Key Facts on U.S. Nonprofits and Foundations, April 2020, accessed 15 June 2022 at https://​www​.issuelab​.org/​resources/​ 36381/​36381​.pdf. DiMaggio, P. J. and W. W. Powell (1983), ‘The Iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review, 48 (2), pp. 147–60. Ferris, J. M. and N. Williams (2010), ‘Foundation strategy for social impact: a system change perspective’, Nonprofit Policy Forum, 1 (1), https://​doi​.org/​10​.2202/​2154​-3348​.1008. Frumkin, P. (2006), Strategic Giving, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Gillwald, K. (2000), Konzepte sozialer Innovation, Berlin: WZB. Hammack, D. C. and H. K. Anheier (2013), A Versatile American institution: The Changing Ideals and Realities of Philanthropic

Steffen Bethmann

168  Encyclopedia of social innovation Foundations, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Howaldt, J. and J. Hochgerner (2019), ‘Desperately seeking: a shared understanding of social innovation’, in J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka, A. Schröder and M. Zirngiebl (eds), Atlas of Social Innovation: 2nd Volume: A World of New Practices, München: oekom verlag, pp. 18–21. Howaldt, J., R. Kopp and M. Schwarz (2014), Zur Theorie sozialer Innovationen: Tardes vernachlässigter Beitrag zur Entwicklung einer soziologischen Innovationstheorie, Weinheim: Beltz Juventa. Jaskyte, K., O. Amato and L. Sperber (2018), ‘Foundations and innovation in the nonprofit sector’, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 29 (1), pp. 1–18. Kasper, G. and J. Marcoux (2014), ‘The re-emerging art of funding innovation’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, 12 (2), pp. 28–35. Kramer, M. R. (2009), ‘Catalytic philanthropy’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, 7 (4), pp. 30–35. Leat, D. (2016), Philanthropic Foundations, Public Good and Public Policy, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Letts, C. W., W. Ryan and A. Grossmann (1997), ‘Virtuous capital: what foundations can learn from venture capitalists’, Harvard Business Review, 75 (2), pp. 36–44. Moulaert, F., D. MacCallum and J. Hillier (2013), ‘Social innovation: intuition, precept, concept, theory and practice’, in F. Moulaert, D. MacCallum, A. Mehmodd and A. Hamdouch (eds), The International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 13–24. Mulgan, G. (2010), ‘Social innovation. stepping on the accelerator of social change’, in W. Cheng (ed.), The World that Changes the World: How Philanthropy, Innovation, and

Steffen Bethmann

Entrepreneurship are Transforming the Social Ecosystem, Singapore: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 341–58. Nicholls, A. and A. Murdock (2012), ‘The nature of social innovation’, in A. Nicholls and A. Murdock (eds), Social Innovation: Blurring Boundaries to Reconfigure Markets, Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–32. Phills, Jr, J. A., K. Deiglmeier and D. T. Miller (2008), ‘Rediscovering social innovation’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6 (4), pp. 34–43. Prewitt, K. (2006), ‘Foundations’, in W. W. Powell and R. Steinberg (eds), The Nonprofit Sector: A Research Handbook, 2nd edition, New Haven, CT/London: Yale University Press, pp. 335–77. Roelofs, J. (2003), Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism, Albany: State University of New York Press. Salamon, L. M. and H. K. Anheier (1997), Defining the Nonprofit Sector: A Cross-National Analysis, Manchester: Manchester University Press. Sprecher, T., P. Egger and G. von Schnurbein (2021), Swiss Foundation Code 2021: Principles for the Establishment and Management of Grant-Making Foundations, Bern: Stämpfli Publishers. Thümler, E. (2017), Philanthropy in Practice: Pragmatism and the Impact of Philanthropic Action, London: Routledge. von Schnurbein, G. and M. Perez (2018), ‘Foundations in Switzerland: between the American and the German cases’, American Behavioural Scientists, 62 (13), pp. 1919–32. Wolf Ditkoff, S. J. and A. Grindle (2017), ‘Audacious philanthropy’, Harvard Business Review, September/October, pp. 110–18. Zapf, W. (1989), ‘Über soziale Innovationen’, Soziale Welt, 40 (1/2), pp. 170–83.

30. Governance of social innovation Introduction

What is governance of social innovation? This entry addresses a possible answer by presenting a conceptual framework linking social innovation actions with governance models. Innovation as a concept concentrates on a cluster of other concepts such as ‘invention, ingenuity, imagination, creativity, … ’ and has ‘become an emblem of the modern society, a panacea for resolving many problems’ (Godin 2012, p. 5). Similarly, intergovernmental organizations have presented social innovation as a solution to the world’s problems (OECD 2010; BEPA 2011). Moreover, social innovation is associated with ‘co-production’, ‘co-creation’, and ‘socio-political transformations’ (Voorberg et al. 2015; Avelino et al. 2019). Governance, in turn, is defined as a ‘new way of governing’ (Stoker 1998) involving multiple non-governmental actors in formulating and delivering public action, including public participation as a key dimension in policy-making (Fischer 2006). According to Bevir (2009), governance emerged as a concept after the 1980s, and it ‘raises issues about public policy and democracy’ (p. 4). The governance model promotes different arrangements for delivering public services and increases the role of non-state actors as policy actors. In this sense, ‘the state has become more interested in various strategies for creating and managing networks and partnerships’ (p. 4). The dialogue between social innovation and governance is based on principles of participation and co-creation of solutions for the world’s problems (→ CO-CREATION IN SOCIAL INNOVATION). It can generate possible solutions through changes in power relations, thus potentially empowering under-represented citizens (Novy and Leubolt 2005; Pradel et al. 2013). In the last decade, social innovation interaction with governments has been a subject of scholarly debate in many fields (Ney 2014; Aoyama and Parthasarathy 2016). A recent review on the relationship between social innovation and governance highlights the interdisciplinary nature of this research topic by analysing five academic fields – politi-

cal science and public administration, urban and territorial studies, sociology, sustainability and ecology, and culture and creativity studies (Galego et al. 2022). The study highlights that social innovation is a dynamic concept and practice (Eizaguirre et al. 2012) pervading different political and social systems and diverse organizational structures to meet the basic needs of socially and politically excluded people (Moulaert and MacCallum 2019). By social innovation we mean a process of social interactions between actors developing collective actions to satisfy the basic needs of citizens (e.g. food, security, education, health, social inclusion, identity recognition, equal opportunities, citizenship, and others) and promote social and political transformations. Actors are socially and politically involved citizens contributing to developing social innovation initiatives to solve societal problems in their communities. For example, LGBTQ+ activists, politicians and community leaders developed collectively actions to push their communities’ problems onto policy agendas and create awareness about gender and identity discrimination during the COVID-19 pandemic (Konnoth 2020). While it is thus recognized that the interplay between social innovation and governance may positively contribute to governmental practices, public policy processes and public administrations in creating public value (Lévesque 2013), academics and practitioners alike have also expressed concerns over social innovation hiding a dark side of its practices (Murray et al. 2010; OECD 2010; BEPA 2011; European Commission 2014). Several examples indeed show that social innovation initiatives to tackle societal issues have sometimes been used to replace state responsibility (Moulaert et al. 2014). The responsibility to find solutions to societal problems would be delegated to citizens. Authors see such shifts as following the neoliberal logic of the market, with networks fulfilling the demand–supply gap (Paidakaki and Moulaert 2017; Fougère and Meriläinen 2019). To remedy societal issues, this governance beyond the state plays a crucial role in promoting initiatives that substitute for government responsibility in many contexts (Swyngedouw 2009). According to Fougère et al. (2017) and Fougère and Meriläinen (2019), this dark side of social innovation highlights how governments have used the

169

170  Encyclopedia of social innovation

concept as a buzzword to cover up neoliberal policies, particularly at supra-national levels such as the EU. From a more positive view, from a policy studies perspective, social innovations support an alternative governance model based on a bottom-linked interaction creating a dynamic of co-production and co-creation at different government levels (Moulaert et al. 2005; Brandsen et al. 2018). Therefore, social innovation initiatives do not intend to substitute government actions but engage with policymaking to meet citizens’ needs, include excluded citizens in service provision and improve the quality of social life. In sum, governance of social innovation denotes inclusive multi-actor structures and inclusive processes that promote social and political transformations through collective actions, co-production, and participation in policymaking (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION, CIVIL SOCIETY AND DEMOCRACY-BUILDING). In the following section, we present a conceptual framework and illustrate its empirical applicability to a social innovation initiative from Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Key findings Governance of social innovation Inspired by the work of Frank Moulaert and colleagues (Moulaert et al. 2005; Wamuchiru and Moulaert 2018) and Emmanuelle Besançon and colleagues (Besançon et al. 2013), the proposed framework presents analytical dimensions to explain the relationship between social innovation and governance

Source: Compiled by the authors.

Figure 30.1

Social innovation dynamics

Diego Galego and Marleen Brans

through social innovation actions in multilevel governance structures. Figure 30.1 presents the interactions between social innovation initiatives’ origin, process, and results as innovative solutions to societal issues. The interconnected stages provide a dynamic translated into activities and actions developed by entities – social and political actors – independently or in collaborative governance to provide solutions for a societal problem. This dynamic starts at the origin of a social innovation initiative, first identifying the societal problem and then looking for alternative solutions. Once the problem is identified, the process of developing solutions unfolds with concrete actions taken by actors directly involved in the problem-solving strategy. As the primary solution, alternatives may emerge from citizens’ mobilization (collective actions). Even so, alternatives should be integrated as an institutional response by the government for a more effective response to problems. After developing the process, the results are the possible responses to tackle societal problems, which may be immediate or long-term responses. For example, a natural disaster will demand an immediate response from the government or organizations to host and save people, whereas decreasing homophobic discrimination requires a long-turn response through educative measures starting with school kids learning about diversity. Consequently, results depend on the policy problem’s immediate occurrence, urgency and response. Therefore, social innovation initiatives developed in a time and space depend on contextual constraints and opportunities, as illustrated by a case from Brazil.

Governance of social innovation  171

Social innovation dynamics in practice Origin: The COVID-19 pandemic exposed many immediate needs of people living in favelas in Brazil to survive the health crisis. Moreover, the lack of federal executive response (Lotta et al. 2020) and the death tolls increasing daily in the country (Bernardo 2022) led local communities to develop social innovation initiatives to contain the spread of the virus. Process: Social innovation initiatives were developed through interactions between public and private organizations. An example is an initiative created by Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ), collaborating with eight other organizations (including the state Congress, federal ministry of health, public and private universities, and NGOs), connecting 75 favelas, impacting 100,000 people in the state of Rio de Janeiro to tackle COVID-19 (Fiocruz 2022). By providing primary health care, distributing face masks and involving the local community participation, the collective action of local and state actors – community leaders, health agents, academics, NGOs and politicians – could develop a strategy to decrease the spread of the virus and contain the death tolls in areas with precarious infrastructure as the favelas in different cities in the state of Rio de Janeiro. Results: These initiatives advanced partnerships, collective actions to contain the virus, crowdfunding, solidarity and social learning to provide the basic needs – food, hygiene products, gas to cook, alcohol gel and face masks – for excluded communities where lockdowns were almost impossible given the high density of population living per square meter in favelas. Critical reflection and outlook Governance of social innovation goes beyond formal structures of state actors or non-state actors’ responses alone to social problems. It is a collective action dynamic developed by multilevel governance structures combined with multilevel actor interactions to tackle today’s most urgent world problems, as presented in the conceptual framework (Figure 30.1). Usually, solutions emerge from a co-production strategy between social and political actors (e.g. activists, community leaders, politicians). Solutions would become more effective by shifting hierar-

chical government dynamics to new modes of governance, such as bottom-linked public participation in decision-making and service delivery. A bottom-linked governance mode is promoted by social innovation scholars who highlight the importance of continuous interaction between providers and beneficiaries in a collaborative system based on different networks (Moulaert 2022). Finally, the relationship between social innovation and governance materializes through concrete actions to solve societal problems instead of effusive political discourses. Given the lack of governmental support or response to societal issues, co-produced social innovation initiatives have created opportunities for citizens’ actions and learning processes between multiple actors. One example is the initiative developed in the Brazilian favelas to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. Social innovation dynamics in Rio de Janeiro involved socially and politically excluded citizens in a collective effort to contain the virus and meet some essential personal protective equipment needs. As an alternative solution, citizens are taking the lead in transforming society and influencing the governance structures toward a more just society. Diego Galego and Marleen Brans

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Aoyama, Y. and B. Parthasarathy (2016), The Rise of the Hybrid Domain: Collaborative Governance for Social Innovation, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Avelino, F. et al. (2019), ‘Transformative social innovation and (dis)empowerment’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, pp. 195–206. BEPA (2011), Empowering People, Driving Change. Social Innovation in the European Union, European Commission, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Bernardo, K. (2022), ‘Brasil registra 929 mortes por Covid-19 em 24 horas, maior número desde setembro’, CNN Brasil, pp. 1–7, accessed 26 September 2022 at https://​ www​ .cnnbrasil​ .com​.br/​saude/​brasil​-registra​-929​-mortes​-por​

Diego Galego and Marleen Brans

172  Encyclopedia of social innovation -covid​-19​-em​-24​-horas​-maior​-numero​-desde​ -setembro/​. Besançon, E., N. Chochoy and T. Guyon (2013), L’Innovation Sociale: Principes et fondements d’un concept, Paris: L’Harmattan. Bevir, M. (2009), Key Concepts in Governance, London/Thousand Oaks, CA/ New Delhi/ Singapore: SAGE Publications. Brandsen, T., T. Steen and B. Verschuere (eds) (2018), Co-Production and Co-Creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services, New York: Routledge. Eizaguirre, S., M. Pradel, A. Terrones, X. Martinez-Celorrio and M. García (2012), ‘Multilevel governance and social cohesion: bringing back conflict in citizenship practices’, Urban Studies, 49 (9), pp. 1999–2016. European Commission (2014), Social Innovation: A Decade of Changes, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Fiocruz (2022), Fiocruz apresenta resultados do enfrentamento à Covid-19 em favelas do Rio de Janeiro, accessed 22 September 2022 at https://​ portal​.fiocruz​.br/​noticia/​fiocruz​-apresenta​ -resultados​-do​-enfrentamento​-covid​-19​-em​ -favelas​-do​-rio​-de​-janeiro. Fischer, F. (2006), ‘Participatory governance as deliberative empowerment: the cultural politics of discursive space’, The American Review of Public Administration, 36 (1), pp. 19–40. Fougère, M. and E. Meriläinen (2019), ‘Exposing three dark sides of social innovation through critical perspectives on resilience’, Industry and Innovation, pp.  1–18, https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1080/​13662716​.2019​.1709420. Fougère, M., B. Segercrantz and H. Seeck (2017), ‘A critical reading of the European Union’s social innovation policy discourse: (re) legitimising neoliberalism’, Organization, 24 (6), pp. 819–43. Galego, D., F. Moulaert, M. Brans and G. Santinha (2022), ‘Social innovation & governance: a scoping review’, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 35 (2), pp. 265–90. Godin, B. (2012), ‘Social innovation: utopias of innovation from c.1830 to the present’, project on the intellectual history of innovation, Working Paper, 11. Konnoth, C. (2020), ‘Supporting LGBT communities in the COVID-19 pandemic’, SSRN Electronic Journal, accessed 6 December 2022 at https://​ssrn​.com/​abstract​=​3675915. Lévesque, B. (2013), ‘Social innovation in governance and public management systems: toward a new paradigm?’, in F. Moulaert et al. (eds), The International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning

Diego Galego and Marleen Brans

and Transdisciplinary Research, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 25–39. Lotta, G., C. Wenham, J. Nunes and D. Nacif Pimenta (2020), ‘Community health workers reveal COVID-19 disaster in Brazil’, The Lancet, 396 (10248), pp. 365–6. Moulaert, F. (2022), ‘Bottom-linked governance and socio-political transformation’, in F. Moulaert et al. (eds), Political Change through Social Innovation, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 44–59. Moulaert, F. and D. MacCallum (2019), Advanced Introduction to Social Innovation, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Moulaert, F., F. Martinelli, E. Swyngedouw and S. Gonzalez (2005), ‘Towards alternative model(s) of local innovation’, Urban Studies, 42 (11), pp. 1969–90. Moulaert, F., C. Parra and E. Swyngedouw (2014), ‘Ciudades, barrios y gobernanza multiescalar en la Europa urbana’, EURE (Santiago), 40 (119), pp. 5–24. Murray, R., J. Caulier-Grice and G. Mulgan (2010), The Open Book of Social Innovation, Social Innovator Series: Ways to Design, Develop and Grow Social Innovation, The Young Foundation/ NESTA, accessed 1 December 2022 at https://​youngfoundation​.org/​ wp​-content/​uploads/​2012/​10/​The​-Open​-Book​ -of​-Social​-Innovationg​.pdf. Ney, S. (2014), ‘The governance of social innovation: connecting meso and macro levels of analysis’, in M. D. Jones, E. A. Shanahan and M. K. McBeth (eds), The Science of Stories: Applications of the Narrative Policy Framework in Public Policy Analysis, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 207–34. Novy, A. and B. Leubolt (2005), ‘Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre: social innovation and the dialectical relationship of state and civil society’, Urban Studies, 42 (11), pp. 2023–36. OECD (2010), SMEs, Entrepreneurhisp and Innovation, Paris: OECD Publishing. Paidakaki, A. and F. Moulaert (2017), ‘Disaster resilience into which direction(s)? Competing discursive and material practices in post-Katrina New Orleans’, Housing, Theory and Society, 35 (4), pp. 432–54. Pradel, M., M. García and S. Eizaguirre (2013), ‘Theorising multilevel governance in social innovation dynamics’, in F. Moulaert et al. (eds), The International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research, Cheltenham,

Governance of social innovation  173 UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 155–68. Stoker, G. (1998), ‘Governance as theory: five propositions’, International Social Science Journal, 50 (155), pp. 17–28. Swyngedouw, E. (2009), ‘Civil society, governmentality and the contradictions of governance-beyond-the-state: the Janus-face of social innovation’, in D. MacCallum et al. (eds), Social Innovation and Territorial Development, Farnham/Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp. 63–78.

Voorberg, W. H., V. J. J. M. Bekkers and L. G. Tummers (2015), ‘A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: embarking on the social innovation journey’, Public Management Review, 17 (9), pp. 1333–57. Wamuchiru, E. and F. Moulaert (2018), ‘Thinking through ALMOLIN: the community bio-centre approach in water and sewerage service provision in Nairobi’s informal settlements’, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61 (12), pp. 2166–85.

Diego Galego and Marleen Brans

31. Innovation systems Introduction

The systems of innovation approach explores the institutional architecture of territorially embedded processes of technological innovation that inform the economic performance of countries and regions. A system of innovation comprises institutional networks in the private and public sector that contribute to the generation and diffusion of innovations. Shared knowledge and collective learning are considered their fundamental components. Applied to the matter of social innovation, the concept of social innovation systems provides a systemic account of the interaction of diverse sub-systems in the generation of these kinds of social innovations. This enhancement of the systems of innovation approach may provide new insights into the dynamics of social change, involving a systemic understanding of social innovations as novel solutions to social problems. However, conceptual problems in the domain of systems of social innovation highlight the challenging question which sub-systems are actually addressed when it comes to social innovation, and what types of knowledge resources and learning efforts are examined accordingly.

Theoretical foundations of the systems of innovation approach

The systems of innovation approach draws on the intellectual traditions of Schumpeterian innovation research in economics, sociology, and economic history. It examines institutional mechanisms for the generation, selection, and diffusion of technological innovations. A system of innovation comprises networks of private and public sector institutions whose activities and interactions generate, modify, and diffuse new technologies (Freeman 1995). In this way, the systems of innovation approach transcends the Schumpeterian focus (→ JOSEPH A. SCHUMPETER: INNOVATION AND SOCIETY) on individual entrepreneurs in the promotion of novelty. Instead, based on a systemic perspective, the focus is on the institutional means of collective entrepreneurship. Formal as well as tacit domains of knowledge are considered crucial economic resources, and individual as well as collective

learning efforts are considered fundamental social processes that are articulated within the institutional networks of innovation systems, framed by industrial structures and cultural values (Lundvall 1992). In this context, the question of the institutional determinants of innovation driven economic development has been applied initially to the comparison of national systems, and subsequently to regional, local, sectoral, as well as supranational arrangements. Accordingly, the systems of innovation approach highlights the territorial characteristics of innovation processes from a comparative perspective by examining their institutional substance in a certain spatial setting. It maintains that innovation processes are always embedded in institutional and cultural contexts, which also inform the range of effective governance mechanisms and innovation policies (Freeman 2002). The common understanding of competitiveness that prevails in the systems of innovation approach considers neoclassical notions of optimizing labour costs to be counterproductive and instead relies on non-price forms of competitive strategy in which both the factor of knowledge and the capability for learning play a crucial role. A key prerequisite for this competitive strategy is a pattern of long-term cooperative behaviour based on trust and other informal components. Institutional incentives to communicate and cooperate are critical for establishing appropriate interactions in support of persistent learning efforts (Edquist 1997). This implies an emphasis on the innovation promoting role of social cohesion in a knowledge-based learning economy. Accordingly, the analytical focus is on the interactive networking of firms, research institutes, and other organizations that contribute to knowledge generation and diffusion such as educational institutions, financial institutions, and government. The resulting networks are not only embedded in the formal rules of the legal system, but also in informal norms of shared cultural values (Lundvall et al. 2002). The related institutional dimensions of innovation systems can be differentiated in terms of micro, meso and macro levels. The micro level of organizations and their specific interactions serves as the starting point. Technological change results from changes in operational search routines, which are subject to the selective effects of markets and social

174

Innovation systems  175

contexts. Organization specific knowledge is regarded as a formative component of innovation processes – with innovation systems being perceived as sets of institutional actors whose knowledge-based interaction shapes the innovation capability of firms. R&D institutions, educational institutions, government agencies as well as the institutions of the legal systems play a key role in the corresponding institutional shaping of the knowledge infrastructure of innovation systems. The meso level of innovation systems captures the relationship between industrial structures and innovation processes. The concept of user producer relationships between firms in a value chain describes the cooperative generation of innovations, especially incremental product innovations. User needs are communicated on the demand side and technological possibilities on the supply side. These relationships form patterns of interactive learning in firms and industries. The macro level of innovation systems addresses the relationship between technological and institutional factors in the development paths of countries and regions. The related concept of techno economic paradigms ties the dynamics of technological change with the long-wave patterns of business cycles. The notion of the techno-economic paradigm describes an ideal type of efficient production organization that determines the form and direction of productivity increases, based on specific technologies and energy sources. A new techno-economic paradigm evolves gradually, relying on the cost advantages of certain inputs. Its implementation forces a restructuring of the production system, which leads to tensions with the prevailing institutional structure. Conflictual search processes provide an opportunity for effective institutional adaptation. In view of this conceptual framework, it has been argued that a new paradigm based on information and communication technologies has been taking over from the Fordist paradigm of mass production based on fossil fuels all over the OECD world since the 1970s. The corresponding innovation systems, which facilitate the generation and adaptation to these paradigms is subject to institutional variations, which largely reflect national and regional specificities (Freeman 1995).

Exploring the varieties of innovation systems

The empirical potential of the systems of innovation perspective has been illustrated by comparatively exploring the institutional specifics of countries or regions regarding the promotion of the innovative capabilities of the corresponding sets of firms and industries. While the Japanese innovation system provided a major point of departure for these concerns, subsequent discussions have been inspired by comparisons between short-term-oriented innovation systems of liberal capitalist types such as the United States and the United Kingdom specializing in radical innovations, on the one hand, and long-term-oriented innovation systems of relational capitalist types such as Germany specializing in incremental innovations, on the other hand. Corresponding differences in the institutional structure include the respective bank- or capital market-centred financial systems; most recently, these comparative analyses have been augmented by explorations of the innovation systems of emerging and developing economies (Chaminade et al. 2018). Even though national innovation systems are increasingly complemented by regional or supranational interactions and arrangements, it is true that firms continuously rely on national arrangements, especially legal affairs such as patent laws. Indeed, the persistent importance of national innovation systems derives from the specific governance structures of nation states. Also, the nation state remains the decisive terrain for education and training. Moreover, social solidarity follows patterns of national cohesion. The latter facilitates redistribution processes which ensure that broad segments of society are given the means for equity and participation (Nelson and Rosenberg 1993). Similar considerations have been put forward regarding the subnational, regional level. The concept of regional innovation systems transfers basic ideas of the national innovation systems approach to the regional level. Regional innovation systems combine institutional networks among firms, research units, educational institutions, and financial institutions with a significant degree of governmental policy competence. Regional systems have been schematically divided into market centred and relational types – with Alexander Ebner

176  Encyclopedia of social innovation

California’s Silicon Valley as the most prominent case of a knowledge cluster whose networks are embedded in a market-centred entrepreneurial logic that differs from the relational and state-centred types across Western Europe and East Asia (Cooke 2004). The issue of cooperation capability serves as a key argument in considerations on the regional dimension of innovation that are associated with shared cognitive and behavioural patterns. Knowledge is considered a collective good reproduced in spatially embedded communities. This makes the strengthening of trust and collaborative capacity in network relationships the definitive policy objective (Asheim et al. 2019). In view of this scalar differentiation of the systems of innovation approach, it becomes obvious that technological, institutional, and social factors of innovation are interdependent. This assessment is accompanied by a specification of the structural range of the technological and organizational innovations under consideration. For instance, in the context of exploring the transformative quality of innovations that are required for building a sustainable economy, the reshaping of innovation systems towards decarbonization has evolved as a major topic for research and policy alike (Geels 2004). Most recently, the systems of innovation approach has been going through further changes that speak for a refocusing on organizational aspects beyond territorial specificities. Corresponding discussions refer to sectoral and corporate as well as project based, temporary innovation systems. Paralleling these efforts, also the perspective of technological innovation systems has been taken to the fore – with institutional networks of professionals grouped around certain technologies. All these approaches, whether they refer to territorial dimensions or whether they rely foremostly on sectoral, corporate, and technological aspects, share a common analytical interest in the role of cooperativeand learning-oriented social relations for innovation capabilities. Indeed, the matter of networks, interaction, and learning characterizes the conceptual field of the systems of innovation approach in its diverse varieties. Crucially, all kinds of national, regional, sectoral, and related types of systems of innovation are inherently social, that is, based on social motives, practices and structures. The assessments of the innovation outcomes Alexander Ebner

under consideration, however, have remained largely fixed to an understanding of innovation as new production processes and new products. Exploring not only the social qualities of interactions in innovation systems, but also their social outcomes in terms of social innovations as novel solutions to social problems remains the task of a new approach, which involves a systemic view on these social innovations.

Approaching social innovation systems

The matter of social innovation covers a broad area of phenomena, including new ways of meeting social problems and related social needs by new kinds of social relations and social practices, motivated by a distinct kind of social mission. In this setting, the term social refers foremostly to the embeddedness of individual action in interpersonal relations and commonly shared rules and norms. Yet the usage of the term social also addresses a decidedly more normative concern with inequalities regarding resource allocation and the distribution of the means of living. Common to both aspects is the idea that the profit-oriented competitive market mechanism cannot solve the social problems under consideration. Instead, next to ubiquitous markets, public sector and civil society serve as decisive fields in the promotion of social innovation (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION AND THE REMAKING OF STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS AND REGIMES). The corresponding processes of social change through social innovation might refer to the domain of distinct organizations, prominently involving not only private and public sector but also civil society, yet they also refer to various scalar dimensions that range from local, regional, and national to international and transnational constellations. When it comes to the drivers of these innovations, the concept of social entrepreneurship has been taken to the fore as an analytical device. However, in view of the complex institutional and social constellations that embed, empower, and constrain individual action, a more comprehensive view is required that integrates innovation and learning processes in diverse actor constellations on various spatial scales that relate to their micro, meso and macro dimensions (Jessop et al. 2013).

Innovation systems  177

The underlying aspects of cooperation and learning have informed the question in how far the conceptual framework of the systems of innovation approach can be extended to cover the matter of social innovation. A common point of departure for this systemic line of reasoning is the claim that the actual locus of innovation is not within the social enterprise. Rather, the emphasis is on the social system constituted by the diverse networks they inhibit, as collective and interactive learning across organizations, sectors and sub-systems constitutes the driving force of social innovation. A social system of innovation then denotes a set of sub-systems inhibited by a community of practitioners and institutions jointly addressing social problems by means of social innovations (Phillips et al. 2015). In a similar vein, social innovation systems have been defined as systemic- and network-based interconnections of things, involving actors, in generating and diffusing innovations that target social problems and needs (Fulgencio and Le Fever 2016). Combining the systems of innovation perspective with the concept of innovation ecosystems that is particularly relevant in the discourse of organizational institutionalism, the notion of ecosystems of social innovation addresses the systemic generation and diffusion of new social practices. In this conceptual context, self-referential sub-systems including business, government, civil society, and academia are coordinated through networks and other institutional means of cooperation and collective learning (Howaldt et al. 2016). Scalar units of analysis range from local to national systems. For instance, when it comes to social innovation systems in the urban context, community building efforts have been addressed, which are meant to stimulate the empowerment of grassroots initiatives that address local social issues (Horgan and Dimitrijevic 2018). Concerning national systems, recent research has explored social innovation systems in emerging economies. An example is the establishment of an emergency care institute in the healthcare sector of India’s national innovation system (Rao-Nicholson et al. 2017).

Outlook

In conclusion, the systemic view on social innovation provides fruitful insights on the dynamics of social and institutional change.

The following points outline critical issues for further consideration. First, regarding the scalar and institutional dimensions of the innovation systems under consideration, it might be useful to clearly differentiate national, regional, local as well as inter- and transnational systems of social innovation. Social welfare regimes, for instance, are largely subject to national regulations. Second, it needs to be clarified which sub-systems are involved in the conceptual understanding of systems of social innovation. The research and industry nexus that derived from the technological focus of the original systems of innovation approach needs to be adapted to the concern with new social institutions and practices. The business sector, including social enterprises and social entrepreneurship is at hand, paralleled by civil society with its non-profit organizations as well as the public sector with its government agencies. Also, the financial sector needs to be included, involving microcredit. The research and education system may also be addressed, yet formal scientific knowledge plays a less prominent role for social innovation while informal, tacit knowledge prevails. The latter aspect leads to the most crucial issues: How do social entrepreneurs relate their motives and actions to the opportunities and constraints of systems of social innovation? What is the role of knowledge in systems of social innovation, and what kinds of learning processes are to be considered? How to differentiate between the systemic introduction of new technologies and new social institutions and practices – and how to explore their interconnectedness and feedback patterns? Alexander Ebner

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Asheim, B. T., A. Isaksen and M. Trippl (2019), Advanced Introduction to Regional Innovation Systems, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Chaminade, C., B.-Å. Lundvall and S. Haneef (2018), Advanced Introduction to National Innovation Systems, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Cooke, P. (2004), ‘Regional Innovation Systems: An Evolutionary Approach’, in P. Cooke, M. Heidenreich and H.-J. Braczyk (eds), Regional Innovation Systems: The Role of Governance in

Alexander Ebner

178  Encyclopedia of social innovation a Globalized World, second edition, London: Routledge, pp. 1–18. Edquist, C. (1997), ‘Systems of Innovation Approaches: Their Emergence and Characteristics’, in C. Edquist (ed.), Systems of Innovation. Technologies, Organizations and Institutions, London: Pinter, pp. 1–35. Freeman, C. (1995), ‘The “National System of Innovation” in Historical Perspective’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 19 (1), pp. 5–25. Freeman, C. (2002), ‘Continental, National and Sub-National Innovation Systems – Complementarity and Economic Growth’, Research Policy, 31 (1), pp. 191–211. Fulgencio, H. and H. Le Fever (2016), ‘What is the Social Innovation System? A State-of-the-Art Review’, International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 10 (2/3), pp. 434–52. Geels, F. W. (2004), ‘From Sectoral Systems of Innovation to Socio-Technical Systems: Insights about Dynamics and Change from Sociology and Institutional Theory’, Research Policy, 33 (4), pp. 897–920. Horgan, D. and B. Dimitrijevic (2018), ‘Social Innovation Systems for Building Resilient Communities’, Urban Science, 2 (13), pp. 1–16. Howaldt, J., C. Kaletka and A. Schröder (2016), ‘Social Entrepreneurs: Important Actors within an Ecosystem of Social Innovation’, European Public Social and Social Innovation Review, 1 (2), pp. 95–110.

Alexander Ebner

Jessop, B., F. Moulaert, L. Hulgard and A. Hamdouch (2013), ‘Social Innovation Research: A New Stage in Innovation Analysis?’, in F. Moulaert, D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood and A. Hamdouch (eds), The International Handbook of Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning, and Transdisciplinary Research, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 110–30. Lundvall, B.-Å. (1992), ‘Introduction’, in B.-Å. Lundvall (ed.), National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning, London: Pinter, pp. 1–22. Lundvall, B-Å., B. Johnson, E. S. Andersen and B. Dalum (2002), ‘National Systems of Production, Innovation and Competence-Building’, Research Policy, 31 (2), pp. 213–31. Nelson, R. R. and N. Rosenberg (1993), ‘Technical Innovation and National Systems’, in R. Nelson (ed.), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–18. Phillips, W., H. Lee, A. Ghobadian, N. O’Regan and P. James (2015), ‘Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship: A Systematic Review’, Group & Organization Management, 40 (3), pp. 428–61. Rao-Nicholson, R., T. Vorley and Z. Khan (2017), ‘Social Innovation in Emerging Economies: A National Systems of Innovation Based Approach’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 121, pp. 228–37.

32. Law and social innovation Introduction

Social innovation and law: taking the long view

Law and social innovation are, in the longue durée, more often strange bedfellows than not. Historically, the logic, practice and ideological underpinnings of law and legal institutions lean towards the conservation and codification of social energies for change. Law is more often yoked with the ponderous creation of formal institutions, the preservation of tradition, or the legitimation of unequal power relations, than it is with releasing or catalysing social innovation. As Matthew Thompson has recently observed in a stimulating reflection on transformative social innovation (Thompson 2019), these presumed links between law, closure and control underlie a tendency to imply a disconnect between law and social innovation, a disconnect he urges scholars to reconsider: ‘The legal domain – so often overlooked … – should be highlighted as a mediating and adaptive institutional infrastructure that creates the pathways for innovation to occur just as much as it controls and closes down others’ (Thompson 2019, p. 1189). Thompson’s commentary is a rare contribution that discusses both law and social innovation directly. In this short entry, I note the absence of any clearly existing sub-field of law and social innovation scholarship, as illustrated by that rarity, and invite readers into the start of a conversation about the scope and parameters of a fertile dialogue between law and social innovation. I provide a very brief overview of three areas where that conversation is occurring. The first, which has a long history, is the broad field of law and social change. The second and third are the emerging fields of prefigurative legality and transformative private law. The overall intention is to provide more an opening gambit than definitive review. I use illustrative examples from climate change or socio-economic transformation to whet the readers’ appetite, and begin by taking a step backwards to place the conversations in a longer temporal perspective.

It is helpful to begin with a long zoom lens, highlighting how law has been an important facet of institutionally crafted social innovation over the longue durée. I understand social innovation to encompass practices and programs that create new structures or modes of operation for society to secure socio-economic or ecological justice. The element of novelty may be radical or incremental but in either case has a systemic dimension, often changing underlying assumptions about what counts as social, economic or ecological in the first place. Two moments of notable positive resonance between law and social innovation stand out. First, in the nineteenth century, positive law in the form of legislation, backed by an increasingly democratic parliament, became a powerful social and political force. The movement for codification, where formal positive legislation seeks to replace pre-existing norms with a universal and complete body of rules, ‘reflects two important transformations in understandings of the authority and legitimacy of law: first, that a sovereign people are seen as the authors of the law, through the legislature; and second a modern understanding of the rule of law as general and binding even on its authors’ (Farmer 2014, p. 383). This move away from natural law, tradition and authority was in the direction of democratization, the rejection of feudal hierarchies and the creation of civil law identities that were nominally equal, thus linking positive law with individual freedom as a core facet of social innovation. Even in relation to this first moment, Farmer notes in his nuanced exploration that there is always a tension between liberalism and authoritarianism at the heart of the modern codification project, particularly in the context of the government of empire. And indeed, the second moment in the long zoom lens, law’s role in the liberal rights revolution, further illuminates levels of discomfort and tension in the intersection between law and progressive social innovation. On the one hand, politically powerful and legally enforceable individual rights are a key exemplar of how law can facilitate profound social change encompassing both innovation and justice. At the same time, contemporary social critiques of racism, capitalism and

179

180  Encyclopedia of social innovation

colonialism illuminate the limits of this key facet of legal liberalism, and the way in which its evolution especially in practice is deeply embedded in dynamics of exclusion and oppression. Scholars taking the long view are divided. Some (Halliday et al. 2012) argue in favour of the continuing possibilities for the legal complex, civil society and the state to shape alternative post-colonial trajectories around political freedom and enrich political liberalism. Others (Povinelli 2016) excavate a deep imbrication between liberalism, law and ongoing inequality, where late liberalism evolves to include those previously excluded, such as indigenous peoples, but on terms that end up precluding their capacity for self-determination and difference to be fully recognized. For example, Povinelli shows how the recognition of a particular form of land ownership for Australian indigenous people under state law depended on recognizing a limited and static range of social organization, existing only where traces of continuous connection to land could be demonstrated to exist, and thus only as an appendage rather than an innovation recognizing deep difference: ‘The rights that Indigenous groups receive from the state are not the right to make their view the norm but to attach a small spigot in the larger pipeline of late liberal approaches’ (Povinelli 2016, p. 35).

Key conversations and findings

The tensions visible from the long zoom lens are contextually important for understanding the contemporary field of law and social innovation, which in our current moment is dominated by the neoliberalism Povinelli gestures to with her umbrella term of late liberalism. Given the current dominance of neoliberalism and the long historical links between law and liberal individualism noted above, a broad hypothesis might suggest that law more often stifles social innovation than catalyses it, especially over the medium to long term. However, as we shall see this pessimistic hypothesis can be at least partly refuted by more decentred and pluralistic understandings of law itself. Three lines of scholarship are salient here: the extension of a long pedigree of literature in the broad field of law and society that has explored the relationship between law and social change, Bronwen Morgan

explorations of prefigurative legality, and the emerging field of transformative private law. Law and social change This first line of scholarship dates from the 1960s in a period of relative optimism regarding the capacity of law to extend and secure liberal rights in ways that secure social reform or social justice. While these terms are more central than social innovation, a profound change in social relations is still the core focus of the field. The field is marked by a seesaw between optimism and pessimism vis-à-vis the empirical outcomes of law’s hopes for securing social justice, and also by a tendency to view social and economic realms of collective life as quite distinct. The classics in the field focus on the potential for litigation to advance the social position of disadvantaged minority groups and progressive causes, with one study in particular capturing the terms of debate with its strong claim that the gap between the alleged promises and the actual achievements of liberal reform litigation is so large that the former is at best a hollow hope (Rosenberg 2008). The nub of the argument here is that the use of litigation as a legal tool to bring about social change is inherently constrained by both the limitations of the legal field (e.g. binding limitations of legal precedent, limited institutional capacity of courts for developing and implementing society-wide policies) and the necessary but unlikely presence of positive conditions (such as when a legal decision feeds into market dynamics that help implement it, or powerful extrajudicial actors are willing to use court orders as a tool for action). However, other scholars contest the pessimism evoked by the charge of a hollow hope by emphasizing the constitutive capacity of law over its instrumental causal effects, arguing that a ‘decentred view [of law and social change] emphasizes that judicially articulated legal norms take on a life of their own as they are deployed in practical social action [and] … legal knowledge [thus] becomes a potential resource in ongoing struggles to refigure those relations’ (McCann 1992). These long-running debates remain salient and vital today: for example, in relation to the question of how law shapes innovation in response to climate change and ecological

Law and social innovation  181

crisis. Setzer and Vanhala’s (2019) comprehensive exploration of the role of litigation here partly echoes the seesaw between optimism and pessimism, but also extends our understanding of the relationship between law and social innovation in two ways. One is to highlight the way that litigation (and commercial arbitration) can undermine regulation responding to the climate crisis, a tendency intensified by the strong role of private sector actors and a now pervasive broader legal context that favours free trade, transnational markets and open investment environments. Against this, however, the multi-scalar nature of climate litigation (its invocation across local, sub-national, national and international scales) makes it possible for lawsuits to localize the global challenge of climate change in ways that connect these scales, either as a decentralized mechanism to enforce global agreements or as a catalyst for the emergence of polycentric governance. This constitutive effect of litigation is a powerful example of law opening possibilities for social innovation: it is almost literally a vehicle for making visible climate damage within the broader legal infrastructure of neoliberalism. In other words, through legal innovation that yokes different modes of legal liability (ranging from fiduciary duties of financial actors to human rights obligations to environmental rights), a transnational legal infrastructure focused on markets, trade and investment is brought face to face with the biological and geophysical limits of the system within which it has been embedded, but which have been thus far taken for granted and so rendered invisible. Beyond litigation, direct regulation by the state is also an important site for the intersection of law and social innovation. In the context of climate and ecological crises, regulation has often been seen as a barrier to – or in tension with – innovation, but new approaches are challenging this, such as Parker and Haines’ conception of ecological law and governance (Parker and Haines 2018) which draws on cross-sectoral systems approaches to integrate the embeddedness of all human action within ecological systems. These approaches increasingly sideline the sector-specific technical expertise that dominates current modes of law and regulation, and can in some instances move well beyond a focus on litigation and regulation.

The ambitious initiative Leadership for the Ecozoic is an example, where collaboration between legal scholars at the University of Vermont and McGill University aims to reframe law and governance in line with the 2016 Oslo Manifesto for Ecological Law and Governance: viz, an ‘ecological approach to law … based on ecocentrism, holism, and intra-/intergenerational and interspecies justice [which] … internalizes the natural living conditions of human existence and makes them the basis of all law, including constitutions, human rights, property rights, corporate rights and state sovereignty’. While the breadth of this may seem challenging, specific legal tools that embody this philosophy, such as rights of nature or the creation of ecocide as a crime against humanity, have moved quite rapidly from niche to mainstream focus. Prefigurative legality Scholarship on law and social change presumes a temporal delay between the operation of law and the emergence of social innovation. Exploring prefigurative legality, by contrast, shows how law can embody innovation in the very moment of its articulation or interpretation. In this line of scholarship, legality has the potential to enact a performative understanding of the relationship between law and social innovation. As with prefigurative politics, prefigurative legality envisages legal practices in the present that unfold as if some desired future already existed, and by doing so, help to bring that desired future into being (Cohen and Morgan 2022). This may take the form, for example, of mock tribunals or inquiries that are convened outside of formally authorized procedures and under terms of reference that pull future possibilities into the present community of practice gathered ‘as if’ all were authorized (Simm and Byrnes 2014). Imagine a hearing about the fate of the Great Barrier Reef, brought under a legal framing that accords the reef itself full legal personality, as well as a suite of environmental protections and economic arrangements that would catalyse regeneration for the reef. Such an exercise permits the constitutive power of legality to resonate through the performance of the mock inquiry, in the process socializing the trajectory of innovation that would or could occur were those laws and terms of referBronwen Morgan

182  Encyclopedia of social innovation

ences formally instantiated. In that moment, legality and social innovation co-construct each other. The more remote the imagined structures of legality from existing practice, the more prefigurative legality tends towards utopianism. But the ‘as if’ form of action can also manifest in more mundane ways, as a kind of everyday prefiguration. Here, agents and institutions simply act as if they have legal capacities or powers they do not yet have. Amelia Thorpe (2020) shows how protagonists acting as if a parking meter payment creates a temporary lease over the site go on to create creating parklets of green leisure space in the spaces allocated for car parking. While there are usually no formal legal capacities underpinning this, prefigurative action can catalyse later formal changes in law, such as Parking Days supported by local government or alterations in planning and public space guidelines. Davina Cooper’s work illustrates a similar move in relation to acting as if the legal meanings of key concepts were otherwise. Treating law and legality as both performative and open-textured, she argues (Cooper 2017, p. 343) that when perceptions of the authority, legitimacy and normativity of particular laws are contested and there is no agreement on the authoritative source or procedures for determining which laws prevail, then space emerges for bodies to give themselves the law. By acting as if key concepts like the state or gender were other than they currently are, non-state and unofficial actors can harness the ambiguities built into legal processes and open new policy trajectories. However, prefigurative legality is never secure. Its deployment can conflict with the deployment of mainstream legal frameworks and practices that suppress transformative possibilities. Prefigurative legal strategies have limits and, under certain conditions, state law may directly repress efforts to act as if the legal power to do so exists. This is a particular risk for minority and disadvantaged groups in society. In both the above examples, the understanding of law is open-textured and plural, accommodating discretionary interpretative edges as well as blurred lines between the obvious meaning of formal words and the implications of social practices. This is a socio-legal conception of refreshing the directive power of legal commands and bending them Bronwen Morgan

towards new and unexpected arcs. But it is (perhaps surprisingly) possible for prefigurative legality to inhabit the terrain of technical formal legal doctrine just as effectively as socio-legal terrain. ‘Rewriting judgements’ projects are an excellent example, where scholars rewrite key judgments in crucial cases, ventriloquizing the judicial voice as if his or her technical and interpretative skills were animated by alternative ontologies and epistemologies than those typically inhabiting the law. This approach was pioneered by feminist legal academics in Canada, the UK and Australia (e.g. Douglas et al. 2014), and has been more recently been applied to ecological law in order to challenge the dominant human-centred focus of the common law and to prefigure non-anthropocentric forms of legality (Rogers and Maloney 2017). Finally, can prefigurative law shape wider patterns of innovation and governance on a broader scale? One suggestive direction here is commoning. Rather than specifying future regulation in detail as the Barrier Reef example demonstrated above, work that threads commoning through a new vision of law excavates core principles around shared ownership, mutuality and reciprocity, thus bringing to life legal norms in new ways. This kind of prefigurative legality works on the spirit rather than the letter of the law. In their work on the ecology of law, interdisciplinary scholars Capra and Mattei take the long view on jurisprudence and the nature of law, arguing that as a social institution, law is a laggard, changing long after other practices and institutions have adapted to emergent conditions of contemporary times (Capra and Mattei 2015). They draw on the principles and spirit of commoning as a resource for reanimating modern law so that it can respond to the complex systemic challenges of climate change, inequality and fraying threads of democracy. Foster and Iaione help clarify what this could mean in the context of urban law and cities (Foster and Iaione 2015). They draw on descriptive dimensions of managing certain shared urban resources but then use the learning from this as a foundation for prefiguring alternative understandings of property law and private ownership rights. Specifically, they note that the characteristics of some shared urban resources mimic the commons, in the sense of open-access depletable resources best managed through

Law and social innovation  183

collaborative polycentric governance mechanisms. Once the language and framework of the commons becomes useful in policy contexts, it then operates as a normative claim for opening up access to other closed or limited access goods, or for suggesting alternatives beyond either privatization of common resources or monopolistic public regulatory control over them. Transformative private law In comparison to prefigurative legality, transformative private law evokes a more instrumental relation between law and social innovation as well as a temporality more like that of scholarship exploring law and social change. Unlike the latter, however, there is a much greater emphasis on the capacity of private law to constitute and catalyse new pathways of social innovation, and the transformative focus aims to reimagine at systemic levels how economic and social dimensions of collective action are conceptualized. Accounts of the rise of the salience of law in a neoliberal era often point to the powerful role of the law in buttressing property rights and market-based management (Miola and Picciotto 2021), but also to the increasing importance of hybrid forms of public–private regulation, particularly in areas such as intellectual property, access to essential services and the rise of the internet. Scholars are increasingly focusing on strategies for yoking law and social innovation which engage more and more with a deep reimagining of how economic and social are conceptualized. William Davies (2013), for example, argues that ‘twenty public-spirited lawyers could change the world … tweaking the core instruments of capitalism – equity, voting rights, debt, share, audit – … in various directions, so that … one starts to imagine a wholly different economy, simply through considering how freedoms, powers and responsibilities might be combined differently, via subtly redesigned legal instruments.’ This vision connects to the project of transformative private law, articulated in particular by Marija Bartl (Bartl 2020; Bartl and Pijl 2021), who argues that while the law and legal discourse tend to support and stabilize conventional economic and social imaginaries, there is potentially a subversive role for the law to ‘unsettle the shared pre-understandings as to the relation between

the subject and the social whole, or, in different words, offer different imaginaries as to the role of the law in society’ (Bartl 2020). She discerns seeds of this transformative potential in consumer law policy as well as in financial regulatory frameworks (Bartl and Pijl 2021), while Morgan and Kuch (2015) explore how the intricacies of contract and property law might be marshalled to reconfigure the everyday transactional modes of exchange that mark our extractive economies into new landscapes that are more radical and more regenerative. Melissa Scanlan’s work on ‘law and policy for a new economy’ builds on a foundation of reimagining the scope of environmental law through a systems change lens that integrates food, energy and common pool resources (Scanlan 2017), and from there to a broad legal blueprint for creating alternate corporate business models, from benefit corporations to cooperatives, that mitigate climate change, pay living wages, and act as responsible community members (Scanlan 2021; see also Morgan and Thorpe 2018). Envisioning a field of multiple diverse legal structures for economic enterprise is increasingly a core site of transformative private law (Morgan 2018). Comparative explorations of different national legal models for social enterprise range from a focus on community interest companies in the UK through the lens of the welfare state (Liptrap 2020) or of associative democracy (Smith and Teasdale 2012); to benefit corporations in North America, with both optimism (Brakman Reiser 2011) and pessimism (Liao 2017) regarding its relationship with neoliberalism. This direction shows a possibly counter-intuitive refutation of my initial hypothesis: transformative private law may rework the technical legal aspects of neoliberalism without decentring or pluralizing law, instead bending its formal dimensions in service of ecological justice and socio-economic transformation.

Conclusion

The three lines of scholarship charted in this short entry straddle the turbulent waters of the uneasy relationship between law and Schumpeterian creative destruction in the era of neoliberalism that has dominated recent decades. While Schumpeter linked the disruption of creative destruction to clearing Bronwen Morgan

184  Encyclopedia of social innovation

spaces for economic innovation (→ JOSEPH A. SCHUMPETER: INNOVATION AND SOCIETY), the three conversations charted here together craft a pathway for exploring the capacity of law to mould social innovation. Longstanding debates on law and social change have been extended, together with a more decentred understanding of law, to point to muted optimism for progressive legal change via public law and regulation. Prefigurative legality decentres formal law even more, suturing direct action and informal modes of legality to catalyse fresh imaginative pathways for creating economic and social change. And transformative private law returns to the technicalities of formal law but this time from within the private sphere, linking property, finance and contract in new ways. Ultimately, exploring the role that law can play in social innovation could help to bridge the deep tensions that subsist between its technocratic and democratic paradigms (Montgomery 2016). The conversations charted here sometimes provide a counter-narrative to neoliberalism, but also the technical materials to rework it, redrawing the boundary between – and perhaps even integrating – economic and social innovation. Bronwen Morgan

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Bartl, M. (2020), ‘Socio-economic imaginaries and European private law’, in P. F. Kjaer (ed.), The Law of Political Economy: Transformation in the Function of Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 228–53. Bartl, M. and K. Pijl (2021), ‘From an extractive to a non-extractive economy: disentangling the building blocks of non-extractive economic practices’, International and Comparative Corporate Law Journal, 15 (2), pp. 13–34. Brakman Reiser, D. (2011), ‘Benefit corporations – a sustainable form of organization?’, Wake Forest Law Review, 46, pp. 591–625. Capra, F. and U. Mattei (2015), The Ecology of Law: Toward a Legal System in Tune with Nature and Community, Oakland, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Cohen, A. and B. Morgan (2022), ‘Prefigurative legality, law and social inquiry!’, accessed 10

Bronwen Morgan

October 2022 at https://​potlatch​.typepad​.com/​ weblog/​2013/​09/​20​-public​-spirited​-lawyers​ -could​-change​-the​-world​.html. Cooper, D. (2017), ‘Prefiguring the state’, Antipode, 49 (2), pp. 335–56. Davies, W. (2013), ‘20 public-spirited lawyers could change the world’, Potlatch Blog, https://​ potlatch​.typepad​.com/​weblog/​2013/​09/​20​ -public​-spirited​-lawyers​-could​-change​-the​ -world​.html. Douglas, H., F. Bartlett and T. Luker (2014), Australian Feminist Judgments: Righting and Rewriting Law, London: Bloomsbury. Farmer, L. (2014), ‘Codification’, accessed 26 July 2022 at https://​doi​.org/​10​.1093/​oxfordhb/​ 9780199673599​.013​.0017. Foster, S. R. and C. Iaione (2015), ‘The city as a commons’, Yale Law & Policy Review, 34, pp. 281–349. Halliday, T., L. Karpik and M. Feeley (eds) (2012), Fates of Political Liberalism in the British Post-Colony, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Liao, C. (2017), ‘A critical Canadian perspective on the benefit corporation’, Seattle University Law Review, 40 (2), pp. 683–716. Liptrap, J. S. (2020), ‘The social enterprise company in Europe: policy and theory’, Journal of Corporate Law Studies, 20 (2), pp. 495–539. McCann, M. W. (1992), ‘Reform litigation on trial’, Law & Social Inquiry, 17 (4), pp. 715–43. Miola, I. and S. Picciotto (2021), ‘On the sociology of law in economic relations’, Social & Legal Studies, 31 (1), https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​ 09646639211002881. Montgomery, T. (2016), ‘Are social innovation paradigms incommensurable?’, Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27 (4), pp. 1979–2000. Morgan, B. (2018), ‘Legal models beyond the corporation in Australia: plugging a gap or weaving a tapestry?’, Social Enterprise Journal, 13 (4), pp. 180–93. Morgan, B. and D. Kuch (2015), ‘Radical transactionalism: legal consciousness, diverse economies, and the sharing economy’, Journal of Law and Society, 42 (4), pp. 556–87. Morgan, B. and A. Thorpe (2018), ‘Law for a new economy: enterprise, sharing, regulation’, Journal of Law and Society, 45 (1), pp. 1–9. Parker, C. and F. Haines (2018), ‘An ecological approach to regulatory studies law for a new economy: enterprise, sharing, regulation:

Law and social innovation  185 section iii: regulation’, Journal of Law and Society, 45 (1), pp. 136–55. Povinelli, E. A. (2016), ‘Geontologies: a requiem to late liberalism’, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1215/​ 9780822373810. Rogers, N. and M. Maloney (eds) (2017), Law as If Earth Really Mattered: The Wild Law Judgment Project, London: Routledge. Rosenberg, G. N. (2008), The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change?, second edition, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Scanlan, M. K. (2017), Law and Policy for a New Economy: Sustainable, Just and Democratic, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Scanlan, M. K. (2021), Prosperity in the Fossil-Free Economy, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Setzer, J. and L. C. Vanhala (2019), ‘Climate change litigation: a review of research on courts

and litigants in climate governance’, WIREs Climate Change, 10 (3), e580. Simm, G. and A. Byrnes (2014), ‘International peoples’ tribunals in Asia: political theatre, juridical farce, or meaningful intervention?’, Asian Journal of International Law, 4 (1), pp. 103–24. Smith, G. and S. Teasdale (2012), ‘Associative democracy and the social economy: exploring the regulatory challenge’, Economy and Society, 41 (2), pp. 151–76. Thompson, M. (2019), ‘Playing with the rules of the game: social innovation for urban transformation’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 43 (6), pp. 1168–92. Thorpe, A. (2020), Owning the Street: The Everyday Life of Property, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bronwen Morgan

33. Social innovation, civil society and democracy-building Social innovation and citizen involvement

In an extensive bibliometric analysis of social innovation literature, van der Have and Rubalcaba (2016) indicate that the concept of social innovation is still ambiguous. Consequently, how and why citizens are part of social innovation processes has not been addressed clearly by the research community, there being only one strand of research in the field (the local development cluster) approaching how citizens are included and empowered in social innovation processes (→ POWER AND EMPOWERMENT IN SOCIAL INNOVATION). One example of this cluster is Moulaert’s (2010, p. 10) definition of social innovation as, the satisfaction of basic needs and changes in social relations within empowering social processes; it is about people and organizations who are affected by deprivation or lack of quality in daily life and services, who are disempowered by lack of rights or authoritative decision-making, and who are involved in agencies and movements favouring’ social innovation. This definition is part of a strand in the literature that sees social innovation contributing to urban and community development (Rüede and Lurtz 2012). Looking into levels of participation in social innovation, Amantidou et al. (2018) identify that one degree is for social groups to be informed and/or consulted; alternatively, they may be co-producers and part of the process or be in control of the process itself. They differentiate three typologies ranging from less to more social involvement. In the first case, social groups are perceived as end-users of technological innovations with social purposes (Mulgan 2012); the second level comprises a moderate level of participation that creates a new configuration of social practices in which users become social entrepreneurs (Phillips et al. 2015); as for the third typology, it involves a high level of social commitment in which social actors challenge market dynamics and promote grassroots innovation leading to transformation (Avelino et al. 2019).

This entry makes a case for the third type of social innovation and analyses civil society’s different configurations. We aim to address how the social innovation processes can contribute to deepening democratic practices (→ DEMOCRATIC EXPERIMENTATION) by providing citizens with greater control over the processes of collective decisions or on collective matters. To illustrate this, we briefly explore the main characteristics and ways of deepening democracy (DD); subsequently, we exemplify the relation between DD and translocal networks of social innovation in two fields: energy justice and food sovereignty movements.

Deepening democracy

According to Gaventa (2006), the DD approach focuses on the political project of developing and sustaining more substantive and empowered citizen participation in the political process than is normally found in liberal representative democracy alone. We have chosen this approach because, compared to other perspectives on democracy, it places the role of civil society at the centre, acknowledging that democracy-building is a contextualized process of struggle and contestation rather than the adoption of a standard institutional design. Building on Gaventa’s understanding of democracy, Blas and Ibarra (2006) identify four main ways for DD. By building a stronger civil society This approach is characteristic of the liberal-democratic tradition, and it is primarily centred on the idea of representative democracy. It gives a central role to having a robust, independent and structured civil society that operates as a watchdog of the state. Civil society controls the behaviour of the government, mobilizes to make sure it meets the demands of the different actors, demands accountability, and, in general, exercises a role of counterweight concerning the power of the state. Through co-governance This is more suited to a participatory approach to democracy, and it concerns citizens having a direct role in the actions of the state through the construction of more participative forms of governance and the co-production of pol-

186

Social innovation, civil society and democracy-building  187

icies. Through this approach, democracy is strengthened as citizens, either in an organized manner or even individually, engage directly in the structures and actions of the state regarding issues of concern. Within this perspective, there are two forms of relationship with the state: one that refers to participation in the state, and another that relates to participation with the state – although the separation between these two forms of participation is diffuse. In the first case, citizens participate directly in the spaces or services of the state in direct decision-making on public policies or in the co-management of public services. In the second case, participation with the state refers to the multiple mechanisms and procedures of citizen participation. Citizens or social organizations make decisions that affect the corresponding community to varying degrees. Outside the state This approach is inspired by the most radical perspectives of democracy and emphasizes the importance of constructing democratic spaces and processes outside the state. The main idea is that society can organize itself and generate different decision spaces (territorial, sectoral, or otherwise) on everything concerned. This perspective does not necessarily deny the role of the state; however, in all cases, it is committed to autonomy and self-management as fundamental forms of deepening democracy. Consequently, democracy is built by generating spaces for decision and action in all aspects of collective life. Through the quality of deliberation This approach is inspired by the work of authors on deliberative democracy, and the concern is placed on the nature and quality of dialogue and deliberation processes in the public sphere. Under this approach, DD means improving the quality and conditions of this public debate. From this perspective, actions that generate better channels of dialogue, offer information and means for improving quality in debates, or give an equal footing to the different actors that participate in the public debate in terms of power and information are all examples of deepening democracy through quality deliberation. We argue that the different social innovation typologies have distinct implications in

DD. Hence, the broader and more profound the collective action is in social innovations, the more robust democracy becomes. In this sense, both are interrelated (Figure 33.1). Contribution of social innovation to deepening democracy These ways in which civil society can contribute to deepening democracy are frequently mixed and complementary. To illustrate this aspect, we address how they are present in particular translocal networks of social innovation by considering two well-known global movements that have boosted social innovation for more just and democratic societies: the energy justice and food sovereignty movements. We will refer to specific initiatives in these movements globally and illustrate them with local examples in Spain. The energy justice movement is based on the principles of social justice, democratic accountability, participation and ecological sustainability. It calls for more just processes and outputs in energy consumption and production and for a better distribution of its positive and negative impacts (Fuller and McCauley 2016). The movement gathers different stakeholders, including an increasing number of community energy initiatives. These groups propose different specific social innovations which include small-scale renewable energy projects, actions to improve energy efficiency, activities for to bring about sustainable behaviour changes, initiatives for the collective purchasing of sustainable energy, or lobbying and awareness raising (Smith et al. 2016). All these articulate different ways of DD. Community energy initiatives directly generate spaces of self-management, participation and autonomy outside the logic of the state and the market. In the Spanish case, we find cases that range from the large-scale energy consumption cooperative Som Energia – which has more than 81,000 members and sells green energy based on a democratic approach (Pellicer-Sifres et al. 2018) – to small, local community energy projects involving self-production. These grassroots innovations also improve the quality and conditions of the public debate on energy justice and energy transition. For example, Som Energia deploys a number of innovative mechanisms of participation in the cooperative, various training options (such

Alejandra Boni, Sergio Belda-Miquel and Diana Velasco

188  Encyclopedia of social innovation

Source: Compiled by the authors.

Figure 33.1

Social innovation and deepening democracy

as seminars, courses, meetings, etc. both for members and non-members) and different communication strategies to open up debate in Spain (Pellicer-Sifres et al. 2018). With regard to DD by building civil society, we find the Spanish Plataforma por un Nuevo Modelo Energético, a network of almost 500 members, including Som Energia and a range of cooperatives and innovative community energy initiatives. It plays the role of watchdog and works to lobby government by demanding accountability regarding energy policies and by denouncing the abuses of large companies and the opacity and unsustainability of the Spanish energy model (Plataforma por un Nuevo Modelo Energético 2022). Beyond these roles, the energy justice movement also collaborates with public institutions, particularly at the local level. As REScoop – a network of 1,900 European sustainable energy cooperatives – mentions, energy cooperatives and municipalities are, natural allies who both serve the same stakeholder: Citizens’ (RESCoop 2022). It also affirms that they can empower cities and

provide technical and methodological support for taking energy action. The food sovereignty movement is inspired by La Vía Campesina, a global farmers’ organization boosting transformative innovation worldwide. It aims to build, a narrative opposing neoliberalism, which ‘works towards changing the governance of and access to natural resources and demands social justice’ and ‘empowers farmers to counter global food industry’ (Loorbach et al. 2020, p. 255). It unites several local social innovation initiatives to transform the food system from the base up. The movement enhances deliberative democracy by strengthening participatory governance. As an example, at the local level, it has demanded and contributed to creating local food councils. These councils are deliberative spaces where members debate about food policies and local strategies to preserve the community’s integrity. For example, the city of Valencia has established a Council composed of political parties, universities, the private sector and social organizations

Alejandra Boni, Sergio Belda-Miquel and Diana Velasco

Social innovation, civil society and democracy-building  189

to debate food policies (Vara-Sánchez et al. 2021). The food sovereignty movement encompasses countless self-managed initiatives to build food democracy outside state and market action. These include forms of alternative food networks, from food cooperatives to community-supported agriculture. They are all social innovations that create new consumer-producer relations based on proximity, trust and mutual support (Goodman et al. 2012). Usually, these initiatives co-exist and cross-fertilize in local environments. For example, in Valencia, there are several networks with different approaches, such as food cooperatives, solidarity purchasing groups, veggie box schemes and online communities for purchasing local food (Belda-Miquel et al. 2022). Food sovereignty movements trigger social innovation contributing to DD through co-governance. They also open up opportunities for public–civic alliances to co-create and co-manage alternative food models, such as farmer’s markets or public catering services in schools managed by social organizations with the support of the state. An example of the former is the on-campus UPV farmer’s market, which is supported by university officials, but is managed wholly by an assembly of local producers and social organizations (Belda-Miquel et al. 2022). Finally, the food sovereignty movement has been very active and innovative in terms of strategies to demand accountability from public institutions regarding food policies. La Vía Campesina has implemented intense lobbying activity with national governments and international organizations. This lobbying is based on grassroots actions and information based on local struggles (Loorbach et al. 2020). In this sense, grassroots innovation contributes to deepening democracy by creating an active civil society from below.

Conclusions

As the cases illustrate, the DD concepts and debates are relevant to understand how civil society contribute to address social challenges and build better societies through different social innovation processes. The energy justice and food sovereignty illustrate how the participation of civil society goes beyond the action and guidance of the state

for building a stronger civil society. Agency from grassroots transformations can expand the quality of deliberation, co-governance and even construct democratic spaces outside the state, as illustrated with the movements considered as examples. New ways of understanding and engaging in actions aimed at consumer–producer relationships taking ownership of communities farming and food consumption are forms of social innovation that have also deepened civil society’s role beyond participation and accountability. More sustainable and just ways of producing and consuming energy and food have also contributed to more innovative local public policies. By creating heterogeneous networks and hybrid social organizations, these movements have deepened co-governance and the quality of deliberation. Linking DD with social innovation, we have provided a framework to analyse citizen’s involvement in social innovation initiatives. The four types of participation described in the DD approach, goes beyond the more usual approach to citizens’ participation founded in the social innovation literature (i.e. Amantidou et al. 2018; Mulgan 2012). The DD approach shows the relevance of collective action and connects this particular understanding of social innovation with democracy-building. It shows how social innovation can contribute to deepening democratic practices by providing citizens with greater control over the processes of collective decisions or on collective matters. Therefore, social innovation and DD are closely interrelated; the former contributes to the latter. It could also be implied that the quality of democracy provides better or worse conditions for social innovation to emerge; however, such an exploration is beyond the scope of this entry. When communities come together and share a collective intelligence, innovation grows and mobilizations towards perceived purposes emerge.1 Alejandra Boni, Sergio Belda-Miquel and Diana Velasco

Note 1.

The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation in granting the project PID2019-107251RB-I00.

Alejandra Boni, Sergio Belda-Miquel and Diana Velasco

190  Encyclopedia of social innovation

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Amanatidou, E., D. Gagliardi and D. Cox (2018), ‘Social engagement: towards a typology of social innovation’, MIOIR/MBS Working Paper Series-Working Paper, 82. Avelino, F., L. Monticelli and J. M. Wittmayer (2019), ‘How transformative innovation movements contribute to transitions’, in J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka, A. Schröder and M. Zirngiebl (eds), Atlas of Social Innovation: A World of New Practices, Munich: Oekom Verlag, pp. 70–74. Belda-Miquel, S., V. Pellicer-Sifres and A. Boni (2022). ‘Construyendo comunes para el derecho a la ciudad a través de la innovación social colectiva en la distribución y consumo: explorando un marco conceptual y el caso de Valencia’, EURE – Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Urbano-Regionales, 143, pp. 1–24. Blas, A. and P. Ibarra (2006), ‘La participación: estado de la cuestión’, Cuadernos de trabajo Hegoa, 39, Bilbao: Hegoa. Fuller, S. and D. McCauley (2016), ‘Framing energy justice: perspectives from activism and advocacy’, Energy Research & Social Science, 11, pp. 1–8. Gaventa, J. (2006), ‘Triumph, deficit or contestation? Deepening the “deepening democracy” debate’, Working paper series, 264, Brighton: IDS. Goodman, D., E. M DuPuis and M. K. Goodman (2012), Alternative Food Networks: Knowledge, Practice, and Politics, London: Routledge. Loorbach, D., J. Wittmayer, F. Avelino, T. von Wirth and N. Frantzeskaki (2020), ‘Transformative innovation and translocal diffusion’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 35, pp. 251–60. Moulaert, F. (2010), ‘Social innovation and community development: concepts, theories and challenges’, in F. Moulaert, F. Martinelli, E. Swyngedouw and S. González (eds), Can

Neighbourhoods Save the City? Community Development and Social Innovation, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 4–16. Mulgan, G. (2012), ‘The theoretical foundations of social innovation’, in A. Nicholls and A. Murdock (eds), Social Innovation, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 33–65. Pellicer-Sifres, V., S. Belda-Miquel, I. Cuesta-Fernández and A. Boni, (2018), ‘Learning, transformative action, and grassroots innovation: insights from the Spanish energy cooperative Som Energia’, Energy Research & Social Science, 42, pp. 100–111. Phillips, W., H. Lee, A. Ghobadian, N. O’Regan and P. James (2015), ‘Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: a systematic review’, Group & Organization Management, 40 (3), 428–61. Plataforma por un Nuevo Modelo Energético (2022), Reinicia, accessed 9 August 2022 at http://​www​.n​uevomodelo​energetico​.org/​pgs2/​. REScoop (2022), The REScoop Model: Activities, accessed 9 August 2022 at https://​www​.rescoop​ .eu/​the​-rescoop​-model. Rüede, D. and K. Lurtz (2012), ‘Mapping the various meanings of social innovation: towards a differentiated understanding of an emerging concept’, EBS business school research paper no. 12–03. Smith, A., T. Hargreaves, S. Hielscher, M. Martiskainen and G. Seyfang (2016), ‘Making the most of community energies: three perspectives on grassroots innovation’, Environment and Planning A, 48, pp. 407–32. Van der Have, R. P. and L. Rubalcaba (2016), ‘Social innovation research: an emerging area of innovation studies?’, Research Policy, 45 (9), pp. 1923–35. Vara-Sánchez, I., D. Gallar-Hernández, L. García-García, N. M. Alonso and A. Moragues-Faus (2021), ‘The co-production of urban food policies: exploring the emergence of new governance spaces in three Spanish cities’, Food Policy, 103, pp. 1–11.

Alejandra Boni, Sergio Belda-Miquel and Diana Velasco

34. Social innovation labs Conceptual delimitation of social innovation labs

In the last two decades, there has been an exponential growth of social innovation labs as part of a global labbing movement worldwide (Hassan, 2014; Wellstead et al. 2021). Burgeoning social experiments and structures labelled as labs for social innovation are created everywhere: platforms for neighbourhood communities; living labs and social innovation hubs supporting incubation and acceleration of social business and social entrepreneurial initiatives; fab labs, hackers, and maker spaces; virtual and real spaces where citizens can participate and co-create products and public services; societal pilots designed to improve inclusion and governance, among others (Kieboom 2014; Edwards-Schachter 2019; Wellstead et al. 2021; Westley et al. 2017; Zivkovic 2018; Geobey 2022). Social innovation labs can be micro, medium, or large, and even entire cities and regions become labs to improve the well-being and quality of life of their inhabitants (e.g. city lab). Most cities today account for the existence of a huge variety of social innovation labs, some formal and others informal, some strongly rooted in the local environment or connected to global networks. An example is the creation of networks of co-working spaces and impact hubs, where social entrepreneurs can develop their projects by moving between different locations. A variety of labs aimed to produce social innovation can also be observed in the European Network of Living Labs (ENoLL),1 which started in 2006 and currently counts more than 125 active members in European and pan-European countries (Schuurman and Leminen 2021). Social innovation labs can arise from activism and social movements to initiatives of intra-entrepreneurs in corporations either profit or non-profit sectors such as the so-called corporate social innovation labs. They also can be generated by public administration and government agencies and global institutions, as the case of policy social innovation labs and numerous labs launched by the United Nations coping with the global

Sustainable Development Agenda (Bloom and Faulkner 2016; Gofen and Golan 2021). The rise of labbing phenomenon can be explained in the face of global challenges and wicked social problems whose complex nature requires solving with the participation of all sectors – public, private, and citizens. This multi-sectoral expertise and collective action become more evident with the disruption and enormous challenges provoked by the COVID-19 pandemic, which exposed weaknesses in our social systems and forced novel, fast and more efficient social innovation experiments (Mair and Gegenhuber 2021). Research on social innovation labs is multidisciplinary, fragmented, and sparse and there is no consensus on a common definition (Westley et al. 2015; Martin et al. 2017). The notion seems to follow the diversity of perspectives and debates on the definition and nature of social innovation itself (Edwards-Schachter and Wallace 2017). On the one hand, social innovation labs and labs in general are described in many ways: they can be a platform supporting multi-stakeholder activities, an infrastructure of services, an environment or real settings to facilitate user-centred and user-led innovation, a space for co-creation; a methodology or approach that facilitates user and open innovation; even short programmes organizing hackathons (Kieboom 2014; Tiesinga and Berkhout 2014). On the other hand, the question of definition gets even more complicated if we take into account their high heterogeneity. A recent study of the Canadian social innovation lab landscape acknowledges they often overlap with many other terms like living labs, urban lab, design lab, change lab, think tank, community innovation lab, and so on (Martin et al. 2017). Additionally, social innovation labs can be permanent entities or even used to label short-term networks or programmes in different fields (e.g. green economy, social economy, healthcare, energy, public services, education). For instance, the University of Cape Town Graduate created a social innovation lab, which consists of a pedagogical MBA programme to prepare participants to be social change agents. In both theory and practice, it is difficult to define what a social innovation lab is and to delimitate a clear typology, taking into account that many living labs, design

191

192  Encyclopedia of social innovation

labs, hubs, and hives also ignite and support social innovation initiatives. How to differentiate social innovation labs from other mixed forms?

Exploring the roots of social innovation labs

It is worth stressing that research literature traces varied geography of labs addressing social issues to the nineteenth century. In the field of education, John Dewey founded the Laboratory School in 1896 with an experimental approach. A model called the Social Unit Plan was established between 1917 and 1920 in the USA, intended to implement the concept of democracy and community participation addressing problems in public health (Blundo 1997). Another early example was developed by a social movement of scientists called ‘social engineering’ in the 1960s focused on the design and evaluation of new solutions to major social problems in a context of increasing criticism of US health and social policies. Fairweather (1967) proposed the Experimental Social Innovation and Dissemination (ESID) model defined as ‘an action-oriented, multistep process for systematically introducing change in social systems’ (Fairweather 1967, p. 11). One decade later, Fairweather and Tornatzky (1977, p. 384) expanded the notion of ESI Centers (Experimental Social Innovation Units) in the country involving the university, private industry, government, and/or ‘a location between all three’. Pioneer labs in culture and media were created in the 1970s, examples including EAT (Experiments in Art and Technology) in New York in 1963 and the MIT Media Lab in 1985 (Moss 2011). The term ‘living lab’ emerged in the 1990s in the ICT sector associated to monitor people interactions and user participation in R&D and innovation processes. In 2004 was inaugurated a PlaceLab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an apartment equipped to observe and experiment with its inhabitants. Nearly simultaneously, it was created the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab, consisted of a platform of policy programmes involving a global network of governments agencies, donors, foundations, NGOs, research centres, and communities across the world. Research literature identifies the evolution and co-existence of three generations Mónica Edwards-Schachter

of living labs with different implications as a source of social innovation (Hossain et al. 2019; Schuurman and Leminen 2021): (a) A first generation closely linked with ICT innovation, usually physical structures created with the purpose of experimenting and developing innovation processes with the participation of customers and users as subjects of experimentation (e.g. testbeds). (b) A second generation with a more open conception of users’ participation with other agents in the identification of needs, experimentation and co-creation of new solutions, innovating in products, services, and business models (from user-centred to user-driven or user-led approaches). (c) A third generation of ‘labs of labs’, that is, living labs in open innovation networks with a focus on structuring and organizing networks of innovation stakeholders and their articulation at local, regional, national and international levels. Figure 34.1 shows some categories and types of social innovation labs associated with labbing phenomena. Each category ordinarily responds to its purpose (e.g. policy lab and open social innovation lab), sector of activity (green lab, education lab, energy living lab), the type of organization that generates and/ or supports it (university and corporate social innovation lab, United Nations lab), its territorial integration (local and urban social innovation labs), among other aspects. According to their characteristics, labs belong to several categories; for example, a social innovation lab can correspond to a rural community (rural and community lab) that works aligned with the objectives of the transition towards sustainability (transition lab) with a clear orientation to produce social change (social change lab). Otherwise, change labs were established in the early 2000s within governments that used design thinking as their core and focused on producing changes in social practices and social relationships (Torjman 2012; Hassan 2014; Westley et al. 2017). A model of public and policy social innovation called FutureLab was launched by NESTA in 2001 in the UK. Similar examples were the Helsinki Design Lab implemented in Finland around 2008

Social innovation labs  193

Source: Own elaboration from papers, research and policy reports in the field of innovation studies, sociology, management and public policy studies, among others.

Figure 34.1

Rhizomatic landscape of social innovation labs

and MindLab, which was operative inside the Danish government from 2002 to 2018 (Boyer 2020). Many authors point out the distinctive role of social innovation labs in changing social practices and relationships and fostering systemic change across innovation ecosystems (Edwards-Schachter et al. 2012; Westley et al. 2015). Such function is usually analysed in models of change labs, urban and transition labs as well as localized spaces of collaborative innovation, which embrace individuals and communities that do not belong to an organization and participate in hackerspaces, maker spaces, fab labs or coworking spaces, and so on (→ COLLABORATIVE SPACES FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION). Central to this kind of social innovation labs is peer-to-peer production to productive efficiency and social justice, with innovation processes characterized by the protection of commons, mutual aid, trust, cooperation, transparency, direct democracy, as well as activism and resistance in search of a new reconfiguration among the state, civil society and the market (Bauwens and Kostakis 2015; Henttonen et al. 2020; O’Neil et al. 2021)

and what von Hippel (2017) called the rise of ‘free innovation’ processes. Bloom and Faulkner (2016) highlight the role of social innovation labs in the United Nations over the last decade. They consider that social innovation labs are embodied in different ways as they are shaped by their local context including their team experiences and partners’ interests. Each one of them differs in their configuration, the practices they perform, and the outcomes they achieve. Recent literature claims for renewed attention to the validity of citizen participation and governance challenges. The scope of collaborative innovation is under review considering the accelerated advances of digitalization and the impact of emergent technologies, deepening open social innovation linked to the fourth and fifth industrial revolutions, and ongoing serious challenges (Mair and Gegenhuber 2021; Daniel and Jenner 2022). In January 2019, the UNDP launched a global Accelerator Lab Network2 to create and test labs that introduce collective intelligence principles based on emergent technologies (artificial intelligence, big data, etc.). Starting with ethnographers, data scientists, and social Mónica Edwards-Schachter

194  Encyclopedia of social innovation

Source: Compiled by the author.

Figure 34.2

Aspects to be considered in the analysis and description of social innovation labs

innovation teams across 78 countries, the labs were envisaged as ‘the world’s largest and fastest learning network on sustainable development challenges’ to rethink development for the twenty-first century (Berditchevskaia et al. 2021, p. 5). Figure 34.2 overviews the set of principal aspects that can be considered in the analysis and characterization of social innovation labs. In the Social Innovation Lab Guide, Westley et al. (2015, p. 7) define a lab as ‘a highly designed and expert facilitated process clearly intended to support multi-stakeholder groups in addressing a complex social problem’. A related distinctive characteristic lies in its capacity to enable a creative environment to seek disruptive and potentially systems-tipping solutions (Tojrmann 2012) within a collaborative process that listen ‘carefully with an open mind to all the voices’ to cross-pollinate new methods, approaches and perspectives between groups (Tiesinga and Berkhout 2014, p. 13).

Mónica Edwards-Schachter

Conclusion

Social innovation labs represent organizational and institutional arrangements that come from socially constructing complexity in social experiments with the promise of supporting multi-stakeholder collaborative innovation (named fourth sector). Nowadays, the word ‘lab’ is usually assumed to be ‘pro-social’ in addressing current challenges and pressing societal needs. Most narratives talk about the supposed benefits and positive impact in providing solutions and generating positive change in social systems. However, social innovation labs constitute a supra-category that attempt to amalgamate a myriad of processes and organizations, often with markedly different origins, goals, distinct methods, and approaches to engage citizens and communities, as well as heterogeneous governance mechanisms. Additionally, they face many constraints (regulation, scarcity of resources, institutional barriers) and, in some cases, they could not survive a pilot phase. Examples that were very successful such as the Helsinki Design Lab and MindLab are no longer operative. Many aspects are still scarcely investigated,

Social innovation labs  195

in particular, the specificities and institutional logics embracing social innovation labs and their contribution to the institutionalization of new social practices, systemic change, and social resilience (understood as the ability of groups or communities to face or resist external stresses, shocks, and disruptions in the social order resulting of environmental, social, and political changes). With the fast advance of digitalization, the fourth and fifth industrial revolution, and the pressing problems added by the COVID-19 pandemic, social innovation labs need to combine the spirit of collective action and digitally enabled co-creation and develop new approaches to hybrid forms of social innovation. And vigorous research on many aspects still neglected would undoubtedly contribute in that direction, giving content to fashionable terms such as co-creation, collaborative innovation and innovation governance. Mónica Edwards-Schachter

Notes

1. See https://​enoll​.org/​. 2. See https://​acceleratorlabs​.undp​.org.

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Bauwens, M. and V. Kostakis (2015), ‘Towards a new reconfiguration among the state, civil society and the market’, Journal of Peer Production, 7, pp. 1–6. Berditchevskaia, A., K. Peach, G. Lucarelli and M. Ebelshaeuser (2021), Collective Intelligence for Sustainable Development: 13 Stories from the UNDP Accelerator Labs. NESTA. Bloom, L. and R. Faulkner (2016), ‘Innovation spaces: lessons from the United Nations’, Third World Quarterly, 37 (8), pp. 1371–87. Blundo, R. (1997), ‘The social unit plan (1916–1920): an experiment in democracy and human services fails’, The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 24 (3), article 11. Boyer, B. (2020), ‘Helsinki design lab ten years later’, She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6 (3), pp. 279–300. Daniel, L. J. and P. Jenner (2022), ‘Another look at social innovation: from community – for community’, International Journal of Innovation Studies, Special issue. Unfolding New Social Innovations for a New Digital

Era, edited by M. Edwards-Schachter, 6, pp. 92–101. Edwards-Schachter, M. (2019), ‘Living labs for social innovation’, in J. Howaldt et al. (eds), Atlas of Social Innovation: New Practices for a Better Future, Munich: oekom. Edwards-Schachter, M. and M. L. Wallace (2017). ‘“Shaken, but not stirred”: sixty years of defining social innovation’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119, pp. 64–79. Edwards-Schachter, M. E., C. E. Matti and E. Alcántara (2012), ‘Fostering quality of life through social innovation: a living lab methodology study case’, Review of Policy Research, 29 (6), pp. 672–92. Fairweather, G. W. (1967), Methods for Experimental Social Innovation, New York: John Wiley. Fairweather, G. and L. Tornatzky (1977), Experimental Methods for Social Policy Research, Oxford, New York: Pergamon Press. Geobey, S. (2022), ‘Reckoning with reality: reflections on a place-based social innovation lab’, Sustainability, 14 (7), https://​doi​.org/​10​ .3390/​su14073958. Gofen, A. and E. Golan (2021), ‘Laboratories of design: a catalog of policy innovation labs in Europe’, https://​papers​.ssrn​.com/​sol3/​papers​ .cfm​?abstract​_id​=​3822821. Hassan, Z. (2014), The Social Labs Revolution: A New Approach to Solving our Most Complex Challenges, San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Henttonen, K., A. M. Nisula, K. Blomqvist, A. Horila and M. Takala (2020), ‘Individual conditions for co-production of a social innovation in a living lab: case sunshine popup park’, in H. Lehtimäki, P. Uusikylä and A. Smedlund (eds), Society as an Interaction Space, Singapore: Springer, pp. 293–310. Hossain, M., S. Leminen and M. Westerlund (2019), ‘A systematic review of living lab literature’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 213, pp. 976–88. Kieboom, M. (2014), Lab Matters: Challenging the Practice of Social Innovation Laboratories, Amsterdam: Kennisland. Mair, J. and T. Gegenhuber (2021), ‘Open social innovation’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall, pp. 26–33, accessed 3 August 2022 at https://​ssir​.org/​articles/​entry/​open​ _social​_innovation​#. Martin, G., A. Dale and C. Stoney (2017), ‘Social innovation labs in Canada: a preliminary analysis of the Canadian social innovation lab landscape’, https://​cha​ngingtheco​nversation​ .ca/​sites/​all/​files/​Martin​_​SocialInno​vationLabs​ .pdf. Moss, F. (2011), The Sorcerers and Their Apprentices: How the Digital Magicians of the MIT Media Lab Are Creating the Innovative

Mónica Edwards-Schachter

196  Encyclopedia of social innovation Technologies that Will Transform Our Lives, Crown Business. O’Neil, M., C. Pentzold and S. Toupin (eds) (2021), The Handbook of Peer Production, Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Schuurman, D. and S. Leminen (2021), ‘Living labs past achievements, current developments and future trajectories’, Sustainability, 13, https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​su131910703. Tiesinga, H. and R. Berkhout (eds) (2014), Labcraft: How Innovation Labs Cultivate Change Through Experimentation and Collaboration, London: Labcraft Publishing. Torjman, L. (2012), Labs: Designing the Future, Toronto: MaRS Discovery. Von Hippel, E. (2017), Free Innovation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mónica Edwards-Schachter

Wellstead, A. M., Gofen and A. Carter (2021), ‘Policy innovation lab scholarship: past, present, and the future – introduction to the special issue on policy innovation labs’, Policy Design and Practice, 4 (2), pp. 193–211. Westley, F., S. Goebey and K. Robinson (2017), ‘Change lab/design lab for social innovation’, Annual Review of Policy Design, 5 (1), pp. 1–20. Westley, F., S. Laban, C. Rose, K. McGowan, K. Robinson, O. Tjornbo and M. Tovey (2015), Social Innovation Lab Guide, Waterloo, ON: Waterloo Institute for Social Innovation and Resilience. Zivkovic, S. (2018), ‘Systemic innovation labs: a lab for wicked problems’, Social Enterprise Journal, 14 (3), pp. 348–66.

35. Social movements Introduction

Social movements are collective actions

The study of social movements is a classic area of Sociology and Political Science. In recent decades, social movements have been analysed as relevant factors in processes of change, innovation and social transformation. Social movements constitute one of the forms of collective action that, together with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil organizations, collectives, community groups, philanthropic entities, among others, make up the universe of collective actions in civil society. This entry highlights social movements in the universe of collective actions, with the aim of presenting their importance in the field of socio-political, economic and cultural changes, and as a generator of social innovations in recent decades. But it also raises the links with social innovation and the need for further research in this area to better understand the differences between the two. The starting point of this entry is to introduce concepts and approaches to what social movements are and how they differ from other forms of collective action. In this article, we present recent examples that have had a strong impact especially on the development of social change in Latin America but at the same time we illustrate very current examples that present new waves of social movements and put into context some of the most current social problems in the world. In terms of innovation, we present an example of social innovation such as participatory budgeting. We present it as an exemplary case of social innovation that emerged in Brazil, yet it has had a strong resonance and has spread all over the world. The examples presented in this article show its innovative power in civil society (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION, CIVIL SOCIETY AND DEMOCRACY-BUILDING) and public policy. In this sense, we argue that there is no single concept and that movements should always be treated in the plural, given their diversity and differentiation.

Social movements are collective actions with a socio-political and cultural character which enable different ways for individuals to organize and express their demands. Scholars such as Alberto Melucci (1980), Charles Tilly and Sidney Tarrow (2007), Manuel Castells (1999), and Alain Touraine (2006) are considered the classic authors in studies on the subject. Touraine was one of the pioneers in the study in the 1960s. His definition suggests characteristics of movements as: ‘an identity, an opponent, a conflict, and a project of life and society’ (Touraine 1973; Touraine 2006, p. 18). Melucci (1980) was one of the originators of the term ‘new social movements’ and the theory of social identitarianism. With this term, he stressed the importance of the identity that movements build for participants. Tilly and Tarrow (2007) contributed to the understanding of the innovations that movements produce by analysing the political opportunities they build, generating cycles of protest and tension that force processes of change. Mario Diani (1992) developed a typology of forms of collective action in which he conceptualizes movements as ‘networks of informal interactions between a plurality of individuals, groups and/or organizations engaged in a political or cultural conflict, on the basis of a shared collective identity’ (Diani 1992, p. 13). Donatela Della Porta meanwhile, in the 2010s, in her book Social Movements in Times of Austerity: Bringing Capitalism Back Into Protest Analysis, stressed that to understand social movements, they must be placed within the framework of the structural inequalities existing in a country or territory, and not treated in the same way when they occur in advanced, developing or poor countries (Della Porta 2015). But it was Castells who innovated social movement studies by discussing the urban question in the 1970s and the contradictions it generated, relating them to urban social movements demanding improvements in public service infrastructure and housing. These studies were important in Latin American countries faced with the consequences of rapid urbanization, internal migrations, industrialization, authoritarian military regimes, and high levels of marginalization. In the following decades, Castells expanded his focus on the rela-

197

198  Encyclopedia of social innovation

tional field, having a major impact on the topic of movements by publishing in the 1990s a trilogy of books on the importance of social networks (Castells 1999) and new media and information for movements’ organization (Castells 2013, p. 160). Today Castells remains a fundamental reference in deepening analyses to understand the crisis of democracy, the multidimensional global crisis, the role of youth, as well as research on Latin America. He states that new socio-cultural movements have been reborn, among which stand out those of women, gender, ethnic-cultural, ecological and youth movements linked to education and ethics in politics, all linked to the informational change that has taken place in the last twenty years. They are the new actors emerging from the information age, whose action is also based on the culture and experience, the habitus, of past struggles. In other words, for them the challenge is the re-signification of human rights and ethics in society and politics, but in the framework of a new network society and a new techno-economy of information and communication. More than that, they are a constitutive part of them. (Castells and Calderon 2021, p. 314; translated from Portuguese by the authors)

A concept of social movements: the contribution of a Latin American perspective Here we present Gohn’s concept of social movements, which was developed in 1997, built on several of the above mentioned concepts and a perspective of collective actions. This concept of social movements offers a Latin American perspective and remains relevant today for a context that is not only Latin American, but with contributions to social movement theories, as it includes the struggles of social classes and suggests the development of collective identification within social movements: Social movements are socio-political actions built by collective social actors belonging to different classes and social strata, articulated in certain scenarios of the socio-economic and political situation of a country, creating a political field of social force in civil society. The actions are structured on the basis of repertoires created on themes and problems of conflicts, litigations and disputes experienced by the group in society. The actions develop a social and politico-cultural process that creates a collective identity for the move-

ment, based on common interests. This identity is amalgamated by the strength of the principle of solidarity and is built on the referential basis of cultural and political values shared by the group in non-institutionalized collective spaces. (Gohn 2017, p. 251; translated from Portuguese by the authors)

To better understand social movements, we require an understanding of collective action, which is defined ‘as any which provides a collective good’, a perspective based on Olson (1965). Some authors recognize that this definition includes individual actions and that these constitute an important phenomenon of collective good provision (Oliver 1993, p. 273). The repertoire of struggles that movements build demarcates the interests, identities, subjectivities and projects of social groups. That is why there are different types and modalities of movements, from progressive to conservative, from those fighting for social transformation to those fighting for the preservation of the status quo, from pacifists, with acts for peace or civil disobedience, to the most radical and revolutionary. A social movement is the fruit or product of a social construction and not something given a priori, the result only of social contradictions. Historically, progressive movements have been observed to fight against inequalities (Della Porta 2015), social injustices (Staggenborg 2016) for inclusion and recognition of diversity (e.g. social, ethnic, gender, race). Progressive movements fight for social change with their practices and demands, participate in the construction of the political and social culture of a nation and contribute to the awareness of society, as is the case of today’s women’s movement, which acts not only in the sphere of interpersonal relationships or in daily life. They act in the world of work, politics, the domestic and cultural world. They act not only against discrimination or in favour of quotas but also innovate in management practices. Progressive movements act and develop out of the life experience of their participants, out of the experience they carry, not only out of the frozen forces of the past, but also out of reflection on their own experience. They are therefore not only reactive, driven by hunger or any form of need or oppression. Experience is also important in creating memories that, when retrieved, give meaning to the struggles of the present.

Maria da Glória Gohn and Karina Maldonado-Mariscal

Social movements  199

They are considered by several analysts, as elements and sources of innovations because if history is always in movement, and is not simply a natural evolutionary process, this movement comes from propulsive forces that guide debates, questioning, manifest discontent, indignation, and in doing so they make diagnoses, propose solutions, indicating paths. They are the pulse of society, a collective force and not just the individual act of some creator, hero or messiah. When we examine, for instance, indigenous peoples, the knowledge they have about the forest stands out. They construct affirmative symbolic representations through discourses and practices and create identities for previously dispersed and disorganized groups. Conflicts in the Amazon region in South America, for example, between indigenous people whose lands were invaded by miners, hunters and loggers, came to light in the media during the COVID-19 pandemic, as they had previously been hidden (see Krenak 2019). Resistance to the extermination of indigenous groups came along with denunciations of environmental destruction (Gohn 2022, p. 24). It is a great example of the joint action between social movement, the social organization supporting human rights and millenary local knowledge of indigenous peoples trying to open doors, seeking support in the modern, in the judiciary, fighting to save not only their way of life, but the life of the planet, the environment in general. It should be added that this search for support is not only external. Internal resources have been created, following the example of countless young indigenous people who have left their villages to study law, and others, at federal or state public universities, in quota programmes. From the beginning they have aimed to defend the rights of indigenous peoples, to train professionals in areas such as health and education, generally difficult to work in the villages of the original peoples due to long distances and lack of access by land transport. These collective actions represent recent social innovations.

Social movements are a series of innovations Movements generate a series of innovations in the public (state and non-state) and private spheres; they participate directly or indirectly in a country’s political struggle, and contrib-

ute to the development and transformation of civil and political society. (Gohn 2017, p. 251; translated from Portuguese by the authors)

For example, in the state public sphere, there were advances and social innovations in legislation as a result of the struggles and pressures of social movements, with the construction and enactment of laws to combat racism, the demarcation of the territories of the descendants of blacks and indigenous peoples, or laws that punish violence against women (Gohn 2022, pp. 111–13). In the civil public sphere, there was innovation in solidarity actions to combat hunger, cooperatives to generate employment and income, in cooperatives to generate programmes and organizations to support children and young adolescents in street situations (Pleyers 2021, pp. 9–10; Gohn 2022, pp. 42–3). Innovation studies attempt to link social movements and innovation; one example is the scientific debate on grassroots innovation(→ GRASSROOTS INNOVATION FOR TRANSFORMATIVE SOCIAL CHANGE), which provides specific links between social innovation and social movements from the community perspective, as grassroots innovation seeks to better understand novel solutions from grassroots community organizations (Smith et al. 2016). Grassroots innovation is understood as ‘networks of activists and organisations generating novel bottom-up solutions for sustainable development; solutions that respond to the local situation and the interests and values of the communities involved’ (Seyfang and Smith 2007, p. 585). In this sense, it is common to see studies of social innovations as the collective actions of NGOs, civil organizations, citizen movements and socio-cultural collectives. However, not all forms of collective action are social movements as such. Some researchers consider social movements to be a source of innovation, as movements break with traditional practices and can force new and evolving practices. Research focusing on social innovations in education has identified links between social movements and innovation, especially when looking at a historical context, suggesting that radical change, social movements and social innovations are closely interconnected in cycles of change, and that social movements, in particular, create evolutionary practices not only in educational but

Maria da Glória Gohn and Karina Maldonado-Mariscal

200  Encyclopedia of social innovation

also in social change (Maldonado-Mariscal 2020). However, we recognize that more research is needed on the links between these two concepts in order to learn from experiences of contestation, innovation and the impact of innovative practices on social change (Maldonado-Mariscal 2020). Towards a better distinction between social innovation and social movements As explained above, social movements have a long tradition of study in Sociology and Political Science, while social innovation is a more recent research field in the social sciences, whose theories and concepts advanced more rapidly in the 1990s and contributed to the emergence of new paradigms of innovation, which no longer focus on technological but on social transformations (Howaldt and Schwarz 2010). Social innovation is here defined as ‘an intentional, targeted recombination or reconfiguration of social practices, which is attributable to certain actors or groups of actors in particular areas of action or social context, with the goal of solving problems or satisfying needs better than is possible based on established practices’ (Howaldt and Schwarz 2010, p. 54). Both social movements and social innovation take place in a specific context and time period. While social movements are more concerned with the process of contestation and addressing injustice and inequalities, social innovation focuses more on the processes of creation, consolidation and the implementation of new practices and their diffusion. Mulgan (2006) recognizes how social movements such as feminism and environmentalism in the search for profound social change arise out of discontent and contestation and have been relevant movements in social innovation processes to awaken public awareness and the need for change. He suggests learning from environmentalism movements in which diverse social innovations emerge in cities and communities: ‘Environmentalism has also spawned a huge range of social innovations, from urban recycling to community-owned wind farms’ (Mulgan 2006, p. 149). However, there are not many studies that investigate the links between social innovation and social movements using the theoretical lenses and explicit frameworks of social movements discussed before.

In the following sections, we present ferent examples of social movements social innovations in order to provide elements to differentiate between them their magnitude.

difand key and

Examples of social movements

In history, movements have always had cycles, ascending or descending, some of them strategic, of resistance or rearticulation in the face of new situations. Since the 1960s, the field of social movements has expanded in Western societies. They represent forces that bring people together as a field of activity and social experimentation, and can be sources of creativity and socio-cultural innovations, both new social movements and old ones, such as the rural movement. In Brazil, the Landless Workers’ Movement (Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra) (Borsatto and Carmo 2013) innovates in the way they produce food in the camps they conquer, they develop agroecology and produce food without pesticides. They also innovate in marketing, in the ways they find to finance the different phases of production. By carrying out actions and acts of solidarity, they project in their participants’ feelings of social belonging and identity with some cause or value; the previously excluded begin to feel included in some kind of social unity. They acquire political and social strength, questioning the social order, society and its values, public policies and the functioning of the state apparatus, as in the case of the Afro-descendant movement. For example, Black Lives Matter originated in the United States in the 1990s, gained global amplitude in 2020 (Francis and Wright-Rigueur 2021) with the death of George Floyd, putting the age-old struggle against racism on the agenda of several nations as a structural struggle, and the refrain ‘racism is a crime’ has been transformed into legally supported battles. A memorable cultural shift. New wave of social movements In sociology, we can observe that some renewal in social transformations are based exactly on social movements and innovation coming from society, as a dialectical dynamic for knowledge production and sociological theory ‘transformations in sociology come from social movements, not the reverse’ (Cox

Maria da Glória Gohn and Karina Maldonado-Mariscal

Social movements  201

2014, p. 956). Therefore, new forms of social movements and social innovations can be seen as an air of modernization for sociology. In the 2010s, in Europe, the United States and the East, a new wave of movements brought about a renewal of social struggles on the scale of the new identity-based social movements of previous decades. These were the alter-globalists, or global movements. They began to focus on demands about the problems of everyday life, such as employment, finance/wages, debts, social services such as education and health, and above all the democratization of society. They fight against dictatorial regimes, economic systems that promote the exploitation of human capital and the planet’s natural resources, denounce speculative financial capital, the effects of economic globalization on society and corruption in public power. They reformulate and politicize socio-economic and political demands, and the ways of doing politics (Gohn 2014, pp. 11–13), at a time of a global crisis of democracy and the rise of conservative leaders to power in several countries. It was not merely a process of alternation in power, which would be normal in a democracy, but rather there were changes within political blocs and groupings. This also explains the new temporality of the social scene, with the emergence or re-emergence of massive, heterogeneous and contradictory protests, generating polarizations where one can find both democratic aspirations and reactionary, conservative, racist and xenophobic demands that fight not for the conquest, but for the withdrawal of rights. They act more like political movements, or movement organizations, or counter-movements. They act through networks without effective social bases, creating dualities and enemies to fight, seeking to destroy the advancement of democratic agendas. But the biggest acts of protest come from social movements with progressive agendas that have citizenship and rights at their core. In the last two decades, attention should also be paid to young people and their new forms of protest, with school occupations and demands for good quality education. In the field of education, innovations no longer come from the demands of trade union organizations, but from autonomous young people, who do politics differently (Gohn 2019, pp. 192–227). In Chile, student

leaders of the 2010s elected themselves to the country’s presidency in 2022 (the president and a minister) (Carvallo 2022). They have renewed politics and are innovating in the form of governance. The struggle of migrants to flee oppressive regimes has intensified in recent decades and so have movements in support of them. More recent examples in 2022, a new armed conflict between Russia invading Ukraine shakes the international scene; the issue of migrants fleeing war, especially women and children, gives rise to acts of solidarity, public demonstrations and new organizational devices to receive and welcome these migrants in several countries around the world. In Latin America, in addition to Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru and Colombia also have a tradition of struggles and social movements, which must be seen or analysed according to the heritage of their colonial past, because the history of the global South is certainly not the same as that of the global North. In Brazil, with the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 onwards, the socio-economic conditions of the most vulnerable strata changed, the political scenario changed and the range of movements broadened, from progressive and democratic, to liberal, to conservative, reactionary and anti-democratic. The pandemic brought out the denialist, anti-vaccine and similar movements. A relevant development was the growth of solidarity and mutual aid among the working classes and the revival of community movements, which put the struggle for life and the common good back at the centre of sociability and survival strategies. Community movements are the result of civil mobilizations seeking alternative and creative solutions to exercise their rights and not be treated as ‘second class’ citizens (Emecheta 2021). They have produced numerous collective and social innovations in the area of production (community gardens, lunch boxes for the unemployed), as well as in the reception, storage and distribution of donations of food and non-perishable goods, such as internal systems to bring food to places inaccessible for car transport in the favelas; have hired ambulances; rented houses/rooms to isolate the infected; and created community kitchens (see the example of the CUFA-Central Única de Favelas in Brazil, in Gohn 2022, p. 73). They were forms of resilience that created

Maria da Glória Gohn and Karina Maldonado-Mariscal

202  Encyclopedia of social innovation

memories, bonds of solidarity and the capacity to believe in themselves, in the power of collective action. In the past, in Brazil, talking about social movements was synonymous with talking about protests and rights movements, seen as progressive and emancipatory movements. But they were all within the same social movement framework. After the 1988 Constitution, there were several victories in the field of citizen participation, the inclusion of demands coming from popular and identity movements that had organized by gender, race and age groups, among others. The central question nowadays, or the novelty here, is to differentiate between the old, or classic movements (trade unions, students, land struggles), and the new movements, the identitarian, culturalist movements.

Participatory budgeting as an example of social innovation

One of the most researched and well-known social innovations is the Brazilian participatory budget. This innovation consists of the empowerment of citizens to annually distribute public money. Participatory budgeting originated in 1989 in Porto Alegre under various political and social transformations. The new administration introduced this as a form of institutional innovation, where public participation was crucial at different stages of the distribution of public money. The concept of participatory budgeting aims at public participation in the preparation, execution and distribution of the municipal budget (de Souza Santos 2002, p. 461). Participatory budgeting has spread around the world and encouraged the testing of this social innovation in other communities and countries. Some experiences were tested in Europe in countries like Germany. The introduction of participatory budgeting adapted for Germany was introduced in a southern municipality in 1988 as a form of citizen participation in municipal financial planning (Günther 2007), which was followed by other municipalities seeking to modernize administration. Elements of social innovation and social movement Participatory budgeting was originally conceived as a new urban policy testing new

forms of participatory democracy, which has served as ‘an important tool for inclusive and accountable governance’ (Shah 2007). Some of the main elements of innovation are new forms of participation in democracy, new participatory institutions, mechanisms of transparency, autonomy and co-management, and a new culture of civic engagement, all of which constitute new practices of local governance and democracy. Participatory budgeting also represented one of the most important forms of inclusion, participation and identity mechanisms in Brazil. Several elements of social innovation can be observed in Porto Alegre’s participatory budget. However, this is only one example of an innovation that became a social movement in which civil society mobilizes actions for a more equitable distribution of resources and demand for participation. This movement did not stay only in Porto Alegre, but spread to many other Brazilian states and later internationally.

Critical reflections and outlook

Social innovations entered the public sphere, as did the participatory budgeting programmes in municipal, state and even federal administrations in Brazil. Over the decades, other political or pre-political organizations began to mobilize and organize the population, and some of them became social movements (or began to call themselves movements), or political movements, within a political-ideological spectrum of centre-right and right-wing, conservative, reactionary or liberal, neo-liberal values. For this reason, it is necessary to differentiate the use of social movement and other specific movements (such as civic movement, political movement, cultural movement, media-dialogical movement and their multiple articulations). Many of them are fragmented, they are not coherent, they flow both in form and content according to the conflict in question. And to be attentive to new forms of expression of collective actions in civil society, or to the reconfiguration of old ones by technological advances, by new agendas and practices, as exemplified by the different types of current collectives, a field of experimentation and social innovation (Gohn 2022 pp. 132–75). It is therefore necessary to nuance the terms of the debates and narratives in order to know what kind of movement we

Maria da Glória Gohn and Karina Maldonado-Mariscal

Social movements  203

are dealing with, because generalizing and approaching all social movements as homogeneous only serves to confuse the subjects on the scene. To conclude, it is necessary for researchers and policy makers to know and recognize the diversity of social movements and collective civil actions, their articulations and the interpretative frames of reference that have given them new meanings and signifiers. It is necessary to investigate what they have brought to light, to observe their forms of action, their proposals and critiques in order to understand the innovations, changes and impacts on society generated by social movements. Therefore, we argue that social movements contribute to new social constructions, to the development of new social practices and can innovate in management practices, developing new ways of addressing injustice and inequalities. But at the same time, social innovations contribute to a paradigm shift or social constructions that recognize the need for change and innovation. It is therefore relevant to recognize that some social innovations have the potential to become social movements; however, not all social innovations are social movements or reach the dimension of social movements. This is crucial to differentiate in innovation studies and contribute to the understanding of changing societies. Therefore, more research in sociology is needed to identify more specific aspects of social innovations to help differentiate them from social movements and to learn from the concrete innovative aspects of social movements and in which ways social movements can contribute to social change and foster further experimentation and social innovations.1 Maria da Glória Gohn and Karina Maldonado-Mariscal

Note 1.

Maria da Glória Gohn has written the first part of this entry, including the concept of social movement, historical examples of social movements as well as current forms of social movements and differentiations of the term social movements in the universe of other types of movements. Karina Maldonado-Mariscal introduced the concept of social innovation and grassroots innovation, presented examples of social innovations and distinguished between social movements and social innovation in a sociological context. She also trans-

lated the contribution of MGG from Portuguese into English.

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Borsatto, R. S. and M. S. D. Carmo (2013), ‘A construção do discurso agroecológico no Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem-Terra (MST)’, Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, 51, pp. 645–60, accessed 15 November 2022 at https://​doi​.org/​10​.1590/​ S01​03–2003201​3000400002. Carvallo, C. (2022), ‘“Cooperate to win”: the influence of the Chilean student movement on the 2012 Budget Law’, Social Movement Studies, 21 (1–2), pp. 62–78. Castells, M. (1999), A sociedade em rede, São Paulo: Paz e Terra. Castells, M. (2013), Redes de Indignação e Esperança, São Paulo: Zahar. Castells, M. and F. Calderon (2021), A Nova América Latina, Rio: Zahar. Cox, L. (2014), ‘Movements making knowledge: a new wave of inspiration for sociology?’, Sociology, 48 (5), pp. 954–71, accessed 15 November 2022 at https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​ 0038038514539063. De Souza Santos, B. (2002), ‘Orcamento Participativo em Porto Alegre: para uma democracia redistributiva’, in B. de Sousa Santos (ed.), Democretizar a democracia: os caminhos da democracia participativa, Rio de Janeiro: Civilizacao brasileira, pp. 455–559. Della Porta, D. (2015), Social Movements in Times of Austerity: Bringing Capitalism Back Into Protest Analysis, Cambridge: Polity Press. Diani, M. (1992), ‘The concept of social movement’, The Sociological Review, 40 (1), pp. 1–25. Emecheta, B. (2021), Second-class Citizen, London: Penguin. Francis, M. M. and L. Wright-Rigueur (2021), ‘Black Lives Matter in historical perspective’, Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 17, pp. 441–58. Gohn, M. G. (2014), As manifestações de junho de 2013 no Brasil e as praças dos indignados no mundo (2nd edn), Petrópolis: Ed Vozes. Gohn, M. G. (2017), Teorias dos movimentos sociais. Paradigmas clássicos e contemporâneos (12th edn), São Paulo: Ed Loyola. Gohn, M. G. (2019), Participação e Democracia no Brasil-Da década de 1960 aos impactos pós -junho de 2013, Petrópolis: Ed Vozes. Gohn, M. G. (2022), Ativismos No Brasil: Movimentos Sociais, Coletivos e Organizações

Maria da Glória Gohn and Karina Maldonado-Mariscal

204  Encyclopedia of social innovation Sociais Civis- como impactam e por que importam?, Petrópolis: Ed Vozes. Günther, A. (2007), Der Bürgerhaushalt: Bestandsaufnahme – Erkenntnisse – Bewertung, Stuttgart: Richard Boorberg Verlag. Howaldt, J. and M. Schwarz (2010), Soziale Innovation im Fokus. Skizze eines gesellschaftstheoretisch inspirierten Forschungskonzepts, Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag. Krenak, A. (2019), Ideias para adiar o fim do mundo, São Paulo: Companhia das Letras. Maldonado-Mariscal, K. (2020), ‘Social change in Brazil through innovations and social movements’, Journal of Developing Societies, 36 (4), pp. 415–38, accessed 15 November 2022 at https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​0169796X20963332. Melucci, A. (1980), ‘The new social movements: a theoretical approach’, Social Science Information, 19 (2), pp. 199–226. Mulgan, G. (2006), ‘The process of social innovation’, Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1 (2), pp. 145–62, accessed 15 November 2022 at https://​doi​.org/​10​.1162/​itgg​ .2006​.1​.2​.145. Oliver, P. E. (1993), ‘Formal models of collective action’, Annual Review of Sociology, 19, pp. 271–300, accessed 11 November 2022 at http://​www​.jstor​.org/​stable/​2083389.

Olson, M. (1965), The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pleyers, G. (2021), ‘Movimientos sociales y ayuda mutua frente a la pandemia’, Mundo Plurales. Revista Latinoamericana de Políticas y Acción Pública Equador, 8 (1), pp. 9–22. Seyfang, G. and A. Smith (2007), ‘Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: towards a new research and policy agenda’, Environmental Politics, 16 (4), pp. 584–603. Shah, A. (2007), Participatory Budgeting: Public Sector Governance and Accountability, Washington, DC: World Bank, accessed 15 November 2022 at https://​ openknowledge​ .worldbank​.org/​handle/​10986/​6640. Smith, A., M. Fressoli, D. Abrol, E. Arond and A. Ely (2016), Grassroots Innovation Movements (1st edn), London: Routledge, accessed 15 November 2022 at https://​doi​.org/​10​.4324/​ 9781315697888. Staggenborg, S. (2016), Social Movements, New York: Oxford University Press. Tilly, C. and S. Tarrow (2007), Contentious Politics, Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishing. Touraine, A. (1973), Producción de la société, Paris: Seuil. Touraine, A. (2006), Um novo paradigma. Para compreender o mundo hoje, Petrópolis: Vozes.

Maria da Glória Gohn and Karina Maldonado-Mariscal

36. Social networks and social innovation

another way, social networks matter because economic or business actions do not happen in isolation but are embedded in social structures and networks (Granovetter 1985).

Introduction

This entry sets out to look at the role of networks for social innovation. Many of the challenges social entrepreneurs and innovators face are innovation challenges. These include, for example, the creation of a new product or service, building demand for a new product or service, reaching the market, enabling last mile value chain connections, or accessing inputs. Innovation emerges from actors with varied knowledge interacting with each other to solve a problem to create social value, and social networks are central in accessing knowledge from different sources (Kokko 2018; Partanen et al. 2014). These different actors (individuals or organizations) are critical as they are often the repositories of knowledge and skills for social innovation in a fast-changing and evolving environment where there is limited codified (written down) information (Sonne 2015).

The role of social networks

Actors may tap into their social network to expand the resources available to them (Folmer et al. 2018; Kokko 2018; Ghalwash et al. 2017). By collaborating with others, actors increase their resources base and find new ways to best use these resources to create new products or uncover new markets or use cases for existing products and services (Dacin et al. 2011; Tasavori et al. 2018). Furthermore, most of the information flows through informal channels such as word of mouth, which is why social networks are important (Allen 1983). Likewise, social networks may be used to gain motivation to start a social enterprise and scale a social innovation (Ghalwash et al. 2017) and to offer legitimacy (Sarpong and Davies 2014; Ghalwash et al. 2017). In sum, networks provide actors with social capital, deriving benefits from relationships and from membership of social networks (Portes 1998). Therefore, these relationships and memberships of social networks result in social capital that over time translates into access to human capital and financial capital (Dufays and Huybrechts 2014). Put

Strong, weak and diverse ties

Social networks can vary significantly in size, diversity and relationship structures, and their impact on social innovation may vary accordingly. A social network may have strong and weak ties. Strong ties build trust and coherence and are associated with close relationships. Strong ties built on trust likely reduce opportunism within a network because of expectations of reciprocity in social actions, while also increasing the likelihood that actors will collaborate (Coleman 1988; Dakhli and Clerq 2004; Gretzinger et al. 2018). However, the same social embeddedness that may help build trust and guard against opportunism can also constrain actors due to expectations on behaviours and actions, such as seeking out information and collaboration partners outside of the strong network connections (Cowan and Kamath 2012). Weak ties to acquaintances we may not know well on the other hand often provide the most opportunities for new knowledge to emerge (Cowan and Jonard 2004). Weak ties may offer access to a larger range of contacts and may provide a higher amount of new information (Bernardino and Santos 2019; Gretzinger et al. 2018). Because of this opportunity for a larger number of new introductions and knowledge flows, weaker ties are also associated with better access to a wider range of resources and information for entrepreneurs and innovators (Bernardino and Santos 2019; Gretzinger et al. 2018). Apart from the kind of ties that actors within a network have, the diversity of the network itself plays a significant role. Diversity stems from the context and background of different actors, such as their age, socio-economic status, education, occupation, gender, geographic location and so on. More diverse social networks are likely to offer a wider range of opportunities, knowledge and information, and access to resources (Martinez and Aldrich 2011; Kokko 2018). Diverse networks, in other words, are likely to be beneficial for social innovation. An ideal social network should be wide and diverse to include a range of different

205

206  Encyclopedia of social innovation

knowledge types, sources and backgrounds, and have both strong and weak ties. By remaining open, a network enables actors to access to knowledge, information and access to opportunities and resources both within it and outside of it (Sonne 2015; Castilla et al. 2000).

Key findings

This section discusses some of the key findings in recent literature with respect to research on social networks in social innovation. Because there is limited literature specifically on social networks in social innovation (Sonne 2015; Desmarchelier et al. 2020, 2021), this section also draws on work related to social networks with respect to social entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurs (→ SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP) (e.g. Bernardino and Santos 2019; Dufays and Huybrechts 2014; Littlewood and Khan 2018). Use of social networks Networks prove important in order to be aware of, and accessing new business opportunities, business contacts, finance, suppliers, markets and customers, technology, knowledge and credibility (Partanen et al. 2014; Semrau and Werner 2014; Sonne 2015). Social innovators frequently tap its social network to expand the access to knowledge and resources that it has (Ghalwash et al. 2017). Extensive national and international networks can therefore be very important for social enterprises (Ghalwash et al. 2017; Kokko 2018). Likewise, working with actors from different fields, can help find novel solutions to problems, leading to increased social value (Kokko 2018). Unlike conventional companies, social enterprises do not use these resources in order to outcompete other social enterprises. Instead, collaboration is emphasized in order to create greater social impact (Tasavori et al. 2018). Folmer et al. (2018), drawing on Sarpong and Davies (2014) note that social networks can provide legitimacy to social enterprises. By associating with well-connected and influential contacts in their social network, social enterprises are able to strengthen their credibility. This credibility, built up through social capital, is especially important for Lina Sonne Vyas

young social ventures so that they are able to good senior management, employees and government support (Zimmerman and Zeitz 2002). However, social enterprises are likely to continue to seek out endorsement from those they consider as authorities or influential figures or organizations as they mature (Folmer et al. 2018). Even before starting a social enterprise, an innovator may seek out motivational support and encouragement from its social network. Reviewing the literature on social entrepreneurship, Dufays and Huybrechts (2014) find that the term social network is most commonly associated with a social entrepreneur’s critical skill or a core work activity. Dufays and Huybrechts (2014) divide the literature into four approaches to social networks: distinguishing social entrepreneurship networks from commercial entrepreneurship networks; the links between social networks and access to resources; creating typologies or classifications of social networks of social entrepreneurs; and, as noted above, building and maintaining a large social network as a key skill and work activity. Strong and weak ties Ebbers (2014) fond that ‘networking entrepreneurs’ – or those entrepreneurs emphasizing networking – were more likely to have a large number of weak ties and therefore have more information about opportunities for business or collaboration. However, Bernardino and Santos (2019) suggest that there is no evidence on whether weak or strong network connections are better. Instead, social entrepreneurs are involved in diverse networks with both strong and weak ties. These networks tend to be highly context-dependent, based on the social causes the entrepreneur is involved in, for example (Bernardino and Santos 2019). Therefore, the overall network structure depends on the individual social entrepreneur’s needs. Martinez and Aldrich (2011, p. 9) note that ‘entrepreneurs face a dilemma of whether to invest their limited resources in a small number of strong connections, a large number of weaker ties, or something in-between.’ Sources of connections In a study on social innovation in India, Sonne (2015) finds that innovators rely on

Social networks and social innovation  207

a number of different sources of connections, but the most important connections were considered to be with peers – other social innovators and entrepreneurs who would provide support and advice. Gebreyeeus and Mohnen (2013), meanwhile, find that small entrepreneurs in the Ethiopian footwear cluster primarily relied on family and business contacts, including suppliers and fellow entrepreneurs, for new information as well as business contacts. Here, business networks double up as knowledge networks. Bernardino and Santos (2019) highlights that the background, demographic and current and previous occupation and work environment of social entrepreneurs shape their social networks. Therefore, the network is shaped by both the needs of the social enterprise or entrepreneur and the background and demographics of the social entrepreneur (Bernardino and Santos 2019). Network intermediaries Separate social networks may be connected through intermediaries or brokers. These brokers bridge the structural holes or empty spaces that exist between different networks, to expand the access to knowledge, information and resources (Kokko 2018). Expanding the social networks by bridging structural holes can lead to actors from different fields and with different understandings of value, to create additional social value through innovative solutions to existing problems (Kokko 2018). While any actor may act as a bridge between two separate networks they are part of, there are specialized agents that work to form connections within the social innovation system (→ INNOVATION SYSTEMS) and beyond. Though the role of network brokers is clear, the effect of their ability to make connections are less so. A study on UK social enterprises found that network intermediaries including catalysts and support organizations, were able to catalyse social networks within a sector (Kimmel and Hull 2012). A separate study on (conventional) entrepreneurs using business incubators, found that these incubators provided only a limited number of new contacts, and many of these were not successful (Ebbers 2014). Similarly, a study on social entrepreneurs using incubators, found that the engagement with other

social enterprises more useful than that with the incubator (Allinson et al. 2011). On the other hand, Desmarchelier et al. (2020), in a study on social innovation networks, found that such networks tend to centre on a specific intermediary or broker, who provides, for example, know-how, social capital or funding. Such intermediary-centred social networks may leave social enterprises and innovators vulnerable were the intermediary to shut down or remove support (Desmarchelier et al. 2020). Similarly, actors such as these intermediaries may become especially powerful due to the resources, connections or authority they hold, and can therefore significantly impact the sector or shape the discourse (Nicholls 2010; Hazenberg et al. 2016). Evolution of networks Networks of social entrepreneurs change over time as the social venture evolves and scales. Strong ties such as friends and family and former business associates, are especially important in the early stages of a social enterprise (Starr and MacMillan 1990; Birley 1985). Over time, the reliance on family and friends give way to professional and industry contacts, such as mentors, investors, and/or board members (Sonne 2015). Likewise, networks tend to be geographically close for smaller and newer social enterprises. As a social enterprise grows, their network may become more international and geographically diverse (Allinson et al. 2011).

Conclusion: critical reflection and outlook

This entry reviewed the literature on social networks within social innovation. It found that this is a relatively underdeveloped area of research, with few studies critically assessing the role of social networks. However, drawing on the related literature, we found that social entrepreneurs and innovators may use social networks for a range of purposes, including building social capital, and enabling access to resources, knowledge, and business and funding opportunities. They may also use social networks to strengthen their own credibility through association. We note that social networks come in different forms, and often includes a mixture of strong and weak ties, and the more diverse the Lina Sonne Vyas

208  Encyclopedia of social innovation

network the better. While strong ties built on trust reduces uncertainty, potentially making collaborations easier, weak ties are useful in accessing new-to-the-innovator contacts and know-how. A social network is influenced by the social innovator’s demographic, existing ties, experiences and background. Over time, social networks tend to focus less on family, friends and former colleagues, and more on professional contacts, such as funders, mentors, peers and board members. Intermediaries, or brokers, may help strengthen social networks of actors within a social innovation system. However, these brokers can also play an outsized role in a shaping a sector or issue area, including its policies or priorities. Given the limited references from the social innovation literature, there is a clear opportunity for much more research to better understand the role of social networks within social innovation systems and processes. Likewise, we know little about how networks may differ based on gender or other demographic features. Further, none of the studies addressed how social networks may strengthen social innovation systems as a whole. Lina Sonne Vyas

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Allen, R. C. (1983), ‘Collective invention’, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 4, pp. 1–24. Allinson, G., P. Braidford, M. Houston, F. Robinson and I. Stone (2011), Business Support for Social Enterprises: Findings from a Longitudal Study, London: Department for Business Innovation and Skills. Bernardino, S. and J. F. Santos (2019), ‘Network structure of the social entrepreneur: an analysis based on social organization features and entrepreneurs’ demographic characteristics and organizational status’, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 10 (3), pp. 346–66, https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1080/​19420676​.2018​.1543725. Birley, S. (1985), ‘The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process’, Journal of Business Venturing, 1 (1), pp. 107–17. Castilla, E., H. Hwang, E. Granovetter and M. Granovetter (2000), ‘Social networks in Silicon Valley’, in C. Lee et al. (eds), The Silicon

Lina Sonne Vyas

Valley Edge, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 218–47. Coleman, J. S. (1988), ‘Social capital in the creation of human capital’, The American Journal of Sociology, 94, pp. S95–S120. Cowan, R. and N. Jonard (2004), ‘Network structure and the diffusion of knowledge’, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 28, pp. 1557–75. Cowan, R. and A. Kamath (2012), Informal Knowledge Exchanges under Complex Social Relations: A Network Study of Handloom Clusters in Kerala, India, UNU-MERIT Working Paper 2012–031. Dacin, T., P. A. Dacin and P. Tracey (2011), ‘Social entrepreneurship: a critique and future directions’, Organization Science, 22 (5), pp. 1203–13. Dakhli, M. and D. de Clerq (2004), ‘Human capital and innovation: a multi-country study’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 16, pp. 107–28. Desmarchelier, B., F. Djellal and F. Gallouj (2020), ‘Mapping social innovation networks: knowledge intensive social services as systems builders’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 157, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​ .techfore​.2020​.120068. Desmarchelier, B., F. Djellal and F. Gallouj (2021), ‘Mapping which innovation regime for public service innovation networks for social innovation (PSINSIs)? Lessons from a European cases database’, Research Policy, 50 (9), https://​doi​ .org/​10​.1016/​j​.respol​.2021​.104341. Dufays, F. and B. Huybrechts (2014), ‘Connecting the dots for social value: a review on social networks and social entrepreneurship’, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 5 (2), pp.  214–37, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​ 19420676​.2014​.918052. Ebbers, J. (2014), ‘Networking behavior and contracting relationships among entrepreneurs in business incubators’, Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 38 (5), pp. 1–23, https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1111/​etap​.12032. Folmer, E., C. Nederveen and V. Schutjens (2018), ‘Network importance and use: commercial versus social enterprises’, Social Enterprise Journal, 14 (4), pp. 470–90, https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1108/​SEJ​-01–2018–0007. Gebreyeesus, M. and P. Mohnen (2013), ‘Innovation performance and embeddedness in networks: evidence from the Ethiopian footwear cluster’, World Development, 41, pp. 302–16. Ghalwash, S., A. Tolba and A. Ismail (2017), ‘What motivates social entrepreneurs to start social ventures? An exploratory study in the context of a developing economy’, Social Enterprise Journal, 13 (3), pp. 268–98, https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1108/​SEJ​-05–2016–0014. Granovetter, M. (1985), ‘Economic action and social structure: the problem of embedded-

Social networks and social innovation  209 ness’, American Journal of Sociology, 91 (3), pp. 481–510. Gretzinger, S., S. Fietze, A. Brem and T. Ogbonna (2018), ‘Small scale entrepreneurship: understanding behaviours of aspiring entrepreneurs in a rural area’, Competitiveness Review: An International Business Journal, 28 (1), pp. 22–42. Hazenberg, R., M. Bajwa-Patel, M. Mazzei, M. J. Roy and S. Baglioni (2016), ‘The role of institutional and stakeholder networks in shaping social enterprise ecosystems in Europe’, Social Enterprise Journal, 12 (3), pp. 302–21. Kimmel, C. and B. Hull (2012), ‘Ecological entrepreneurship support networks: roles and functions for conservation organizations’, Geoforum, 43, pp. 58–67. Kokko, S. (2018), ‘Social entrepreneurship: creating social value when bridging holes’, Social Enterprise Journal, 14 (4), pp. 410–28, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1108/​SEJ​-01–2018–0003. Littlewood, D. and Z. Khan (2018), ‘Insights from a systematic review of literature on social enterprise and networks: where, how and what next?’, Social Enterprise Journal, 14 (4), pp.  390–409, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1108/​ SEJ​-11–2018–068. Martinez, M. and A. Aldrich (2011), ‘Networking strategies for entrepreneurs: balancing cohesion and diversity’, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 17 (1), pp. 7–38. Nicholls, A. (2010), ‘Fairtrade in the UK: towards an economics of virtue?’, Journal of Business Ethics, 92 (2), pp. 241–55.

Partanen, J., S. Chetty and A. Rajala (2014), ‘Innovation types and network relationships’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38 (5), pp.  1027–55, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1111/​j​ .1540–6520​.2011​.00474​.x. Portes, A. (1998), ‘Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology’, Annual Review of Sociology, 24, pp. 1–24. Sarpong, D. and C. Davies (2014), ‘Managerial organizing practices and legitimacy seeking in social enterprises’, Social Enterprise Journal, 10 (1), pp. 21–37. Semrau, T. and A. Werner (2014), ‘How exactly do network relationships pay off? The effects of network size and relationship quality on access to start-up resources’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 38 (3), pp. 501–25. Sonne, L. (2015), ‘The usefulness of networks: a study of social innovation in India’, in A. Nicholls et al. (eds), New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research, London: Palgrave Macmillan. Starr, J. A. and I. C. MacMillan (1990), ‘Resource cooptation via social contracting: resource acquisition strategies for new ventures’, Strategic Management Journal, 11, pp. 79–92. Tasavori, M., C. Kwong and S. Pruthi (2018), ‘Resource bricolage and growth of product and market scope in social enterprises’, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30 (3–4), pp.  336–61, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​ 08985626​.2017​.1413775. Zimmerman, M. A. and G. J. Zeitz (2002), ‘Beyond survival: achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy’, Academy of Management Review, 27, pp. 414–31.

Lina Sonne Vyas

PART V SOCIAL INNOVATION IN ESTABLISHED RESEARCH AREAS

37. Futures studies and social innovation The future: an idea shaped by culture and history

Since the moment human beings could distinguish between past, present and future, they sought to know what the future might hold. Through the ages humans have worked to contend with the unknown of the future using a variety of techniques, from divination and prophecy (Minois 1996). Today, futures research still stands in this tradition insofar as it aims to gain insights into the future, reduce uncertainty and steer action. But the modern idea of an open future differs fundamentally from ancient and medieval understandings of time. Leaving the many peculiarities of individual cultures and periods aside, premodern conceptions of the future were – at least in Europe – characterized by cyclic notions of time, short horizons and deterministic worldviews. The course of worldly events was considered to reflect an existing plan or superior will, leaving little room for human decisions and actions. As a consequence, premodern approaches of divination or prophesy were aimed at discerning the divine will in natural phenomena (Minois 1996; Bell 2003, pp. 3–5) or in the Holy Scripture (Hölscher 2016, pp. 30–34). Forecasts focused on problems at the individual level without questioning the overall development of society. With a social order willed by God and the course of events preordained, it is no surprise that concepts of change and innovation were virtually unknown in the premodern era. If the term innovation was used at all, it carried mostly negative connotations. The few exceptions concerned not social innovation but spiritual renewal and reformation, directed not towards a better future but towards the re-establishment of a better past (Godin and Schubert 2021, pp. 21–6).

Futures studies and social innovation in the modern age

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the idea of innovation lost its religious significance and assumed social and political salience (Godin and Schubert 2021, pp. 26ff.). The term social innovation first

became common in the nineteenth century, when it was usually accompanied by a negative inflection: elites worried that projects based on newly emerging socialist models could topple the social order and eliminate private property. With time, however, the term assumed a positive connotation, promising future solutions to social problems (Godin and Schubert 2021, p. 33). The efforts of Saint-Simon (1760–1825) and Charles Fourier (1772–1837) to diagnose society’s ills and to propose interventions are an early example of social innovation in today’s sense. They also represent an essential moment in the development of normative future studies. Another cornerstone in what would become future studies grew out of the efforts of scientists to find general, i.e., time-independent laws and principles governing nature and society. The representatives of this intellectual tradition include August Comte (1789–1857), the founder of positivism; the Belgian statistician and astronomer Adolph Quételet (1796–1874), who developed the concept of the average man, or ‘homme moyen’; and the German economist Friedrich List (1789–1846), who used economic data for forecasting (Hölscher 2016, pp. 109–20). The field of futures studies began to take shape around the turn of the twentieth century as the modern industrial society emerged in the West (Seefried 2015, p. 37). The still young social sciences began to focus on the dynamics and forces of societal transformation. It is no coincidence that social innovation became an object of sociological theory in that period as well, e.g. in the work of Gabriel Tarde (1843–1904), Lester F. Ward (1841–1913), Albert B. Wolf (1876–1967) and William F. Ogburn (1886–1959) (Godin and Schubert 2021, pp. 28ff.). In earlier epochs, political planning also had to predict the future. But since the end of the nineteenth century, it had become a common procedure that political projects and societal ideas drew on scientific facts and statistics to project the consequences of decisions and superintend the formation of goals (Seefried 2015, pp. 39–42). Governments began to commission researchers to study political, economic or administrative areas (Bell 2003, pp. 7–9) – the very constellation that is still common for futures studies today. The two world wars considerably advanced scientific planning in general and shifted the focus of future-related research towards

211

212  Encyclopedia of social innovation

military and strategic issues. US think tanks, like RAND or the Hudson Institute, not only provided major methodological contributions, e.g. the scenario technique (Kahn and Wiener 1967) or Delphi surveys (Dalkey 1968); their interest in Cold War issues and the world order also shaped the emerging field of futures studies for years (Seefried 2015, pp. 38–47). However, even in the immediate post-war era, futures research and futures studies were not used as terms. Only around 1960, when the international exchange of knowledge brought together European and American perspectives and ideas, did think tanks and researchers start to identify with the terms futures studies or futures research and with the idea of a research field explicitly devoted to the future (Seefried 2015, p. 69). Futures studies reached a peak of political support and public attention in the late 1960s and early 1970s (Eberspächer 2019, p. 196). Scientific developments in computing and cybernetics nourished ambitious ideas of futures studies providing viable means of social technology, i.e. of creating exact models of social developments and political decisions and also of providing a rational base for political decisions about preferable paths of development (Andersson 2018, pp. 75–121). However, these expectations were not fulfilled. Internal disputes about the goal and scope of futures studies, increasingly bleak outlooks and politically controversial statements of individual futurists diminished the public and political interest (Eberspächer 2018, pp. 162–214). Furthermore, important studies on future challenges, e.g. The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al. 1972), came from research groups that focused on specific subjects and not on the future as a whole. With the fall of the iron curtain, the conflict of East and West became less relevant for the future and, as a consequence, for the development of futures studies. Instead, the general trend of economization gained influence, and the idea of establishing futures studies as a scientific discipline came under pressure. The private sector and political bodies began to incorporate elements of futures studies in their institutions, which, in turn, advanced processes of professionalization. As a result, utopian concepts and radical approaches as towards the invention and creation of a common future for the whole world became less important (Andersson 2018, p. 225). On Elmar Schüll

the other hand, futures studies and applied futures research – if not necessarily always labelled as such – have never been more prevalent in the private sector, in public bodies and various academic disciplines (Casti 1991).

Defining and systemizing futures studies

According to a widely accepted definition, futures studies is the investigation of possible, probable and preferable future developments along with their prerequisites in the past and present (Kreibich 1995, p. 2814). The distinction of possible, probable and preferable futures is also part of a classification proposed by Michael Marien (2002). Based on an extensive analysis of English literature on futures studies, Marien developed six categories of futures thinking: – Possible futures: The study of possible futures aims to explore future possibilities without necessarily saying anything about their probability or desirability. Explorative scenarios (Becker 1983) and concepts such as wild cards (van Notten et al. 2005) and black swans (Taleb 2007) belong to this area of work. – Probable futures: Researchers examine the dominant expectations regarding future developments and events. The category includes activities in forecasting and foresight. – Preferable futures: This area of futures research consists of descriptions of the future that are explicitly normative. Frequently, studies of this type aim to shape the future by gauging collective preferences and linking them with possible and probably developments so as to enable informed choices. Examples include future workshops (Jungk and Müllert 1987), normative scenarios and backcasting exercises (Dreborg 1996). – Present changes: The relevance of this type of studies rests on the assumption that present changes will carry on and thus affect the future. This category includes empirical social research and the wide-ranging field of trend studies. – Panoramic views: This approach synthesizes various findings, insights and interpretations into a comprehensive whole. Examples here include social theory and

Futures studies and social innovation  213

diagnoses of the times, e.g. the concept of the post-industrial society (Bell 1973). – Questioning: In this category the focus is put on philosophical and methodological questions regarding the epistemic possibilities of producing future knowledge and the societal and cultural conditions underlying futures research. Based on their first letters Marien abbreviated the six categories as ‘Five Ps and a Q’ (2002, pp. 271ff.). They reflect a broad understanding of futures thinking and show the range of subjects and disciplinary backgrounds in the field of futures studies. Another approach to classify the wide field of futures studies draws on a distinction of different intellectual traditions that is common, inter alia, in political science (Seefried 2015, pp. 75–153): – The empirical-positivist approach seeks to document reality independent of the observer. A sober, empirically based analysis of the given circumstances should lead to objective statements about possible and probable future developments. This approach follows the already mentioned positivist tradition represented in the nineteenth century by Comte, Quételet and List. Daniel Bell (1919–2011), Olaf Helmer (1910–2011) and Hermann Kahn (1922–1983) are key representatives of this approach in the USA. – The normative-ontological approach is based on the idea that futures thinking should not exhaust itself in projections based on the empirical analysis of the past and the present. Rather future-related analyses should also consider values and come to normative statements about what should be. Studies about the future must be directed and inspired by an ideal future state or overarching goal because this reference is what allows an objective analysis of developments and events in the first place. This approach follows from the tradition of nineteenth-century social utopians. In the post-war era, it was embodied in France by philosopher Bertrand de Jouvenel (1903–1987) and in Germany by Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker (1912–2007). – Like the normative–ontological approach, the critical–emancipatory method assumes that a value-free scientific obser-

vation of the world is not possible and, hence, that norms and values have to be consciously reflected in futures studies. However, here orientation for research and action cannot be derived from a single societal objective. Rather, the goals of scientific research vary depending on the specific social circumstances. At the same time, individual freedom and emancipation from relations of dependence are central in this approach. Important representatives of this tradition in futures studies were Robert Jungk (1913–1994) and Ossip K. Flechtheim (1909–1998), who regularly demanded more participation of the population in forward-looking developments. These approaches help to specify the relationships between futures studies and social innovation: an empirical-positivist approach to societal transformation is particularly suited for planned social innovations following a top-down implementation. These social innovations result from new technologies or policies that cause subsequent changes in social behaviours (Ogburn 1922). They include innovations planned by agencies, social organizations, think tanks or interest groups in response to social challenges for the purpose of proactive societal management. Change agents commissioned by government agencies often play a crucial role in this context. The STOP AIDS programme conducted in San Francisco in the mid-1980s is an example for a top-down implemented social innovation that was designed according to previous findings about which approach would probably yield best results (Rogers 2003, pp. 72ff.). By contrast, social innovations that spread from the bottom up will be better promoted by future thinking that follows the critical– emancipatory approach and the corresponding ideas of participation and empowerment (→ POWER AND EMPOWERMENT IN SOCIAL INNOVATION). Participatory action research is a specific type of research that aims at incorporating the subjects of research into the research process in order to create new knowledge and practical designs for beneficial changes (Bell 2003, pp. 298–300). A specific method to initiate changes from the bottom up, albeit more by facilitation than research, are future workElmar Schüll

214  Encyclopedia of social innovation

shops (Jungk and Müllert 1987). Developed by Robert Jungk and Norbert Müllert from the 1960s onwards, future workshops are widely applied today, especially in Europe. Cases of application include the participatory creation of development plans for a neighbourhood in the fifteenth arrondissement in Paris that prevented large-scale business developments to take over, or the preservation of a mining town in Germany that developers wanted to sacrifice (Bell 2003, p. 301).

The relationship between futures studies and social innovation

The fields of social innovations and futures studies are inherently related, given that all future-related knowledge carries a stimulus to action. Even objective and analytical approaches of future thinking are motivated by the goal to put the gained knowledge to use. While the term innovation first referred to the social realm, economic goals became the dominant reference for most of the twentieth century. However, since the beginning of the twenty-first century, the idea that the innovation agenda should be guided by the needs of the people is gaining ground again (European Commission 2013). Futures studies is generally interested in change, whereas social innovations represent a particular kind of change. Social innovations result in processes of social transformation; futures research results in knowledge about processes of transformation. To put them on the same categorical level, we would have to compare futures research with social innovation research (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION RESEARCH AND INNOVATION STUDIES). Insights into the origin and spread of social innovations are of great interest for futures studies, which are – as every scientific endeavour – interested in principles, patterns and generalizable findings. At the same time, social innovation research can benefit from findings and methods of futures studies, such as when social innovations are situated within larger societal transformations (panoramic views), when options for new solutions are fathomed (possible futures) or when determining which goals should guide society-shaping interventions (preferable futures). Finally, anyone who wants to put systematic social innovation into action needs knowledge of the dynamics that innovative Elmar Schüll

projects are likely to encounter now (present changes) and in the future (probable futures).

Critical reflection and outlook

A fundamental challenge for futures studies and social innovation research lies in the complexity of societal transformation. Due to the high number of involved actors, possible influences and forms of interactions, neither simple causal explanations nor probability models can fully grasp phenomena of social transformation (Weaver 1948). Various constellations of actors that foster stability or trigger dynamics of sudden deviation can also play a role, as can unique occurrences and circumstances that lead to so-called cournot effects – coincidental events and outcomes that result from unforeseeable developments in open social systems (Boudon 1984, pp. 173–9). Accordingly, the course of social transformation in general and social innovations in particular might well be explained ex post but can hardly be predicted ex ante. The concept of transintentionality (Merton 1936) does also throw doubt on overly ambitious ideas of social innovation management, and underlines the need for more research on social innovation. Going forward, the most promising way to advance our understanding of social innovations is to follow sociological theories of action that consider not only individual, collective and corporate actors but also the structural circumstances under which they must act including the social dynamics at play (Rammert 2010). Social institutions that promote and impede change play a role in the emergence of social innovation, as do the particular actions of more or less innovative actors (Rogers 2003, pp. 282–5). Studies of social innovation that try to explain social change based on individualistic actor models alone are no more convincing than purely structural or systems theory approaches that ignore the needs and creativity of individuals. Elmar Schüll

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Andersson, J. (2018), The Future of the World: Futurology, Futurists, and the Struggle for the

Futures studies and social innovation  215 Post-Cold War Imagination, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Becker, H. S. (1983), ‘Scenarios: a tool of growing importance to policy analysts in government and industry’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 23 (2), pp. 95–120. Bell, D. (1973), The Coming of the Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting, New York: Basic Books. Bell, W. (2003), Foundation of Futures Studies: History, Purposes, and Knowledge, Vol. 1, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Boudon, R. (1984), Theories of Social Change: A Critical Appraisal, Oxford: Polity Press. Casti, J. L. (1991), Searching for Certainty. What Scientists Can Know About the Future, London: Abacus. Dalkey, N. C. (1968), Predicting the Future, Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Dreborg, K. H. (1996), ‘Essence of backcasting’, Futures, 28 (9), pp. 813–28. Eberspächer, A. (2019), Das Projekt Futurologie: Über Zukunft und Fortschritt in der Bundesrepublik 1952–1982, Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh. European Commission (2013), Guide to Social Innovation, Brussels, accessed 6 July 2022 at https://​ec​.europa​.eu/​regional​_policy/​sources/​ docgener/​presenta/​social​_innovation/​social​ _innovation​_2013​.pdf. Godin, B. and C. Schubert (2021), ‘Research on the history of innovation: from the spiritual to the social’, in J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka and A. Schröder (eds), A Research Agenda for Social Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 21–38. Hölscher, L. (2016), Die Entdeckung der Zukunft, 2nd revised and extended edition, Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag. Jungk, R. and N. R. Müllert (1987), Future Workshops: How to Create Desirable Futures, London: Institute for Social Inventions. Kahn, H. and A. J. Wiener (1967), The Year 2000: A Framework for Speculation on the Next Thirty-Three Years, New York: Macmillan.

Kreibich, R. (1995), ‘Zukunftsforschung’, in B. Tietz, R. Köhler and J. Zentes (eds), Handwörterbuch des Marketing, 2nd revised edition, Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel, pp. 2814–34. Marien, M. (2002), ‘Futures studies in the 21st century: a reality-based view’, Futures, 34 (3–4), pp. 261–81. Meadows, D. H., D. L. Meadows, J. Randers and W. W. Behrens (1972), The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind, New York: Universe Books. Merton, R. K. (1936), ‘The unanticipated consequences of purposive social action’, American Sociological Review, 6, pp. 894–904. Minois, G. (1996), Histoire de l‘avenir: Des prophètes à la prospective, Paris: Librairie Arthème Fayard. Ogburn, W. F. (1922), Social Change: With Respect to Culture and Original Nature, New York: Viking. Rammert, W. (2010), ‘Die Innovationen der Gesellschaft’, in J. Howaldt and H. Jacobsen (eds), Soziale Innovation: Auf dem Weg zu einem postindustriellen Innovationsparadigma, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 21–52. Rogers, E. M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edition, New York: Free Press. Seefried, E. (2015), Zukünfte: Aufstieg und Krise der Zukunftsforschung 1945–1980, Berlin and Boston, MA: De Gruyter Oldenbourg. Taleb, N. N. (2007), The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, London: Allen Lane. van Notten, Ph. W. F., A. M. Sleegers and M. B. A. van Asselt (2005), ‘The future shocks: on discontinuity and scenario development’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72 (2), pp. 175–94. Weaver, W. (1948), ‘Science and complexity’, American Scientist, 36 (4), pp. 536–44.

Elmar Schüll

38. Social innovation to advance diversity and inclusion Introduction

Social innovation offers a unique opportunity to address complex social problems ranging from small local challenges to systemic issues, such as problems of structural inequity (Roper and Cheney 2005). Social innovation includes new practices (concepts, policy instruments, new forms of cooperation and organization), methods, processes, and regulations that are developed ‘to meet social demands and resolve societal challenges in a better way’ (SI-DRIVE 2014). Nowhere is this truer than when it comes to issues of equality – whether with respect to gender or other dimensions of diversity and inclusion including increasing representation of historically disadvantaged groups and removing barriers to their full participation in social, political, cultural, and economic life. While there are many dimensions of diversity and specific categories, and they are often context specific, we are generally referring here to women (and non-binary individuals), Black and racialized people, Indigenous people, persons with disabilities, and those who identify as members of the LGBTQ2S+ communities. We define diversity as individuals irrespective of their race, gender, marital/civil partnership status, age, disability, religion or belief, colour, national origin, or sexual orientation; inclusion on the other hand means an environment where each person has an opportunity to participate fully in creating success and is valued for their distinctive skills, experiences, and perspectives. However, issues of gender equality, diversity and inclusion are seldom discussed in the social innovation literature as ends in themselves. For example, the analysis of 1005 social innovation cases considered by the SI-DRIVE network indicates that only a relatively small proportion of these cases explicitly focused on gender and diversity. The 1005 initiatives documented by SI-DRIVE creatively address a plethora of social problems among different groups (Howaldt et al. 2018). An analysis of a sample of the in depth case studies, revealed that less than one third (31.7 per cent) of these cases explicitly

referenced gender (including a variety of derivatives, e.g. girls, woman, female), and a smaller number (18.3 per cent) referenced migrant status, disability (14.6 per cent), Indigenous status (4.9 per cent) or race/ethnicity (3.7 per cent). In this entry, we use the critical ecological approach to further our understanding of social innovation to address the current issues in advancing diversity and inclusion. We contextualize social innovation in the complex, multi-levelled innovation ecosystem (Cukier et al. 2014), which is a set of interdependent actors and factors at the macro, meso, and micro levels.

Social innovation as a model of change

Social innovation and change theories (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION AND SOCIAL CHANGE) attempt to disrupt and reconfigure systems via changes to their internal institutional logics, norms, and traditions, cutting across all sectors of society (Nicholls and Murdock 2012). While there are many theoretical approaches to address complex systems change, empirical data is limited and causal connections between initiatives’ processes and impacts remain unproven (Mulgan 2012; Dacin et al. 2011; Howald and Schwarz 2010). Complexity thinking refers to a multidisciplinary approach in which comprehensive, holistic thinking, considering the diversity of stakeholders and their strategic goals as well as interdependencies within and between macro, meso and micro levels. While early social innovation studies focused on individual change agents, more recent approaches have focused on leveraging organizational processes as ways to foster innovation (Quinn and Cameron 1983; Dollinger 1984; Timmons and Bygrave 1986; Zahra 1993; Jack and Anderson 2002). Others have focused on macro trends and practices including legislation and policy, as well the broad structural, technological, cultural and economic forces. There are also studies that consider the interaction among these levels. For Moore and Westley (2011), the connectedness between levels has become a prominent object of study. Crevoisier and Jeannerat (2009) developed the concept of multi-level knowledge dynamics in innovation. Bacq and Janssen (2011) explore four levels – the individual, the process, the organ-

216

Social innovation to advance diversity and inclusion  217

Source: Cukier et al. (2014).

Figure 38.1

Critical ecological model

izational, and the environmental. Battilana and D’Aunno (2009) consider the relationship between actors and their institutional environments. Our approach is grounded in this literature as well as the multilevel notion of ecological models to create a holistic framework, proposing that we need to understand social innovation as interactions between individual-, organizational- and societal-level forces. Our multi-levelled critical ecological model of analysis (Cukier et al. 2014) that looks at complex interactions between societal (macro), organizational (meso), and individual (micro) factors in advancing diversity and inclusion (Figure 38.1). Social innovation often emerges from the interactions between individual, organizational and societal level forces. This approach is suited both to understanding innovation ecosystems broadly and to exploring issues of inclusion specifically, that bridges paradigms. It recognizes the importance of deep structures within the economy, power systems, and culture, while at the same time allowing for individual agency in advancing change (Cukier et al. 2017).

Social innovation to advance gender equality, diversity and inclusion

Social innovation can also be used to advance diversity and inclusion from both theoretical

and practical perspectives. Diversity typically refers to demographic differences among members of different groups (McGrath et al. 1995; DiTomaso et al. 2007). The definitions present challenges: within-group differences based on economic status or place of origin are often greater than between group differences (Cukier et al. 2016). Additionally, some academics maintain that gender, race, and disability are socially constructed and resist essentializing individuals or groups based on demographics and intersecting social identities (e.g. gender and race) add further complexity (e.g. Mahtani 2014). In international contexts, different constructions are used. Understanding the complex systems that (re) produce social relations and the structures that embed bias and discrimination leads us to understand how to address them. Applying the critical ecological model to gender equality, diversity and inclusion leads us to reflect on the ways in which macro, meso and micro processes impede equality and helps inform a multi-layered strategy to address them. At the macro level, for example, we understand that cultural values and stereotypes, legislation, infrastructure and broad socio-economic trends play a role. For example, the stereotypes that tie the word entrepreneur to men and technology, such as Steve Jobs, Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg, are one of the most challeng-

Wendy Cukier, Zohreh Hassannezhad Chavoushi and Guang Ying Mo

218  Encyclopedia of social innovation

ing barriers women in entrepreneurship face. They shape the way funding programmes, training and incubators are designed, and the way financing and investment decisions are made. Perhaps even more importantly, they shape the aspirations and confidence of women because ‘if you can’t see it, you can’t be it’. To crush male-dominated stereotypes of entrepreneurship, the Women Entrepreneurship Knowledge Hub (WEKH) released an awareness campaign to celebrate women entrepreneur success stories and crush in November 2020. The awareness campaign called ‘See It, Be It’ included a database of 1,000 award winning and successful diverse Canadian women entrepreneurs with a goal of challenging stereotypes. In 2021, the WEKH ‘See It, Be It’ searchable online tool was launched to further challenge stereotypes of entrepreneurship in the media, in policies and programmes throughout the innovation ecosystem. Including over 1,000 entries, this bilingual tool applies a gender and diversity lens to uncover how biases create barriers and to celebrate successful women entrepreneurs who serve as role models and inspiration to other women in Canada. Strategies, then, to address these include legislation protecting rights, legislation setting targets for representation, legislation supporting parental leaves and childcare and other social programmes, as well as interventions to challenge stereotypes and value gender equality, diversity and inclusion. At the meso level, we recognize that organizations do not exist in a vacuum but do establish policies and practices which can impede or advance gender equality, diversity and inclusion. For example, SheEO, a non-profit organization, brings together a global network of women called Activators who contribute to a Perpetual Fund, which is loaned out at 0 per cent interest to women-led ventures. Until the end of 2020, SheEO invested $2.27 million in 29 majority woman- or women-identified-owned (51 per cent+) and majority woman- or woman-identified-led ventures. Meanwhile, SheEO’s existing loans saw a 100 per cent repayment rate. SheEO-funded ventures saw revenues grow by 292 per cent. In order to qualify for loans, ventures must have annual revenues between $50,000 and $2 million and address at least two of the UN SDGs. About 46 per cent of the founders of companies that SheEO invested in are women of

intersectional identities, either of racialized or indigenous backgrounds: 41 women used SheEO investments to grow their businesses internationally, reaching 61 international markets; 187 women used SheEO investments to grow their existing business. At least one SheEO-funded venture worked towards 11 of 17 UN SDGs; eight ventures worked toward Goal 12: Responsible Consumption and Production; seven ventures concentrated their efforts on Goal 3: Good Health and Well-being; six ventures worked on addressing Goal 8: Decent Work and Economic growth. The economic and social success of SheEO-funded ventures shows the efficacy of organizations to use an inclusive, broad-based approach to support women entrepreneurship. Finally, at the individual level, we can focus on individual knowledge, beliefs and behaviours. Here, training, peer support, rewards and penalties can shape behaviour. It is critically important to encourage, for example, the empowerment of women, racialized, Indigenous peoples and those with disabilities by promoting their education as well as their confidence and skills. At the same time, increasing understanding of privilege and unconscious bias, recognizing microaggressions and encouraging individuals to act as allies take collective responsibility to advance gender equality, diversity and inclusion are critical. For example, Canada’s information and communications technology (ICT) sector is a large part of the Canadian economy, but equity-seeking groups continue to encounter barriers to representation and inclusion in this sector. Intersectional identities can exacerbate the obstacles faced by individuals identified with multiple equity-seeking groups, such as Black women. Therefore, creative policies, practices, and technology are required to increase the talent pool and enhance inclusivity. Funded by the Government of Canada, the Advanced Digital and Professional Training (ADaPT) programme is a work integrated learning programme that was designed to bridge the skills gap between post-secondary education and the entry-level job market. ADaPT is an action-research project showcasing a hybrid approach for skill development at the beginning of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. It was created with the purpose of broadening the talent pool and promoting inclusivity by offering graduates from diverse academic

Wendy Cukier, Zohreh Hassannezhad Chavoushi and Guang Ying Mo

Social innovation to advance diversity and inclusion  219

backgrounds additional routes into ICT and digital employment. Since 2014, the ADaPT programme has trained and placed over 90 per cent of its participants in meaningful jobs: 77 per cent of ADaPT participants self-identified as belonging to one or more equity-seeking groups, and they represented 27 postsecondary institutions.

Conclusion

Gender equality, diversity and inclusion, arguably are critical cross-cutting goals which affect potential achievement of many of the other SDGs but are often not considered as goals with intentional social innovation strategies to advance them. For more than 30 years, for example, campaigns have been conducted to advance gender equality, truth and reconciliation for Indigenous peoples, civil rights for Black people, for those who identify as LGBTQ2S+ or having disabilities, but progress has been uneven. While the murder of George Floyd reverberated around the world, with many organizations pledging to fight anti-Black racism, translating works into impactful actions has been limited. Understanding the ways in which the complex systems operate to (re‑)produce inequality is the first step to developing social innovation strategies to drive change. There are no simple solutions to complex problems and social innovation offers conceptual frameworks and analytic tools and success stories to help inform effective strategies to grapple with inequality on many levels. Wendy Cukier, Zohreh Hassannezhad Chavoushi and Guang Ying Mo

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Bacq, S. and F. Janssen (2011), ‘The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: a review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria’, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23 (5–6), pp. 373–403. Battilana, J. and T. D’Aunno (2009), ‘Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency’, in T. Lawrence, R. Suddaby and B. Leca (eds), Institutional work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31–58. Crevoisier, O. and H. Jeannerat (2009), ‘Territorial knowledge dynamics: from the proximity paradigm to multi-location milieus’, European Planning Studies, 17 (8), 1223–41. Cukier, W., S. Gagnon, L. Mae Lindo, C. Hannan and S. Amato (2014), ‘A [critical] ecological model to enabling change: promoting diversity and inclusion’, in V. Malin, J. Murphy and M. Siltaoja (eds), Getting Things Done: Dialogues in Critical Management Studies, Bingley: Emerald, pp. 245–75. Cukier, W., S. Gagnon, E. Roach, M. Elmi, M. Yap and M. Rodrigues (2017), ‘Trade-offs and disappearing acts’, International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28 (7), pp. 1031–64. Cukier, W., K. Stolarik, O. Ngwenyama and M. A. Elmi (2016), ‘Mapping the innovation ecosystem in Eastern Ontario, Toronto, Canada’, https://​www​.torontomu​.ca/​diversity/​reports/​ Mapping​_the​_Innovation​_Ecosystem​_in​ _Ontario​.pdf. Dacin, M. T., P. A. Dacin and P. Tracey (2011), ‘Social entrepreneurship: a critique and future directions’, Organization Science, 22 (5), 1203–13. DiTomaso, N., C. Post and R. Parks-Yancy (2007), ‘Workforce diversity and inequality: power, status, and numbers’, Annual Review of Sociology, 33, pp. 473–501. Dollinger, M. J. (1984), ‘Environmental boundary spanning and information processing effects on organizational performance’, Academy of Management Journal, 27 (2), pp. 351–68. Howaldt, J., C. Kaletka, A. Schröder and M. Zirngiebl (eds) (2018), Atlas of Social Innovation: New Practices for a Better Future, Dortmund: Technische Universität Dortmund, ZWE Sozialforschungsstelle. Howaldt, J. and M. Schwarz (2010), ‘Social innovation: concepts, research fields and international trends’, Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle Dortmund, accessed 3 August 2022 at http://​ www​ .asprea​ .org/​ imagenes/​IMO​%20Trendstudie​_Howaldt​ _englisch​_Final​%20ds​.pdf. Jack, S. L. and A. R. Anderson (2002), ‘The effects of embeddedness on the entrepreneurial process’, Journal of business Venturing, 17 (5), pp. 467–87. Mahtani, M. (2014), Mixed Race Amnesia: Resisting the Romanticization of Multiraciality, Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. McGrath, J., J. Berdahl and H. Arrow (1995), ‘Traits, expectations, culture, and clout: the dynamics of diversity in work groups’, in S. Jackso and M. Ruderman (eds), Diversity in Work Teams: Research Paradigms for a Changing

Wendy Cukier, Zohreh Hassannezhad Chavoushi and Guang Ying Mo

220  Encyclopedia of social innovation Workplace, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 17–45. Moore, M. L. and F. Westley (2011), ‘Surmountable chasms: networks and social innovation for resilient systems’, Ecology and Society, 16(1), https://​www​.jstor​.org/​stable/​26268826. Mulgan, G. (2012), ‘The theoretical foundations of social innovation’, in A. Nicholls and A. Murdock (eds), Social Innovation: Blurring Boundaries to Reconfigure Markets, New York: Palgrave MAcmillan, pp. 33–64. Nicholls, A. and A. Murdock (2012), ‘The nature of social innovation’, in A. Nicholls and A. Murdock (eds), Social Innovation: Blurring Boundaries to Reconfigure Markets, New York: Palgrave MAcmillan, pp. 1–31. Quinn, R. E. and K. Cameron (1983), ‘Organizational life cycles and shifting criteria

of effectiveness: some preliminary evidence’, Management Science, 29 (1), pp. 33–51. Roper, J. and G. Cheney (2005), ‘The meanings of social entrepreneurship today’, Corporate Governance, 5 (3), pp. 95–104. SI-DRIVE (2014), Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change, accessed 3 August 2022 at http://​siresearch​.eu/​social​-innovation/​ project/​si​-drive. Timmons, J. A and W. D. Bygrave (1986), ‘Venture capital’s role in financing innovation for economic growth’, Journal of Business Venturing, 1 (2), pp. 161–76. Zahra, S. A. (1993), ‘Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financial performance: a taxonomic approach’, Journal of Business Venturing, 8 (4), 319–40.

Wendy Cukier, Zohreh Hassannezhad Chavoushi and Guang Ying Mo

39. Social innovation in education Introduction

Conceptualizing social innovation in formal education has become a very difficult task, as there are many perspectives and types of education involved. Despite many efforts to delimit this concept, it is true that it is a field in search of common ground in understanding, identifying and integrating different types of social innovation in education. Some international organizations have focused on measuring innovation, such as the implementation of technology in classrooms and schools (OECD 2014, 2016; Vincent-Lancrin et al. 2019), or in developing observatories of technological transformation in education (UNESCO 2021), while other perspectives have focused on the governance of innovation in education (Cerna 2014). Social innovation in higher education institutions show the current mission of universities to enable better forms of knowledge transfer to society (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION AND ITS ACTORS: THE ROLE OF UNIVERSITY RESEARCH), e.g. what is currently done through research transfer offices or science shops in universities (Brinckmann et al. 2021). Recent research recognizes that higher education institutions are changing and that universities need to play a more active role as intermediaries and agents of social change (Howaldt et al. 2022; Caro-González and Anabo 2020). Today, many universities have developed and implemented new curricula and new strategies for teaching social innovation (Alden Rivers et al. 2015). This perspective of social innovation in higher education is for many researchers a perspective with a strong focus on social entrepreneurship and social innovation curricula in universities (Wihlenda et al. 2020; Unceta et al. 2021). However, this perception may be not sufficient to understand the full picture of social innovation in education, as it lacks a link to engagement with communities and non-academic stakeholders (e.g. grassroots initiatives outside the formal education system). Therefore, there is a strong need to define the properties of social innovations in education, differentiating between different types of social innovation in education. Furthermore, it is necessary

to create better ways of transferring research from universities to society and from society to universities, as well as to integrate innovation outside the formal education system into their research and transfer activities. International research results from a global mapping of social innovations in education (Schröder and Krüger 2019) show, for example, a very low commitment of higher education institutions to engage social innovation partners compared to non-governmental organizations, businesses, public institutions and foundations (Anderson et al. 2018). Other studies present examples of innovation in education and lifelong learning in different countries, aiming to improve skills, competences and respond to unemployment or skills shortages (Kapoor et al. 2018). Similarly, research at the regional level shows examples of community involvement in education and the development of new forms of collaboration with government, business and civil society (Maldonado-Mariscal 2017). We recognize that social innovation in education requires more than new technological innovation in the classrooms, new curricula and new educational reforms. Therefore, to better understand social innovation in education, we provide a definition of social innovation in education and different dimensions of social innovation in education to contribute to this fields.

Key findings Dimensions of social innovation in education In social innovation research, at least four dimensions have been identified: individual, network, organization and system (Nicholls et al. 2015, p. 4). Referring to education, we focus on three dimensions identified in the literature specific to social innovation in education (Schröer 2021; Torres 2000; Maldonado-Mariscal 2017) serving for a better understanding of the field of innovation in education: level of innovation, type of education where innovation emerges and type of social innovation identified in education. Level of innovation In terms of the level of innovation, there is a macro, meso and micro level of innovation in education systems. At the macro level we can find a legislative framework, such as

221

222  Encyclopedia of social innovation

reforms and change in institutional regulations, while with the meso level, we refer to change in educational and learning models (Schröer 2021) or changes in educational structures (Schröder 2012). Finally, at the micro level, changes occur at the local level with greater involvement of educational and community actors. Some scholars see innovation in learner behaviour (Schröder 2012), while others explain the level of innovation as ‘interventions from belowʼ, thus differentiating reforms from innovations (Torres 2000). Type of education When referring to the type of education in which innovation takes place, there is innovation in both formal and non-formal education. In formal education, innovation is identified within higher education institutions, vocational education and training (VET) and basic education. In non-formal education, innovation is recognized within alternative educational programmes or initiatives; for example, by ‘repairingʼ system failures or taking care of disadvantaged groups and lifelong learning improvement (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION AS A REPAIR OF SOCIAL ORDER). In order to advance the understanding of social innovation in different types of education, we suggest that the main focus should be on how to identify and integrate social innovation much more in formal education systems, so that even innovation in informal education will gain acceptance and create a new approach for the modernization of different education systems. Types of social innovation in education Some of the key types of social innovation in education identified through empirical research are as follows: (a) societal challenges and social demands; (b) concepts and understanding; (c) resources, capacities and constraints; (d) governance, networks, actors; (e) process dynamics; and (f) institutions (Behrend et al. 2022; Howaldt et al. 2017; Schröder and Krüger 2019). Against this backdrop and based on the findings of a mapping of social innovation initiatives around the world,1 authors identified a typology of social innovation in a way that social innovation initiatives may affect the formal education system through four different ways: transforming, modernizing,

repairing and separating (Rabadijeva et al. 2018). Transforming refers to change the educational system radically. Modernizing refers to improve existing structures into better ones according to the current needs. Repairing refers to grassroots initiatives that pursue to work on failures of the system. Finally, separating refers to an antagonizing initiative parallel to the system, which creates its own structure but may coexist with the original system (Rabadijeva et al. 2018, pp. 86–87). Other studies show examples of innovation in education in European countries, focusing on lifelong learning (Kapoor et al. 2018). In regions such as Latin America, there has been extensive research and documentation of case studies (see Rey de Marulanda and Tancredi 2010; Blanco and Messina 2000). In Brazil, relevant case studies show examples of community participation in education through the creation of new networks and forms of collaboration (Maldonado-Mariscal 2017). Nonetheless, more empirical research is needed to identify different types of social innovation in education, their integration in formal education systems and to better understand the scale of innovation in education and the creation of networks and co-creation processes across different education levels (primary, secondary, tertiary education). Particularly to promote cooperation of grassroots initiatives and the education system not from an institutional perspective but from a learners’ perspective (Schröder 2012). Generally, the main actors involved in social innovation in formal education are NGOs, universities, communities, schools, policymakers, and foundations (Maldonado-Mariscal 2017), while in VET, actors involved are usually companies, schools and communities, but also communities of practice and policymakers (Hillier 2009). Conceptualizing social innovation in education We define social innovation in education as new social practices in education (Howaldt and Schwarz 2010; Schröder and Krüger 2019), new forms of collaboration (Maldonado-Mariscal 2017), the creation of new institutions (Hämäläinen and Heiskala 2007; Loogma et al. 2013), and the creation of alliances and networks of different actors (Kesselring and Leitner 2008, p. 18) who previously did not collaborate with each other.

Karina Maldonado-Mariscal and Antonius Schröder

Social innovation in education  223

One or a combination of all these new practices and networks drives change not only in educational institutions, but also in the role of actors in the education system and in society (Maldonado-Mariscal, 2020). In VET, the literature shows that social innovation can be seen as new institutions (Halász 2018); new teaching methods or curricula (Halász 2018; OECD 2014; Hillier 2009); new school models between VET schools and enterprises (Haughey 2015), or new extended networks, by developing external relationships with stakeholders (Hillier 2009; Halász 2018), whereas educational innovation in companies refers to mutual learning between employees, trainers and developers of new technologies, usually through a change in the mindset that education and learning occur only in one direction (Kohlgrüber et al. 2021). Because of the emerging relevance of vocational education and training in companies for the digital and green twin transition,2 the European Union has set up several initiatives to bring together all the relevant stakeholders in a common social innovation process of re- and upskilling for the digital and green transition: namely the New Skills Agenda, Sectoral Skills Blueprints, and the Pact for Skills to foster innovation in education across Europe. Similarly, learning processes in educational organizations refer not only to educational processes within one organization, but also between different organizations (Schröer, 2021). Some researchers have launched a debate on social innovation in education to foster new policy ideas and a vision for the future of social innovation in education in the European Union (Giesecke and Schartinger 2021). This debate on social innovation in education shows that, when looking for a definition of social innovation in education, it is necessary to differentiate between innovation in, for and by education (Giesecke et al. 2020, p. 12). This means that there are different types of social innovation related to education. Firstly, social innovation in education refers to those innovations that take place within the education system. Secondly, social innovation by education refers to such innovations that aim at social change, developed by educational actors (e.g. students, teachers). Finally, social innovation for education refers to innovations that aim at a better education

system, but the actors involved in them are not part of the education system (Giesecke et al. 2020, pp. 14–15). In this sense, organizational education researchers have identified a link between social innovation in education and innovation in organizational education. In a recent memorandum, they identified key dimensions of learning research in, by and between organizations (Göhlich et al. 2018). This shows an interrelation between organizational education and social innovation research interested in new organizational structures for social innovation education.

Critical reflections and outlook

Faced with the concept of social innovation and its relevance for education, almost all actors of the education system and beyond realized the lack of reflection and integration of social innovation in education. On that premise, one of the main research questions of social innovation in education becomes how to analyse educational innovation with a systemic approach (Maldonado and Alijew 2023). Different literature suggests that in order to identify social innovation in education it is necessary to study and observe systemic changes in education. Systemic changes involve changes in beliefs, norms and institutions (Hämäläinen and Heiskala 2007; Loogma et al. 2013), new grassroots initiatives (Nussbaumer and Moulaert 2004) and co-creation practices (Caro-González and Anabo 2020). This means that social innovations in education do not occur as isolated events, but are often the result of a cyclical process of social movements, innovations, reforms and radical changes, leading to institutional and social changes (Maldonado-Mariscal 2020). International research has mapped different innovative educational practices around the world and categorized them especially into new forms of education, new learning strategies, new arrangements, new collaborations and networks (Schröder and Krüger 2019). However, increased theoretical and empirical research on social innovation in education is crucial: research that shows evidence of how innovation in education occurs, how actors co-create new models of education, how innovation networks in education are built and what new forms of multi-governance are

Karina Maldonado-Mariscal and Antonius Schröder

224  Encyclopedia of social innovation

being implemented for different reforms and in different contexts. In addition, it is necessary to reflect first on what kind of innovation in education exists, where we can find it and what its properties are. We raise this point as very relevant, as social innovation in education is not only found in higher education institutions or entrepreneurship labs, but in local communities with daily challenges in education and society. Therefore, the role of civil society in educational innovation is crucial for modernizing the formal education system in the sense of changing social practices to solve educational demands and challenges in a broader way. This should include methods of co-creation of better solutions with different stakeholders, new ways of organization, and collaboration. The role of institutions is crucial in enabling or blocking social innovation (Cajaiba-Santana 2014), so we need a better understanding of institutional innovation multi-stakeholder governance across the different areas and responsibilities of education. This is needed not only to give leeway to new solutions within and beyond the formal education systems but foster the acceptance of social innovations for the education sector as such, and improving innovation processes at local, regional and national levels. Karina Maldonado-Mariscal and Antonius Schröder

Notes

1. See https://​www​.s​ocialinnov​ationatlas​.net. 2. See https://​publications​.jrc​.ec​.europa​.eu/​repository/​ handle/​JRC129319.

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Alden Rivers, B., A. Armellini, R. Maxwell, S. Allen and C. Durkin (2015), ‘Social innovation education: towards a framework for learning design’, Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 5 (4), pp. 383–400. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1108/​HESWBL​-04​-2015​ -0026. Anderson, M., D. Domanski and J. Howaldt (2018), ‘Social innovation as a chance and a challenge for higher education institutions’, in J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka, A. Schröder and M. Zirngiebl (eds), Atlas of Social Innovation: New Practices for a Better Future, Dortmund:

Sozialforschungsstelle, TU Dortmund University. Behrend, C., K. Maldonado-Mariscal and A. Schröder (2022), ‘Bridging social innovation in education and organisational learning’, European Public & Social Innovation Review, 7 (1), pp. 17–29, accessed 2 November 2022 at https://​pub​.sinnergiak​.org/​esir/​article/​view/​180. Blanco, R. and G. Messina (2000), Estado del arte sobre las innovaciones educativas en América Latina, Colombia: Convenio Andrés Bello, UNESCO. Brinkmann, B., I. Roessler and S. Ulrich (2021), Soziale Innovationen aus Hochschulen – Aktivitäten und Handlungsbedarfe, Gütersloh: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014), ‘Social innovation: moving the field forward. A conceptual framework’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82, pp.  42–51, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​ j​.techfore​.2013​.05​.008. Caro-González A. and I. F. Anabo (2020), ‘Beyond teaching and research: stakeholder perspectives on the evolving roles of higher education’, Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast, 13, (6), pp. 252–66. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .15838/​esc​.2020​.6​.72​.15. Cerna, L. (2014), ‘The governance of innovation in education’, Education Sciences, 4, pp. 5–21. Giesecke, S. et al. (2020), Prospective Report on the Future of Social Innovation in Education, Brussels: European Union. https://​doi​.org/​10​ .2766/​160470. Giesecke, S. and D. Schartinger (2021), ‘The transformative potential of social innovation for, in and by education’, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​ 19420676​.2021​.1937283. Göhlich, M., P. Novotný, L. Revsbæk, A. Schröer, S. M. Weber and B. J. Yi (2018), ‘Research memorandum organizational education’, Studia Paedagogica, 23 (2), pp. 205–15. Halász, G. (2018), ‘Measuring innovation in education: the outcomes of a national education sector innovation survey’, European Journal of Education, 53 (4), pp. 557–73. Hämäläinen, T. J. and R. Heiskala (2007), Social Innovations, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance: Making Sense of Structural Adjustment Processes in Industrial Sectors, Regions, and Societies, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA, Edward Elgar Publishing. Haughey, R. (2015), ‘Innovation in TVET: challenges and prospects’, Journal of Asian Vocational Education and Training, 8, pp. 1–9. Hillier, Y. (2009), Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Vocational Education and Training: International Perspective, Research

Karina Maldonado-Mariscal and Antonius Schröder

Social innovation in education  225 Overview, National Centre for Vocational Education Research. Howaldt, J., K. Maldonado-Mariscal and E. Wascher (2022), ‘Soziale Innovationen und ihre Infrastrukturen: Der Beitrag von Zentren sozialer Innovation und Wissenschaftsläden zur Stärkung der Kooperation zwischen Wissenschaft und Zivilgesellschaftʼ, in A. L. Arp, B. Benz, K. Lutz, J. Offergeld and W. Schönig (eds), Wissenschaftsläden in der Sozialen Arbeit. Partizipative Forschung und soziale Innovationen, Weinheim/Basel: Beltz Juventa. Howaldt, J. and M. Schwarz (2010), Social Innovation: Concepts, Research Fields and International Trends, Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle Dortmund. Howaldt, J., A. Schröder, A. Butzin and D. Rehfeld (eds) (2017), Towards a General Theory and Typology of Social Innovation. SI-DRIVE Deliverable 1.6, accessed 2 November 2022 at https://​www​.si​-drive​.eu/​wp​-content/​uploads/​ 2018/​01/​SI​-DRIVE​-Deliverable​-D1​_6​-Theory​ -Report​-2017​-final​-20180131​.pdf. Kapoor, K., V. Weerakkody and A. Schroeder (2018), ‘Social innovations for social cohesion in Western Europe: success dimensions for lifelong learning and education’, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 31 (2), pp.  189–203. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​ 13511610​.2017​.1419336. Kesselring, A. and M. Leitner (2008), Soziale innovation in Unternehmen: Studie, erstellt im Auftrag der Unruhe Privatstiftung, Wien: Zentrum für Soziale Innovation. Kohlgrüber, M., K. Maldonado-Mariscal and A. Schröder (2021), ‘Mutual learning in innovation and co-creation processes: integrating technological and social innovation’, Frontiers in Education, 6, https://​doi​.org/​10​.3389/​feduc​ .2021​.498661. Loogma, K., K. Tafel-Viia and M. Ümarik (2013), ‘Conceptualising educational changes: a social innovation approach’, Journal of Educational Change, 14 (3), pp. 283–301. Maldonado-Mariscal, M. K. (2020), ‘Social change in Brazil through innovations and social movements’, Journal of Developing Societies, 36 (4), pp.  415–38, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​ 0169796X20963332. Maldonado-Mariscal, M. K. (2017), ‘Subsystems of social innovation in Brazil: the society of São Paulo as a new actor in the education system and innovationʼ, dissertation for doctoral degree of philosophy, Faculty of Culture, Social Sciences and Education, Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, https://​doi​.org/​10​.18452/​18568. Maldonado-Mariscal, M. K., and I., Alijew (2023), ‘Social innovation and educational innovation:

a qualitative review of innovation’s evolution’, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 1–26, https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1080/​13511610​.2023​.2173152. Nicholls, A., J. Simon and M. Gabriel (2015), ‘Introduction: dimensions of social innovation’, in A. Nicholls, J. Simon and M. Gabriel (eds), New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research, London: Palgrave Macmillan, https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1057/​9781137506801​_1. Nussbaumer, J. and F. Moulaert (2004), ‘Integrated area development and social innovation in European cities’, City, 8 (2), pp. 249–57, https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1080/​1360481042000242201. OECD (2014), Measuring Innovation in Education: A New Perspective, Educational Research and Innovation, https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1787/​9789264215696​-en. OECD (2016), Innovating Education and Educating for Innovation: The Power of Digital Technologies and Skills, Paris: OECD Publishing, http://​dx​.doi​.org/​10​.1787/​ 9789264265097​-en. Rabadijeva, M., A. Schröder and M. Zirngiebl (2018), ‘Building blocks of a typology of social innovation: investigating the relationship between social innovation and social change’, in J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka, A. Schröder and M. Zirngiebl (eds), Atlas of Social Innovation, Dortmund: sfs, pp. 84–7. Rey de Marulanda, N. and F. B. Tancredi (2010), From Social Innovation to Public Policy: Success Stories in Latin America and the Caribbean, Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), accessed 2 November 2022 at http://​hdl​.handle​.net/​11362/​ 39313. Schröder, A. (2012), ‘Implementing innovative structures to improve lifelong learning – a social innovation process: the example HESSENCAMPUS’, ZSI Discussion Paper, 28, https://​www​.zsi​.at/​en/​object/​publication/​2197. Schröder, A. and D. Krüger (2019), ‘Social innovation as a driver for new educational practices: modernising, repairing and transforming the education system’, Sustainability, 11 (4), 1070. Schröer, A. (2021), ‘Social innovation in education and social service organizations. challenges, actors, and approaches to foster social innovation’, Frontiers in Education, 5, https://​doi​.org/​10​.3389/​feduc​.2020​.555624. Torres, R. (2000), Reformadores y docentes: El cambio educativo atrapado entre dos lógicas, el maestro, protagonista del cambio educativo, Convenio Andrés Bello, Magisterio Nacional. Unceta, A., I. Guerra and X. Barandiaran (2021), ‘Integrating social innovation into the curriculum of higher education institutions in Latin

Karina Maldonado-Mariscal and Antonius Schröder

226  Encyclopedia of social innovation America: insights from the Students4Change Project’, Sustainability, 13 (10), 5378. UNESCO (2021), Strategy on Technological Innovation in Education (2022–2025), Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, accessed 2 November 2022 at https://​unesdoc​.unesco​.org/​ark:/​48223/​ pf0000378847. Vincent-Lancrin, S., J. Urgel, S. Kar and G. Jacotin (2019), ‘Measuring innovation in education

2019: what has changed in the classroom?’, in Educational Research and Innovation, Paris: OECD Publishing, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1787/​ 9789264311671​-en. Wihlenda, M., T. Brahm and L. Greger (2020), Social Innovation Education: Transformierende Lernprogramme für Hochschulen, Tübingen: Tübingen Library Publishing.

Karina Maldonado-Mariscal and Antonius Schröder

40. Social innovation in energy system transformation Introduction

Moves towards decentralization, digitalization and decarbonization of our energy systems are accompanied by changes in actor constellations and their activities. Research has started referring to these changes as social innovation in energy (SIE): initially more ‘in passing’ (de Geus and Wittmayer 2019) and increasingly in more explicit ways. The term social innovation in relation to energy is still predominately used to refer to community – or bottom up-driven – phenomena. However, there have been recent attempts to broaden this understanding and to emphasize its diversity to tap into its full potential to support energy systems transformations. These attempts include linking SIE to supposedly desired ends such as energy justice, energy democracy and sustainability, but also go beyond and take it as an emancipatory concept that opens debate on the necessity of structural counterhegemonic social change rather than optimization of existing energy systems. In this spirit, this contribution provides an overview of developments in in the SIE literature relevant for energy system transformation and offers two critical reflections with their policy implications.

Key findings: overview of the research field

In the growing literature on the changes in social relations and practices in energy system transformations, we highlight the following four points: focus on bottom-up activity, embedding of bottom-up activity in energy markets, broadening the understanding of SIE and linkages to social movement perspectives (→ SOCIAL MOVEMENTS). First, under the labels of ‘grassroots innovation’ and ‘community energy’, researchers have explored the changing roles of citizens, communities and their initiatives in energy system transformations (Seyfang and Haxeltine 2012; Soutar and Mitchell 2018). Much attention has been given to the shift from consumer to prosumer (i.e. not only consuming but also producing energy)

(Horstink et al. 2020). An insightful study by Hewitt et al. (2019) took a social innovation lens to investigate the development of community energy across eight countries over the last 50 years, while Dóci et al. (2015) studied Dutch renewable energy communities and their potential to contribute to energy system transformation. Second, much research goes into the ways that such communities and citizens organize themselves in the energy market. Scholars have increasingly paid attention to diverse newly emerging business models (e.g. Reis et al. 2021) or shared ownership models (Slee 2020). However, a major focus remains on energy cooperatives (e.g. Yildiz et al. 2015), how these challenge existing institutional logics (e.g. through combining financial gain with a striving for social and ecological value) (Bauwens et al. 2019) or the kind of ecosystems necessary for their development (Vernay and Sebi 2020). In turn, elements of such ecosystems have also been considered social innovations, such as alternative modes of financing and investment including crowdfunding (Iskandarova et al. 2021), or specific subsidy schemes (Nolden 2013). Third, several studies have chartered the territory of SIE more broadly. For example, based on a worldwide mapping and in-depth case study research, Ooms et al. (2017) distinguish seven practice fields of SIE initiatives, including energy collectives, local production of energy, working with smart meters, energy services, providing examples and inspiration, district and neighbourhood energy systems and energy efficient mobility. Taking a different route, Hoppe and de Vries (2018, p. 1) survey the different contributions to their special issue on social innovation and energy to distinguish between six major SIE thematic areas: ‘(1) technological innovation leading to new market models, actor configurations, and institutional settings creating room for social innovation; (2) new governance arrangements; (3) community energy, its impact, implications, and social incentives and policy to empower it; (4) new participative research approaches to test and learn from livings labs and best practices; (5) “green nudges” to stimulate behavioural change; and (6), serious energy games’. Connecting social innovation with sustainability transitions thinking, Hölsgens et al. (2018) cast an even wider net for SIE referring to local solar initiatives, circular furniture and food

227

228  Encyclopedia of social innovation

waste reduction projects, a business game on energy prices and a municipal fuel poverty initiative. Forth, and more recently, SIE has been studied from a collective action perspective (Gregg et al. 2020), with particular attention to social movements. This perspective links SIE to strong citizen participation and involvement (Lupi et al. 2021), to energy justice and democracy (Campos and Marín-González 2020) and beyond mere acceptance. It also foregrounds the countervailing power of SIE, specifically their ability to highlight conflicts and contestations in the way energy systems are currently organized (e.g. Van Der Schoor et al. 2016). Especially the latter is a sign that next to more instrumental takes on SIE, also critical and emancipatory perspectives on SIE are gaining importance (cf. Moulaert and MacCallum 2019).

Critical reflections and outlook Broadening the understanding of social innovation It has been argued that using the concept of social innovation in a narrow and instrumental sense stands in the way of fully harnessing the potential of this phenomena for just sustainability transitions (Wittmayer et al. 2020). We want to draw attention to two points that highlight the need for a broader understanding of SIE. The first point is the understanding of SIE as ‘by definition’ leading to desirable ends, such as ‘low carbon energy transition, civic empowerment [→ POWER AND EMPOWERMENT IN SOCIAL INNOVATION] and social goals pertaining to the general wellbeing of communities’ (Hoppe and de Vries 2018, p. 13). In such perspectives, SIE are often considered as instruments towards desirable ends. The inclusion of such desirable ends into our understanding of SIE neglects uncertainties, ambiguities and trade-offs accompanying SIE practice (Moulaert and MacCallum 2019), while ignoring the extent to which it can be transformative or emancipatory (McGowan et al. 2017). A second point is the persistent focus on SIE as being initiated by community actors or citizens at the neglect

Julia M. Wittmayer and Karoline S. Rogge

of other actors such as business and policy actors and how these can and do engage in socially innovative activities in energy system transformation. It specifically lacks an appreciation of the multiplicity of actors involved in actual SIE processes (Pel et al. 2017). For example, Matschoss et al. (2022) take a broader perspective to also include central political programmes as SIE, while Warbroek and Hoppe (2017) focus on the agency of local governments as SIE actors. Tackling these shortcomings, a broader understanding of SIE allows to rethink and transform energy systems by considering both the multiple forms of agency and directionalities involved and the many ways that social innovations can play out in both desirable and undesirable ways for the different actors involved. This implies that policies supporting social innovation should be open to multiple actors and not just community actors and citizens to harness the full potential of SIE. It also implies that evaluations of emerging SIE are needed to understand which SIE are societally desirable and/or how policies should be designed to support their wider diffusion while avoiding undesirable consequences. Capturing the diversity of social innovation Taking such a broader understanding of social innovation as a basis, Wittmayer et al. (2022) have reconsidered which phenomena can be meaningfully understood to constitute SIE. Defining SIE as ‘combinations of ideas, objects and/or actions that change social relations and involve new ways of doing, thinking and/or organising energy’, they have developed a conceptually informed and empirically grounded typology of SIE that helps to better make sense of its diversity. This typology differentiates between two main variables: (1) types of social relations emphasized by SIE (i.e., cooperation, exchange, competition and conflict) and (2) the ways that SIE manifest in the energy system (i.e. the main activities – ways of doing, thinking, and organizing). Based on this distinction, an analysis of 500 social innovation initiatives across eight countries allowed the derivation of 18 different SIE types (Table 40.1).

Social innovation in energy system transformation  229  

Table 40.1  

 

 

Organizing

Manifestations Thinking

Doing

 

Overview of SIE types

Social relations as social interaction Cooperation

Exchange

Competition Conflict

Local energy production and consumption

Local peer to peer electricity exchange

For profit Action services and against technologies specific energy pathways

Energy education

For-profit consulting

Cooperative energy production and consumption Collaborative eco efficient housing Advocacy for specific energy pathways

Non-profit consulting Peer to peer learning

Campaigns against specific energy pathways

Participatory energy dialogues

Platforms for Energy Networks direct energy gamification against transactions and nudges specific energy Participatory Investment pathways experiand finance mentation and mechanisms incubation

Source: Adapted from Wittmayer et al. (2022, p. 7).

Such a systematic understanding of the diversity of SIE highlights how energy system transformations are also driven by the changes in relations and roles of actors, and their activities. Rather than pigeonholing actors, the typology lends itself to clarify how certain SIE actors and initiatives engage in more than one SIE (e.g. an energy cooperative engages in ‘local energy production and consumption’ and offers ‘peer to peer learning’). It also depicts how each type carries own normative ideas about desirable future directions, forms of decision-making or spreading of resources (e.g. ‘campaigns against specific energy pathways’ can go against ‘wind’ or against ‘nuclear energy’). It invites for discussions regarding the desirability or undesirability of certain innovations in relation to public values such as affordability, reliability, sustainability and accessibility of energy. Recognizing the diversity of SIE enables systematic insights into the SIE type-specific enabling and impeding factors for their emergence and diffusion (Rogge et al. 2022), as well as their various potentials for energy system transformation (Guetlein

and Schleich 2022). This implies that for the continued emergence of a diversity of social innovations advancing energy system transformation, the political framework conditions should be conducive to any type of socially innovative initiatives. Yet, for the acceleration phase, SIE type-specific policies – or policy mixes (Rogge and Stadler 2023) – should be designed that can tackle barriers and strengthen drivers of societally desirable SIE types more directly than generic policies could. Julia M. Wittmayer and Karoline S. Rogge

Acknowledgements

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 837498 – SONNET.

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Bauwens, T., B. Huybrechts and F. Dufays (2019), ‘Understanding the diverse scaling strategies of social enterprises as hybrid organizations: the case of renewable energy cooperatives’, Organization & Environment, 33 (2), pp.  195–219, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​ 1086026619837126. Campos, I. and E. Marín-González (2020), ‘People in transitions: energy citizenship, prosumerism and social movements in Europe’, Energy Research and Social Science, 69, 101718. de Geus, T. and J. M. Wittmayer (2019), Social Innovation in the Energy Transition. Examining Diversity, Contributions and Challenges. Scoping Workshop Report. Cambridge: Energy-SHIFTS: Grant Agreement 826025, Cambridge. Dóci, G., E. Vasileiadou and A. C. Petersen (2015), ‘Exploring the transition potential of renewable energy communities’, Futures, 66, pp. 85–95. Gregg, J. S., S. Nyborg, M. Hansen, V. J. Schwanitz, A. Wierling, J. P. Zeiss, S. Delvaux, V. Saenz, L. Polo-Alvarez, C. Candelise, A. Sciullo and D. Padovan (2020), ‘Collective action and social innovation in the energy sector: a mobilization model perspective’, Energies, 13 (3), https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​en13030651. Guetlein, M.-C. and J. Schleich (2022), Report on Assessment of Future Potentials of SIE in Europe: Business Models and Competitiveness,

Julia M. Wittmayer and Karoline S. Rogge

230  Encyclopedia of social innovation Future Policy Interventions, https://​zenodo​.org/​ record/​6572808. Hewitt, R. J., N. Bradley, C. A. Baggio, C. Barlagne, A. Ceglarz, R. Cremades, M. McKeen, I. M. Otto and B. Slee (2019), ‘Social innovation in community energy in Europe: a review of the evidence’, Frontiers in Energy Research, 7, https://​doi​.org/​10​ .3389/​fenrg​.2019​.00031. Hölsgens, R., S. Lübke and M. Hasselkuß (2018), ‘Social innovations in the German energy transition: an attempt to use the heuristics of the multi-level perspective of transitions to analyze the diffusion process of social innovations’, Energy, Sustainability and Society, 8 (1), https://​doi​.org/​10​.1186/​s13705–018–0150–7. Hoppe, T. and G. de Vries (2018), ‘Social innovation and the energy transition’, Sustainability (Switzerland), 11 (1), https://​ doi​.org/​10​.3390/​su11010141. Horstink, L., J. M. Wittmayer, K. Ng, G. P. Luz, E. Marín-González, S. Gährs, I. Campos, L. Holstenkamp, S. Oxenaar and D. Brown (2020), ‘Collective renewable energy prosumers and the promises of the energy union: taking stock’, Energies, 13 (2), pp. 1–30. Iskandarova, M., A. Dembek, M. Fraaije, W. Matthews, A. Stasik, J. M. Wittmayer and B. K. Sovacool (2021), ‘Who finances renewable energy in Europe? Examining temporality, authority and contestation in solar and wind subsidies in Poland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom’, Energy Strategy Reviews, 38 (October), 100730. Lupi, V., C. Candelise, M. A. Calull, S. Delvaux, P. Valkering, W. Hubert, A. Sciullo, N. Ivask, E. van der Waal, I. J. Iturriza, D. Paci, N. Della Valle, G. Koukoufikis and T. Dunlop (2021), ‘A characterization of European collective action initiatives and their role as enablers of citizens’ participation in the energy transition’, Energies, 14 (24), https://​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​ en14248452. Matschoss, K., I. Mikkonen, L. Gynther, G. Koukoufikis, A. Uihlein and I. Murauskaite-Bull (2022), ‘Drawing policy insights from social innovation cases in the energy field’, Energy Policy, 161, 112728. McGowan, K., F. Westley and O. Tjörnbo (eds) (2017), The Evolution of Social Innovation: Building Resilience Through Transitions, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Moulaert, F. and D. MacCallum (2019), Advanced Introduction to Social Innovation, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Nolden, C. (2013), ‘Governing community energy: feed-in tariffs and the development of community wind energy schemes in the United

Julia M. Wittmayer and Karoline S. Rogge

Kingdom and Germany’, Energy Policy, 63, pp. 543–52. Ooms, M., A. Huygen and W. Rhomberg (2017), Social Innovation in Energy Supply: Summary Report. Deliverable 7.4, https://​www​.si​-drive​ .eu/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2018/​03/​SI​-DRIVE​ -D7​_4​-Final​-Policy​-Field​-Report​-Energy​ -Supply​.pdf. Pel, B., J. Dorland, J. M. Wittmayer and M. S. Jorgensen (2017), ‘Detecting social innovation agency’, European Public & Social Innovation Review (EPSIR), 2 (1), pp. 1–17. Reis, I. F. G., I. Gonçalves, M. A. R. Lopes and C. Henggeler Antunes (2021), ‘Business models for energy communities: a review of key issues and trends’, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 144, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.rser​ .2021​.111013. Rogge, K. S., M. Stadler, A. Broich, T. de Geus and S. Hielscher (2022), Co-Creating Strategies for Navigating Multilevel Policy Dynamics to Encourage SIE – Reflections (Deliverable D2.4), https://​sonnet​-energy​.eu/​ wp​-content/​uploads/​2022/​05/​SONNET​_D2​_4​ _SUBMITTED​.pdf. Rogge, K. S., and M., Stadler (2023), ‘Applying policy mix thinking to social innovation : from experimentation to socio-technical change’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 47 (April 2022), 100723. https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.eist​.2023​.100723. Seyfang, G. and A. Haxeltine (2012), ‘Growing grassroots innovations: exploring the role of community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30 (3), pp. 381–400. Slee, B. (2020), ‘Social innovation in community energy in Scotland: institutional form and sustainability outcomes’, Global Transitions, 2, pp. 157–66. Soutar, I. and C. Mitchell (2018), ‘Towards pragmatic narratives of societal engagement in the UK energy system’, Energy Research and Social Science, 35, pp. 132–9. Van Der Schoor, T., H. Van Lente, B. Scholtens, A. Peine, T. van der Schoor, H. van Lente, B. Scholtens and A. Peine (2016), ‘Challenging obduracy: how local communities transform the energy system’, Energy Research and Social Science, 13, pp. 94–105. Vernay, A. L. and C. Sebi (2020), ‘Energy communities and their ecosystems: a comparison of France and the Netherlands’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 158, 120123. Warbroek, B. and T. Hoppe (2017), ‘Modes of governing and policy of local and regional governments supporting local low-carbon energy initiatives; exploring the cases of the

Social innovation in energy system transformation  231 Dutch regions of Overijssel and Fryslân’, Sustainability, 9 (1), 75. Wittmayer, J. M., T. de Geus, B. Pel, F. Avelino, S. Hielscher, T. Hoppe, S. Mühlemeier, A. Stasik, S. Oxenaar, K. S. Rogge, V. Visser, E. Marín-González, M. Ooms, S. Buitelaar, C. Foulds, K. Petrick, S. Klarwein, S. Krupnik, G. de Vries, A. Wagner and A. Härtwig (2020), ‘Beyond instrumentalism: broadening the understanding of social innovation in socio-technical energy systems’, Energy Research & Social Science, 70, 101689.

Wittmayer, J. M., S. Hielscher, M. Fraaije, F. Avelino and K. Rogge (2022), ‘A typology for unpacking the diversity of social innovation in energy transitions’, Energy Research & Social Science, 88, 102513. Yildiz, Ö., J. Rommel, S. Debor, L. Holstenkamp, F. Mey, J. R. Müller, J. Radtke and J. Rognli (2015), ‘Renewable energy cooperatives as gatekeepers or facilitators? Recent developments in Germany and a multidisciplinary research agenda’, Energy Research & Social Science, 6, pp. 59–73.

Julia M. Wittmayer and Karoline S. Rogge

41. Social innovation in the fashion industry Introduction

social group, or enterprise. While social innovation seems promising to address the fashion system’s unsustainability, it is debatable whether successful social innovation exists in the fashion system.

The fashion industry is a complex system that includes the design, production, marketing, selling, consumption, disposal, and recycling of garments. It consists of a global network of suppliers, vendors, and services, of different sizes. They operate under enormous competitive pressure at all stages of the supply chain and distribution channels to market clothing, shoes, and accessories. The fashion industry is worth more than 2.5 trillion dollars. It employs more than 75 million people worldwide, making it one of the largest industries in the world (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 2018). The fashion industry is a complex system interwoven between global and local levels. It is known for its exploitation of workers, including children and forced labourers, unfair and unsafe working conditions. Furthermore, the industry has negative ecological impacts, including resource depletion of water and land, as well as the release of waste and emissions into the environment. The industry follows an almost linear economic model, where products are made from new materials, and recycling is a rare exception. The Ellen MacArthur Foundation claims if the industry continues on this path without taking action, it will account for a quarter of the world’s carbon budget by 2050 (Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2017). Because of the system’s resilience that in many aspects is undesirable, the industry has adapted and transformed to the challenges that arose over the last 50 years. Therefore, making the fashion industry sustainable is one of the key challenges this industry faces. Social innovation addresses complex social problems to increase social well-being (Nicholls and Murdock 2012). Over the past decade, social innovation has increasingly been used to address sustainability (Repo and Matschoss 2020). Antadze and Westley (2012) claim social innovation is suited to change complex systems by implementing new processes and products that systematically transform the system while addressing the roots of the problem (→ SYSTEM THINKING FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION). Furthermore, it is often initiated by a person,

Research areas of social innovation in the fashion industry

Although the industry’s massive negative social and environmental impact offers numerous possibilities for research, surprisingly little research considers social innovation and fashion. The existing research can be clustered into five research areas: employment, product development or design, production, reducing consumption, and business models. Research about employment in the fashion industry tends to describe how social innovation could help with the recovery after the fashion industry has left a country or experienced significant shrinkage. There is a greater need to consider the negative social and environmental impact of the industry in countries producing clothes. At the same time, research typically focuses on the need to manage the structural change of producing offshore.1 For instance, research has examined the reintegration of local spaces in Montreal (Klein et al. 2010) and the reemployment of the creative workforces in Milan and Barcelona (D’Ovidio and Pradel 2013). While social innovation is used to overcome the industry’s loss, it is also helpful when fashion design is used to integrate refugees in Greece to work in the fashion industry because of their practical skills and cultural heritage (Conti and Panagiotidou 2020). Several papers featuring social innovation and fashion are centred on design and product development. Most of the research focuses on the introduction of new product values by showing different ways or new approaches to fashion design that can stimulate social innovation while supporting traditional skillsets and local identities or excluded groups. For instance, one study looked into the participatory design around embroideries fostering social development in Colombia (Bertola et al. 2014). Another study explored how design-led social innovation may influence product personalization, customization, or co-creation (Kuksa and Fisher 2017). Others described the value of the service designer in the context of lace artisans in Nottingham

232

Social innovation in the fashion industry  233

(Mazzarella et al. 2017). One study looked into exemplary design practices to upcycle saris in India (Bertola et al. 2020). In comparison, a study from China created an inclusive and participatory design platform to foster a contemporary national identity (Accolla and Jiang 2019). Another study compared a Design for All approach among companies in conjunction with the company’s understanding of its social footprint (Accolla and Hansstein 2018). It seems that using design as a means to achieve a social aim and social innovation that aims to increase human well-being are closely related (→ DESIGN FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION). However, the design approach is also often related to local knowledge, limiting the scale of the approach. For the fashion industry to become a circular system, it must recycle garments at the end of their life and seek to reduce consumption. Several studies have explored the topic of production, business models, and collaborative consumption. New opportunities for temporary ownership have emerged that consider the need and desire customers have to change their clothing styles constantly. Such a performance economy that sells services offers new possibilities for social innovation research. Cianfanelli et al. (2019) studied Italian manufacturing between technological and social innovation and claimed social innovation requires someone to take action. In contrast, Pessôa et al. (2015) discussed consumption and sustainability in clothing production by looking at a company in Brazil doing upcycling. These researchers concluded that changing the industry towards sustainability requires ‘an entirely new way of thinking about the clothes, their production and their use’ (Pessôa et al. 2015, p. 6182). Sandberg and Hultberg (2021) explored the dynamic capabilities for scaling circular business models in Sweden. In contrast, Schmitt (2014) compared companies implementing fair trade in Germany for business success. Also, not-for-profit NGOs are promising sites for potential social innovation cases. For example, the not-for-profit social enterprise, Fashion Revolution, has been explored as a promoter of social innovation by Fernandes et al. (2020). Fashion Revolution itself is an excellent case of social innovation given

their potential to change the global culture of fashion consumption through consumer education, including their famous marketing campaign Who Made Your Clothes? aimed to raise consumer awareness about the global labour exploitation in the fashion industry. Micklethwaite and Fernandez Marinovic (2017) claim the new sharing economy must be seen as social innovation, and Fernandes et al. (2019) researched fashion libraries as business models for sustainable consumption. The researchers looked at the introduction of a collaborative service platform that facilitated fashion exchange. In contrast, Ritch (2019) studied how mothers see the sharing of used children’s clothing as part of consumer-led social innovation initiatives.

Shortcomings of social innovation research in the fashion industry

There is a shortage of fashion-related social innovation research that contributes to social innovation theory. For example, the requirements of a social innovation, such as novelty and scale, are often overlooked. With regard to novelty and regional scope, most research on fashion and social innovation focus on North and South America, Europe, and Asia. It describes the introduced practices as new to the specific people, place, or conditions, regardless of whether these practices were novel. In the case of scale, research suggests that scaling is needed to change the system. Usually, scaling starts with scaling out, which means replicating and diffusing an innovation to impact more people and reach larger geographic areas (Westley et al. 2014). Further, Westley et al. (2011) claim achieving durability or a broader systems impact can only happen if the innovation is scaled in more than one dimension. Yet this aspect is overlooked in fashion and social innovation research. Not all papers addressed scale, and very few articles differentiated among the different types of scales. One exception is the paper by Sandberg and Hultberg (2021) that focuses on scaling circular business models in Sweden (out, up, and deep) and relates strongly to social innovation theory. As a result, this article also contributed to the social innovation literature, but remains a positive exception.

Sabine Weber

234  Encyclopedia of social innovation

Opportunities for future research

More research is needed that explores how social innovation can transition the industry towards sustainability and analyses the conditions that are required to foster social innovation. For example, fair trade has been around since the 1950s, but it was adopted only in 1991 as a novel innovation in the fashion industry when Safia Minney started her company People Tree based on fair trade (Weber 2021). Years later, Schmitt (2014) explored how this niche innovation influenced and spread among the conventional fashion industry to change the regime of the system based on the Multi-level Perspective on Transitions by Geels (2002). However, one study is not enough to recognize patterns or communalities to drive change with regard to social innovation in the fashion industry. There is also a need to research the role of the systems entrepreneurs and how they are innovating to achieve change. The role of the innovator could be explored in companies leading the sustainability agenda, such as Patagonia or Eileen Fisher. Another option would be to look into the numerous not-for-profit organizations such as Fashion Revolution, Textile Exchange, The Better Cotton Initiative, or Fashion for Good. They are often founded by a single person or a few people. It is important to analyse the motivations of these innovators, their challenges and opportunities, and to understand aspects of scaling. One challenge of examining social innovation cases in the fashion industry is that any successful social innovation case can only be evaluated in hindsight. However, to see if there is a transitioning process of the industry, it is necessary to look at promising cases, even if the proposed social innovation might not be successful. It is also helpful to look beyond current cases and study long-term developments of social innovations. Further, because some challenges may be too large and complex for one innovation, it is essential to examine if and how promising social innovation cases are connected and how they complement each other to make the system’s change possible. For instance, Weber (2021) looked at different promising cases along the supply chain of textile recycling and sustainable fibre production and claimed that different social innovations in textile waste need each other to scale. However, exploring Sabine Weber

one problem domain is not enough. There is a general need to understand not only a single social innovation case, but to cluster innovations and map out how they are connected and cooperate. Such an overview would offer the opportunity to determine what kind of support and research is missing and what needs to be done to increase the efficacy of organizational outreach. Likewise, there are no comparisons among social innovations in the fashion industry and other sectors such as food, housing, or other consumer goods. Such research might support inter-sectoral learning. The fashion industry employs more women than any other industry, as sewing garments is labour-extensive and almost exclusively conducted by women. This employment structure means the fashion industry could be used as a driver for good if the industry stops labour exploitation and instead helps to empower women. Similar to Conti and Panagiotidou’s (2020) research, which explored opportunities of inclusion for refugees in Greece, more research is needed on how social innovation can help empower women working in the industry. The fashion industry is a complex system with a global reach, millions of employees, and severe sustainability issues. Despite the size of the industry and its economic importance, social innovation research is at the beginning leaving endless opportunities for social innovation research to contribute to the social innovation literature. What the past decade of research has shown is that there is a need to understand how the system can become sustainable, particularly related to the five research areas noted above. This will require more research on how different social innovations in the fashion industry are connected and how they enforce or hinder each other while trying to achieve scale. For instance, we need to explore how different social innovations collaborate to scale an innovation deeply. While scaling deep transforms people’s values, cultural practices, and relationships (Moore et al. 2015), knowledge is needed about how different social innovations in the fashion system work together by changing people’s culture towards clothing consumption. Fashion research must be connected with social innovation theory to determine if innovation is truly transformative, meaning the innovation profoundly changes the basic routines, resources, the authority

Social innovation in the fashion industry  235

flow, and beliefs of fashion (Westley et al. 2013). Sabine Weber

and Computing, vol 1202, Cham: Springer, pp. 24–31. D’Ovidio, M. and M. Pradel (2013), ‘Social innovation and institutionalisation in the cognitive-cultural economy: two contrasting experiences from Southern Europe’, Cities, 33, Note pp.  69–76, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.cities​.2012​ 1. Considering that today the majority of garments .07​.002. are produced in developing countries, the structural change of employment issues in developed Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2017), A New Textiles Economy: Redesigning Fashion’s countries is still an issue. For instance, about 97.5 Future, Cowes: Ellen MacArthur Foundation. per cent of apparel sold in the United States is produced offshore (The American Apparel and Fernandes, S., I. D. Honório, A. Cruchinho, M. J. Footwear Association 2012). Madeira and J. Lucas (2020), ‘Fashion revolution as promoter of social innovation and sustainability in fashion’, Leather and Footwear References Journal, 20 (1), pp.  51–8, https://​doi​.org/​10​ Entries marked in bold are further reading .24264/​lfj​.20​.1​.6. Fernandes, S., J. Lucas, M. J. Madeira and A. material. Cruchinho (2019), ‘Exponential system stratAccolla, A. and F. Hansstein (2018), ‘Social footegy for sustainability in fashion design’, paper print: an exploratory analysis of existing evipresented at the Procedia CIRP, https://​doi​.org/​ dence and opportunities’, in G. Di Bucchianico 10​.1016/​j​.procir​.2019​.04​.283. (ed.), Advances in Design for Inclusion. Geels, F. W. (2002), ‘Technological transitions AHFE 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: and Computing, vol 776, Cham: Springer, a multi-level perspective and a case-study’, pp. 346–55. Research Policy, 31 (8–9), pp. 1257–74. Accolla, A. and J. Jiang (2019), ‘Creating an inclu- Klein, J. L., D. G. Tremblay and D. R. Bussiéres sive and participatory way-finding canvas for (2010), ‘Social economy-based local initiaall’, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, tives and social innovation: a Montreal case 20 (2), pp.  166–77, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​ study’, International Journal of Technology 1463922X​.2018​.1522557. doi​ Management, 51 (1), pp. 121–38, https://​ Antadze, N. and F. Westley (2012), ‘Impact .org/​10​.1504/​IJTM​.2010​.033132. metrics for social innovation: barriers or Kuksa, I. and T. Fisher (2017), Design for bridges to radical change?’, Journal of Social Personalisation, Abingdon: Routledge. Entrepreneurship, 3 (2), pp. 133–50. Mazzarella, F., V. Mitchell and C. Escobar-Tello Bertola, P., C. Colombi, V. M. Iannilli and F. (2017), ‘Crafting sustainable futures: the value Vacca (2020), ‘From cultural branding to culof the service designer in activating meaningful tural empowerment through social innovation: social innovation from within textile artisan I was a sari—a design-driven Indian case study’, communities’, Design Journal, 20 (supp1), Fashion Practice, 12 (2), pp. 245–63, https://​ pp. S2935–S2950, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​ doi​.org/​10​.1080/​17569370​.2020​.1769354. 14606925​.2017​.1352803. Bertola, P., C. Colombi and F. Vacca (2014), Micklethwaite, P. and M. Fernandez Marinovic ‘Design Re.Lab: how fashion design can stim(2017), ‘Sharing economy and social innovaulate social innovation and new sustainable tion: two different paths towards a more susdesign’, International Journal of Design in tainable future’, https://​doi​.org/​10​.13140/​RG​.2​ Society, 7 (4), pp. 47–61. .2​.23401​.60000. Cianfanelli, E., E. Trivellin, M. Marseglia, M. Moore, M.-L., D. Riddell and D. Vocisano Tufarelli and G. Goretti (2019), ‘Italian man(2015), ‘Scaling out, scaling up, scaling ufacture between technological and social deep: strategies of non-profits in advancing innovation’, in M. Di Nicolantonio, E. Rossi systemic social innovation’, The Journal of and T. Alexander (eds), Advances in Additive Corporate Citizenship, 58, pp. 67–85. Manufacturing, Modeling Systems and 3D Nicholls, A. and A. Murdock (2012), ‘The nature Prototyping. AHFE 2019. Advances in of social innovation’, in A. Nicholls and A. Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 975, Murdock (eds), Social Innovation, New York: Cham: Springer, pp. 24–34. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–30. Conti, G. M. and M. A. Panagiotidou (2020), Pessôa, C., K. Araújo and A. Arruda (2015), ‘Social innovation in fashion design: can ‘Discussing consumption and sustainability in design provide opportunities of inclusion to clothing production: a case study of a company refugees in Greece?’, in G. Di Bucchianico in Recife/BR’, Procedia Manufacturing, 3, et al. (eds), Advances in Industrial Design. AHFE 2020. Advances in Intelligent Systems

Sabine Weber

236  Encyclopedia of social innovation pp.  6175–82, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.promfg​ .2015​.07​.911. Repo, P. and K. Matschoss (2020), ‘Social innovation for sustainability challenges’, Sustainability, 12 (1), p. 319. Ritch, E. L. (2019), ‘“From a mother to another”: creative experiences of sharing used children’s clothing’, Journal of Marketing Management, 35 (7–8), pp.  770–94, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​ 0267257X​.2019​.1602555. Sandberg, E. and E. Hultberg (2021), ‘Dynamic capabilities for the scaling of circular business model initiatives in the fashion industry’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 320, https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.jclepro​.2021​.128831. Schmitt, J. (2014), Social Innovation for Business Success: Shared Value in the Apparel Industry, Cham: Springer Science and Business Media. The American Apparel and Footwear Association (2012), AAFA Releases Apparel Stats 2012 Report, Arlington, VA: The American Apparel and Footwear Association. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2018), ‘UN Alliance aims to put fashion on path to sustainability’, accessed 15 November

Sabine Weber

2022 at https://​unece​.org/​forestry/​press/​un​ -alliance​-aims​-put​-fashion​-path​-sustainability. Weber, S. (2021), ‘Transitioning the fashion industry towards sustainability’, PhD dissertation, Waterloo, ON: University of Waterloo. Westley, F., N. Antadze, D. J. Riddell, K. Robinson and S. Geobey (2014), ‘Five configurations for scaling up social innovation: case examples of nonprofit organizations from Canada’, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50 (3), pp. 234–60. Westley, F., P. Olsson, C. Folke, T. Homer-Dixon, H. Vredenburg, D. Loorbach, J. Thompson, M. Nilsson, E. Lambin, J. Sendzimir, B. Banerjee, V. Galaz and S. van der Leeuw (2011), ‘Tipping toward sustainability: emerging pathways of transformation’, AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 40 (7), pp. 762–80. Westley, F., O. Tjornbo, L. Schultz, P. Olsson, C. Folke, B. Crona and Ö. Bodin (2013), ‘A theory of transformative agency in linked social-ecological systems’, Ecology and Society, 18 (3), https://​doi​.org/​10​.5751/​ES​ -05072​-180327.

42. Social innovations and the future of mobility in times of climate change Introduction The basic problems of mobility and the role of social innovations Mobility and transport pose major societal challenges because they belong to the so-called critical infrastructure. Means and modes of transport form the foundations of democratic societies. Economic prosperity and individual freedoms have only been made possible by lowering spatial resistance by means of transport for people and goods. At the centre of this is the automobile. It is a synthesis of technical and social innovation; it is, as it were, the materialized core of the dialectic of spatial and social mobility (Canzler and Knie 2016). It was the car that made modern forms of work and life possible in the first place. Long before there were digital platforms, home offices, or telecommuting, the structures of individualized ways of living and working were cemented by the availability and intensive use of the car (Canzler et al. 2018). The technical capability for free self-mobility in space was and is the fixed point of modernity, the own car the expression of individual freedom and the basis of a market capitalist economy. The mobility associated with the car has made possible a highly differentiated spatial-social division of labour, which has become an unquestioned characteristic of individual basic rights and continues to claim unquestioned validity, at least in large parts of the political discourse. But a linear continuation of this policy endangers the natural resources and thus creates an urgent need for innovation. After all, this mass motorization is a relevant driver of the climate crisis (Canzler et al. 2008). There is a consensus that technical innovations such as battery electric drives are not sufficient to actually achieve the CO2 savings set by the EU. There are still too many vehicles. What is disputed is how far-reaching the necessary social and political changes must be, because they always involve questions of social participation.

That’s what makes transportation policy so difficult, and it stretches the framework for social innovation: an attack on the car is seen as an attack on basic democratic rights and as a threat to economic productivity. Alternatives to the car are not very popular and do not have a relevant market share. It is true that in the metropolitan areas of Europe, North America and Asia, the desire to own a car has long since given way to a burden for many, because there is simply not enough space for the increasing number of vehicles. This raises the key question: if the car was and is such a central element in the differentiation of societies, can there be a democratic society without private automobiles, and if so, what social innovations are needed here? In this context, ‘social innovations’ are understood as processes that aim at social change without being of a technical nature. Essentially, these are new social practices (Howaldt and Schwarz 2010).

Key findings

The automobile has decisively shaped modern societies like hardly any other technical device; individual freedom, expansive work and life styles, and social prosperity have been developed and firmly established with and through the intensive use of vehicles. However, if more cars do not help, but the car in turn is so firmly embedded in people’s mental structures as well as in the governance of traffic, and if the fatal consequences cannot be remedied even with technical innovations, then only those approaches can lead to success that limit the car and thus enable changed social practices. Social innovations should therefore be understood as all projects that limit the dominance of the car in order to open up new options. Two different levels can be identified on which social innovations can operate. Social innovations in the existing legal framework In transport policy, social innovations are usually understood as all measures that promote other modes of transport such as cycling, walking or car sharing. A good overview of previous approaches can be found in the anthology Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change from the research project European social innovation practice

237

238  Encyclopedia of social innovation

fields in mobility and transport (Butzin et al. 2015, p. 5). The following approaches can be mentioned cursorily in this regard, all of which operate within the framework of existing legal possibilities: – Citizen-initiated public transportation: co-production of public transportation through citizens as new actors. – Smart working, smart commuting: reduce congestion by new ways of organizing work in a more profitable way for companies and better way for the employees. – Mobility and education: accessibility of educational infrastructure, parents and school management play a major role. – Car-sharing: car-usage instead of car-ownership, originally initialized by citizens. – Car-free housing areas: enabled by new planning approaches. – Gender-sensitive transportation: mostly initiated by interest groups. – Mobility of people with disabilities and/ or elderly: services are based on volunteer schemes and may require registration and provision of a disability certificate or certain age. – Mobility apps: many apps are developed by transportation actors but involve engagement of users. Smartphones are a prerequisite. – Public sector innovation in mobility and transport: as compared to other practice fields, this one seems to be compatible with current governance structures (Butzin et al. 2015, pp. 5ff.). Critically, these attempts have so far failed to achieve any real social breakthroughs, apart from a few exceptions – especially in metropolitan environments. A mass movement could not be triggered. Car-sharing, which is often cited, remains a niche affair, especially in Germany: fewer than five million people are registered and share around 50,000 vehicles. However, 48 million passenger cars are registered in Germany. Obviously, this has not yet brought about any real changes in the social practices of transportation. The car remains dominant and thus blocks the spaces for alternatives.

Andreas Knie

Social innovations to change the political framework conditions Social innovations (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION AND SOCIAL CHANGE) actually seem to be successful only if the dominance of the car can be effectively pushed back. In the foreground, these are political measures that are often also technology-mediated, but generally function in corresponding social contexts (i.e. they are dependent on a corresponding social predisposition). In the following, therefore, those approaches are noted that attempt to realize social innovations by intervening in the prevailing everyday practices of traffic. For this purpose, traffic rules are changed and in this way the use of cars is restricted. The following overview is largely taken from Daum (2022). Restrictions on access and transit The first documented ban on driving was probably pronounced by Julius Caesar. Rome’s emperor banned the movement of carts and chariots between sunrise and sunset in 45 bc to avoid traffic jams. Even today, traffic jams are the most salient result of an increasingly unfulfillable promise of free travel by automobile. The presumed first traffic jam in the USA dates back to 1823, when the automobile was still a long way off: too many carriages had made their way to the horse race track in New York City, blocking the access road for hours. Car occupants now spend many hours at a standstill; the front-runner in Germany is Munich, where drivers spend an average of 87 hours a year in traffic jams, the equivalent of nine working days. Unlike in Julius Caesar’s day, traffic jams are now seen as fate, not reason enough to impose driving bans. To this day, the remedy for congestion is to build even more and even wider roads, although there is ample evidence that the rebound effect compensates within a short time for the short-term relief achieved. Pollutants and noise have also always been a nuisance, but health reasons led to the first driving bans. In Germany, the first environmental zones were introduced in Berlin, Hanover and Cologne in 2008. These measures barred certain vehicles from entering inner-city areas because of their pollutant emissions. In recent years, not much has been done in Germany, and a much-discussed

Social innovations and the future of mobility  239

‘blue sticker’ with significantly stricter limits has been left on the shelf. In other European countries, the model of low emission zones has been adopted and further developed, for example in Madrid to a concept of a zero-emission zone. In the package of measures known as ‘Madrid Central’, access restrictions differentiated according to pollutant classes, but also according to residents, parking facilities, deliveries or visitor traffic. This was done in a system of infrastructure measures equipped with cameras and thus with sanctioning pressure. Increased concentrations of pollutants caused by internal combustion engines but also by brake abrasion (particulate matter) have been increasingly debated in recent years, and there have even been court-ordered driving bans in city centres, but these have mostly been implemented only half-heartedly by the various city administrations and have not led to any general measures. Road pricing Restrictions on transit is one measure; another is pricing the use of roads, especially high-traffic areas such as city centers. The UK is probably the world’s pioneer when it comes to congestion charging. As early as 1274, the British parliament approved the first toll road in London. However, London has also been able to greatly reduce private car use in the city centre in recent decades through the Congestion Zone, which is subject to tolls. Similar to London, Stockholm, Oslo and Turin have been able to significantly reduce car traffic in city centres with such measures. As a result, all cities report increasing acceptance of the measures and also an improvement in the quality of life as well as greater use of other modes of transport, such as cycling in particular. In addition to the levying of a one-off amount, a behaviour-based user fee has also been discussed in recent months so that a greater incentive effect can be achieved. For example, large and dirty cars would then pay significantly more than small e-vehicles. Sharing vehicles could be exempted from payments altogether. Prices could also be scaled according to income classes.

Restriction of speeds Probably the first decree to restrict the speed of urban traffic originated in Paris. As early as 1540, the Seine metropolis ordered slow gaits (walking) for riders, carriages and carts; trotting and galloping as well as U-turns were prohibited. In view of the volume of traffic, many traffic jams and the traffic searching for parking spaces, the legally permitted speeds have long since been far removed from the average speeds achieved. Sticking to these high allowed speeds for car traffic tends to maintain the disadvantages – pollutants, noise, accidents – without their advantages – high travel speed. In contrast, slowing traffic in cities could bring immense benefits to human health, the economy, and the planet. One way for municipalities to implement traffic calming on a localized basis is through play streets or even 30-speed zones. Zones of this type are often found in residential areas. Here, areas of public space are defined within which all vehicles are only allowed to move at a very low maximum speed. However, the consequences of traffic-calmed zones are fewer accidents, less noise and fewer pollutants. Currently, there are efforts to make 30 km/h the global standard, given the many proven benefits. For example, pedestrians are ten times more likely to die in a collision with a car at 50 mph than at 30 mph, but the legal hurdles to introducing such zones are extremely complicated and costly. In Germany, local authorities currently have to prove that there is a risk in each individual case, which is to be mitigated by the introduction of such zones. It is hoped that the introduction of 30 km/h as the standard speed will lead to a fundamental change in attitudes toward urban traffic behaviour in the city. Other countries are already a step ahead in this respect: In Spain, 30 km/h has been the maximum speed limit for all urban roads with less than two lanes since October 2021. Parking space management The first towing of a vehicle parked at a Detroit intersection that was obstructing traffic dates back to 1914. Since then, the problem of improperly and properly parked vehicles, the so-called parking pressure on cities and on people, has not abated. Andreas Knie

240  Encyclopedia of social innovation

Meanwhile, parking itself is responsible for a good part of the traffic. In European cities, up to one third of total travel time is spent looking for a parking space. In the USA, an area three times the size of the state of Delaware is reserved for parked cars. The average living space of 75 square metres allotted to US citizens per person compares with 93 square metres of parking space reserved for each car in the United States. In recent years, the problem of stationary traffic has become the focus of attention. Reducing parking spaces is seen as an effective measure to make car traffic less attractive overall and thus reduce it. However, resistance is correspondingly strong. Despite that, in recent years, especially in large cities such as New York, Paris and Madrid, the number of parking spaces for cars has been significantly reduced, at least in the inner cities. Tactical urbanism Only recently has the label ‘tactical urbanism’ become popular. However, the concept itself, namely to implement quickly feasible and temporary measures in public street space, is older. Precursors go back to 1968 Paris, when the so-called Situationists established spontaneous changes to public space as an artistic practice. The name tactical urbanism goes back to New York City planner Mike Lyndon, who used it to describe the practice of making low-cost, temporary changes to the built environment. City governments such as Barcelona’s have been using guerrilla urbanism methods for years in an effort to improve the quality of life in neighbourhoods, often declaring strategic transportation measures to be temporary. Although this usually always involves minor structural interventions in the street space, the core lies precisely in the character of a social innovation: in the proclamation of the temporary as a technique for achieving greater social acceptance. In 2020, such measures have become known above all in Berlin under the term ‘Pop Up Bike Lanes’. Here, during the Covid-19 pandemic, relevant parts of car streets were rededicated to bike lanes and initially introduced as a provisional measure.

Andreas Knie

Experimental spaces In traffic science, the establishment of experimental spaces (→ IMAGINED FUTURES AND SOCIAL INNOVATION) has been researched and debated for years, because within the prevailing rules, hardly any chances for changes in the road space can be expected. Experimental spaces allow something new to be tried out in a protected and closed area. They are therefore local and time-limited experiments, for example the construction of car-free residential quarters or the introduction of new offers in sharing or on-demand services. In most cases, this involves drawing experimental clauses from existing laws. In this way, exceptional circumstances can be brought about that allow a non-application or a deviation from an existing legal norm and thus allow public or private actors to test innovative mobility solutions. Often used in this context is the term ‘sandbox’, a metaphor from software development, where it refers to a closed playground that allows, for example, new code to be tested without disrupting the operational flow of the live system, with no negative consequences for ongoing operations. If everything goes well, the new code is ‘switched live’ (i.e. transferred to the real system). Experimental spaces are particularly important where new social practices meet complicated technical infrastructures. For example, in the field of energy and transport transformation, when sharing offers are part of a ‘prosuming’ approach in decentralized power grids, but there are no technical or legal standards for this yet. Experimental spaces therefore aim at far-reaching societal changes and involve actors from different scientific and societal fields of action to work on the changes in a shared responsibility within manageable time frames.

Critical reflection and outlook

So far, however, the social innovations mentioned above have not really been able to curb the dominance of automobile traffic. Furthermore, it remains to be critically noted that transport as an infrastructure and organizational practice has never really arrived in the social sciences. Notwithstanding the ‘mobility paradigm’ proclaimed by John Urry (2007), spatial mobility, unlike social mobility, has not yet been perceived by sociology

Social innovations and the future of mobility  241

in terms of its fundamental importance for society and its transformation. One reason for this may be that Urry’s approach leads to a conceptual dissolution of boundaries, in which linguistic communication is also subsumed under mobility. Urry understands one of what he calls mobilities (besides movement of people, goods, imagined and virtual journeys) to include ‘communication travel via messages, texts, letters, telegraph, telephone, fax and mobile phone’ (Urry 2008, p. 14). Thus, the concept of mobility is overstretched for social science and with Adey (2006) could be criticized ‘if mobility is everything then it is nothing’ (ibid.). Instead of making mobility synonymous with communication, the differences and dialectical relationship between the two forms of social practice would need to be elaborated (Gegner 2022). However, it has still not been possible to develop a comparable interpretive claim to bring the world of transport to social science theory. What is therefore still missing is an analytical approach that elaborates the dialectic between mobility and transport, between ideas and projects on the one hand and the material world of transport on the other, and can then adjust much more precisely where and under which circumstances social innovations can strategically start so that the necessary transformation of the transport sector succeeds. So far, the debate is still dominated by the belief in the effectiveness of technical innovations. Andreas Knie

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Adey, P. (2006), ‘If mobility is everything then it is nothing: towards a relational politics of (imm)mobilities’, Mobilities, 1 (1), pp. 75–95. Butzin, A., M. Rabadjieva and M. van de Lindt (2015), Social Innovation in Transport and Mobility: State of the Art Summary (Report of the SI-DRIVE project: Social innovation: driving force of social change), Brussels: European Union. Canzler, W., S. Kesselring and V. Kaufmann (eds) (2008), Tracing Mobilities: Towards a Cosmopolitan Perspective, Aldershot/ Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Canzler, W. and A. Knie (2016), ‘Mobility in the age of digital modernity: why the private car is losing its significance, intermodal transport is winning and why digitalisation is the key’, Applied Mobilities, 1 (1), pp. 56–67. Canzler, W., A. Knie, L. Ruhrort and C. Scherf (2018), Erloschene Liebe? Das Auto in der Verkehrswende. Soziologische Deutungen, Bielefeld: Transcript. Daum, T. (2022), Europa, du hast es besser: Verkehrspolitik im internationalen Vergleich, Berlin: WZB: discussion paper. Gegner, M. (2022), Das Mobilitat, Berlin: WZB: discussion paper. Howaldt, J. and M. Schwarz (2010), Soziale Innovation im Fokus: Skizze eines gesellschaftstheoretisch inspirierten Forschungskonzepts, Bielefeld: Transcript-Verl. Urry, J. (2007), Mobilities, Cambridge and London: Polity.

Andreas Knie

43. Social innovation in health Introduction

From early 2020 through to 2022, there was one dominant, there has been one global health priority: tackling the Covid-19 pandemic. It consumed untold resources in the effort to contain its spread, manage its impact on overwhelmed healthcare systems, develop and roll out vaccines, and support the recovery of those with long-term illness and disability as a result. Crises are a time ripe for social innovation, with the old adage ‘necessity is the mother of invention’ holding true (Jowet 1894). Nonetheless, developments in social innovation in health over recent years have been far broader than simply in response to the pandemic and many of the innovations during this period reflected broader trends which were already occurring. But the challenges facing our societies prior to the pandemic have not gone away; social innovations have been prevalent and important components of our collective response to everything from ageing societies to increasing access to basic healthcare. This entry works from a definition of social innovation which is broadly agreed upon in the literature: that social innovations are (a) products, services, processes or ways of organizing which are new in that context, and that (b) respond to and address social needs. Social innovations can originate anywhere in society (e.g. from an individual or organization, in any sector) but typically involve a change in relationships or power dynamics (Howaldt et al. 2017; Mulgan 2019). Social innovation in health is broad, tackling challenges as diverse as: ● public health and health equity (e.g. Real Talk,1 a US mobile app ‘using storytelling and technology’ to improve teen emotional and sexual health or MosQuIT2 for real-time malaria incidence monitoring in India); ● improving primary and secondary care (from Riders in Health3 increasing access to healthcare in rural Lesotho to reducing the burden of frequent callers on the ambulance service4 and Accident & Emergency Departments in the UK);

the provision of ● improving community-based (tertiary) and integrated care (e.g. Buurtzorg-Nederland5 – since adapted for other countries from France to Japan – which adopts a nurse-led, patient-centred model of local care); ● supporting people to self-manage their health and/or remain independent (e.g. Wheelmap,6 a crowdsourced online map of wheelchair accessibility); ● mental health and well-being (e.g. The Culture Party,7 an initiative to tackle stigma among the South Sudanese population in Australia); and ● improving end-of-life care (e.g. the All with You® model of compassionate communities8 in Spain and Latin America). As this introduction illustrates, social innovation in health covers the full spectrum of health fields and takes a wide range of forms. It includes much community-based social innovation which changes the way in which people connect with each other and with services, but also often takes the form of digital social innovation, using the latest technology to change who has access to the information needed to improve health outcomes and empower individuals.

Trends in social innovation in health

This entry explores two key trends in social innovation in health prior to the pandemic before reflecting specifically on how social innovation played a role in responding to the greatest health challenge of our time. Systemic and place-based approaches Tackling the social determinants of health (Marmot 2015) is now widely understood to be essential for societies wishing to reduce inequalities in both physical and mental health outcomes, and to improve overall population health. They include the social and physical environment, health services, and structural and socio-economic factors (CDC 2014). This understanding has led to an increased focus on place-based and systems-change programmes, recognizing that the complex interdependencies of the social determinants of health cannot be resolved through piecemeal or isolated interventions that address

242

Social innovation in health  243

only one part of the problem (Dankwa-Mullan and Pérez-Stable 2016). Place-based and systems-change approaches typically have a number of characteristics in common: (1) the involvement of a wide-range of institutional actors, from across public, private and community sectors; (2) a lead anchor organization; (3) a strong emphasis on participatory and community-led approaches; (4) an explicit commitment to innovation and experimentation – to test and learn what works in the local context. Examples of such approaches can be found across the globe and in countries with vastly different health systems and needs. In the UK, place-based approaches have gained significant traction with a number of well-funded pilot programmes. These include the NHS England Healthy New Towns9 which explored ‘how the development of new places could create healthier and connected communities with integrated and high-quality services’ (NHS England 2019) and the work of Impact on Urban Health,10 a research and innovation institute funded by the charitable foundation of a major London hospital, which funds long-term partnership programmes tackling complex health issues such as childhood obesity and the effect of air pollution on health. In South Australia, the Our Town programme ‘funds and empowers rural and regional communities to build new capabilities to meet the mental health challenges they face, both now and into the future’ (Tacsi 2021). It explicitly focuses on participatory decision-making, systemic perspective and influence, and networked communities, alongside capacity building and leadership development. Systems-change approaches do not, however, have to be place-based. Innovillage in Finland is an ‘open innovation environment for health and welfare. It provides tools, events and support for the collaborative and open development of different ways to promote health and welfare’ (Addarii and Lipparini 2017, p. 16). It brings together a range of public sector bodies covering health and welfare, local and regional government, and technology and innovation, as well as private sector firms and NGOs to increase novel social innovation; reduce duplication of effort and financing; and provide the infrastructure for successful social innovations to be replicated and scaled.

Nonetheless, socially innovative approaches to systems change that are not place-based appear to be fewer. The urgent need to address health and social care challenges through a systems-lens is highlighted elsewhere in this encyclopedia, for example in relation to ageing populations (→ WHAT AGEING SOCIETIES MEAN FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION). Meanwhile, in South Africa, reforms are underway to introduce universal healthcare provision. This huge endeavour means that the environment is ripe for socially innovative solutions to transform a healthcare system which is characterized by a ‘lack of systemic infrastructure and cohesiveness, and societal inequalities’ (de Villiers 2021, p. 6). The Bertha Centre for Social Innovation & Entrepreneurship concludes that there is an imperative for systemic change and a shift to integrated health and social care, and that there are clear opportunities to learn from socially innovative practice elsewhere in Africa. It highlights multiple grass-roots level innovations which have led to change in how the healthcare system operates at a national level (de Villiers 2021). One example is The Pelebox Smart Locker which allows patients with chronic conditions to collect medicines from a secure locker, accessed via a one-time pin sent by SMS, thus saving significant time for both staff and patients. It was conceived by a TB patient and subsequently adopted by the Department of Health. One of the biggest challenges for this type of social innovation is measuring and demonstrating impact. The innovations are necessarily complex, iterative and designed for the long-term; the Our Town programme, for example, is intended to achieve impact over 11 years. External events, such as Covid-19, can also have a major impact on the course and outcomes of programmes. Process learning and evaluation are a key part of such programmes – understanding what is working and what is not in real time (e.g. Tacsi et al. 2021; Sport England 2021) – but robust evidence about the longer-term impacts and efficacy of such initiatives is yet to emerge. New frontiers in digital social innovation Research in 2015 identified health and social care as a major area of digital social innovation (SI Drive 2015). The sector has been quick to embrace the potential of technology Victoria Boelman

244  Encyclopedia of social innovation

to improve many aspects of health and care provision. These include: helping patients and families to manage long-term conditions (e.g. Patients Like Me,11 an online community); improving the ability of people with disabilities to participate in society (e.g. The Open Voice Factory,12 free speech aid software); supporting mental health and well-being (e.g. 7 Cups,13 the US online peer support service); health education and promotion (e.g. mdiabetes14 in India which provides information via SMS) and improving access to health professionals (such as MomConnect15 in South Africa for pregnant women). Traditionally, however, the majority of digital social innovation has been what is known as e- or m-health: innovations and solutions which make use of internet and mobile technology which are, as a result, easier to place in the hands of millions of users. Such is the proliferation of websites and apps that one could argue that new additions to this area rarely count as innovative anymore. The new frontier of digital social innovation in health and social care is one where advanced and emerging technologies are being adopted – such as artificial intelligence or virtual reality – and often sit at the interface with technological innovation and/ or the open maker movement. For example, MedRec,16 in the USA, is using Blockchain to give patients control over the distribution of their medical records (Nchinda et al. 2019). The EC-funded Digital Social Innovation project identified a range of innovations including an open source wheelchair17 that can be built in community maker labs; TOMMI,18 a VR game to help reduce anxiety and pain for paediatric patients during treatment (Romano and Cangiano 2015); and Alma,19 a wearable, low-cost biosensor designed to detect vaginal infections and empower women. At the more complex end of the spectrum, there are examples such as the ‘Caresses’20 project which brings together healthcare professionals, social and cultural psychologists, and AI and robotics experts to create a culturally aware and culturally competent robot to assist older people in care home and smart home settings (Papadopoulos et al. 2021). As digital social innovation in the field of health and social care grows, it increasingly requires people to share personal and sensitive data. While the field of digital ethics is burgeoning, it is not yet one in which Victoria Boelman

the digital social innovation community has closely engaged. There are significant questions over who controls health-related big data and how. Given the social and cultural dimensions of digital ethics (Aggarwal 2020) and health, this is a crucial gap to be addressed. Social innovation during the time of Covid-19 The Covid-19 pandemic led to a huge wave of socially innovative activity as people came together to respond to the crisis and support communities through the challenge. The public health situation itself has shaped the nature of social innovation, with most activity during this period relying on some element of digital technology as either the main mechanism for organizing and communicating, and/or for delivering the innovation itself. This is evident across the globe with a wealth of social innovations emerging such as EpidemiXs21 in Spain which brought together expert medical advisors and citizens through a digital platform to provide validated health information. It included online courses and live TV sessions as well as ideas from citizens on how to remain healthy and active at home (Balamatsias 2020). Nonetheless, reflecting on the rapid adoption of digital health tools during the pandemic, Bayram et al. (2020, p. 460) sound a note of caution, observing that digital transformation should not happen ‘without considering the attendant adverse repercussions on science, human rights, and everyday practices of democracy’. The development of new open-source and 3D printed products also reflects the trend identified earlier in this entry, which sees the bridging of technological and social innovation. Kieslinger et al. (2021) identified multiple examples where the open maker movement pivoted to support new product development and work in collaboration with public and private sectors, academia and grassroots groups. These range from a community biology lab fabricating hand sanitizer and automatic dispensers in Cameroon to production of personal protection equipment (PPE) in Iraq, Italy and Brazil. A hallmark of social innovation during this period has been new processes and new forms of collaboration. EpidemiXs and the ‘open maker’ examples are illustrative of new ways

Social innovation in health  245

which rely on technology. Mutual aid groups, however – perhaps the highest profile form of community-led response to the pandemic across the Western world – are in essence one of the oldest forms of community organizing that saw a widespread resurgence. In most contexts, the socially innovative aspect lay not with the creation of the groups themselves but with the way in which they were rapidly integrated into the local and national ecosystem of support, with the public and third sectors working together with unconstituted groups; many reported unprecedented levels of collaboration and bureaucratic flexibility during this time (British Academy 2021). Other ways in which new forms of collaboration came to the fore were in the need to rapidly develop new products, particularly for medical equipment and PPE. Harris et al. (2020, p. 814) note that many of these have the characteristics of ‘fast, frugal innovation’, with their emphasis on ‘repurposing, reuse and rapid deployment’. Examples include: ● open-source and 3D printed devices to enable ventilator sharing and the creation of portable ventilators, developed by collaborations of private firms, academics and the public sector; ● task-shifting, by training up lower-level healthcare assistants and lay workers to take on tasks previously done by more senior or clinical staff. Such activities were supported, for example, by the WHO suite of open-access courses22 enabling third sector organizations to mobilize and train people to work alongside health services; ● the fabrication of PPE and clothing for clinicians, including unusual collaborations such as community sewing groups in the UK, or the Czech prison service deploying inmates for the mass production of masks (Gilbert 2020; Harris et al. 2020). The success of many of these social innovations relied on adaptive and reconfigured local networks but as the acute phase of the pandemic passed, there are indications that these new forms of collaboration are fragile and that traditional power structures are re-exerting themselves now the period of crisis has passed (Kieslinger et al. 2021; British Academy 2021).

Conclusion

This entry provided an overview of the main practices and trends in social innovation in health and social care. Recent years have seen a marked increase in place-based and systems-change focused social innovation to tackle complex and entrenched health inequalities and challenges but more research and evaluation is needed to understand the impact these have and ‘what works’ (and what does not) in achieving change. While the Covid-19 pandemic diverted attention and resources, it also accelerated in many places the creation of new collaborations and new ways of working – more research is needed, however, to assess if these can be sustained and evolved to become the ‘new normal’ and form a bedrock for future social innovation on a wider level. Finally, it is also clear that technological and social innovation are coming closer together in some places, propelled by an enthusiasm for using the latest digital and technological advances to tackle the grand challenges facing societies today. There are exciting opportunities to be explored but social innovation research and practice must engage closely with the ethical dilemmas they pose to ensure that the well-being of people and places remain at the heart of these developments. Victoria Boelman

Notes

1. Real Talk: https://​myhealthed​.org/​. 2. MOSQuIT: https://​www​.soci​alinnovati​oninhealth​ .org/​d ownloads/​C ase​_ Studies/​M oSQuIT​_ SIHI​ _Case​_Collection​.pdf. 3. Riders in Health: https://​soci​alinnovati​oninhealth​ .org/​downloads/​Case​_Studies/​Riders​_for​_Health​ _SIHI​_Case​_Collection​.pdf. 4. Reducing the burden on the UK ambulance service: https://​www​.england​.nhs​.uk/​2018/​05/​paramedics​ -brainwave​- eases​- ae​- pressures​- by​- keeping​ -frequent​-callers​-away/​. 5. Buurtzorg Nederland: https://​www​ .buurtzorgnederland​.com/​. 6. Wheelmap: https://​wheelmap​.org/​. 7. The Culture Party: https://​tacsi​.org​.au/​work/​ssa​ -mental​-health/​. 8. All with you: https://​www​.newhealthfoundation​ .org/​metodo​-todos​-contigo/​. 9. Healthy New Towns: https://​www​.england​.nhs​.uk/​ ourwork/​innovation/​healthy​-new​-towns/​. 10. Impact on Urban Health: https://​urbanhealth​.org​ .uk/​. 11. Patients Like Me: https://​www​.patientslikeme​ .com/​.

Victoria Boelman

246  Encyclopedia of social innovation 12. The Open Voice Factory: https://​equalitytime​ .github​.io/​TheOpenVoiceFactory​-site/​. 13. 7 Cups: https://​www​.7cups​.com/​. 14. Mdiabetes: http://​arogyaworld​.org/​mdiabetes/​. 15. MomConnect: https://​www​.health​.gov​.za/​ momconnect/​. 16. MedRec: https://​medrec​-m​.com/​. 17. Open source wheelchair project: https://​hackaday​ .io/​p roject/​2 5757​- toowheels​- the​- opensource​ -wheelchair. 18. TOMMI: https://​www​.tommigame​.com/​. 19. Alma: https://​www​.hackster​.io/​alma/​alma​ -wearable​- biosensor​- for​- monitoring​- vaginal​ -discharge​-b1022f. 20. Caresses project: http://​caressesrobot​.org/​en/​. 21. Epidemixs: https://​coronavirus​.epidemixs​.org/​#/​. 22. WHO open courses: https://​openwho​.org/​courses​ ?lang​=​en​&​topic​=​COVID​-19.

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Addarii, F. and F. Lipparini (2017), Vision and Trends of Social Innovation for Europe, Luxembourg: European Commission. Aggarwal, N. (2020), ‘Introduction to the special issue on intercultural digital ethics’, Philosophy & Technology, 33, pp. 547–50. Balamatsias, G. (2020), ‘8 social innovations addressing the coronavirus pandemic’, Social Innovation Academy, accessed 28 December 2021 at https://​www​.soc​ialinnovat​ ionacademy​.eu/​8​-social​-innovations​ -addressing​-the​-coronavirus​-pandemic/​. Bayram, M., S. Springer, C. K. Garvey and V. Özdemir (2020), ‘COVID-19 digital health innovation policy: a portal to alternative futures in the making’, Omics: A Journal of Integrative Biology, 24 (8), pp. 460–69. British Academy (2021), The COVID Decade: Understanding the Long-Term Societal Impacts of COVID-19, London: British Academy. CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] (2014), NCHHSTP Social Determinants of Health: Definitions, accessed 22 December 2021 at https://​www​.cdc​.gov/​nchhstp/​ socialdeterminants/​definitions​.html. Dankwa-Mullan, I. and E. J. Pérez-Stable (2016), ‘Addressing health disparities is a place-based issue’, American Journal of Public Health, 106 (4), pp. 637–9. de Villiers, K. (2021), ‘Bridging the health inequality gap: an examination of South Africa’s social innovation in health landscape’, Infectious Diseases of Poverty, 10 (1), pp. 1–7. Gilbert, B. (2020), ‘Examining the motivations and emotions linked to the formation of a voluntary sewing group formed in response to Covid-19 – ‘Tamworth Volunteers Sewing for NHS and Healthcare Workers’, University

Victoria Boelman

of Worcestershire, accessed 28 December 2021 at http://​eprints​.worc​.ac​.uk/​9803/​2/​VSSN​ %20presentation​%20slides​.pdf. Harris, M., Y. Bhatti, J. Buckley and D. Sharma (2020), ‘Fast and frugal innovations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic’, Nature Medicine, 26 (6), pp. 814–17. Howaldt, J., A. Schröder, A. Butzin and D. Rehfeld (2017), Towards a General Theory and Typology of Social Innovation: A deliverable of the SI-DRIVE project, Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle. Jowett, B. (1894), Plato’s Republic: The Greek Text, 3:82 “Notes”, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Kieslinger, B., T. Schaefer, C. M. Fabian, E. Biasin, E. Bassi, R. Ruiz Freire, N. Mowoh, N. Arif and P. Melis (2021), ‘Covid-19 response from global makers: the careables cases of global design and local production’, Frontiers in Sociology, 6 (45), https://​dpo​.org/​10​.3389/​ fsoc​.2021​.629587. Marmot, M. (2015), The Health Gap, London: Bloomsbury. Mulgan, G. (2019), Social Innovation: How Societies Find the Power to Change, Bristol: Policy Press. Nchinda, N., A. Cameron, K. Retzepi and A. Lippman (2019), ‘MedRec: a network for personal information distribution’, 2019 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC), pp. 637–41. NHS England (2019), ‘Putting health into place’, www​ accessed 22 December 2021 at https://​ .england​.nhs​.uk/​ourwork/​innovation/​healthy​ -new​-towns/​. Papadopoulos, C., N. Castro, A. Nigath, R. Davidson, N. Faulkes, R. Menicatti, A. Abdul Khaliq, C. Recchiuto, L. Battistuzzi, G. Randhawa, L. Merton, S. Kanoria, N.-Y. Chong, H. Kamide, D. Hewson and A. Sgorbissa (2021), ‘The CARESSES randomized controlled trial: exploring the health-related impact of culturally competent artificial intelligence embedded into socially assistive robots and tested in older adult care homes’, International Journal of Social Robotics, 14, pp. 245–56. Romano, Z. and S. Cangiano (2015), Mapping Digital Social Innovation – 1: Health and Social Care, Brussels: European Commission. SI Drive (2015), Social Innovation in Health and Social Care: State of the Art Summary. A Deliverable of the SI-DRIVE Project, Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle. Sport England (2021), People and Places – The Story of Doing It Differently, accessed 22 December 2021 at https://​ sportengland​ -production​-files​.s3​.eu​-west​-2​.amazonaws​ .com/​s3fs​-public/​2021–02/​People​%20and​ %20Places​%20​-​%20The​%20story​%20of​

Social innovation in health  247 %20doing​%20it​%20differently​.​.pdf​?VersionId​ =​VuhoU​_T​.OPjXZCJllx4H7yfb0cl3u4og. Tacsi (2021), Empowering SA Communities to Drive Their Own Wellbeing, accessed 22 December 2021 at https://​tacsi​.org​.au/​work/​our​ -town​-sa​-communities/​.

Tacsi, Fay Fuller Foundation and Clear Horizon (2021), Our Town: Catalysing Communities to Lead Local Change, accessed 22 December 2021 at https://​fayfuller​.svelteteam​.com/​file/​ mkw072y2i/​Our​%20Town​%20Catalysing​ %20communities​%20to​%20lead​%20local​ %20change​.pdf.

Victoria Boelman

44. Social innovation through the Maker Movement Definitions

The Maker Movement is a global community of distributed individuals, makers, who share the same attitudes towards designing and making physical artefacts through the usage of digital tools. Makers can be both formally or informally trained individuals who develop and manufacture design projects that thus integrate both physical and digital dimensions through the democratization of design and prototyping practices and approaches. Makers can be identified best by their practices of making, experimentation and prototyping that are based on collaboration, sharing, openness of results foremost and then of processes and democratization of access to technologies. Such practices are developed between local activities and global networks, often through digital platforms, local and online events and shared online documentations, resources and projects. The first definition of makers comes from Dale Dougherty (2012), founder of the Make magazine that first promoted the movement, who saw making as a universal trait of an enthusiast and experimental approach to technology based on learning and playing. Chris Anderson (2012), former director of Wired magazine and one of the early promoters of the Maker Movement, presented one of the earliest definitions that see makers as individuals identified by a practice based on (1) the use of digital desktop tools for designing and prototyping artefacts; (2) the adoption of common cultural practices and collaborative processes of sharing these designs with their communities; (3) the production of artefacts with the use of digital manufacturing technologies, spaces and services. In a similar way, the model of the Maker Movement proposed by Browder et al. (2019) sees it as a set of both individuals and groups of user producers who create their own material artefacts in a collaborative way through (1) a high level of social exchange and collaboration among diverse actors; (2) knowledge creation and sharing in physical or virtual spaces; (3) the production of material artefacts using technological resources previously restricted to

corporate research and development (R&D) facilities. Such model stresses the importance of knowledge creation as the center between the social and technological dimensions, with artefacts and designs, communities and networks, and learning and expertise as its outcomes. The centrality of the knowledge dimension, the ability of creating both local and global networks, the access to advanced democratized technologies and the shared ideals are the features that set the Maker Movement apart from traditional craft work.

Makers, making, maker laboratories

The Maker Movement is often considered an example of a renewed interest in the digital side of innovations after the dot com bubble, with the addition of previously overlooked physical and social dimensions. Along the lines of Free Software and Open Source Software, Web 2.0 and Sharing Economy platforms, the Maker Movement is another example of the potentialities of organizing mass participation through the Internet with community-based efforts and distributed systems (dos Santos et al. 2021). Four external enabling forces of the Maker Movement can be found in the phenomena of (1) digitization of design, (2) economization of prototyping, (3) collaboration in design, and (4) end-user innovation (Browder et al. 2019). The main elements of the Maker Movement are makers (who), their practice and approach of open and distributed design and making (what and how), and the maker laboratories they gather and work in by accessing the local community and digital fabrication technologies (where and how). It is a global movement of like-minded participants that follow common open-source practices and principles in distributed workflows while gathering in locally embedded but globally connected places with already established practices and approaches for collaboration, prototyping, experimentation and sharing. It can be also considered a distributed socio-technical system of human actors (makers) and non-human actors (hardware, software, laboratories, platforms, manufacturing facilities, events) dedicated to open and distributed design and making processes. Because of such distributed nature, its evolution as a global phenomenon as a community of makers has been an experience

248

Social innovation through the Maker Movement  249

of like-minded individuals finding each other often through face-to-face interactions and discussion and collaboration on digital platforms. The beginning is often tracked to the years 2004 and 2005 with the start of Arduino,1 RepRap,2 Make magazine3 and Instructables.4 Arduino is an open source system of hardware, software and tools for developing interactive systems between digital and physical artefacts. RepRap is one of the first open-source 3D printers that can also manufacture its own components: this generated thus a rapidly expanding ecosystem of printers. Make magazine started and promoted the idea of makers and of the Maker Movement, through its print edition, digital communications and a series of events organized in many countries, Maker Faires.5 Instructables is an online platform that enables the documentation and sharing of maker projects. These projects were preceded in 2001 by the development of the creative coding programming language Processing,6 which also provided technological and conceptual elements for Arduino, and by the start of the first Fab Labs, laboratories that aim at democratizing access and knowledge of digital fabrication technologies (Gershenfeld 2005; Gershenfeld et al. 2017). These projects constitute an ecosystem of open-source elements that enable the design, making and sharing of interactive projects and that are tied to each other, that self-reinforce their development, adoption and usage. The Maker Movement is not only global but also a diversified and rich social phenomenon with different communities (Menichinelli and Gerson Saltiel Schmidt 2020) that, in terms of individuals, can be considered a loosely knit collection of heterogeneous actors including, for example, hobbyists, designers, engineers, artists, crafters, hardware hackers, students and educators, entrepreneurs (Browder et al. 2019). The identity of makers is a complicated issue, since the term was invented for marketing purposes with the launch of the Make magazine: broad enough to attract a wide audience and create a relevant market for the magazine, but too vaguely defined to provide directions for building a clearly defined community and common direction of action. Likewise, the practice of makers is rather broad, but the trait of sharing knowledge openly is arguably the main element that dis-

tinguishes it from manufacturing and crafts, whether more traditional or more advanced with digital tools (Anderson 2012; Browder et al. 2019). If makers are practitioners, Open Design is their model of a practice, the general trend and a broad philosophy of work. The adoption and intersection of design practices and research with open source, peer-to-peer and distributed systems has generated several new possibilities, and Open Design is one of the most popular ones: digitally shared files online under open licenses that can be downloaded, produced, copied, modified, and produced directly by digital fabrication machines. Makers often gather in laboratories where they can design collaboratively and prototype and manufacture their projects thanks to the digital fabrication technologies that these laboratories aim at democratizing: Fab Labs, Makerspaces, Hacklabs and Hackerspaces, DIY Bio Labs, Sewing Cafes, Repair Cafes, TechShops. Globally, at the time of writing (28 February 2022), specific platforms list 2,049 Fab Labs,7 2,440 Hackerspaces,8 64 DIY Bio Labs9 and 2,279 Repair Cafes with an estimated number of 24,185 volunteers.10 Such laboratories are then (a) local community hubs for (b) digital and conventional fabrication technologies and facilities that (c) support the prototyping and manufacturing of digital files which (d) are shared and edited globally as open source and then distributed locally to makers and labs that can turn them into local artefacts. Community-building efforts in the Maker Movement often thus take place with the replication of projects in different localities and the participation in joint development from different localities. Such projects and laboratories thus are both a supporting platform and an expression of the social dimension and geographical distribution of the Maker Movement, which so far has proved to be quite uneven in terms of both structure of interactions and local availability of laboratories in different countries and between the global North and global South (Menichinelli and Gerson Saltiel Schmidt 2020). The existing social structures provide a snapshot of the evolution of the Maker Movement, of the differences between types of laboratories in terms not of technological features but of social groups: makerspaces, often considered as a general type of laboratories that encompass all the Massimo Menichinelli

250  Encyclopedia of social innovation

Maker Movement, have instead a clearly defined social group distinguished from other types of laboratories. Furthermore, such social groups and networks are not only global and local and with uneven and complex structures, but represent existing social infrastructure that can be leveraged for learning, developing and distributing projects and social innovation initiatives.

Social innovation in and through the maker movement

While all innovation can be considered social in its underlying processes, diffusion and broader impacts, whenever social innovation is strongly tied to technology it tends to be considered in terms of (a) the social processes underlying technological inventions or (b) the social effects of technological change (Moulaert and MacCallum 2019). Such is the case for the Maker Movement, being strictly tied to technology development, diffusion and democratization; furthermore, there are several different approaches and values often in contrast in the movement itself. Not all makers are interested in social innovation, or such interest overlaps with other ones, resulting thus in a rich and diversified profile of (social) innovators. Lindtner and Lin (2017) showed that the promises attached to making are contingent on specific historical, political and economic local processes: from seeing it as a critique to the commodification of participatory design values or a strategy for reviving manufacturing in Europe and USA, to the Chinese reclaiming its role as the necessary infrastructure for Western technology design and innovation cultures. Among the expectations about the Maker Movement, one of the most often cited is its possibility of generating new types of entrepreneurship (Browder et al. 2019), and at the same time many makers are interested in being change makers by addressing societal challenges and having thus an impact towards a more inclusive, fair, empowered and sustainable society. Unterfrauner et al. (2020) identified five types of makers at the intersections of the core principles of making, market and openness: 1. utopian makers: they value openness, technology and making, perceive maker values as incompatible with market; Massimo Menichinelli

2. pragmatic makers: they recognize the opportunity to go beyond the traditional dichotomy between openness and market; 3. social makers: more part of a community than single individuals, they focus on openness as a key to reduce entry barriers to the market and are more interested in education, inclusion, environmental protection than in technology per se; 4. making to market makers: they focus on product and career development, favour proprietary ways in order to commercialize products; 5. mainstream makers: they turn openness into a competitive advantage through a strong community. Makers interested in having a social impact pursue it through (a) education; (b) inclusion; (c) developing products addressing societal challenges; and (d) supporting citizens in the transition from consumers to a combination of consumers and creators. In terms of social impact, the positive side of the Maker Movement was found to be on (1) working with disadvantaged target groups; (2) diffusion of prosumerism as the empowerment of the passive consumer; (3) diffusion of a maker pedagogy based on creativity, empowerment and self-reliance; (4) the development of a local engagement towards a new localism. On the negative side, so far the movement has shown (1) a lack of inclusiveness in many initiatives; (2) empowerment of only strata with already high social and cultural capital; (3) no broader uptake of maker activities in formal education; (4) a focus more on technology than other issues. The importance of openness and the idea that knowledge is widely distributed brings relevance also to open innovation. However, as sharing is one of the key principles here and considering the frequent tension between making, market and openness, the movement finds itself also in the distinction between open source versus open innovation. The pre-eminence of business models and value capture of intellectual property over sharing of the latter (Chesbrough and Euchner 2011) brings the Maker Movement closer to the concept of free innovation developed by von Hippel (2016). Free innovation is carried out not in the business or government sectors but in the household one, where grassroot lead users looking for self-reward from their work develop and freely give away without

Social innovation through the Maker Movement  251

any protection of their innovations. In free innovation though we still see the tension between innovations then later appropriated by businesses versus DIY and self-sufficient implementations. Besides developing and making open design artefacts, the Maker Movement has several implications for designers, from introducing new technologies to empowering users and shifting places, agencies and processes towards more distributed and decentralized approaches (Menichinelli and Ferronato 2019). Among these, there is the approach of design for social innovation (→ DESIGN FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION) that aims at achieving sustainability not only through material reduction, reuse and recycle, but also by enabling and supporting diffuse creativity of citizens in creating new lifestyles and regenerating places and communities towards distributed economies (dos Santos et al. 2021; Manzini 2015). The centrality of digital technologies in the approaches of the Maker Movement shows that they are considered within the movement as both social innovations in the means (open source strategies, etc.) and in the ends (empowering, sharing, etc.), configuring thus the importance of the open hardware, open knowledge, open data, open networks of the movement as part of the digital social innovation trend (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION IN THE DIGITAL AGE) which sees innovators, users and communities collaborating and co-creating knowledge and solutions through digital technologies at a scale that was unimaginable before the Internet (European Commission Directorate General for the Information Society and Media and Bria 2015). The Maker Movement could also be representing a step towards longer term and more profound changes in society. Arvidsson (2019) sees it as one of the elements of a new form of industrious modernity of small-scale producers changing society over the long term towards a postcapitalist transition. Industrious relations of production are informal, entrepreneurial, street level, bricolage, capital-poor but labour-intensive, small-scale, rooted in traditional, or at least local, social relations, commons and fairly transparent and egalitarian markets: not a revolution but a re-appropriation through social relations.

Conclusions

Since the early years of the twenty-first century, the global community of the Maker Movement has configured itself as an example of social innovation by showing how technologies can be distributed and adopted for creating collaborative and open projects shared and distributed in almost all countries, enabling scalability, replicability and potentially radical changes. It is a context for social innovation, from new types of entrepreneurship based on new socially based ways of generating innovation to more radical approaches for networking and organizing mass participation and collaboration with digital technologies as digital social innovation towards a postcapitalist long-term transition. Social innovation in and through the Maker Movement is thus related to open, free, digital, distributed approaches, with their already complex social networks of participants and initiatives with impact still to be assessed and taking place in the common tensions between practical and radical approaches in social innovation. Future research might cover mapping the extensions of the movement, the nature of distributed economies beyond simple abstract models and the impact of initiatives and of the movement as a whole. The main challenge is now to go beyond the strict focus on technology towards considering more the social issues of inclusion, fairness, identity, governance, organization, conflict management and participation in order to keep up with the promises of a revolution while avoiding the pitfalls of structurelessness (Freeman 1972) that open and peer-to-peer communities might replicate in the same way as other social movements did in the past. Massimo Menichinelli

Notes 1. 2.

https://​www​.arduino​.cc/​(accessed 22 April 2022). https://​reprap​.org/​wiki/​RepRap (accessed 22 April 2022). 3. https://​makezine​.com/​(accessed 22 April 2022). 4. https://​www​.instructables​.com/​ (accessed 22 April 2022). 5. https://​makerfaire​.com/​(accessed 22 April 2022). 6. https://​processing​.org/​(accessed 22 April 2022). 7. https://​fablabs​.io/​labs (accessed 22 April 2022). 8. https://​w iki​. hackerspaces​. org/​L ist​_ of​_ Hacker​ _Spaces (accessed 22 April 2022). 9. https://​sphere​.diybio​.org/​(accessed 22 April 2022). 10. https://​www​.repaircafe​.org/​en/​ (accessed 22 April 2022).

Massimo Menichinelli

252  Encyclopedia of social innovation

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Anderson, C. (2012), Makers: The New Industrial Revolution, New York: Crown Business. Arvidsson, A. (2019), Changemakers: The Industrious Future of the Digital Economy, Medford, MA: Polity. Browder, R. E., H. E. Aldrich and S. W. Bradley (2019), ‘The emergence of the maker movement: implications for entrepreneurship research’, Journal of Business Venturing, 34 (3), pp. 459–76. Chesbrough, H. and J. Euchner (2011), ‘The evolution of open innovation: an interview with Henry Chesbrough’, Research-Technology Management, 54 (5), pp. 13–18. dos Santos, A., C. Vezzoli, B. Garcia Parra, S. Molina Mata, S. Banerjee, C. Kohtala, F. Ceschin, A. Petrulaityte, G. G. Duarte, I. B. Dickie, R. Balasubramanian and N. Xia (2021), ‘Distributed economies’, in C. Vezzoli, B. Garcia Parra and C. Kohtala (eds), Designing Sustainability for All, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 23–50. Dougherty, D. (2012), ‘The Maker Movement’, Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 7 (3), pp. 11–14. European Commission Directorate General for the Information Society and Media and F. Bria (2015), Growing a Digital Social Innovation Ecosystem for Europe: DSI Final Report, Luxembourg: Publications Office. Freeman, J. (1972), ‘The tyranny of structurelessness’, Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 17, pp. 151–64.

Massimo Menichinelli

Gershenfeld, N. (2005), FAB: The Coming Revolution on Your Desktop: From Personal Computers to Personal Fabrication, New York: Basic Books. Gershenfeld, N., A. Gershenfeld and J. Cutcher-Gershenfeld (2017), Designing Reality: How to Survive and Thrive in the Third Digital Revolution, New York: Basic Books. Lindtner, S. and C. Lin (2017), ‘Making and its promises’, CoDesign, 13 (2), pp. 70–82. Manzini, E. (2015), Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Menichinelli, M. and P. Ferronato (2019), ‘The decentralization turns in design: an exploration through the Maker Movement’, in S. Colombo, Y. Lim, M. Bruns Alonso, L.-L. Chen, T. Djajadiningrat, L. Feijs, J. Hu, S. Kyffin, E. Özcan, L. Rampino, E. Rodriguez Ramirez, and D. Steffen (eds), Design and Semantics of Form and Movement: DeSForM 2019 Beyond Intelligence, Wellington: Northumbria University, pp. 43–9. Menichinelli, M. and A. Gerson Saltiel Schmidt (2020), ‘First exploratory geographical and social maps of the Maker Movement’, European Journal of Creative Practices in Cities and Landscapes, 2 (2), pp. 35–62. Moulaert, F. and D. MacCallum (2019), Advanced Introduction to Social Innovation, Cheltenham and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Unterfrauner, E., M. Hofer, B. Pelka and M. Zirngiebl (2020), ‘A new player for tackling inequalities? Framing the social value and impact of the Maker Movement’, Social Inclusion, 8 (2), pp. 190–200. von Hippel, E. (2016), Free Innovation, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

45. Social innovation and poverty and marginalization Understanding social innovation in the context of poverty and marginalization

While there has been some progress in the reduction of poverty in terms of reducing the number of poor in the last few decades, the poorest have been left behind and the overall number of extremely poor and hungry people remains quite high (von Braun and Gatzweiler 2014). The poor are often excluded from economic growth and multiple aspects of societal development indicating that they exist at the margins of society which has the potential to trigger a downward spiral into further poverty (Gatzweiler et al. 2011). The challenges posed by poverty and multidimensional marginalities requires innovative approaches to reduce vulnerabilities of populations under its clutches. Flavia Martinelli’s proposition of social innovation has a more direct focus on the impact of social innovation on social justice and social relations particularly in the context of poverty and marginality. ‘Social innovation’ as opposed to other narrower notions of innovation, is characterized by the following features:

an economy from which their community has been excluded’ (Moulaert 2009, p. 18). Thus, beyond the economic and social outcomes of social enterprises and innovation, social innovation is capable of addressing structural issues of inequity and exclusion that continue to trap people in poverty and marginalization. With the realization that increasing inequalities and resultant poverty and marginalization among populations ‘hinders the capabilities of individuals and groups from participating fully in socio-economic-political and cultural life’ (Terstriep and Kleverbeck 2018), addressing such deep-rooted structural issues needs to emphasize the social-relational aspects at the core. Social innovation aims at stimulating and nurturing the potential of the whole society by empowering individuals and groups to address social needs (Howaldt et al. 2018). Such empowerment cannot be realized unless the conceptual and analytical frame for social innovation recognizes the importance of social relational dimensions which perpetuate the inequities existing in society. Thus, such a conceptualization of social innovation has the potential to sustainably address these emerging social concerns. Therefore, while it would require considerable effort, social innovation must also aim at macro-level systemic and structural changes along with tackling visible social challenges (Holtgrewe and Millard 2018).

Addressing poverty and ● it contributes to satisfy human needs that marginalization would otherwise be ignored; ● it contributes to empower individuals and groups; ● it contributes to change social relations (Martinelli 2012).

In order for social innovation to be institutionalized and bring about the desired systemic change, it would require ‘the involvement of multiple institutions, norms and practices, as well as the introduction of multiple kinds of complementary innovations to cope with the high complexity of problems, which require structural changes in society’ (Howaldt et al. 2018). The discussion is further strengthened by Moulaert (2009) by suggesting that social innovation focuses on ‘the fundamental needs of groups of citizens deprived (démunis) of a minimum income, of access to quality education and of other benefits of

Poverty as multidimensional concept refers to the deprivation of human dignity, opportunities and satisfaction in terms of food, nutrition, power, education, health, traffic and income (Alkire and Foster 2011). While the World Bank’s definition of poverty is a quantitative measure describing people living below US$2.0 a day as poor and people living under US$1.25 as extremely poor, the emergence of new social risks as a result of existing policies led to a shift in the understanding of poverty where it was no longer a financial problem but was linked to social exclusion. Marginality, on the other hand, refers to the exclusion of vulnerable individuals or groups from sociocultural, political and economic spheres preventing them from participating in society (Andersen and Larsen 1998).

253

254  Encyclopedia of social innovation

Marginality can be defined as ‘an involuntary position and condition of an individual or group at the margins of social, political, economic, ecological and biophysical systems, preventing them from access to resources, assets, services, restraining freedom of choice, preventing the development of capabilities, and eventually causing extreme poverty’ (Gatzweiler et al. 2011, p. 3). Marginality is a multidimensional phenomenon that encompasses a network of causal factors such as lack of access to resources and social capital that leads to social exclusion and extreme poverty (Graw and Husmann 2014). Therefore, conceptualizing marginality requires a shift in focus from isolated causes to the complex relationships among the causal factors and how they mutually constitute aggravating conditions of poverty and exclusion. As explained by von Braun et al. (2009), ‘Marginality’ is used to describe people living on the margins of society that prevents their access to resources and opportunities, freedom of choices, and the development of personal capabilities. This form of exclusion from developmental and societal progress is the reason for marginality being a root cause of poverty. The conceptual understandings of marginality and poverty are overlapping and complementary. The marginality framework entails an interdisciplinary and systemic understanding of the causal factors of poverty and encompasses the ideas of relative deprivation and social exclusion. Therefore, an understanding of marginality facilitates unpacking of underlying systemic contributors of poverty and exclusion that often overlap with the lack of resources and opportunities that contribute to extreme poverty (von Braun and Gatzweiler 2014). Over the last eight decades, the mainstream approach to development has been that of a technology driven, top-down approach based on ideas around modernization, growth, structuralism and dependency (Millard 2014). The mainstream approaches to address poverty are based on several assumptions linked to effective and unbiased functioning of markets and institutions, equality of opportunity, equal access to resources, and so on (Dini and Lippit 2009). However, in reality, poverty disproportionately affects some vulnerable groups more than others and depending on other intersecting identities such as race, gender, religion and caste,

some sections of population are subjected to extreme marginalization. While social innovations do not aim to replace interventions of the state to reduce such inequalities, they can aim at making them more effective through a more context-specific approach (Babu and Pinstrup-Andersen 2007). An attempt at tackling social challenges will always involve some kind of intentional collaborative action among individuals, groups, collectives and organizations/institutions (Hochgerner 2018) to change the social relations and structures that had originally given rise to those social issues. Policies targeting the poor are not effective in reducing extreme poverty without addressing structural forces of exclusion, discrimination, deprivation, deficiencies in governance and corruption, and multiple other forces that erode resilience of the poor. Therefore, there needs to be an understanding of context-specific determinants of poverty that push people to the margins of society (von Braun and Gatzweiler 2014). According to von Braun and Gatzweiler (2014, pp. 4–5), ‘De-marginalizing the marginalized requires the creation of the physical infrastructure and institutional arrangements that can help to overcome the barriers to access, exchange, and communication, and facilitate a shift away from the margins of development through building accessible assets beyond natural capital (i.e. access to services that foster human capital and technology), while including the marginalized in the process.’ Thus, involvement of the marginalized communities themselves is often a critical component of effectively mitigating marginalization. Social innovation can work towards empowering vulnerable and marginalized populations so that they can engage in society to meet their own social needs. From this perspective, poverty or marginalization is not considered to be due to inadequacies in individuals, but rather due to a systemic failure (Terstriep and Kleverbeck 2018) that has led to such widespread social inequalities. Therefore, social innovations must employ a multi-pronged strategy. On one hand, social innovations must aim at bringing about a systemic change in social institutions and structures and transform social relations and norms that govern the working of these institutions. On the other hand, social innovations

P. K. Shajahan and Dipannita Bhattacharjee

Social innovation and poverty and marginalization  255

must seek to empower individuals and groups so that they can use their agency to optimally enhance their lives within the existing structural frameworks. As described before, social innovation aims to address social needs and challenges that are not adequately addressed by existing institutions. In the context of social innovation, therefore, poverty, exclusion and marginalization go beyond the lack of material or financial resources as a reason for these. Multiple initiatives in the line of social innovation have emerged as a response to the unmet needs to people (Chambon et al. 1982) in local contexts giving social innovation its localized and context specific character. This means that while social innovations may not be completely novel (unlike technological innovations), they are novel in the particular context that required the adoption of alternative ways of addressing social needs that were neglected by established institutions. In the process, social innovation strategies include developing new or transforming existing social relations directed at revamping existing structures that pushed people to the margins of society. Therefore, social innovation can also be ‘locally embedded practices, actions and policies that help socially excluded and impoverished individuals and social groups to satisfy basic needs for which they find no adequate solution in the private market or macro-level welfare policies. It does so through processes of social learning, collective action and mobilization and awareness raising’ (Oosterlynck et al. 2013, p. 3). Drawing from Moulaert et al. (2005), social innovation encompasses three aspects: (a) addressing unmet social needs; (b) revamping social relations; and (c) collective action through empowerment of population (Moulaert et al. 2005). Therefore, drawing from Moulaert and MacCallum (2019), social innovation leads to transforming social relations through solidarity and reciprocity. Social innovation is not just restorative, in the sense that it addresses unmet needs, but is also transformative, in the sense that it has the potential to bring about a new paradigm of social change by revamping social relations. It requires solidarity among individuals, communities and institutions and a degree of reciprocity to bring about sustainable and effective

transformation (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION RESEARCH AND PRACTICE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT). Social innovation may encompass novel ideas, distinct collaborations and a variety of practices that have the potential to go beyond levels of governance (micro, meso, macro), institutional boundaries and sectors (Terstriep and Kleverbeck 2018). Social innovation at the micro level may act through locally embedded institutions, groups or initiatives that can address unmet needs of the people. Usually, such initiatives are context-specific and by aiming at empowering vulnerable groups, they actively aim to reduce poverty and marginalization. At the meso and macro levels, social innovations are directed at institutional change and a restructuring of policies by challenging existing practices and norms that can have far reaching impact (ibid.).

People-centred social innovation

There has been a failure of the top-down models of development in addressing poverty and marginalization. These approaches are ineffective as they do not take into consideration the context-specific manifestations of poverty and marginalization. Without the involvement of the communities towards who the development initiatives are directed, these become unsustainable and fail to address the unmet needs of the people. Therefore, in addressing structural issues such as poverty and marginalization, a context-specific approach to social innovation is expected to be more appropriate and meaningful which can be community-led and aim at bringing about societal and structural changes. This conceptual formulation needed to marry the ideas of centricity of people in the process of development initiatives and social-relational dimensions of social innovations in an organic way. Thus, it was Hulgård and Shajahan (2013) who first coined the term ‘people-centred social innovation’ to present the commonality and complimentarity of the two frameworks of ‘people-centred development’ and social innovation as an approach to highlight the need for participatory processes of engaging with marginalized communities to create conditions of long-term social innovation. People-centred development is aimed at customizing the development needs as per the contextual requirements of specific societal and cultural

P. K. Shajahan and Dipannita Bhattacharjee

256  Encyclopedia of social innovation

settings (Devkota 2000). Therefore, development cannot be a top-down approach that is imposed upon people, rather it must be an indigenous process where people in the specific socio-cultural context define and drive their developmental needs (Berreman 1994). The UN Development Programme describes people-centred development as ‘development of the people, by the people and for the people’ (Cox 1998). Cox identifies five foundations of people-centred development as an approach: awareness-raising, social mobilization, participation, self-reliance and sustainability. As this understanding is in contrast to the traditional models of economic development and globalization, there is a need for an alternate mode of co-construction of knowledge between academia and the communities (Hulgård and Shajahan 2013) as well as of practising development. Thus, ‘people-centred development is primarily defined as a culture-relative, location specific, ecologically conditioned and social selling ingrained concept’ (Devkota 2000, p. 27). While people-centred development focuses on the challenges of equitable, inclusive and sustainable development (Korten 1992), it also focuses on pragmatism, flexibility and innovative solutions to the social change process (Brohman 1996). According to Mathur (1990), ‘the people-centred development pre-supposes first-hand knowledge of the people concerned’. This means that the development goals, strategies and intended outcome must be driven by people living in those realities. The concept of people-centred development has many overlapping features with social innovation: adopting participatory processes to change the oppressive social relations that are barriers to social justice and human dignity (Hulgård and Shajahan 2013). Social innovation and people-centred development are therefore closely interlinked as both emphasize empowerment as intrinsic to the development process and are directed at specific contextual social needs. According to Hulgård and Shajahan (2013), people-centred development can be ‘produced in collaborative arenas which bring socially desirable outcomes by adopting processes that put faith in diverse forms of knowledge’ (p. 95). This also describes how social innovation, through a combination of an epistemological alternative to colo-

niality of knowledge and power in the context of marginalized communities, is able to address failed social needs through a process of enhancing participatory social interaction, knowledge production and participatory governance. The model of people-centred development highlighted here rests upon three pillars that can potentially be the foundations of a process of co-construction of knowledge, while simultaneously addressing issues of cognitive and social justice. The first pillar is the willingness to collaborate with partners, the second pillar emphasizes community participation, and the third pillar is epistemological openness and dialogue with communities and stakeholders to determine the trajectory of development (ibid.). Thus, people-centred social innovation is conceptualized as a combination of ideas of people-centredness in development discourse as well as an emphasis on the social relational dimensions of social innovation (Shajahan and Hulgård 2020). Using the frames of social innovation and strengthening the same with the values of people-centred development, the approach of people-centred social innovation is expected to address the significant challenges of complex and inter-related realities of poverty and marginalization. The concept of people-centred social innovation has further been elaborated by Banerjee et al. (2020) through their edited volume People-Centered Social Innovation: Global Perspectives on an Emerging Paradigm. A people-centred orientation to social innovation is thus presented as a powerful way to address the multidimensional challenges that confront policymakers, activists and marginalized groups worldwide (Banerjee et al. 2020). As discussed above, people-centred social innovation is conceived as an approach to social innovation that is context-specific as it focuses upon the lived realities of poor and marginalized groups and communities. people-centred social innovation is an attempt to address marginalization and poverty by centring the actor in the process of social transformation (Banerjee et al. 2020). This is an emerging approach where the field of people-centred development is placed in dialogue with theory and concepts from the more established field of social innovation to create a new approach that adopts a global perspective by engaging experiences of marginality across the global North and South.

P. K. Shajahan and Dipannita Bhattacharjee

Social innovation and poverty and marginalization  257

The following case study discusses the people-centred social innovation model demonstrated by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS) in addressing multiple forms of marginalities (Hulgård and Shajahan 2013).

Demonstrating people-centred social innovation

Located at the north-eastern edge of Mumbai, India, M East Ward has over the years become home for migrants from different parts of the country as well as resettlers from other areas of the city displaced by various development projects. The M East Ward Transformation Project is a partnership-based intervention between TISS and multiple stakeholders such as municipal administration through strategic interventions that are expected to enhance the well-being of its population. This foundation of this project is based on combining strategies to deal with economic risk, creating social value and adopting a participatory governance process. This project aims to co-create a development model that equally emphasizes the importance of human and economic development, while also addressing the immediate concerns of the community especially in the areas of health, education and livelihood. The approach of this project ensured participation of the M Ward communities not only in knowledge creation, but also in bringing about structural changes to address urban poverty and marginalization. The proposal for this project was prepared after a series of consultations with the representatives of local communities and different development organizations working in the area. These consultations brought forth persistent concerns of food insecurity and malnutrition, poor health conditions as a result of absence of healthcare facilities, poor educational infrastructure and lack of appropriate livelihood options, while also suggesting measures to address them. Thus, like all social innovations, it starts by recognizing the need for a change in social conditions. A two-phase plan was drawn up in consultation with the community, with a baseline sample household survey and community amenities assessment in the first phase, and micro-planning and community building exercises in the second phase. A participatory micro-planning exercise followed

the baseline survey for collectively developing a plan for comprehensive development. This process is characterized by an open model of innovation where the process and outcome cannot be fully controlled by the intervening organization. The communities will be responsible for reviewing the data and take action to improve their condition. All these processes were aimed at changing conditions of marginalization and powerlessness though effective networking and collaboration. Thus, this people-driven innovation may have the potential to become embedded ‘into the politico-administrative system of the democratic states of the countries to which communities belong’ (Moulaert et al. 2005, p. 1973). This innovative project aims to make sustainable changes by providing the residents with equitable access to various programmes and services and empowering them through leadership development and enhancement of their capacity to collaborate with development agencies who can affect their future.

Conclusion

There is a widespread recognition of social innovation approaches as a tool for delivering sustainable and inclusive development. Instead of a top-down, technology driven approach, social innovations are geared towards designing and delivering public services in a sensitive and effective manner to vulnerable groups (Millard 2018). According to Moulaert et al. (2005), social innovation encompasses three aspects: addressing unmet social needs, revamping social relations and collective action through empowerment of population. We draw from these key concepts to reformulate an idea of social innovation that is people-driven and addresses underlying structural drivers of poverty and marginalization. Although social innovation is context specific and, therefore, largely localized, it can be replicated and scaled up by institutionalizing through linkages with the state. The key features of this redefined social innovation are as follows: (a) Addressing unmet social needs: in the context of poverty and marginalization, unmet needs may refer to a lack of livelihood opportunities. Chambers (1995, p. 174) defined livelihood as the ‘means of gaining a living, including

P. K. Shajahan and Dipannita Bhattacharjee

258  Encyclopedia of social innovation

tangible assets (resources and stores), intangible assets (claims and access), and livelihood capabilities’ including coping abilities, opportunities and diverse freedoms. This is a holistic understanding of livelihoods that does not refer to merely income generation, but rather the ability of individuals and communities to make use of livelihood opportunities and the capacity to deal with adverse scenarios, stress and shock. (b) Revamping social relations: this is closely linked to the process of addressing inequities and systemic exclusion. Here the idea of equity envisaged refers to equitable access to assets, capabilities and opportunities. However hierarchical societal structures determine the access and control over assets that in turn affects the degree of marginalization experienced by individuals and communities. Systemic exclusion refers to this inability of a society to incorporate all its members as active participants as a result of which some individual and groups occupy and maintain a higher position in the social hierarchy, thus effectively pushing some individuals and groups to the margins of society. Krishna (2007) has highlighted the presence of gendered inequities that are a result of not only the hierarchical structures in local communities but also with respect to development initiatives of the state, which further reinforces the existing power structures. Drawing from Banerjee (2018), structural innovation focuses on changing the overall innovation environment in addressing the larger structural inequities along with societal innovations that focus on transforming the current processes for tackling poverty and marginalization. (c) Collective action through empowerment of population: this is closely linked to the idea of people-centred development that focuses on community organization and participation of local people. Community participation and people-led initiatives which promote participatory decision leads to bottom-up solutions for sustainable development to address issues of poverty and marginalization.

(d) Linkages to state: in order for social innovation to be institutionalized and bring about the desired systemic change, it would require ‘the involvement of multiple institutions, norms and practices, as well as the introduction of multiple kinds of complementary innovations to copy with the high complexity of problems, which require structural changes in society’ (Howaldt et al. 2018, p. 14). While social innovation has the potential to address social concerns of poverty and marginalization, without a change in the institutional systems, a mere focus on resolving societal challenges may not lead to sustainable solution to social change. People-centred social innovations, though context-specific, can be reproduced and adapted to different environments by institutionalizing these practices through creating linkages with the state. Since the first introduction of people-centred social innovation, the need for a deeper understanding of the relational character of social innovation has surfaced prominently. It seems as if the world as such has moved into a cyclic process of multiple and interwoven crises that in concerted action impact the lives and livelihoods of people everywhere. Thus, it is increasingly impossible to extract various manifestations of poverty and marginalization as experienced by people independent of each other. For example, distinguishing the health crisis from economic struggles to maintain or even build a sustainable livelihood, or from crisis related to climate change and the permanent loss of biodiversity thereby pushing communities that are fully dependent on bio resources to poverty all remind us of the complex inter-relationship of structural factors of poverty and marginalization. People-centred social innovation offers some significant framework for a concerted action which is based on solidarity, reciprocity and association. People centrism in innovation, therefore, has the potential to impact lives of vulnerable groups. ‘People-centric social innovation’ is transformative in the sense that it aims to address societal needs by focusing on marginalized people, in their context and develop strategies to address them (Banerjee 2018), while also possessing the potential to adapt

P. K. Shajahan and Dipannita Bhattacharjee

Social innovation and poverty and marginalization  259

the strategies to different context by institutionalizing them within the state apparatus. Therefore, people-centred social innovation starts at the grassroots, is community-driven, aims to address underlying structural issues of poverty and marginalization and can be adapted to different contexts. Thus, people-centred social innovation presents a new epistemic openness which combines the political projects both of people-centred development, by putting the people at the centre of development discourse, and of social innovation, by operationalizing the idea of altering power relations in favour of the people (Shajahan and Hulgård 2020). P. K. Shajahan and Dipannita Bhattacharjee

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Alkire, S. and J. Foster (2011), ‘Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement’, Journal of Public Economics, 95 (7–8), pp. 476–87. Andersen, J. and J. E. Larsen (1998), ‘Gender, poverty and empowerment’, Critical Social Policy, 18 (55), pp. 241–58. Babu, S. and P. Pinstrup-Andersen (2007), Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Developing Capacity to Reduce Poverty and Hunger, Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute. Banerjee, S. (2018), ‘Social inovation in South Asia: an emerging alternate development paradigm’, in J. Howaldt, A. Schröder, C. Kaletka and M. Zimgiebl (eds), Atlas of Social Innovation: New Practices for a Better Future, ZWE Sozialforschungsstelle: Technische Universität Dortmund. Banerjee, S., S. Carney and L. Hulgård (2020), People-Centered Social Innovation: Global Perspectives on an Emerging Paradigm, New York: Routledge. Berreman, G. (1994), ‘Anthropology, development and public policy’, Occasional Papers in Sociology and Anthropology, 4, pp. 3–32. Brohman, J. (1996), Popular Development: Rethinking Theory and Practice of Development, Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers. Chambers, R. (1995), ‘Poverty and livelihoods: whose reality counts?’, IDS Discussion Paper 347, IDS, Brighton, UK, January. Chambon, J.-L., A. David and J.-M. Devevey (1982), Les innovations sociales, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Cox, D. (1998), ‘Towards people-centred development: the social development agenda and social

work education’, The Indian Journal of Social Work Education, 59 (1), pp. 513–30. Devkota, P. L. (2000), ‘People-centered development in Nepal: an innovative approach’, Occasional Papers in Sociology and Anthropology, 6, pp. 26–40. Dini, A. and V. Lippit (2009), ‘Poverty, from orthodox to heterodox approaches: a methodological comparison survey’, Working Paper, August, University of California, Riverside. Gatzweiler, F., H. Baumüller, J. von Braun and C. Ladeburger (2011), ‘Marginality: addressing the root causes of extreme poverty’, ZEF Working Paper 77, Center for Development Research, Bonn: University of Bonn. Graw, V. and C. Husmann (2014), ‘Mapping marginality hotspots’, in J. von Braun and F. W. Gatzweiler (eds), Marginality: Addressing the Nexus of Poverty, Exclusion and Ecology, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer, pp. 69–84. Hochgerner, J. (2018), ‘Empowerment, co-creation and social innovation ecosystems’, in J. Howaldt, A. Schröder, C. Kaletka and M. Zirngiebl (eds), Atlas of Social Innovation: New Practices for a Better Future, ZWE Sozialforschungsstelle: Technische Universität Dortmund, pp. 220–23. Holtgrewe, U. and J. Millard (2018), ‘Social innovation addressing societal needs and challenges’, in J. Howaldt, A. Schröder, C. Kaletka and M. Zirngiebl (eds), Atlas of Social Innovation: New Practices for a Better Future, ZWE Sozialforschungsstelle: Technische Universität Dortmund, pp. 70–73. Howaldt, J., C. Kaletka and A. Schröder (2018), ‘Social innovation on the rise: results of the first global mapping’, in J. Howaldt, A. Schröder, C. Kaletka and M. Zirngiebl (eds), Atlas of Social Innovation: New Practices for a Better Future, ZWE Sozialforschungsstelle: Technische Universität Dortmund, pp. 12–17. Hulgård, L. and P. K. Shajahan (2013), ‘Social innovation for people-centered development’, in F. Moulaert, D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood and A. Hamdouch (eds), The International Handbook on Social Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 93–104. Korten, D. (1992), Getting to the 21st Century: Voluntary Action and the Global Agenda, New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Company. Krishna, S. (2007), Women’s Livelihood Rights: Recasting Citizenship for Development, New Delhi: Sage Publications. Martinelli, F. (2012), ‘Social innovation or social exclusion? Innovating social services in the context of a retrenching welfare state’, in H. J. F. Hans-Werner (ed.), Challenge

P. K. Shajahan and Dipannita Bhattacharjee

260  Encyclopedia of social innovation Social Innovation, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 169–80. Mathur, H. M. (1990), The Human Dimension of Development: Perspectives from Anthropology, New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company. Millard, J. (2014), ‘Development theory’, in J. Howaldt, A. Butzin, D. Domanski and C. Kaletka (eds), Theoretical Approaches to Social Innovation: A Critical Literature Review (D1.1), accessed 8 September 2022 at https://​ www​.si​-drive​.eu/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2014/​11/​ D1​_1​-Critical​-Literature​-Review​.pdf. Millard, J. (2018), ‘How social innovation underpins sustainable development’, in J. Howaldt, A. Schröder, C. Kaletka and M. Zirngiebl (eds), Atlas of Social Innovation: New Practices for a Better Future, ZWE Sozialforschungsstelle: Technische Universität Dortmund, pp. 41–3. Moulaert, F. (2009), ‘Social Innovation: institutionally embedded, territorially (re)produced’, in D. MacCullum, F. Moulaert, J. Hillier and S. Vicari (eds), Social Innovaiton and Territorial Development, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 11–23. Moulaert, F., F. Martinelli, E. Swyngedouw and S. Gonzalez (2005), ‘Towards alternative model(s) of local innovation’, Urban Studies, 42 (11), pp. 1669–990. Moulaert, F. and D. MacCallum (2019), Advanced Introduction to Social Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Oosterlynck, S., Y. Kazepov, A. Novy, P. Cools, E. Barberis, F. Wukovitsch … and B. Leubolt (2013), ‘The butterfly and the elephant: local

social innovation, the welfare state and new poverty dynamics’, ImPRovE Discussion Paper No. 13/03, Antwerp: Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy – University of Antwerp. Shajahan, P. K. and L. Hulgård (2020), ‘Geneaology and institutionalization of people-centered social innovation in Kudambshree, Kerala, India’, in S. Banerjee, S. Carney and L. Hulgard (eds), People-Centered Social Innovation, New York: Routledge, pp. 69–88. Terstriep, J. and M. Kleverbeck (2018), ‘Economic underpinning of social innovation: social innovations’s contribution to inclusive growth’, in J. Howaldt, A. Schröder, C. Kaletka and M. Zirngiebl (eds), Atlas of Social Innovation: New Practices for a Better Future, ZWE Sozialforschungsstelle: Technische Universität Dortmund, pp. 33–6. Von Braun, J. and F. W. Gatzweiler (2014), ‘Marginality—an overview and implications’, in J. von Braun and F. W. Gatzweiler (eds), Marginality: Addressing the Nexus of Poverty Exclusion and Ecology, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer. Von Braun, J., R. Hill and R. Pandya-Lorch (2009), ‘The poorest and hungry: a synthesis of analyses and actions’, in J. von Braun , R. V. Hill and R. Pandya-Lorch (eds), The Poorest and Hungry: Assessments, Analyses, and Actions, Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute, pp. 1–61.

P. K. Shajahan and Dipannita Bhattacharjee

46. Social innovations in rural areas Challenges in rural regions as a starting point for research on social innovations

In the course of socio-political discussions about unequal living conditions in urban and rural areas, societal, political and scientific interest in rural areas has grown in many countries around the world (Lakshmanan et al. 2022). For a long time, international social scientific spatial research focused largely on urban spaces, while the investigation of rural areas was much less pronounced. In the last five to ten years, however, research on rural regions and rural development has caught up (Shucksmith and Brown 2016; Fulkerson and Thomas 2019). Among other things, it has become clear that social innovations do not only take place in urban contexts, but can also be observed in rural areas (Neumeier 2012, 2017; Christmann 2017; Bock 2016). Heterogeneity and challenges of rural areas Rural areas can be very different. The degrees of rurality can be mapped on a continuum that starts with regions located on the fringes of highly dense urban centres and classified as rather rural and ends with very rural, i.e. sparsely populated and very remote areas (Shucksmith et al. 2009; Küpper 2016; Eurostat 2020). The latter are often additionally characterized by socio-economic problems and are also referred to as structurally weak rural areas (Mayer and Habersetzer 2019). The challenges to the lives of rural residents are greatest there. In many areas of this type, a downward spiral has been set in motion worldwide: due to low economic productivity, poor educational opportunities, lack of job prospects and inadequate infrastructure (e.g. in services of general interest), increasing numbers of rural dwellers are migrating to the cities. This increasingly worsens the economic opportunities of the areas due to a lack of labour potential (Manthorpe and Livsey 2009; Christmann 2017, p. 365). Central topics of international research on rural areas have so far focused on their settlement structures, forms of work and economic change, especially the decline in the

importance of agriculture (Cloke et al. 2006). Worldwide, rural exodus is also an issue, which reached a particularly high level in the Western world not least in the course of demographic change since the 1970s and led to massive problems in rural areas due to the dismantling of infrastructure (Shucksmith et al. 2009; Christmann 2017). Since the 2010s, however, scientific debates can also be observed in which the future of rural areas is discussed without only addressing rural exodus and downward spirals. Rather, the potentials of rural regions are being focused on that open up new opportunities for rural dwellers and offer urban dwellers possibilities to live in the countryside as an alternative to city life – be it through successful social innovations driven by the engagement of rural actors (Christmann 2017, 2020; Bock 2016), new opportunities offered by digitalization in rural areas (Cowie et al. 2020), or a combination of both elements in the context of digitally supported social innovations characterized by app-based solutions (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION IN THE DIGITAL AGE), such as delivery apps or ride sharing apps for villagers (Zerrer and Sept 2020). Rural areas have experienced some inwards-directed migration against this backdrop, according to forecasts, even if only partly, in the form of multi-local living or temporary migration for certain life stages of urban dwellers (Dick and Reuschke 2012). Rural areas as places for novel solutions Since the last decade, numerous socially innovative initiatives in rural regions can be observed worldwide (see, for example, Bosworth et al. 2016 for Europe; Christmann et al. 2022b for Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia and South America). In the face of pressing challenges, very different local actors have become active in rural regions. Often, actors from civil society come forward and take matters into their own hands. It is also not uncommon for actors from local politics and the administration and/or local entrepreneurs to get involved. In some places, social entrepreneurs, who can be considered specialists in social innovation, also help to bring the socially innovative ideas of rural residents to fruition (Christmann 2020; Richter et al. 2020). On this basis, heterogeneous constellations of actors emerge that leave well-trodden paths in their search for

261

262  Encyclopedia of social innovation

suitable solutions and develop approaches that clearly deviate from previous practices. Meanwhile, scientists have made this the starting point for their research. Definition and examples of social innovation in rural areas As is well known, a central criterion for determining an innovation is novelty, which means that a break with previous practice must be evident. However, this does not mean that it has to be an ‘absolutely’ new practice in the world. Rather, it is about relative innovation (i.e. about novel combinations of already known elements), as Schumpeter (1934) already noted. Especially in rural regions, it may be that a social innovation draws on familiar elements and combines them in a novel way, but it is also possible that familiar elements from one region are combined with new elements from other origins (e.g. urban contexts). The new types of village shops that have emerged in many places and can be seen as local actors responding to the problems of local supply, are a good example of a novel combination of familiar elements. They cannot simply be equated with old ‘corner shops’. Rather, they are complex multifunctional centres. The innovative thing about them is that, in addition to offering food and other goods, they typically combine well-known elements in new ways: for example, they often serve simultaneously as a social meeting place, café, post office, bank branch, pharmacy service and/or temporary doctor’s office. Sometimes they are even run cooperatively by villagers, which is another element of the novel combination. Other innovative solutions in rural areas very often involve digital technologies: in some places, for example, a shared village electric car has been set up that can be booked and billed via an app to improve residents’ mobility. Emergency call apps have been developed for lonely elderly people in urgent need of neighbourhood assistance. Most novel solutions in rural areas typically address challenges in local supply, mobility, medical care and nursing, and often existing deficits in village communication.

Gabriela Christmann

Key findings on social innovations in rural areas

Until recently, rural communities were rarely associated with (social) innovation (Coronado et al. 2008). This applies to the perceptions of rural residents themselves, who are often very sceptical of new ideas or ways of doing things. In most cases, even the creative local actors do not describe their approaches as innovative, as they are primarily concerned with developing solutions to pressing problems, not with developing innovations per se. Additionally, third parties often perceive rural communities as rather hostile to innovation. However, more recent research clearly shows that rural areas can certainly provide breeding grounds for (socially) innovative initiatives (Bock 2016; Kropp 2014; Bosworth et al. 2016; Neumeier 2017; Noack and Federwisch 2019, 2020; Richter 2020; Christmann 2020; Christmann et al. 2022b; Lakshmanan et al. 2022). Emergence of socially innovative initiatives in rural actor constellations The findings from studies that deal with the conditions under which social innovations emerge and establish themselves in rural areas are interesting. Despite the different regional contexts and the different contents of socially innovative initiatives, commonalities can be found with regard to the actor constellations of successful projects. The first characteristic is that the impulse for the initiatives often come from outside. They are the result of new knowledge and new perspectives, mostly brought to the rural region by strangers, newcomers or returnees. With a fresh view from the outside and their experiences from other spatial contexts, these people often find it easier to find novel solutions than the locals (Noack and Federwisch 2019). However, it has also been shown that novel approaches can only emerge if locals take up the cause in the course of the project. They ensure that the novelty is linked to known structures – whether socially, culturally, politically or administratively (Bock 2016; Christmann 2017, 2020; Richter et al. 2020). Key actors are also of great importance for innovative projects. These are people who hold the threads together in the initiative and act as driving forces (Jungsberg et al. 2020; Richter and Christmann 2021). It is also helpful if

Social innovations in rural areas  263

a sufficient number of actors (about five to eight people) come together in a network in which idea generators, doers, resource procurers, hobbyists, networkers and communicators complement each other (Richter 2020; Zerrer and Sept 2020). The development of a supra-regional network is also central when it comes to gaining the necessary specialized knowledge for the successful implementation of a particular project (Kropp 2014; Richter 2019) (→ SOCIAL NETWORKS AND SOCIAL INNOVATION). Success factors also include establishing open communication about the innovative project through various communicative formats that are directed both internally and externally. Indeed, it proves to be vital to build trust and create social acceptance both in the rural community and in the regional environment (Kropp 2014; Neumeier 2017; Christmann 2017). Social entrepreneurs as specialists in creating novel solutions A special type of actor in rural areas is the social entrepreneur. Even though there is no agreed definition for the term social entrepreneur, most diverse conceptual approaches have in common that they describe them as actors who intentionally drive the development of novel solutions. They are generally regarded as specialists in social innovation. For a long time, social entrepreneurs were considered only in the context of urban areas, overlooking the fact that they are also very active in rural areas (Christmann 2020; Richter et al. 2020). Typically, these actors either initiate socially innovative projects of various kinds themselves using their entrepreneurial knowledge or support other actors in developing initiatives. They do the latter by acquiring government funding for their activities. Typically, they provide or organize the following resources: (i) specialized knowledge in the form of training, advisory services and/or coaching; (ii) useful contacts or information on social networking techniques; and (iii) financial resources in the form of microcredits or advisory services with regard to existing funding structures. By providing know how to committed actors, social enterprises help to professionalize their actions, overcome hurdles and increase the likelihood of implementing an innovative approach. Social enterprises help people to

help themselves and act as catalysts in the social innovation processes of rural communities. As they are very well connected and have strong regional and supra-regional networks, they quickly learn about new solutions, act as intermediaries and bring new impulses to their rural regions (Richter 2019; Richter et al. 2020). Phases of social innovation processes Research focused on innovation processes distinguishes between up to four phases in which socially innovative initiatives take place in rural areas. In the latency and problematization phase, existing problems are analysed and starting points for action are identified. In the emergence phase, concrete measures for possible solutions are planned and implemented. ‘Teething problems’ or unintended side effects are analysed in the adjustment phase to make improvements, and in the stabilization and dissemination phase, the solutions are further consolidated and often simultaneously disseminated in the region and beyond (Christmann 2020; see also Kleverbeck and Terstriep 2017; Christmann et al. 2022a). It is argued that each phase has its distinctive features in terms of what specific factors and conditions are required for the progress of innovative work, and that it is important to understand these features if one wants to support innovation processes. Furthermore, it was observed in the context of digitally supported social innovative initiatives built upon the basis of a project that had already emerged, a lively innovation dynamic can unfold, that is, starting from the elaboration of a solution to a specific problem, the momentum created can be used to go beyond this problem and tackle several different but interconnected problems at the same time (Christmann et al. 2022a).

Reflection and outlook

It can be seen that research to date has already produced extensive findings on social innovations in rural areas and that we understand the phenomenon better than was the case ten years ago. However, since this field of research is still quite young, especially in the area of rural areas, there are still many unanswered questions. We do not yet know what the long-term developments of socially innovative initiaGabriela Christmann

264  Encyclopedia of social innovation

tives in rural areas look like. Will the activities of socially innovative actors in rural areas last in the future or will they stagnate? How long will the approaches to solutions developed on the ground last, or how quickly must new approaches be developed to address problems in rural areas? Little research has been done so far on the conditions under which developed socially innovative solutions spread spatially in rural areas, how they get from one rural community to the region and even beyond, or vice versa, how they can get from a rural area to different places. Are there patterns to the spatial spread of social innovations in rural regions and what are their characteristics? How the effects of social innovations in rural areas can be researched in the future is also a question. What indicators can be used to record impacts? What is the possible extent of any effects? What role can the targeted innovation activities of social enterprises play in the impacts that unfold in rural areas? Since innovation processes strive for solutions that deviate from established solutions, it should be kept in mind that their impact on given structures can be ambivalent. The unfolding of innovations can always lead to a redistribution of opportunities and risks. Frictions and resistance are, therefore, to be expected. Conflicts are, thus, typical in connection with (social) innovations. This also applies to social innovations in rural regions and must be taken into account in future research. Gabriela Christmann

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Bock, B. (2016), ‘Rural marginalisation and the role of social innovation: a turn towards nexogenous development and rural reconnection’, Sociologia Ruralis, 56 (4), pp. 552–73. Bosworth, G., F. Rizzo, D. Marquardt, D. Strijker, T. Haartsen and A. A. Thuesen (2016), ‘Identifying social innovations in European local rural development initiatives’, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 29 (4), pp. 442–61. Christmann, G. (2017), ‘Analysing changes in discursive constructions of rural areas in the context of demographic change: towards counterpoints in the dominant discourse on “dying

Gabriela Christmann

villages”’, Comparative Population Studies, 41 (3–4), pp. 359–78. Christmann, G. (2020), How Social Innovation Can be Supported in Structurally Weak Rural Regions. IRS Dialog, No. 5, Erkner: IRS, accessed 3 October 2020 at https://​leibniz​-irs​.de/​ fileadmin/​user​_ upload/Transferpublikationen/ IRS-Dialog_Policy_Paper_Ruraction.pdf. Christmann, G., A. Sept and N. Zerrer (2022a), ‘Rural community development click-by-click: processes and dynamics of digitally-supported social innovation in peripheral rural areas’, Raumforschung und Raumordnung, 80 (2), https://​doi​.org/​10​.14512/​rur​.145. Christmann, G., M. O’Shaughnessy and R. Richter (eds) (2022b), ‘Dynamics of social innovations in rural communities’, Special Issue in Journal of Rural Studies, 81. Cloke, P., T. Marsden and P. Mooney (eds) (2006), The Handbook of Rural Studies, London: Sage. Coronado, D., M. Acosta and A. Fernandez (2008), ‘Attitudes to innovation in peripheral economic regions’, Research Policy, 37 (6–7), pp. 1009–21. Cowie, P., L. Townsend and K. Salemink (2020), ‘Smart rural futures’, Journal of Rural Studies, 79 (1), pp. 169–76. Dick, E. and D. Reuschke (2012), ‘Multilocational households in the global South and North’, Erde, 143 (2), pp. 177–94. Eurostat (2020), Statistical Regions in the European Union and Partner Countries – NUTS and Statistical Regions 2021, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Fulkerson, G. M. and A. R. Thomas (2019), Urbanormativity: Reality, Representation, and Everyday Life, Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Jungsberg, L., A. Copus, L. B. Herslund, K. Nilsson, L. Perjo, L. Randall and A. Berlina (2020), ‘Key actors in community-driven social innovation in rural areas in the Nordic countries’, Journal of Rural Studies, 79 (1), pp. 276–85. Kleverbeck, M. and J. Terstriep (2017), ‘Analysing the social innovation process: the methodology of social innovation biographies’, European Public and Social Innovation Review, 2 (2), pp. 15–29. Kropp, C. (2014), ‘Sustainability transformation through social innovation in the shadow of hierarchy’, Conference Paper, accessed 3 October 2020 at https://​ www​ .researchgate​ .net/​publication/​262002719​_Kropp​_2014​ _Sustainability​_transformation​_through​_social​ _innovation. Küpper, P. (2016), Abgrenzung und Typisierung ländlicher Räume [Delimitation and Typification of Rural Areas], Thünen Working Paper, No. 68, Braunschweig: Thünen-Institut für Ländliche Räume, accessed 3 October 2020

Social innovations in rural areas  265 at https://​www​.econstor​.eu/​bitstream/​10419/​ 148398/​1/​874961904​.pdf. Lakshmanan, V. I., A. Chockalingam, V. Kumar Murty and S. Kalyanasundaram (eds) (2022), Smart Villages: Bridging the Global Urban-Rural Divide, Berlin: Springer. Manthorpe, J. and L. Livsey (2009), ‘European challenges in delivering social services in rural regions: a scoping review’, European Journal of Social Work, 12 (1), pp. 5–24. Mayer, H. and A. Habersetzer (2019), ‘Structurally weak rural regions’, in A. M. Orum (ed.), The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Studies, Volume IV: R–T, Chichester: Wiley and Sons, pp. 2067–9. Neumeier, S. (2012), ‘Why do social innovations in rural development matter and should they be considered more seriously in rural development research? Proposal for a stronger focus on social innovations in rural development research’, Sociologia Ruralis, 52 (1), pp. 48–69. Neumeier, S. (2017), ‘Social innovation in rural development: identifying the key factors of success’, The Geographical Journal, 183 (1), pp. 34–46. Noack, A. and T. Federwisch (2019), ‘Social innovation in rural regions: urban impulses and cross-border constellations of actors’, Sociologia Ruralis, 59 (1), pp. 92–112. Noack, A. and T. Federwisch (2020), ‘Social innovation in rural regions: older adults and creative

community development’, Rural Sociology, 85 (4), pp. 1021–44. Richter, R. (2019), ‘Rural social enterprises as embedded intermediaries: the innovative power of connecting rural communities with supra-regional networks’, Journal of Rural Studies, 70 (8), pp. 179–87. Richter, R. (2020), ‘Innovations at the edge: how local innovations are established in less favourable environments’, Urban Research and Practice, 14 (5), pp. 502–22. Richter, R. and G. Christmann (2021), ‘On the role of key players in rural social innovation processes’, Journal of Rural Studies, 81, https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.jrurstud​.2021​.04​.010. Richter, R., M. Fink, R. Lang and D. Maresch (2020), Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Rural Europe, New York, London: Routledge. Schumpeter, J. A. (1934), Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Shucksmith, M. and D. L. Brown (eds) (2016), Routledge International Handbook of Rural Studies, London, New York: Routledge. Shucksmith, M., S. Cameron, T. Merridew and F. Pichler (2009), ‘Urban-rural differences in quality of life across the European Union’, Regional Studies, 43 (10), pp. 1275–89. Zerrer, N. and A. Sept (2020), ‘Smart villagers as actors of digital social innovation in rural areas’, Urban Planning, 5 (4), pp. 78–88.

Gabriela Christmann

47. Social innovation in services Introduction

Definitions of social innovation (SI) include ‘new solutions (products, services, models, markets, processes) that simultaneously meet social needs and lead to new or improved capabilities and relationships and better use of assets and resources’ (The Young Foundation 2012, p. 18). Cajaíba-Santana (2014) refuses to present SI as an instrument to resolve social problems by creating new services. He attributes this view to the contexts on which SI has been evolving (social entrepreneurship and public policy) and argues it constitutes a too narrow view of social innovation and a teleological mistake: ‘the assumption that because we see a particular outcome to a process, we conclude that the process must always have that specific result’ (p. 3). The focus should be on social change – or transformative change (Haxeltine et al. 2017) – not on social problems. The discussion above presents some of the main issues involved in the conceptualizations around SI in services. This entry explores the intersections between the two terms and does not intend to be exhaustive: its main aim is to navigate and analyse the theoretical and methodological approaches connecting social innovation and services. Assuming with Djellal and Gallouj (2012) as a starting point that SI is often a service innovation (a new intangible solution), it is helpful to adapt a theorization from service innovation as a framework to organize the analysed literature and facilitate the interpretation of results (Joly et al. 2019). It states that ‘service innovation can be enabled at the micro, meso and macro level of service ecosystems’ (ibid., p. 5). The micro level comprises the interactions between dyads of actors and their interpersonal relations; the meso level includes the co-creation processes inside networks; and the macro level designates the context of institutions, rules (often tacit and implicit) and the common knowledge that connect actors in the micro and meso levels, and here it refers also to processes of transformative change. The three levels are intertwined, and, in the following paragraphs, each one is considered an entry point for the analysis, which

navigates mainly in the literature around design for service and social innovation (→ DESIGN FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION) but includes some references to service innovation research. It includes a section about design processes, followed by the key findings and conclusion.

The micro level: interpersonal encounters

The micro level is exemplified by researchers on design for SI and sustainability, particularly on DESIS (design for social innovation) Network, who have been learning from social inventions (at early stages of social innovation) considered as service ideas organized by groups or communities that contribute to a transition towards sustainable ways of living (Jegou and Manzini 2008; Manzini 2015). Although the author reserves an essential role for experts in designing, promoting and supporting social innovation initiatives as services, he evidences the promising perspectives in ‘a world in which everybody constantly has to design and redesign their existence, whether they wish to or not’ (Manzini 2015, p. 1). This design-oriented approach led the researchers to identify some distinctive features in these initiatives as services: the importance of interpersonal relations and values such as trust, intimacy and reciprocity between participants. Interpersonal relations are ‘one pivotal way in which SI actors challenge, alter or replace dominant institutions’ (Haxeltine et al. 2017, p. 38). The analysis resulted in the identification of recurrent service patterns on SI initiatives, framed respectively in terms of their co-production process and interpersonal interactions: collaborative services where participants share or exchange their resources, skills, competencies, and do not necessarily require interpersonal relations to operate (Jegou and Manzini 2008); and relational services that require face-to-face or non-anonymous interactions to work (Cipolla 2008; Cipolla and Manzini 2009). The continuous interplay between these two dimensions produces the overall interpersonal quality (Manzini 2015). This activity is also part of a strategic design operation oriented to analysing and turning discrete initiatives of social innovation ‘into reliable services that can be accessed by a wide audience and tailored

266

Social innovation in services  267

for various territorial contexts’ to enable their consolidation and diffusion (Jegou and Manzini 2008, p. 25) and to foster transformative change. One of the main questions was how to diffuse these promising service ideas from social innovation initiatives without losing the original qualities that provided their recognition as a valuable resource. This question gave rise to some proposals: (1) enabling solutions, specifically designed systems of products, services and communication programmes, oriented to support and improve the accessibility, effectiveness, and replicability of collaborative (Jegou and Manzini 2008) and relational services (Cipolla 2012); (2) the definition of replication strategies to answer the problem on how to scale-up collaborative and relational service ideas, maintaining the small scale and the interpersonal qualities of each concrete initiative (Jegou and Manzini 2008). The theoretical approaches related to services included analysis of SI initiatives and conversations held in India, China, Brazil, Kenya, and South Africa (Manzini 2015) and developed in DESIS Network events and activities. Rizzo et al. (2020) identify interpersonal relations as a way for the social innovation to develop in contexts of resource scarcity. Researchers in service management and marketing have been exploring how to answer social needs. Reynoso et al. (2015) explore a solution-focused model of social innovation at the low-income segment of society, the base of the pyramid (BoP). Fisk et al. (2016) propose a call to action for the service research community to reduce poverty and to learn from and with the poor ‘to explore new perspectives and test existing theories in new and different contexts’ (p. 44) in a proposal that also covers the meso and macro levels.

The meso level: service and design networks

Joly et al. (2019) consider the distinction between meso and macro levels of service ecosystems increasingly blurred in terms of social innovation outcomes, since the efforts to foster socially innovative service networks and stimulate institutional change are interrelated. It is helpful to focus at the meso level – using the lenses of the research TRANSIT

(Transformative Social Innovation Theory) (Haxeltine et al. 2017) – to analyse the role of networks on processes of social innovation in services. Manzini (2015) considers the whole of society a huge laboratory of sociotechnical experimentation, which in turn calls for ‘producing and spreading design knowledge able to empower individuals, communities, institutions, and companies in inventing and enhancing original ways of being and doing things’ (p. 54) oriented to transformative change. It indicates how social innovation requires a favourable environment in which this diffuse designing capability can emerge and give life to a variety of design processes toward commonly recognized results. Haxeltine et al. (2017) analysed the role of networks in transformative change (e.g. FabLabs, Living Labs, Impact Hubs, Hackerspaces). One network under analysis was DESIS, including empirical observation of the interactions between its labs. The DESIS labs (around 50 today) are placed in different continents (e.g. in Belo Horizonte, Florianópolis, Rio de Janeiro and Milan) (Cipolla et al. 2017; Cipolla 2020). Avelino et al. (2019) describe how people in local initiatives of social innovation are empowered through translocal networks (those with both local and transnational linkages) and include DESIS. The DESIS network promotes the co-creation of design knowledge between the nodes (labs) and the definition of commonly recognized goals. DESIS labs are spaces that organize university researchers’ and students’ cooperation with civil society and where participants co-create practices, including collaborative and relational services. Labs also act by spreading design knowledge in a formal educational process and through local initiatives. Together, they compose an enabling environment for services related to SI processes to develop. From service innovation research, Fisk et al. (2016) suggest that designing new service platforms to support the emergence of small businesses at the BoP can foster a structural transformation of the BoP ecosystem toward a better future. Patrício et al. (2018) developed a model to move from dyadic (customer–service provider) interactions to many-to-many interactions in healthcare services, where patient well-being can be Carla Cipolla

268  Encyclopedia of social innovation

achieved through the joint efforts of interrelated provider networks. Windrum et al. (2016) explore a bridge between social and service innovation research using the concept of multi-agent co-creation.

The macro level: orientation and outputs

A design perspective enables institutional change by ‘envisioning new services ecosystems that support more sustainable lifestyles and consumption habits (e.g. distributed power generation systems, programs of urban and regional development) or new service concepts that change citizens’ practices and routines’. Service design is part of ‘questioning, breaking institutions, creating prerequisites for new ones, new behaviors, new practices and new norms’ (Joly et al. 2019, p. 23). Manzini (2003) proposes a scenario building activity to feed social conversations and co-designing activities to foster the transition towards sustainability. He produced the ‘scenario of collaborative services’ as an example (Jegou and Manzini 2008) and considers that design for social innovation and sustainability finds its specificity at the macro level by proposing services and scenarios to diffuse new ways of being and doing. Experts are ‘part of the social change itself because they must themselves act in unprecedented ways, but they are also promoters of the social change because they collaborate actively in creating conditions that facilitate it’ (Manzini 2015, p. 3). Howaldt (2018) focuses on how SI initiatives, when grouped, form a practice field. It describes general characteristics common to different initiatives (e.g. microcredit systems) based on which it is possible to examine their current and future interactions at the meso and macro level and explore possibilities to support promising practices. Haxeltine et al. (2017) indicate that transformative social innovation is ‘a process by which social innovation challenges, alters or replaces the dominant institutions in a specific context’ (p. 11). Rather than a type of innovation, it is a ‘“process” that contributes to transformative change in the existing institutional arrangements in the context’ (ibid.). One example is the collaborative housing programme developed by the DESIS lab in Italy. The lab promoted the dissemination of Carla Cipolla

the co-housing idea (considered a promising social innovation case) in a programme composed of a digital platform, a co-designing process and tools to support future residents in defining their shared services. Years later, it was possible to observe the diffusion of co-housing in Italy (Cipolla et al. 2017). Indeed, the programme was not the only element in this diffusion, but it exemplifies how to support and help a transformative process through a design action.

Design processes

The interplay between services, SI and transformative change requires specific approaches and tools for enabling collaborations and creative processes between participants (e.g. co-design and participatory design, visualization techniques, storytelling and scenario-building, among others) (Bertollotti et al. 2017; Manzini 2015; Sangiorgi 2011). Infrastructuring (Hillgren et al. 2011) exemplifies how those involved in social innovation, services, and collaborative processes may change from a project-oriented approach, with expected results or deadlines, towards a more open-ended long-term process, without predefined goals or fixed timelines. It is an approach that comes from participatory design tradition: the activities ‘are aimed at building long-term relationships with stakeholders in order to create networks from which design opportunities can emerge’ (p. 169). Infrastructuring indicates that ’a more long-term engagement could contribute differently, especially when it comes to the implementation phase and to have a real impact’ (Hillgren et al. 2011, p. 180). Authors also argue that infrastructuring provides the ground for building the relational qualities as a precondition for collaborations: ‘Peer-to-peer collaboration calls for trust, and trust calls for relational qualities: no relational qualities mean no trust and no collaboration’ (Jegou and Manzini 2008, p. 33). It is an approach that seeks to overcome the limitations of design practices in the social innovation field. Limitations include ‘inabilities in driving the implementation process, the high cost of design consultants who often do not have a long-term commitment to the projects, and the superficiality of some proposals since – by ignoring the evidence and

Social innovation in services  269

field experiences – designers tend to ‘reinvent the wheel’ (Hillgren et al. 2011, p. 172).

Social innovation and service research

Different sources affirm the relation between social innovation and services. The organization on the micro, meso and macro levels provided a framework for analysis and revealed some questions. Social innovation and service research and practices At one time, human interactions could be a burden in some service approaches (e.g. Levitt 1972). Interpersonal relations are essential in social inventions and SI processes and bring new insights into service theory and practices. Examples are researchers exploring interpretative frameworks to consider human encounters in services, or a call to action for the service research community to reduce poverty. Social innovation and social inventions might contribute to reframing service definitions and interpretative frameworks when research processes reconsider these cases, which may seem irrelevant or even marginal to some theories or research agendas. Beyond teleological mistakes Cajaíba-Santana (2014) advises against the activities oriented to extract service ideas from SI initiatives and, based on that, the attempt to reproduce expected social outcomes from one context to another. However, networks open the possibility to operate by connecting local nodes and allowing an exchange of knowledge and service ideas between members in different localities (e.g. the DESIS Network). Service ideas are shared, but each member can relate them to their local context and nurture a mutual learning process. Uberization From collaborative and relational services like BlaBlaCar, which includes the benefits of having fewer cars on the roads and allows people to foster interpersonal connections, what emerged was Uber. This process is a challenge for activities on design, services and social innovation for sustainability. In

the case of Uber, the collaborative dimension become a distributed system of resources (the cars) that reach worldwide dissemination and an expressive number of drivers and users. The extreme lack of interpersonal relations (Bowles 2016) contributed to raising discussions if this newly claimed employment category – the independent worker – is sufficiently legitimate from a moral perspective or about the nature of employment and the securities and protections that workers used to enjoy in many parts of the world (Cornelissen and Cholakova 2019). Social problems, social changes and services Manzini (2015) and Cajaíba-Santana (2014) highlight the importance of focusing on social change in its double dimensions: changes in how social agents act and interact with each other and in the social context where these actions take place through the creation of new institutions and new social systems. Literature review indicates service researchers and designers dealing with particularly problematic situations (such as poverty or exclusion) (e.g. some DESIS labs in Brazil or researchers involved with demands from the BoP). The connection to SI and transformative change, or social change, urged by Cajaíba-Santana and Manzini, invites service researchers and practitioners to search for a convergence: explore answers to critical social problems as services, but oriented to be tangible examples of new ways of being and doing, solutions based on new social forms and unprecedented economic models (i.e. oriented to social change towards sustainability).

Conclusion

Different sources affirm the relation between social innovation and services, reflecting different views and definitions of social innovation. The analysis organized on the micro, meso and macro level provided a framework to organize the references, which covered much of the discussions and state-of-the-art about the relation between SI and services under a design background, with some references to studies on service innovation. The literature review in this entry indicates a possible direction for service researchers and practitioners with transformative change as a goal: keep the service definition, related theories and methodological frameworks Carla Cipolla

270  Encyclopedia of social innovation

always open to be redefined through the participation in SI processes. Carla Cipolla

Sebastiani (2016), ‘Billions of impoverished people deserve to be better served: a call to action for the service research community’, Journal of Service Management, 27 (1), pp. 43–55. Haxeltine, A., B. Pel, A. Dumitru, R. Kemp, References F. Avelino, M. S. Jørgensen, J. Wittmayer, Entries marked in bold are further reading I. Kunze, J. Dorland and T. Bauler (2017), material. Consolidated Version of TSI Theory. A Deliverable of the Project Transformative Avelino, F., A. Dumitru, C. Cipolla, I. Kunze Social Innovation Theory (TRANSIT), Brussels: and J. Wittmayer (2019), ‘Translocal European Commission. empowerment in transformative social Hillgren, P.-A., A. Seravalli and A. Emilson innovation networks’, European Planning (2011), ‘Prototyping and infrastructuring in Studies, 28 (5), pp. 955–77. design for social innovation’, CoDesign, 7 Bertolloti, E., H. Daam, F. Piredda and V. Tassinari (3–4), pp. 169–83. (2017), The Pearl Diver: The Designer as Howaldt, J. (2018), ‘The unanswered quesStoryteller, Milan: DESIS Network. tion: social innovation and social change’, in Bowles, N. (2016), ‘The uber‐loneliness of the J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka, A. Schröder and M. sharing economy driver’, The Guardian, Zirngiebl (eds), Atlas of Social Innovation: New www​ accessed 27 September 2021 at https://​ Practices for a Better Future, Dortmund: TU .theguardian​.com/​technology/​2016/​feb/​04/​uber​ Dortmund, pp. 89–92. -protest​-app​-zello​-sharing​-economy. Jegou, F. and E. Manzini (2008), Collaborative Cajaíba-Santana, G. (2014), ‘Social innovation: Services: Social Innovation and Design for moving the field forward. A conceptual frameSustainability, Milan: Polidesign. work’, Technological Forecasting and Social Joly, M. P., J. G. Teixeira, L. Patrício and D. Change, 82, pp. 42–51. Sangiorgi (2019), ‘Leveraging service design Cipolla. C. (2008), ‘Creative communities as “relaas a multidisciplinary approach to service tional” innovations: a service design approach’, innovation’, Journal of Service Management, in F. Jegou and E. Manzini (eds), Collaborative 30 (6), pp. 1–35. Services: Social Innovation and Design for Levitt, T. (1972), ‘Production-line approach to Sustainability, Milan: Polidesign, pp. 153–6. service’, Harvard Business Review (September), Cipolla, C. (2012), ‘Solutions for relational serhttps://​hbr​.org/​1972/​09/​production​-line​ vices’, in S. Miettinen and A. Valtonen (eds), -approach​-to​-service. Service Design with Theory: Discussions on Manzini, E. (2003), ‘Scenarios of sustainable Change, Value and Methods, Rovaniemi: wellbeing’, Design Philosophy Papers, 1 (1), Lapland University Press. pp. 5–21. Cipolla, C. (2020), ‘Designing with communities Manzini, E. (2015), Design, When Everybody of place: the experience of a DESIS Lab during Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social COVID-19 and beyond’, Strategic Design Innovation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Research Journal, 13 (3), pp. 669–84. Patrício, L., N. F. Pinho, J. G. Teixeira and R. Cipolla, C., M. P. Joly and R. Afonso (2017), P. Fisk (2018), ‘Service design for value netDESIS Network Report: A Deliverable of the works: enabling value cocreation interactions in Project Transformative Social Innovation healthcare’, Service Science, 10 (1), pp. 76–97. Theory (TRANSIT), Brussels: European Reynoso, J., J. Kandampully, X. Fan and H. Commission. Paulose (2015), ‘Learning from socially driven Cipolla, C. and E. Manzini (2009), ‘Relational service innovation in emerging economies’, services’, Knowledge, Technology & Policy, Journal of Service Management, 26 (1), 22, pp. 45–50. pp. 156–76. Cornelissen, J. and M. Cholakova (2019), Rizzo, F., A. Deserti and T. Komatsu (2020), ‘Profits Uber everything? The gig economy ‘Implementing social innovation in and the morality of category work’, Strategic real contexts’, International Journal of Organization, 19 (4), pp. 1–10. Knowledge-Based Development, 11 (1), Djellal, F. and F. Gallouj (2012), ‘Social innovapp. 45–67. tion and service innovation’, in H.-W. Franz, Sangiorgi, D. (2011), ‘Transformative services J. Hochgerner and J. Howaldt (eds), Challenge and transformation design’, International Social Innovation: Potentials for Business, Journal of Design, 5 (2), pp. 29–40. Social Entrepreneurship, Welfare and Civil The Young Foundation (2012), Social Innovation Society, Heidelberg: Springer. Overview: A Deliverable of the Project: “The Fisk, R. P., L. Anderson, D. E. Bowen, T. Gruber, theoretical, empirical and policy foundations A. Ostrom, L. Patrício, J. Reynoso and R.

Carla Cipolla

Social innovation in services  271 for building social innovation in Europe” (TEPSIE), Brussels: European Commission. Windrum, P., D. Schartinger, L. Rubalcaba, F. Gallouj and M. Toivonen (2016), ‘The

co-creation of multi-agent social innovations’, European Journal of Innovation Management, 19 (2), pp. 150–66.

Carla Cipolla

48. Social innovation in social work Innovation in social work and its significance

Modern, democratic, functionally differentiated societies with a market economy structure generate problems of integration that manifest themselves in socially marginalized and underprivileged living situations in terms of participation and resources (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION AND POVERTY AND MARGINALIZATION). As a profession and discipline, social work deals with and researches the structural integration problem of modern societies by supporting the management of the life-world consequences of social inequality. In doing so, social work is grounded in fundamental democratic values such as social justice, solidarity, and human dignity (Sommerfeld 2020). The fields of social work are, for example, inpatient care, education, open child and youth work, services for the disabled, addiction support, social welfare, in-company social work or community work. The meaning of innovation in the context of social work is threefold: (a) innovation in social work in the sense of contributing to the further development of the profession, (b) innovation by social work in the sense of transforming social care and the welfare mix (Oosterlynck et al. 2013), and (c) innovation as the socio-political transformation of contexts in which unmet needs are discerned and tackled with the participation of social work (Westley 2018). Innovations in social work are all novel practices (concepts, methods, procedures, forms of work or organizational structures, etc.) that aim to improve self-determined conduct of life and meet a social-ethically justified need. At the same time, innovation in social work also refers to the processes in which novel practices emerge. Innovation processes combine previous and/or new knowledge and practices in such a way that it becomes relevant to social work and social pedagogy practice and changes it comprehensively, profoundly, and permanently. Social work, like any human-related service, is knowledge-intensive and development outcomes are rarely a material product. To drive innovative developments in social work, it is

necessary to productively link heterogeneous stocks of knowledge and experience and to find suitable forms of cooperation between different knowledge holders (e.g. cooperative knowledge creation, knowledge brokering; cf. Hüttemann and Solèr 2018). Social work is a welfare profession whose services are essentially financed by public funds. This is one factor that leads to specific preconditions for innovation, as there is hardly any risk capital available for development. Another factor is that knowledge production in the sense of research and knowledge use in the sense of professional practice are located in different places. Under the given conditions, innovation in social work thus becomes relevant as a bridging concept by linking theory, research, development, and practice (Gray et al. 2014). Discussing social innovation in relation to social work, it should be emphasized that social work is a profession. Professions are special occupations that are characterized, among other things, by reference to a central social value (e.g. justice, health) and by the skilful application of science to individual cases. Following Oevermann’s (1996) theory of professionalization, professions can be understood as specialized instances of ‘systematic, i.e. non-random, generation of the new through crisis management’ (own translation, emphasis in original; p. 81). Singular creative solutions to problems in everyday work cannot yet be called innovations but can identify needs and point the way to innovation. Innovations in the sense of reproducible new professional solutions can, in turn, be seen as a catalyst for the development of the profession. In this context, it should be added that social work, as other professions in modern-, functionally differentiated societies, is organizationally framed. Even if the potential inertia and persistence of organizations can be a barrier to innovation, organizations provide resources and infrastructure that are difficult to substitute for the design, testing, evaluation, and the diffusion of innovative developments in social work. Social work aims at (re)gaining self-determination, social integration and political participation of its addressees. This is connected to an attitude of respect for the clients’ self-interpretations and attempts to overcome problems. Clients are understood as experts in their own right and their knowledge and experience as users of social ser-

272

Social innovation in social work  273

vices is not only significant at the level of the individual case but also at the level of renewal of social work services and programmes. Co-design and co-creation are promising innovation strategies in this context (Evers and Ewert 2021; Robert et al. 2021). Innovations in social work should not only aim at a better, more effective and precise addressing of a social problem, but at best also influence its causes. Moreover, to meet changing societal challenges, social work has repeatedly demonstrated its innovative potential: On the one hand, related to its fields of practice and the delivery of social services (e.g. school social work, supported education and employment for people with cognitive impairments or other disabilities, women’s shelters, crisis intervention services). On the other hand, the innovative power of social work has also had a decisive influence on societal innovations such as social planning, family counselling, prevention, or the paradigm shift from integration to inclusion. It can be summarized that innovation in social work is a form of social innovation which, with its novel solutions, relates to a specific sector (social services) but can and should develop effects beyond it (on social contexts). The collaboration of professional and non-professional actors plays a key role in this and can act as a seismograph in relation to social problems. Innovations in connection with social work are characterized by a normative reference based on professional ethics. As a profession and as a scientific discipline, social work can benefit from the impulses of the rapidly developing research and practice of social innovation, e.g. by using methodological points of contact (e.g. open innovation, co-design, design thinking) or by participating in inter- and transdisciplinary research and development projects related to social innovation.

Research on innovation in social work: key findings

Research on innovation in the social sector has so far focused mainly on the micro and meso levels, looking at projects, programmes, and stakeholders and their heterogeneous cooperation (van Wijk et al. 2017). Focuses include implementation issues (Høiland and Willumsen 2018), up-scaling and diffusion of a successful pilot (Brown 2015) or resistance

to innovation and ‘non-take up’ (Ranci and Arlotti 2019, p. 572) of developments. At the level of subject-related topics, for example, it is the drastic changes that ICT is bringing about in the field of social services (Berzin et al. 2015) or paradigm shifts such as the principle of inclusion (instead of integration) in disability care that are leading to fundamental changes in service provision. A look at the current state of knowledge shows four strands of the debate on social innovation in the social sciences and social work: ● Clarifications of the concept of innovation in relation to the common good, social welfare and social work (e.g. Parpan-Blaser 2011). A specific theme here is risk (Osborne and Fleming 2015). ● Innovation as an element of the professionalization of social work (e.g. Gray et al 2014). ● Innovation research related to non-profit human services and developments in social service provision (e.g. Sørensen and Torfing 2015), change agents (e.g. Langer et al. 2019), framework conditions (e.g. Lenz and Shier 2021) and effects (e.g. Schmitz et al. 2013). ● Studies on innovation processes, forms of cooperative development, user-driven innovation and the co-design of social services (e.g. Nandan et al. 2020; Eurich et al. 2018; Zhu and Thomassen 2018; Wihlman et al. 2014) leading to concepts for ‘innovation management’ and the design of innovation processes in the social sector and its organizations (e.g. Langer et al. 2019). From a methodological point of view, there are some approaches (for example exploratory and single case studies, multi-method designs, participatory, cooperative and learning approaches) that are particularly suitable to research the characteristics and current state of innovation in social work. Self-determination is a central goal of social work and, accordingly, the benefits and the role of users require special attention (Jalonen et al. 2018; Langer et al. 2019). This specific perspective can enrich general (social) innovation research when it comes to user involvement and community-based collaboration (Nandan et al. 2020). User research also has an important function, since

Anne Parpan-Blaser and Matthias Hüttemann

274  Encyclopedia of social innovation

it provides starting points for innovations in social work, is part of innovation processes or shows the results of innovation projects (Philips and Shaw 2011). A challenge in research on (social‑)innovation and social work is that – as in other fields – no widely accepted definition of social innovation can (yet) be used as a common reference point for research. This may be one of the reasons why the results of various studies remain unconnected to date. Moreover, until now, research has particularly investigated innovation happening within social service organizations. In contrast, there is little work that explores the question of what role social work plays in higher-level innovation processes or that develops dynamic representations of innovation processes (Avelino et al. 2019).

Critical reflection and outlook

Although the continuous adaptation of social services to changing social conditions is a basic theme of social work, the reference to innovation in social work is viewed critically. One of the main criticisms associated with the concept of innovation in social work is that it can foster the economisation of social work and contribute to the neoliberal restructuring of social services while on the other hand the social-structural contexts in which social problems arise remain underexposed (Lundgaard Andersen 2020). Moreover, the conceptual vagueness may be used by policymakers to mask an agenda of withdrawal from social services (Sinclair and Baglioni 2014). Therefore, it must be demanded that the conceptualization, implementation, and research of innovations in social work are always accompanied by a reference back to its normative framework. The desideratum of participatory approaches is of particular importance in this context. Numerous issues relating to innovation and social work are awaiting further exploration and discussion. Some of these are outlined in the following. To begin, the fact that new developments involve uncertainties and effects that cannot be comprehensively assessed in advance requires critical examination (→ AMBIVALENCE AND SIDE EFFECTS OF SOCIAL INNOVATIONS). In the work with the vulnerable target groups

of social work, reflexivity and possibilities of evaluation are required. It is also important to think about innovation losers. An interesting question here would be what the history of social work teaches us about innovations and their (un)intended outcomes and subsequent developments. However, not all risks are risks for the users. Other risks (e.g. financial) can be consciously assumed after a risk assessment. The added value of innovations is measured in terms of the benefit for service users and the service provision by social work (covering needs in a novel, qualified, differentiated and precisely fitting way). The basis of this value creation is new or newly combined knowledge. As a human-related service, social work is knowledge-intensive and innovation processes are therefore much more determined by learning than by the creation of material products. Follow-up questions to this are directed at the contents (cognitive, normative, institutional, organizational, and/or professional-practical) of innovations in social work and in the welfare system and on the (organizational) mind-set that fosters them. Langer et al. (2019) point out that social service innovation is connected to context innovations. However, they do not provide a conceptual idea of how innovation contexts and context innovation play together. This raises questions about which actors, actor constellations (professional/non-professional, organizational, etc.) and macro-social framework conditions are relevant for the development of innovation in social work in general and in particular fields of action. With regard to innovations in the social sector, it would be of interest to know more precisely what social work as a discipline and profession contributes as González and Puelles (2019, p. 1) speak of ‘hidden innovation’ when it comes to social work’s role in social innovation. More knowledge about innovation within and around social work will allow not only to create conditions conducive to innovation, but also to further refine a concept of innovation that is both specific to social work and compatible with social innovation. Anne Parpan-Blaser and Matthias Hüttemann

Anne Parpan-Blaser and Matthias Hüttemann

Social innovation in social work  275

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Atkins, P. and M. Frederico (2017), ‘Supporting Implementation of Innovative Social Work Practice: What Factors Really Matter?’, British Journal of Social Work, 47 (6), pp. 1723–1744. Avelino, F., J. M. Wittmayer, B. Pel, P. Weaver, A. Dumitru, A. Haxeltine, R. Kemp, M. S. Jørgensen, T. Bauler, S. Ruijsink and T. O’Riordan (2019), ‘Transformative social innovation and (dis)empowerment’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, pp. 195–206. Berzin, S. C., J. Singer and C. Chan (2015), ‘Practice innovation through technology in the digital age: a grand challenge for social work’, Grand Challenges for Social Work Initiative Working Paper No. 12, Cleveland, OH: American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare. Brown, L. (2015), ‘A lasting legacy? Sustaining innovation in a social work context’, British Journal of Social Work, 45 (1), pp. 138–52. Eurich, J., M. Glatz-Schmallegger and A. Parpan-Blaser (eds) (2018), Gestaltung von Innovationen in Organisationen des Sozialwesens. Rahmenbedingungen, Konzepte und Praxisbezüge, Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Evers, A. and B. Ewert (2021), ‘Understanding co-production as a social innovation’, in E. Loeffler and T. Bovaird (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of Co-Production of Public Services and Outcomes, Cham: Springer International, pp. 133–53. González, D. and A. Puelles (2019), ‘Can and should social workers innovate? Two case studies of hidden social innovation’, Journal of Social Work Education and Practice, 4 (2), pp. 1–11. Gray, M., E. Joy, D. Plath and S. A. Webb (2014), ‘Opinions about evidence: a study of social workers’ attitudes towards evidence-based practice’, Journal of Social Work, 14 (1), pp. 23–40. Høiland, G. C. and E. Willumsen (2018), ‘Understanding implementation in complex public organizations – implication for practice’, Journal of Comparative Social Work, 11 (2), pp. 213–41. Hüttemann, M. and M. Solèr (2018), ‘Zur Relevanz und “Relevierung” von Wissen im Innovationsprozess’, in J. Eurich, M. Glatz-Schmallegger and A. Parpan-Blaser (eds), Gestaltung von Innovationen in Organisationen des Sozialwesens: Rahmenbedingungen,

Konzepte und Praxisbezüge, Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien, pp. 225–51. Jalonen, H., A. Sakellariou and S. Pyörre (2018), Relevance, Understanding and Motivation: The Key Catalysts of Co-creation, Policy Brief: Co-creation of Service Innovation in Europe (CoSIE) 12/2018, accessed 23 September 2021 at https://​storage​.googleapis​.com/​turku​-amk/​ 2019/​04/​policy​-brief​-i​-1​.pdf. Langer, A., J. Eurich and S. Güntner (2019), Innovation in Social Services: A Systematising Overview Based on the EU Research Platform INNOSERV, Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Lenz, T. and M. L. Shier (2021), ‘Supporting transformational social innovation through nonprofit and local government relations: a scoping literature review’, Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, pp. 1–25, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​ 23303131​.2021​.1887033. Lundgaard Andersen, L. (2020), ‘Social innovation in welfare practices: identification, idealisation and shame’, Journal of Psycho-Social Studies, 13 (3), pp. 235–45. Nandan, M., K. Jaskyte and G. Mandayam (2020), ‘Human centered design as a new approach to creative problem solving: its usefulness and applicability for social work practice’, Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 44 (4), pp. 310–16. Oevermann, U. (1996), ‘Theoretische Skizze einer revidierten Theorie professionalisierten Handelns’, in A. Combe and W. Helsper (eds), Pädagogische Professionalität, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, pp. 70–182. Oosterlynck, S., Y. Kazepov, A. Novy, P. Cools, F. Wukovitsch, T. Saruis, E. Barberis and B. Leubolt (eds) (2013), ‘Exploring the multi-level governance of welfare provision and social innovation: welfare mix, welfare models and rescaling’, discussion paper 13/12, accessed www​ .academia​ 24 September 2021 at http://​ .edu/​4846809/​Oosterlynck​-Kazepov​-et​-al​ -2013​-Exploring​-the​-multilevel​-governance​-of​ -welfare​-provision​-and​-social​-innovation. Osborne, S. and S. Fleming (2015), ‘Conceptualizing risk and social innovation: an integrated framework for risk governance’, Society and Economy in Central and Eastern Europe, 37 (2), pp. 165–82. Parpan-Blaser, A. (2011), Innovation in der sozialen Arbeit: Zur theoretischen und empirischen Grundlegung eines Konzepts, Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Phillips, C. and I. Shaw (2011), ‘Innovation and the practice of social work research’, British Journal of Social Work, 41 (4), pp. 609–24. Ranci, C. and M. Arlotti (2019), ‘Resistance to change: the problem of high non-take up in implementing policy innovations in the Italian

Anne Parpan-Blaser and Matthias Hüttemann

276  Encyclopedia of social innovation long-term care system’, Policy and Society, 38 (4), pp. 572–88. Robert, G., S. Donetto and O. Williams (2021), ‘Co-designing healthcare services with patients’, in E. Loeffler and T. Bovaird (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of Co-Production of Public Services and Outcomes, Cham: Springer International, pp. 313–33. Schmitz, B., G. Krlev, G. Mildenberger, E. Bund and D. Hubrich (2013), Paving the Way to Measurement: A Blueprint for Social Innovation Metrics. European Commission – 7th Framework Programme, Brussels, accessed 24 September 2021 at https://​www​.siceurope​ .eu/​sites/​default/​files/​field/​attachment/​TEPSIE​ %20Policy​%20Paper​%20Measurement​ %20Blueprint​%20(WP2)​.pdf. Sinclair, S. and S. Baglioni (2014), ‘Social innovation and social policy: promises and risks’, Social Policy and Society, 13 (3), pp. 469–76. Sommerfeld, P. (2020), ‘Soziale Arbeit’, in J.-M. Bonvin, P. Maeder, C. Knöpfel, V. Hugentobler and U. Tecklenburg (eds), Wörterbuch der Schweizer Sozialpolitik, Zürich/Genf: Seismo Verlag, pp. 425–7. Sørensen, E. and J. Torfing (2015), ‘Enhancing public innovation through collaboration,

leadership and new public governance’, in A. Nicholls, J. Simon and M. Gabriel (eds), New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 145–69. van Wijk, J., C. Zietsma, S. Dorado, F. G. A. de Bakker and I. Martí (2017), ‘Social innovation: integrating micro, meso, and macro level insights from institutional theory’, Business & Society, 58 (5), pp. 887–918. Westley, F. (2018), ‘Social innovation and resilient societies’, in J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka, A. Schröder and M. Zirngiebl (eds), Atlas of Social Innovation: New Practices for a Better Future, Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle, TU Dortmund University, pp. 22–5. Wihlman, T., M. Hoppe, U. Sandström Wihlman and H. Sandmark (2014), ‘Employee-driven innovation in welfare services’, Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 4 (2), pp. 159–80. Zhu, H. and S. Thomassen (2018), ‘User-driven innovation and technology-use in public health and social care: a systematic review of existing evidence’, Journal of Innovation Management, 6 (2), pp. 138–69.

Anne Parpan-Blaser and Matthias Hüttemann

49. Social innovation and territorial development Introduction

Traditional approach to territorial development

Social innovation is generally understood as a territorially embedded process of addressing unmet social needs (Moulaert and Nussbaumer 2005). Over the last two decades, significant scholarly efforts have been dedicated to understanding how territorial contexts shape and are shaped by social innovation activity. These efforts generated a diverse body of knowledge on the role of social innovation in what could be generally described as territorial development, understood as improvement in the quality of life and living standards of different social groups. Such research investigated topics such as approaches to place-based partnerships for social innovation, the existence and composition of social innovation ecosystems (→ ECOSYSTEMS OF SOCIAL INNOVATION), and impacts of different institutional relations on social innovation processes (examples of such research include Maccallum et al. 2009; Moulaert et al. 2013; Howaldt et al. 2018; Drewe et al. 2008). Although the role played by social innovation in territorial development has gained dedicated attention, social innovation as innovation rooted in social relations was indirectly discussed in several different theories. Examples include soft factors in territorial development, the quadruple helix model, and more recent developments in transformative change. Yet, limited attention has been paid to comparing the perspectives of different theories on the role of social innovation in territorial development. This entry discusses how social innovation has been theorized, directly or indirectly, in relation to territorial development, and contrasts it with the traditional approach. This work considers several of the most popular theoretical stances to territorial development and selected empirical results. However, by no means does it aim to carry out a comprehensive analysis of all theories that are directly or indirectly linked to territorial development.

The traditional approach understands territorial development in the economic sense (i.e. in terms of local economic growth). This approach refers to ideas expressed throughout the twentieth century that innovation activity of commercial enterprises is strongly associated with territorial economic performance (Solow 1957), which in turn improves the quality of life of the local population (Kanbur 2000). Traditional approaches focus on creating favourable conditions for localized business innovation activity via facilitating geographical and non-geographical connections between firms and producers of knowledge. Examples include regional innovation systems, learning regions, industrial districts, innovation milieus and several other models. The long-standing focus of traditional approaches on fostering the competitiveness of territorial markets presents a narrow understanding of development as territorial economic growth and overlooks community well-being and environmental sustainability (Moulaert and Sekia 2003). Moreover, the once assumed ability of innovation activity of the business enterprise sector to benefit different social groups did not fully materialize and resulted in widening inequality instead (Fagerberg et al. 2010; Lee 2016). These developments motivated the emergence of alternative viewpoints that emphasize the roles of actors beyond the business enterprise sector in improving social and economic welfare of territories.

Soft factors and civil society in territorial development

Theories that perceive development as a process dependent on both hard factors (research and innovation facilities, research and development expenditures, knowledge exchange opportunities) and soft factors (social connectivity, community spaces, cultural facilities, green spaces) include, for example, theories of social capital in regional development (Putnam et al. 1992) and the creative class in urban development (Florida 2002). The creative class perspective argues that (1) highly educated people employed in creative industries drive urban development and that (2) these individuals are attracted to

277

278  Encyclopedia of social innovation

cities that are inclusive and diverse (Florida 2002). This theory emphasized the role of non-technological innovation in the development of urban economies and the importance of urban social environments in attracting creative professionals. Although this perspective still primarily relates to innovation activity in the business enterprise sector, it also discusses territorial development in a broader sense as improving economic activity and social well-being via technological and non-technological innovation in the business enterprise sector. The social capital theory presents a somewhat similar version of regional economic development as development embedded into social relations between individuals and firms. Putnam et al. (1992) argued that regions with tight-knit civic communities and well-functioning local governments are also highly prosperous. Thus, according to social capital theory, territorial development is measured not only by economic output but also by trust and involvement of the civil society in local political life and in the operation of the institutions. Social capital theory closely relates to the broad range of literature on the role of third sector organizations in contributing to territorial development by providing quasi-public goods and services in the areas where existing public and private organizations could not sufficiently satisfy diverse needs of the population (Weisbrod 1988; Matsunaga et al. 2010). Third sector organizations could contribute to both social and economic domains of territorial development by creating jobs, especially for groups with limited opportunities for employment in commercial enterprises, and increasing supply of localized services with the use of public, voluntary and market resources (Borzaga and Defourny 2001). By doing so, some of these organizations innovate by offering new products, new methods of production and involving new types of resources such as volunteer labour. The role of civil society in the innovation process and territorial development was also reflected in several other theories of innovation systems, for example, in quadruple helix theory. Quadruple helix theory sees the public, among the other three helices of academia, industry, and government, forming an innovation ecosystem (Carayannis and Campbell 2009). The model suggests the importance of public support of innovation policies Alina Kadyrova

and research and development. The quadruple helix approach gained some traction in social innovation literature (for example, in Benneworth et al. 2020); however, the literature on quadruple helix often sees civil society as a more passive actor that ‘feeds in’ its preferences on research and development and innovation policies while the businesses remain the main type of innovating actors.

Social innovation and territorial development

In social innovation literature, the concept of territorial development is not strictly defined, but it is generally understood as the improvement of social, economic, and environmental well-being of communities. The emphasis on the local character of social innovations stems from two ideas: firstly, social innovations shape and are shaped by local contexts and, secondly, local social problems require locally developed solutions (Moulaert and Nussbaumer 2005). Attempts to theorize the role of social innovation in territorial development resulted in the introduction of alternative territorial innovation models that centre on social innovation and not on business innovation. The Integrated Area Development model (Moulaert et al. 2005) sees territorial development as a primarily bottom-up process driven by social innovation as innovation that satisfies the unmet human needs and builds new social relations among territorial actors. The social innovation process unites different public and private actors that jointly develop neighbourhood development strategies that target interconnected domains of economy, housing, democracy, culture, and so on. Therefore, according to the Integrated Area Development approach, territorial development is a bottom-up social process that engages actors from the inside and outside of neighbourhoods and empowers communities to design local solutions to local problems. Although the Integrated Area Development model did not become widely adopted in social innovation literature, many researchers investigated different aspects of collective bottom-up social innovation processes through case studies set in different parts of the world. The case studies cover diverse contexts, including rural and urban areas of Europe (Moulaert et al. 2013, chs. 13–18; Thompson 2018; Arampatzi 2021), Middle

Social innovation and territorial development  279

East (Howaldt et al. 2018), Asia (Tanimoto 2012; Minas et al. 2020) and the Americas (Drewe et al. 2008, chs. 6, 9, 10). The qualitative case studies, along with the quantitative research, demonstrated that while social innovation changes local social relations, the innovation and potential impact of the initiatives is also affected by the territorial features. For example, the level of territorial resources influences the spatial concentration of social innovation activity, while stakeholder support, political relations and policy frameworks determine its sectoral profile and reach (Oeij et al. 2019; Akguc 2019; Kadyrova 2021; Pel et al. 2019; Turker and Vural 2017, among many others). Therefore, an analysis of social innovation is inseparable from understanding territorial contexts and the interaction between contextual factors and social innovation activity.

Field outlook and opportunities for future research

The main strength of social innovation research is that it offers a broader perspective on territorial development as a process that generates economic output and improves the social and environmental well-being of communities. By focusing on problems such as poverty, exclusion, and inequality in both developed and developing contexts, including areas leading in business innovation activity, social innovation research notes that high economic outputs do not equate to local development. Therefore, by putting inclusiveness and well-being first, social innovation redefines local development as progress in living conditions of different social groups. Contrary to traditional approaches to territorial development, social innovation research shifts the focus from contribution of individual actors or organizations of one sector (e.g. firms, government, charities) to the role of cross sector collaborations and collective effort (→ CROSS-SECTOR COLLABORATION) in tackling societal and environmental challenges. Also, by investigating territorial development of a lower spatial level of neighbourhoods and cities, the literature highlights the innovating power of actors who are not traditionally associated with innovation – civil society and the third sector. Multiple examples demonstrate that these actors have experience and capabilities

to develop both product and service innovations that positively impact the lives of excluded communities. However, there are several gaps in relation to social innovation and territorial development. First, there is limited systematic evidence on whether social innovation can sustain positive change. Many studies report immediate or short-term positive changes created by social innovation, while there is a limited understanding of its long-term effects. Second, there is no agreed-upon understanding of what spatial level represents the territorial nature of social innovation. The case studies of the territorial character of social innovations address different spatial levels such as urban districts, cities, rural areas, and regions and demonstrate that both local and non-local actors are involved in the innovation process. Given the variability of the organizational forms and sectoral concentration of social innovation, it is not clear which actors and which spatial level the support frameworks should target. Future research could, firstly, explore the short-term and long-term impacts of social innovation in greater detail and, secondly, develop a systematic approach to measurement and data collection on social innovation. Exploring social innovation’s impacts will enable understanding of the factors that support the sustained positive impact of social innovation and what works and what does not work in different socioeconomic contexts. More geographically representative and robust data on social innovation will allow using quantitative methods to determine the location patterns of social innovators. That research will help to have a clearer understanding of why urban areas, regions and countries have more social innovation projects than the others and what support social innovators need. Finally, the researchers could discuss the future of social innovation in the market economy. While there is a shared need for innovation that addresses social challenges, social innovation’s focus on maximizing social impact rather than profits goes against the principles of capitalist economies. This, in turn, questions the chances of social inno-

Alina Kadyrova

280  Encyclopedia of social innovation

vation to replace business innovation as a development engine. Alina Kadyrova

0 (0), pp.  1–23, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​ 19420676​.2021​.1921013. Kanbur, R. (2000), ‘Income distribution and development’, in A. B. Atkinson and F. Bourguignon (eds), Handbook of Income Distribution – Volume 1, Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 791–841. References Lee, N. (2016), ‘Growth with inequality? The Entries marked in bold are further reading local consequences of innovation and creativmaterial. ity’, in R. Shearmur, C. Carrinazeaux and D. Doloreux (eds), Handbook on the Geographies Akguc, M. (2019), ‘Understanding the deterof Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar minants of social innovation in Europe: an Publishing, pp. 419–31. econometric approach’, European Planning Maccallum, D., F. Moulaert, J. Hillier and S. Studies, 28 (5), pp. 1–14, https://​doi​.org/​10​ V. Haddock (2009), Social Innovation and .1080/​09654313​.2019​.1578732. Territorial Development, Aldershot: Ashgate. Arampatzi, A. (2021), ‘Social innovation and Matsunaga, Y., N. Yamauchi and N. Okuyama austerity governance in Athens and Madrid: (2010), ‘What determines the size of the rethinking the changing contours of policy nonprofit sector? A cross-country analysis and practice’, European Urban and Regional of the government failure theory’, Voluntas, doi​ .org/​ 10​ Studies, 29 (1), pp. 45–58, https://​ 21 (2), pp.  180–201, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​ .1177/​09697764211028900. s11266–010–9125–9. Benneworth, P., J. Cunha and R. Cinar (2020), Minas, A. M., S. Mander and C. McLachlan ‘Between good intentions and enthusiastic pro(2020), ‘How can we engage farmers in biofessors: the missing middle of university social energy development? Building a social innoinnovation structures in the quadruple helix’, vation strategy for rice straw bioenergy in the in L. Farinha, J. J. Ferreira, M. Ranga, and D. Philippines and Vietnam’, Energy Research & Santos (eds), Regional Helix Ecosystems and Social Science, 70, 101717, https://​doi​.org/​10​ Economic Growth, Cham: Springer, pp. 21–45, .17632/​gmrwfm9rrn​.1. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​978–3​-030–47697–7​_1. Moulaert, F., D. Maccallum, A. Mehmood and A. Borzaga, C. and J. Defourny (2001), ‘Social Hamdouch (2013), The International Handbook enterprises in Europe: a diversity of inion Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social tiatives and prospects’, in C. Borzaga Learning and Transdisciplinary Research, and J. Defourny (eds), The Emergence of Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Social Enterprise, London and New York: Moulaert, F., F. Martinelli, E. Swyngedouw and Routledge, pp. 350–71. S. González (2005), ‘Towards alternative Carayannis, E. G. and D. F. J. Campbell (2009), model(s) of local innovation’, Urban Studies, ‘“Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: toward 42 (11), pp.  1969–90, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​ a 21st century fractal innovation ecosys00420980500279893. tem’, International Journal of Technology Moulaert, F. and J. Nussbaumer (2005), ‘The Management, 46 (3–4), pp. 201–34, https://​doi​ social region: beyond the territorial dynamics .org/​10​.1504/​ijtm​.2009​.023374. of the learning economy’, European Urban and Drewe, P., J.-L. Klein and E. Hulsbergen (eds) Regional Studies, 12 (1), pp. 45–64, https://​doi​ (2008), The Challenge of Social Innovation .org/​10​.1177/​0969776405048500. in Urban Revitalization, Amsterdam: Techne Moulaert, F. and F. Sekia (2003), ‘Territorial Press. innovation models: a critical survey’, Fagerberg, J., M. Srholec and B. Verspagen Regional Studies, 37 (3), pp. 289–302, https://​ (2010), ‘Innovation and economic developdoi​.org/​10​.1080/​0034340032000065442. ment’, in B. H. Hall and N. Rosenberg (eds), Oeij, P. R. A., W. Van Der Torre, F. Vaas and S. Handbook of the Economics of Innovation. Dhondt (2019), ‘Understanding social innoVol. 2, Amsterdam: Elsevier, https://​doi​.org/​10​ vation as an innovation process: applying the .1016/​S​0169–7218(​10)02004–6. innovation journey model’, Journal of Business Florida, R. (2002), The Rise of Creative Class, Research, 101, pp.  243–54, https://​doi​.org/​10​ New York: Basic Books. .1016/​j​.jbusres​.2019​.04​.028. Howaldt, J., C. Kaletka, A. Schröder and M. Pel, B., J. Wittmayer, J. Dorland and M. S. Zingiebl (2018), Atlas of Social Innovation: Jørgensen (2019), ‘Unpacking the social innoNew Practices for a Better Future, Munich: vation ecosystem: an empirically grounded Oekom. typology of empowering network constellaKadyrova, A. (2021), ‘Exploring structures of tions’, Innovation: The European Journal of urban social innovation ecosystems: cases of Social Science Research, 33 (2), pp. 311–36, Manchester, Utrecht, Stockholm, Sofia and Budapest’, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship

Alina Kadyrova

Social innovation and territorial development  281 https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​13511610​.2019​ .1705147. Putnam, R. D., R. Leonardi and R. Nanetti (1992), Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Solow, R. M (1957), ‘Technical change and the aggregate production function’, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 39 (3), pp. 312–20. Tanimoto, K. (2012), ‘The emergent process of social innovation: multi-stakeholders perspective’, International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 4 (3/4), pp. 267–80, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1504/​ijird​.2012​.047561.

Thompson, M. (2018), ‘Playing with the rules of the game: social innovation for urban transformation’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 43 (6), pp. 1168–92, https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1111/​1468–2427​.12663. Turker, D. and C. A. Vural (2017), ‘Embedding social innovation process into the institutional context: voids or supports’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119, pp.  98–113, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.techfore​ .2017​.03​.019. Weisbrod, B. (1988), The Nonprofit Economy, Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.

Alina Kadyrova

50. Social innovation research and practice for sustainable development Definition and significance of sustainable development The idea of development: from modernization to sustainability For many years since 1945, a top-down, market- and technology-driven development approach has dominated policies and practices for enabling economically poorer countries to ‘catch up’ with richer nations. These have been based on ideas around modernization, growth, structuralism and dependency, predicated on the primacy of top-down macro-economic interventions, typically imposed by the IMF and World Bank. National governments were coerced to align with ‘global forces’ that assumed all countries would follow the same development path to ‘modernization’. A largely one-size-fits-all approach was imposed on poorer, mostly ex-colonial, countries that ignored their own social and cultural conditions and institutional needs (Millard 2014). Alternative frameworks began to emerge in the late 1980s, especially post-development and human development theories that recognize some of these contextual differences. Ideas about sustainable development also arose in response to emerging evidence that existing development models were despoiling the natural environment. Sustainable development applies the notion of sustainability, referring to the ability to continue over a long period of time, to the specific goal of human development encompassing social, economic and environmental dimensions. The focus here is on sustainable development rather than much broader conceptualizations of sustainability (→ SUSTAINABLE INNOVATION). The United Nations (UN) has been the instigator and main driver of the sustainable development concept and framework since the late 1980s and remains so today, subsequently taken up and elaborated by other institutions as well as by researchers and practitioners.

In 1987 the UN pooled these ideas into its Brundtland report that defined sustainable development as development that ‘meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (Brundtland 1987, ch. 2, para. 1). A few years later, UNCED (1992) combined both the evidence and theory of sustainable development to show that sustainable societies are necessary for a sustainable environment, and vice versa. This led to the acceptance that if any of the three sustainability dimensions is weak then all are unsustainable, and resulted in the UN’s first global sustainable development framework for 2000–2015 with the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (United Nations 2000). The MDGs made important gains, especially in the reduction of extreme poverty, but serious shortfalls continued (United Nations 2015), particularly due to increasing globalization involving new systems of production, finance and consumption. (Robinson 2007). Globalization brought benefits in poverty reduction, but also downsides in accelerating environmental deterioration from increasing industrialization in the emerging economies, especially of Asia, and in a massive rise of in-country inequalities. The three sustainability dimensions were becoming increasingly unbalanced, a realization that underpinned the UN’s new 2016–30 sustainable development agenda termed the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (General Assembly 2015). There were now 15 SDGs positioned across the three sustainable development dimensions with an additional two focused on the goals of inclusive institutions (SDG16) and global partnerships (SDG17). Social innovation as a means of delivering sustainable development During the preparation of the SDGs, policy makers recognized that historically human development has relied on changing social practices and cultures. In 2014 for the first time, the UNDP (2014) highlighted social innovation as a mainstream tool for delivering sustainable development, with or without large-scale public and private funding. Previously, development agencies rarely if ever used the term social innovation to describe many of the actions and processes of development. Today, however, the role of

282

Social innovation research and practice for sustainable development  283

bottom-up social innovation in designing and delivering public services to income-poor and marginalized people in a gender sensitive manner, especially when based on local acceptance and advocacy campaigns, is seen as an important means of achieving the SDGs by 2030 (United Nations 2020). There is increasing convergence between the means and the ends of sustainable development and social innovation. Both rely on changing social practices in response to societal needs and driving these towards institutionalization by becoming regular and routine (Howaldt et al. 2014). This can be encouraged through top-down processes or developed from the bottom, perhaps initially more slowly and more informally, through ordinary people’s everyday ways of living and working adapting to their changing needs and environments. Social innovation is thus increasingly recognized as an important component of the new innovation framework necessary for sustainable development. For example, Fucci’s (2022) core argument is that there is a ‘nurturing relationship between social innovation and sustainable development’ (p. 211), and that all the ‘requirements which are fundamental to the achievement of sustainable development are already embedded in social innovation’ (p. 216).

Key findings How social innovation supports the three dimensions of sustainable development Social innovation approaches have already made significant contributions to the three dimensions of sustainable development. In terms of social development, social innovation’s focus on a multi-actor approach and especially putting citizens, communities and civil society at the centre, both as major beneficiaries of meeting social needs as well as major innovation partners, underpinned the preparation of the 2030 Agenda. Recent research demonstrates that successful social innovation for sustainable development involves civil society, non-public and non-commercial actors, both formal and informal, much more than social innovation not explicitly focused on sustainable development (Millard 2017). Vulnerable people especially experience multiple deprivation challenges that single sector or

single actor interventions can often exacerbate rather than ameliorate (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION AND POVERTY AND MARGINALIZATION). Civil organizations are typically more trusted by the beneficiary, particularly the poor and vulnerable, as they have greater local knowledge and are more nimble than other actors. They act, in effect, as trusted third parties, for example in the safe adoption of new technology (Evers and Ewert 2015). They can span different needs, act across sectors and are less likely to become side-tracked by commercial or political interests, so are better able to be neutral mediators and integrators. Social innovations can contribute significantly to meeting economic needs. For example, in developing countries there is increasing focus on how large populations that are relatively poor can be mobilized as human resources in their own right and thus become economic actors driving their own prosperity and meeting their own social needs, rather than being seen as a drag on economic development. This is proposed in the ‘bottom of the pyramid’ concept as a form of market-led social innovation aiming to value and empower ordinary people treating them as both producers and consumers (Prahalad 2004; Simanis and Hart 2008). Social innovation is also seen as efficiently filling the gap in many countries between the state and the market, for example, by relying on direct social relations rather than the hidden hand of the market. Micro-finance succeeds because transactions are built on reputation as collateral (Boettke and Rathbone 2002). New technology is helping to scale up local success stories, enable resource-poor individuals and small organizations have global reach, and transform economic behaviour from being purely incentive-based to one more receptive to networks and the social signal of social media (Ormerod 2012). The ‘sharing economy’ movement provides a good example where the internet helps people with under-used or redundant assets share with those who need them (Botsman and Rogers 2010). Social innovation in support of environmental sustainability appears the least developed of the three dimensions, although a 2014 research report noted that its participatory and creative nature positions it well to address environmental challenges Jeremy Millard

284  Encyclopedia of social innovation

(Science Communication Unit 2014). Social innovation’s multi-method and multi-actor approaches are essential, for example, in the recent focus on nature-based solutions to achieve more sustainable and resilient societies (European Commission 2021). Social innovation can also address environmental issues by providing new ways to tackle society’s need for repairing and recycling goods as part of an emergent circular economy and reducing food waste (Schartinger 2017). The DEEDS (2019) project on social innovation and decarbonization concluded that citizen participation needs both de-centralized governance structures and centralized institutions.

Social innovation for sustainable development prioritizes social and governance issues The SI-DRIVE project (Krüger et al. 2018) provided empirical data from 1,005 detailed case studies selected by local social innovation experts and practitioners globally. Some results are presented in Figure 50.1 showing, in black, 791 social innovation initiatives with some relevance for one or more SDGs, and, in grey, the 176 initiatives that were designed to directly address one or more SDGs. Each initiative is allocated to three SDGs to which it most directly contributes, with the most relevant weighted three times, the second most relevant weighted twice, whilst the third weighted only once (Millard 2021).

Source: Millard (2021).

Figure 50.1

Mapping social innovation to the 17 SDGs (2017 data)

Jeremy Millard

Social innovation research and practice for sustainable development  285

Figure 50.1 shows that the ‘total SI’ data reveals a different set of SDG priorities than the ‘SI for SD’ cases. Education (SDG4) leads in both, but otherwise there are clear differences. The ‘SI for SD’ cases prioritize reducing inequality (SDG10), reducing poverty (SDG1), tackling hunger and food issues (SDG2) and improving water and sanitation (SDG6) much more than the ‘total SI’ cases. They are also more focused on the two governance SDGs (16 and 17). The conclusion is that ’SI for SD’ reflects the current strong focus of sustainable development, particularly though not only in the developing and emerging economies, on issues related to social deprivation, inequality and the need for redress through better governance. The inset data shows that ‘SI for SD’ initiatives put relatively more weight on the social, governance and environmental dimensions compared to the ‘total SI’ cases that focus proportionately more on the economic dimension. Figure 50.1 also demonstrates the glaringly low prioritization of environmental SDGs overall, making this the weakest dimension threatening to undermine the sustainability of the system as a whole.

Critical reflection and outlook The world has changed Two main conclusions can be drawn from the above. First, social innovation clearly makes an essential contribution to sustainable development. Its goals and methods have been embedded in development practices since the human development perspective was included in the late 1970s. However, it is only in the last ten years that social innovation has been explicitly identified as a distinct discipline in its own right in development initiatives, as until that time practitioners and theorists were typically operating in separate silos. This is now changing rapidly, not least due to the wider recognition of the importance of inter- and transdisciplinary studies given that real people in the real world lead interdisciplinary lives. Indeed, social innovation tends to be much better than other types of innovation, such as technology and business innovation, at cutting across and linking between the various dimensions of sustainable development (Millard 2017). Social innovation’s focus on actual problems

and opportunities on the ground, as well as directly involving and empowering all actors including the beneficiaries, obliges it to take a multi-dimensional view. Second, the world has changed dramatically over the last ten years. Minority concerns about climate change and the environment have become societal-wide. From 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic led to the worst global economic recession since the 1930s, subsequently compounded by the 2022 Ukrainian war. The perceptions of politicians, researchers, businesses and citizens have shifted dramatically bringing the visibility of sustainable development centre stage. Most societies are entering an age of more or less constant uncertainty and turbulent change, so need to become much more resilient in tackling existing and likely continuing disruptions. Such as, new pandemics, climate crises, biodiversity loss, geo-political tensions, trade and governance challenges, as well as critical socio-economic conditions like uneven growth, inequality, exclusion and technological disruption. Given that all such shocks are interrelated, social innovation’s cross-dimensional and inclusive nature is ideally suited as a mainstream resilience tool. For example, both the climate and COVID crises have dramatically exacerbated global extreme poverty, especially in the developing countries and emerging economies. According to the Brookings Institution (2021), 588 million people could still be in extreme poverty by 2030, an additional 50 million people compared with pre-COVID-19 estimates. This new poverty challenge exacerbates the dramatic rise of inequality within most countries since the 1980s, so that COVID-19 has exposed and accelerated existing inequalities. More people now work in informal, precarious or gig economy jobs, typically based on new digital technology, leading to increasing numbers of the working poor. Although many developed economies have had low unemployment rates, this often relies on low wages, poor working conditions and weak job security. However, many of these jobs are precisely those praised by employers and governments as essential workers keeping society functioning during COVID-19. These include workers in the health and care sectors, transport and maintenance, cleaners and caterers, retail, food Jeremy Millard

286  Encyclopedia of social innovation

and agricultural workers, plus drivers and delivery workers. Social innovation needs to change All forms of human development need to be sustainable, not just environmentally but also in social, economic and governance terms, as all are inter-woven and mutually dependent. Although the SDGs have already achieved a great deal, key aspects are failing (UN Human Rights Council 2020), and there is widespread agreement on the need to recalibrate our response to COVID-19, the haphazard and unequal aftermath of the ensuing recession, and accelerating global warming. In order to meet these challenges, social innovation for sustainable development should now focus on three new nexus groupings that cut across all the dimensions (Millard 2021): (a)

The climate and environmental crisis nexus (combining SDGs 13, 14 and 15, plus 6 and 7). Social innovation should focus much more intensely on the environment and on a new socio-ecological transition. Natural systems often show the way for successful social innovations, such as ecosystem development, diversity and interdependence, re-cycling and re-using assets, circular economies, and learning systems through co-creation. They show the need to recognize that any under-used asset is a wasted asset, as long as this use is ethical, inclusive, transparent and non-exploitative. (b) The poverty-hunger eradication and economic and gender equality nexus (combining SDGs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 10). These SDGs are typically interlinked in practice reflecting multiple forms of deprivation and exclusion that include both extreme and relative poverty affecting peoples’ lives even in developed countries. ‘All-round’ and ‘joined-up’ approaches that cut across conventional silos are required that treat people as whole individuals with their own dignities and identities. (c) The good governance nexus, fair, open and just institutions, and strong partnerships (combining SDGs 16 and 17 in support of all SDGs). Social innovation should assist in joining-up governance and policy responses, for example that Jeremy Millard

integrate across silos, across sectors, between levels, and/or involve multiple actors working together. Too many social and economic policies tackle poverty and inequality by only attempting to improve the agency of the poor through individual training and so-called empowerment, instead of also tackling the root causes embedded in societal structures that prevent the poor from making the most of their own efforts. Legal and regulatory frameworks need to be conducive to the new social and business models required to successfully come through the pandemic and then build back better. These frameworks need to be re-cast to ensure fair distribution of social, economic and environmental rights and benefits that are all too often held back by existing structures. Jeremy Millard

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Boettke, P. J. and A. Rathbone (2002), ‘Civil society, social entrepreneurship, and economic calculation: towards a political economy of the philanthropic enterprise’, The Philanthropic Enterprise, Working Paper 8. Botsman R. and R. Rogers (2010), What’s Mine Is Yours: The Rise of Collaborative Consumption, New York: HarperCollins Books. Brookings Institution (2021), ‘Long-run impacts of COVID-19 on extreme poverty’, 2 June 2020, accessed 30 June 2022 at https://​www​ .brookings​.edu/​blog/​future​-development/​ 2021/​06/​02/​long​-run​-impacts​-of​-covid​-19​-on​ -extreme​-poverty/​. Brundtland Commission Report (1987), Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, New York: United Nations. DEEDS (2019), ‘Workshop report: social innovation and lifestyle change for the decarbonisation of Europe, a deliverable of the DEEDS project on Dialogue on European Decarbonisation Pathways’, 28 March, Brussels, accessed 7 October 2022 at https://​deeds​.eu/​workshop​ -social​-innovation​-and​-lifestyle​-change​-for​-the​ -decarbonisation​-of​-europe​-28​-march​-2019–2/​. European Commission (2021), ‘Evaluating the impact of nature-based solutions: a handbook for practitioners’, Brussels: European Commission, accessed 30 June 2022 at https://​op​.europa​.eu/​

Social innovation research and practice for sustainable development  287 en/​publication​-detail/​-/​publication/​d7d496b5​ -ad4e​-11eb​-9767–01aa75ed71a1. Evers, A. and B. Ewert (2015), ‘Social innovation for social cohesion’, in A. Nicholls, J. Simon and M. Gabriel (eds), New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Fucci, V. (2022), ‘Social innovation and sustainable development: a nurturing relationship’, ITCILO World of Work Series, Giappichelli Editore. General Assembly (2015), Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, A/RES/70/1, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, accessed 1 July 2022 at https://​www​.un​.org/​en/​development/​desa/​ population/​migration/​generalassembly/​docs/​ globalcompact/​A​_RES​_70​_1​_E​.pdf. Howaldt, J., A. Kesselring, R. Kopp and M. Schwarz (2014), ‘Social theory’, in J. Howaldt, A. Butzin, D. Domanski and C. Kaletka (eds), Theoretical Approaches to Social Innovation: A Critical Literature Review, a deliverable of the project ‘Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change’ (SI-DRIVE), Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle, accessed 30 June 2022 at https://​www​.si​-drive​.eu/​wp​-content/​uploads/​ 2014/​11/​D1​_1​-Critical​-Literature​-Review​.pdf. Krüger, D., A. Schröder, K. Kapoor, V. Weerakkody and M. Weber (2018), ‘Methodology: guidelines for defining and describing social innovations’, a deliverable of the project Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change (SI-DRIVE), Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle, accessed 30 June 2022 at https://​www​.si​-drive​.eu/​wp​-content/​uploads/​ 2018/​03/​SI​-DRIVE​-D2​_4​-Methodology​-2018​ -final​.pdf. Millard, J. (2014), ‘Development theory’, in J. Howaldt, A. Butzin, D. Domanski and C. Kaletka (eds), Theoretical Approaches to Social Innovation: A Critical Literature Review, a deliverable of the project ‘Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change’ (SI-DRIVE), Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle, accessed 30 June 2022 at https://​www​.si​-drive​.eu/​wp​-content/​ uploads/​2014/​11/​D1​_1​-Critical​-Literature​ -Review​.pdf. Millard, J. (2017), ‘Social innovation in poverty reduction and sustainable development: final report on the policy field’, a deliverable of the project Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change (SI-DRIVE), Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle, accessed 7 October 2021 at https://​www​.si​-drive​.eu/​wp​-content/​ uploads/​2018/​03/​SI​-DRIVE​-D10​_4​-Final​

-Policy​-Field​-Report​-Poverty​-Reduction​ .pdf. Millard, J. (2021), ‘The role of social innovation research in sustainable development’, in J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka and A. Schröder (eds), A Research Agenda for Social Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 81–98. Ormerod, P. (2012), Positive Linking: How Networks and Incentives Can Revolutionise the World, London: Faber & Faber. Prahalad, C. K. (2004), The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty Through Profits, New York: Pearson Prentice Hall. Robinson, W. I. (2007), ‘Theories of globalization’, in G. Ritzer and W. I. Robinson (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Globalization, Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 125–43. Schartinger, D., B. Wepner, T. Andersson, Q. Abbas, D. Asenova, Z. Damianova, A. Dimova, V. Ariton, C. Hannum, S. Eker, A. Schröder and M. Zirngiebl (2017), Social Innovation in Environment and Climate Change: Summary Report, a deliverable of the project ‘Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change’ (SI-DRIVE), Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle, accessed 30 June 2022 at https://​www​.si​-drive​.eu/​wp​-content/​uploads/​ 2018/​03/​SI​-DRIVE​-D6​_4​-Final​-Policy​-Field​ -Report​-Environment​.pdf. Science Communication Unit, University of the West of England, Bristol (2014), Science for Environment Policy In-depth Report: Social Innovation and the Environment, report produced for the European Commission DG Environment, February, accessed 1 July 2022 at https://​ec​.europa​.eu/​environment/​integration/​ research/​newsalert/​pdf/​IR10​_en​.pdf. Simanis, E. and S. Hart (2008), The Base of the Pyramid Protocol: Toward Next Generation BoP Strategy (2nd edition), Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, accessed 1 July 2022 at https://​ www​.johnson​.cornell​.edu/​wp​-content/​uploads/​ sites/​3/​2019/​04/​BoP​_Protocol​_2nd​_ed​.pdf. UN Human Rights Council (2020), The Parlous State of Poverty Eradication, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights, A/HRC/44/40, 19 November, accessed 1 July 2022 at https://​documents​-dds​ -ny​.un​.org/​doc/​UNDOC/​GEN/​G20/​320/​54/​ PDF/​G2032054​.pdf​?OpenElement. UNCED [United Nations Conference on Environment and Development] (1992), Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, UN Doc. A/CONF.151/26 (vol. I), 31 ILM 874, New York: United Nations Dept. of Public Information, 1993. UNDP [United Nations Development Programme] (2014), Social Innovation for Public Service Excellence, Singapore: UNDP Global Centre for Public Service Excellence, accessed 1 July

Jeremy Millard

288  Encyclopedia of social innovation 2022 at https://​www​.undp​.org/​sites/​g/​files/​ millenniumgoals/​2015​_MDG​_Report/​pdf/​ zskgke326/​files/​publications/​GPCSE​_Social​ MDG​%202015​%20rev​%20(July​%201)​.pdf. %20Innovation​.pdf. United Nations (2020), ‘Social innovation and susUnited Nations (2000), United Nations Millennium tainable development: sustainable development Declaration 2000, New York, accessed 7 in the 21st century’, online course with Ban October 2021 at https://​www​.un​.org/​en/​events/​ Ki-moon, Coursera Inc., accessed 1 July 2022 pastevents/​millennium​_summit​.shtml. at https://​www​.coursera​.org/​lecture/​sustainable​ United Nations (2015), The Millennium -development​-ban​-ki​-moon/​social​-innovation​ Development Goals Report 2015, New York, -and​-sustainable​-development​-efHa4. accessed 2 July 2022 at https://​ www​ .un​ .org/​

Jeremy Millard

51. Social justice and social innovation Introduction: social innovation and social justice

The instinctive link between social justice and social innovation has become more and more obvious, despite the recognized difficulty of moving between these different spaces and the frequent experience of having them as being less compatible with each other when we take into account the practical and theoretical limitations of building a social justice lens into our scholarship and practice. Scholarship and practice of innovation dates back to the early twentieth century, by pioneers and scholars of antecedent fields (Kallen 1932; Tarde 1903; Ogburn 1966). While much of the early theoretical work emphasized the socio-cultural dimensions of innovation, this focus was incrementally replaced by more economic and technological perspectives. This represented interests seeking to harness the scholarship and practice of market creating innovation for new frontiers and economic opportunities presented by disruptive technologies and instruments (Thekaekara and Thekaekara 2007; Meadows and Wright 2008; McGowan and Westley 2016). Recently there has been a revival in the scholarship and practice literature of the field. There is a growing consensus among practitioners, policymakers and the research community that widespread social innovation, for novel market solutions as well as systems change for social and environmental impact, is required to cope with the significant challenges that societies are facing now and into the future. This growing interest has somewhat dislodged social innovation research from the parochial concern of developed industries and economic interests, in favour of a larger conceptualization of social innovation, that although pioneered from within civil society, ultimately concerns a vision for society as a whole – a vision that meets the intractable challenges of the present day with a commitment to experimentalism and radical partnerships across sectors that could sustain social innovation across public goods, educa-

tion and democratic practice, amongst other dimensions of social life. Nevertheless, the encounter between social innovation and social justice has already begun. And though the meeting is uncomfortable, and often contentious, it is likely to be fruitful and even critical to the substantive development and relevance of both fields. For example, the United Nations’ (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION RESEARCH AND PRACTICE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT) includes Goal 5: Gender Equality; Goal 10: Reduced Inequalities and Goal 16: Peace, Justice & Strong Institutions. These goals, and their respective targets, speak to social justice. Social innovation, as an approach and framework, across various programmes of UN agencies (UNDP, UNICEF, etc.), has been prioritized. Nonetheless, at this intersection, the design and delivery of programmes do not explicitly include nor call for ground-up inclusion from activists, social movements and advocates of social justice. We contend that to ignore this meeting is to ignore the opportunity for bringing greater relevance to social innovation and effectiveness for the task of social justice movements. How can one justify the new frontiers of economies, engaging innovation of technology and developing networks, without a consideration of the broader weight of our collective social responsibilities and obvious fragilities due in major part to the widening of systemic social inequalities and deprivation? It is arguable that with rising unemployment numbers, social discontent and increasing economic uncertainty, and so on, we are poised at a global moment; a reckoning of multiple socio-economic and environmental crises all unfolding simultaneously. It is imperative that social innovation as a field engages this global moment with pragmatic and sustained action. Nonetheless, as an imminent area of work for organizations, practitioners, social justice activists and academics, these two concepts have appeared quite distinct in theory and in practice. This entry explores the knowledge currently available in the fields of social justice and social innovation. We then review a limited portion of social justice literature and discuss the important role it has to play in social innovation theory and practice, highlighting key reflections and recommendations for further research.

289

290  Encyclopedia of social innovation

Key findings: a conversation between social innovation and social justice

Despite progress, the world remains unfair, unequal and unsustainable. This period in history that encapsulates the rapidly changing world due to human activity is known as the Anthropocene. Scholarly agreement of the implications of the Anthropocene challenge has been underscored by the shortcomings of globalized capitalism, in spite of the many gains that this global paradigm of social and economic organization has evidently unlocked, to provide cross cutting benefit without undermining the value and values of institutions that underpin the socio-economic foundations of capitalism as a paradigm of political economy. With this in mind, the rise of social innovation is generally attributed to the failure of both market and state to meet social, economic and ecological needs (Nicholls 2006; Yujuico 2008). Definitions of social innovation often focus on innovation that provides novel solutions to social problems using a technical or instrumental approach, for example ‘a novel solution to a social problem that is more effective, efficient, sustainable, or just than existing solutions’ (Phills et al. 2008). As a relatively young area of scholarship, social innovation has found its way into business schools’ courses and programmes through business model innovation and broader emerging market entrepreneurship. While social innovation has been praised for its efforts to solve many well-identified issues, it has also been critiqued for limited concern with understanding more structural and systemic issues. The field has, arguably, taken little time to question what has produced these social issues and the implications of particular approaches to addressing them. Social innovation has an inherent paradoxical intent by both seeking the innovative pursuit of opportunities in combining resources for the creation of economic value within a market-orientated system; whilst at the same time having the goal of social value creation through new initiatives, products, services, programs or organizations. Despite its ambiguities, social innovation is typically interested in individual- and organizational-level social value creation, which leaves systemic change that may be necessary for social justice oriented objecFergus Turner and Ella Scheepers

tives to be achieved, underdeveloped in the theory and practice literature. A major critique from both scholars and practitioners relates this narrow focus to low-level impact that limits social change and inclusive value creation. Underlying structures that appear to perpetuate systemic social challenges do not enjoy the attention of proactive inquiry from scholarship and practitioner material of social innovation. In other words, social innovation scholarship and practice often ignores inquiry into why a social problem exists in the first place; how it is defined as a problem; and by which interests it is defined. As described in the review above, a critique levelled at social innovation is that, while the aim is to increase accessibility of existing systems to disadvantaged groups, the means by doing so inherently contains power imbalance and undemocratic principles (Dey and Steyaert 2018), thereby introducing the value for the application of a social justice lens to social innovation theory and practice. Although the work may be well intentioned, the underlying assumptions that social innovation and entrepreneurship is good, imposes a model of action logics that might be incongruent with or incognisant of existing social realities (Dey and Steyaert 2012). For example, in contrast to the critique levelled at the ideology and principles underlying social innovation, Ganz and Kay (2018) highlight the current inefficacy and low-level impact of social enterprises and social entrepreneurs when compared to large scale civic organizations, unions, and other civil rights movements. Ganz and Kay (2018) make an important critical observation by pointing out that if large-scale social change is indeed the goal; then increased investments in movement-building civic organizations is more so warranted than the ever increasing investment in social innovation research and practice, often headquartered in business schools, academic institutions and think tanks. It may be the case that, what is considered social innovation from the perspective of academia, the development sector broadly and think tanks globally is overwhelmingly present and proactive at a smaller scale – community-based organizations, NGOs and ground-up activists. Nonetheless these epiphanies of innovation across the world appear to feature less as much in the industries that propel practitioner- and scholarship-led understandings of social innovation; thereby

Social justice and social innovation  291

not having a significant contribution of voice to policymakers, impact investors and global innovation-led initiatives. Social justice is the framework, or lens, through which activists, human rights lawyers, social change advocates and social movements work towards justice, equality and broader societal transformation. Social justice is an older articulated position, one that is focused on the why; however, it means different things to different people. The underlying analysis of social justice is that of power: how systems of power entrench and maintain inequality and injustice towards certain communities, regions and denominations and how to challenge these systems of power such that greater inclusion is achieved in the broad spectrum of socio-economic and political life. Social justice issues are wrapped in complex debates that are studied by a number of disciplines. Research on social justice theory is typically examined in the disciplines of philosophy, law, sociology, anthropology, psychology, ecology, good governance, public policy and economics. The various debates and focus areas of the disciplines has led to a variety of definitions. For Ingram and Walters (2007, p. 27) social justice is about human rights and therefore is defined as ‘the conditions in society in which all members have the same basic rights, security, opportunities, obligations, social benefits and the way in which human rights are manifested in everyday lives of people at every level of society.’ In contrast, Byrd (2014) takes a normative stance, highlighting the moral implications of social justice for organisations. At a macro-political level, the UN (2006) understands social justice to be broadly understood as the fair and compassionate distribution of the fruits of economic growth. Various forms of social justice are distinguished from the literature, of which the most commonly discussed form of social justice is distributive justice. Sabbagh and Schmitt (2016, p. 6) describe distributive justice as ‘referring to the perceived justness of the principles and rules that regulate resource distribution (e.g., effort, need) and to evaluate the actual outcomes of the distribution in relation to expected outcomes’. Sabbagh and Schmitt (2016, p. 6) went on to distinguish between procedural justice, the

justness of the procedures according to which resource distribution takes place; retributive justice, expected negative outcomes related to resource distribution; and restorative justice, which concerns the negative outcomes and focuses on informal processes whereby the victims, offenders and communities are encouraged to undertake steps to repair the harm. Furthermore, Sabbagh and Schmitt (2016) identify the different spheres of social justice to include politics, welfare, work, family, education, the environment and nonhuman justice. Jost and Kay (2010, p. 1122) argue that by pulling together the various philosophical approaches it is possible to offer a general definition of social justice as: a state of affairs […] in which a) benefits and burdens in society are dispensed in accordance with some allocative principle (or set of principles); b) procedures, norms and rules that govern political and other forms of decision making preserve the basic rights, liberties and entitlements of individuals and groups; and c) human beings (and perhaps other species) are treated with dignity and respect not only by authorities but also by other relevant social actors, including other citizens.

An additional driving force behind the phenomenon of social innovation is the ever-growing global consciousness regarding social justice and its associated social movements. This can be evidenced in the various embodied manifestations from overarching frameworks for prioritizing investment and coordinated action (the SDGs), decentralized civil society formations, non-profit and philanthropic organizations. Social justice as a concept has not been traditionally linked to social innovation and entrepreneurship; however, indications are that many of the roots of social innovation work can be traced to social justice scholars, activists and movements (Thekaekara and Thekaekara 2007). Cunha et al. (2015) calls for a broadened definition of social innovation to include a rigorous use of social justice. In an in-depth discussion on the conceptual distinctions between social innovation and social entrepreneurship, Cunha et al. (2015, p. 625) describe social innovation as follows: ‘a true social innovation is systems-changing by developing novel solutions in border spanning learning communities to create social value and promote community developFergus Turner and Ella Scheepers

292  Encyclopedia of social innovation

ment, challenging existing social institutions through collaborative action developing wider networks’. In contrast, they define social entrepreneurship – as an ally and proxy to social innovation – as: ‘a field of action involving different kinds of actors, in which sociocultural and historical contexts emerge as key features, where individuals construct outcomes, using entrepreneurial alertness and motivation, to solve societal problems’ (Cunha et al. 2015, p. 622). A new school of social innovation is emerging that accommodates what Thekaekara and Thekaekara (2007) had noticed concerning social justice as a precursor for social innovation research and practice. It engages with the complexity of social change and social processes. This approach has defined social innovation as ‘a complex process of introducing new products, processes or programs that profoundly change the basic routines, resource and authority flows, or beliefs of the social system in which the innovation occurs’ (Westley and Antadze 2010). It aims to challenge the social structures that create and maintain the social inequalities, injustice and social exclusion that, in many cases, implied the need for a novel solution in the first place. This deeper structural definition, which encapsulates a systemic and institutional lens of socioeconomic change, has a natural leaning towards social justice. It advocates the compromise of quick reactive market-oriented solutions in favour of a more comprehensive problematization and proactive design that is conscious of the systemic dimensions of justice issues and dilemmas. As the study of social innovation continues to gain in importance, there is heightened awareness of the complexity of the multiple challenges modern societies are facing. Current top-down policies, technologies and large-scale solutions by both government and business appear limited in bringing about the social change required to address social justice issues like poverty, unemployment and growing inequality. Despite the efforts to bridge these gaps, significant shortcomings remain in understanding social justice informed roles of social innovators and social innovation in systems change, the methods they apply, and the knowledge base that complements such initiatives, especially in social enterprises and innovation seeking institutions prioritizing Fergus Turner and Ella Scheepers

social impact. In order to understand the synergies of social justice and social innovation, we propose the following question: How can the social innovation community make inroads towards a transformative agenda for social innovations role in co-creating social justice oriented outcomes by enabling a shift from traditional understandings in social innovation to foster social justice informed understandings of innovators, entrepreneurs and systems change curators?

Critical reflection and outlook: social justice and social innovation

Working in the social innovation space can feel at odds with a social justice lens because it often lacks the collective political organizing and the depth needed for systemic change. We argue that it is critical for social innovation research and practice to engage with social justice centre stage if it wishes to increase in relevance. Furthermore, it may be the case that, with the prospective disruption that a social justice lens brings, further market creating innovations may be able to emerge and take space – offering a different picture of economic opportunity and development. Social innovation’s strong move to engage in community and collective could be bolstered by concepts of justice and fairness and participation, the language of public interest law, and formalized movement building. This might offer an antidote to social innovation’s insufficient extension of inquiry into the political and political levels. And it may contribute towards a shift in the path of social innovation from a problem to be solved, to the broader social systems change it contributes to creating. Mirroring this possibility is the value that the field of social innovation may provide to the social justice space, which, as an older and more established field of inquiry and practice, often finds itself lacking in the imagination and pragmatic flexibility to build solutions that represent and enact the ideals we may be striving towards. The social justice approach itself felt constrained. It had particular ideas of what collectives and collectivity looked like, modelling social movements and unions, on what basis they should be built and the methods for building them. These particular ideas

Social justice and social innovation  293

have constrained the ability to innovate in the ever-changing socio-political economic climate. Reflections and Provocations: Social justice has benefited from social innovation exactly where it may at times find itself lacking in imagination, expertise and insight and, in turn, social innovation may benefit from social justice such that a new frontier of economic growth might be propelled by opportunism that recognizes the economic possibility of disrupting inequitable systems – including more people in the process and providing access to more people, and do on. The following outlines several reflections and provocations emanating from Bertha Centre’s Social Innovation research agenda, with a commitment to social justice and societal transformation. Reframing Social Innovation by More Engagement with Social Movements: (→ SOCIAL MOVEMENTS) In order to achieve social justice through social innovation, social innovators and institutions promulgating social innovation may benefit from engaging in and with social movements in order to conduct signifying work and meaning construction through the process of reframing with a social justice oriented lens (Snow 2013). The notion of framing and its associated processes are important in social movement activities. Social innovation initiatives could benefit from making stronger connections to levels of framing analysis and associated methods. For social innovation to benefit the marginalized in society, it may be prudent that its proponents explore, through various processes of framing, to what extent its values are congruent to those social justice movements, and the various articulations of social justice. Harnessing the Transformative Potential of a Social Justice Agenda: Social innovation could harness and integrate the transformative potential of social justice through connecting and co-creating various forms of social justice movements. Social justice, when interpreted as the pursuit of justice in terms of the fair distribution of the benefits and burdens of economic, political, social and environmental needs, becomes complementary to social innovation when taking up the banner of social movements. In this view, social justice means doing something about the unfair distribution of power, wealth and

resources. Accordingly, how might social innovation take up the task of tackling social injustice as an inherent tenet of scholarship and practitioner led inquiry? Embedding Social Justice in Social Innovation Scholarship: The notion of social justice in the context of social innovation is underdeveloped. Social justice typically means the empowering of the powerless through distribution and partaking in fair social, political, economic and environmental systems. This stands in contrast with the bottom line and hallmark of business seen as increased profit. This exclusive focus of business without it being linked to direct improvement of the poor, powerless, and unequal does not bode well for. Future research may benefit from seeking to embed the social justice agenda into economic theory and business models in order to secure fair and mutual benefits of all forms of societal participation and human rights. Taking Account of Power Formation in Social Innovation: An additional stream of research could explore power formation in social innovation and to what extent the current capitalist and neoliberal economic paradigm informs social innovation practices. This is specifically prudent because social innovation is increasingly being held up as a means of overcoming the market-based mechanisms governing for-profit organizations, their reinvestment of profits into delivering positive outcomes for communities or stakeholder groups. Specifically, to what extent can the exploration of power formation and systemic inequality provide new inroads for social innovation to play a more significant role in societal change? Ultimately, when reviewing these two fields of literature, we felt that they had fundamentally similar yearnings and instincts for and towards social change characterized by greater access of resources distributed fairly and inclusivity of diverse communities in decision-making concerning those resources. Despite the fact that they have not been in much conversation we recognize a potential for them to provoke each other and offer some new insight for theory and practice. Ultimately, it may be expedient for the promise, progression and relevance of social innovation to grapple with the contradictions and opportunities of taking a social justice lens. Fergus Turner and Ella Scheepers

294  Encyclopedia of social innovation

These reflections invite us to nudge at general frames of social innovation and social justice. They invite us to explore deeply how we create spaces, ways of thinking, and convening to sow a richer soil for our field. We hope that the reflections explored will resonate with others who are crossing these boundaries and working new ways to effect social change. Some of the reflections grapple with the question of socially just innovation that challenges a status quo that entrenches inequalities and injustices using existing human rights frameworks. Business leadership and the need for honest conversations that challenge existing ways of doing within businesses which entrench injustice internally and externally. Others explore the why of social innovation, going to the heart of the purpose of innovation and the need for it to challenge existing social structures that entrenched inequality and injustice. These reflections cross boundaries to engage in socially just innovative systems work. The essence of this provocation is to develop collaborative and co-creative inroads, both moving away from the social innovation ‘hero-entrepreneur’ and less constrained by the institutionalized infrastructure of social justice. They encourage us to recognize the ever-changing clusters of emerging collectives that do not come together under one purpose or cause. They are intersectional, less boundary-oriented and responsive to complexity, without rigid attachments to existing frames. Rather than trying to solve existing configurations, they look at working with different/unique configurations that work towards deeper human connectedness and greater societal justice. Fergus Turner and Ella Scheepers

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Byrd, M. Y. (2014), ‘A social justice paradigm for HRD: philosophical and theoretical foundations’, in N. E. Chalofsky, T. S. Rocco and M. L. Morris (eds), Handbook of Human Resource Development, San Francisco, CA: Wiley, pp. 281–98. Cunha, J., P. Benneworth and P. Oliveira (2015), ‘Social entrepreneurship and social innovation: a conceptual distinction’, in L. Carmo Farinha, J. Ferreira, H. Lawton Smith, S. Bagchi-Sen (eds), Handbook of

Fergus Turner and Ella Scheepers

Research on Global Competitive Advantage through Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Hershey, PA: IGI Global, pp. 616–39. Dey, P. and C. Steyaert (2012), ‘Social entrepreneurship: critique and the radical enactment of the social’, Social Enterprise Journal, 8(2), pp. 90–107. Dey, P. and C. Steyaert (2018), Social Entrepreneurship: An Affirmative Critique, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Ganz, B. M. and T. Kay (2018), ‘Social enterprise is not social change’, 1–5, https://​ssir​.org/​ articles/​entry/​social​_enterprise​_is​_not​_social​ _change. Ingram, I. L. and T. S. Walters (2007), ‘A critical reflection model to teach diversity and social justice’, Journal of Praxis in Multicultural Education, 2(21), pp. 23–41. Jost, J. T. and A. C. Kay (2010), ‘Social justice: history, theory and research’, in S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert and G. Lindzey (eds), Handbook of Social Psychology, New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 1122–65. Kallen, H.M. (1932), ‘Innovation. Editors’, in Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, vol. 8. Ed: Seligman E.R, Johnson A. Macmillan. McGowan, K. and F. Westley (2016), ‘At the root of change: the history of social innovation’, in A. Nicholls, J. Simon and M. Gabriel (eds), New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 52–68. Meadows, D. H. and D. Wright (2008), Thinking in Systems: A Primer, White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing. Nicholls, A. (ed.) (2006), Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ogburn, W.F. (1966), Social Change with Respect to Cultural and Original Nature. Dell Publishing Company. Phills Jr, J. A., K. Deiglmeier and D. T. Miller (2008), ‘Rediscovering social innovation’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, accessed 7 December 2022 at https://​ssir​.org/​articles/​entry/​ rediscovering​_social​_innovation. Sabbagh, C. and M. Schmitt (2016), Handbook of Social Justice Theory and Research, New York: Springer. Snow, D. A. (2013), ‘Framing and social movements’, in The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Social and Political Movements, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Tarde, G. (1903), The laws of imitation. (E.C. Parsons & F.H. Giddings, Trans.). Holt. Thekaekara, M. M. and S. Thekaekara (2007), Social Justice and Social Entrepreneurship: Contradictory or Complementary? Oxford: Skoll Centre for Entrepreneurship, Said Business School. UN [United Nations] (2006), Social Justice in an Open World: The International Forum for Social Development, United Nations, https://​

Social justice and social innovation  295 www​.un​.org/​esa/​socdev/​documents/​ifsd/​ SocialJustice​.pdf. Westley, F. and N. Antadza (2010), ‘Making a difference: strategies for scaling social innovation for greater impact’, The Innovation

Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 15(2), article 2. Yujuico, E. (2008), ‘Connecting the dots in social entrepreneurship through the capabilities approach’, Socio-Economic Review, 6(3), pp. 493–513.

Fergus Turner and Ella Scheepers

52. Welfare innovation for social cohesion Introduction: reconceptualizing welfare production

Social innovation is a vehicle to increase social cohesion (Evers and Ewert 2015). At best, social innovation revitalizes welfare systems by breaking with traditions that bar the way to social inclusion. Perceived this way social cohesion becomes strengthened through innovative welfare services, productive social relations and a renewed understanding of the common good. However, unlocking this potential is subject to theoretical and practical requirements that have not only to be met by social innovators but also by governments and policy administrators (Steiner et al. 2021). While social needs have changed dramatically in postmodern societies, welfare systems are still stumbling to adapt themselves to this shift. Built with the ambition to satisfy the most basic welfare goals and provide equal access to state-regulated services, traditional welfare states inhibit strong path dependencies. For example, in Bismarckian welfare systems social entitlements (e.g. health insurance) are neatly attached to people’s employment status, leaving little space for unconventional forms of social support for those that ‘falling through the cracks’. Hence, it is considered common sense that ‘new social risks’ (Bonoli 2005), including diverse issues such as lone parenting, social exclusion due to migration or chronically ill patients’ unmet care needs, require more flexible and tailor-made social policy interventions (Mulgan 2019, pp. 79–92). To reach that goal, it is recommended to reshuffle the parameters of welfare production, that is, to transform welfare mixes by recalibrating state, market, family and community contributions (Jenson 2015). In this respect, joint ventures by market and community actors such as work integration enterprises but also public civic partnerships are deemed both socially innovative and cohesive (Evers et al. 2014). Hence, it is fair to say that social innovations and social cohesion fuels hopes to remedy the impersonal and bureaucratic nature of classic welfare systems by rebalancing equality (i.e. the universal right to welfare) with diversity

(i.e. provision schemes that better meet target groups’ needs). Moreover, in the aftermath of the financial crisis, social innovation and social cohesion have played a key role in various EU policy frameworks due to their potential for social and economic renewal (Bonifacio 2014). However, it is worth stating that social innovation and social cohesion do not belong to the same theoretical strand. In simple terms, social innovation hopes to remedy unmet social needs, while social cohesion results from the materialization of such hope. Nevertheless, both concepts share the status of a polysemic or ‘“quasi-concept” frequently characterized as having multiple definitions and meanings’ (Jenson 2015, p. 90). Foremost, this inherent malleability concerns the definition of the ‘social’ in social innovation and social cohesion. Reaching a basic agreement on this point is indispensable to answer a contested question: What qualifies social innovations in favour of social cohesion and how can they be promoted by policy? Rather than referring to the broad field of social innovation, this entry will concentrate on the subfield of welfare innovations. Welfare innovations are defined as ‘new and disruptive towards the routines and structures prevailing in a given (welfare) system or local setting’ (Evers et al. 2014, p. 11). By means of innovative features in welfare regulation and provision they raise ‘hope and expectations’ towards a more socially sustainable, democratic and effective society. Whether welfare innovation may lead to such kinds of social added value is not only a normative issue but depends on their viability within (local) welfare environments (Evers and Ewert 2015). Moreover, welfare innovation is accompanied with a different notion of the welfare user: rather than passive beneficiaries or service recipients, welfare innovation addresses active citizens and co-producers based on a more egalitarian welfare culture (Evers and Ewert 2021). Likewise, social cohesion has a normative appeal too. Perceived as a ‘desirable feature’ (Schiefer and van der Noll 2017, p. 579) social cohesion includes dimensions such as ‘social relations, sense of belonging, and orientation towards the common good’ (ibid., p. 580). The concept seeks to hold together a diverse citizenry with heterogeneous social needs that could hardly matched by conven-

296

Welfare innovation for social cohesion  297

tional welfare provision. Similar to social innovation, social cohesion is thought to take place in a specific territory or locality and is described as ‘something to be ‘encouraged’, ‘fostered’ or ‘protected’ (Jenson 2010, p. 14) through public policy. At best, welfare innovations promote social cohesion by offering new solutions for pressing social needs. Often this is done through innovative social services and more personalized ways of addressing of users. Consequently, the ‘socially cohesive’ dimension of welfare innovation unfolds incrementally through various micro interventions in (local) environments/contexts that people have reason to value and in which they become enabled to co-produce social innovation at eye level (Evers and Ewert 2021). In the face of complex social problems such as poverty or social exclusion achieving high levels of cohesion calls for streams of (rather than single) innovations that counterbalance ineffective welfare systems (Oosterlynck et al. 2019). In summary the relation between welfare innovation and social cohesion in the field of welfare shows the following characteristics: (i) not all welfare schemes lead to social cohesion; (ii) therefore, welfare innovation is needed; (iii) however, not all welfare innovations can fulfil this aim; (iv) welfare innovations able to foster social cohesion are based on participatory effort, stimulating co-production and active agency of welfare users. The next section provides examples of welfare innovations, stimulating social cohesion, that emanate from the field of social services.

Key findings: welfare innovations in favour of social cohesion

In contrast to traditional forms of post war ‘industrial welfare’ and more recent attempts to renew welfare through managerial reforms, social innovations represent cultural and practical change (Mulgan 2019). While welfare innovation may take place throughout all dimensions of the welfare system, including welfare regulation, governance and financing, the majority of examples concern social services and, in particular, the way welfare users are addressed (Evers et al. 2014). Due to the proximity to people’s daily life social services in the fields of health, care or education are most suitable to leverage cohesion and social participation. In the past,

social exclusion in the service sector resulted from paternalistic provision schemes that either fail to reach society’s most vulnerable groups or deal with them in an undignified or patronizing manner. To avoid this situation, service innovations express a strong commitment towards inclusive and participatory concepts such as user centredness, co-production and shared decision-making. Four recurrent innovative features of today’s welfare service landscapes can be highlighted, as follows (Evers and Ewert 2015, pp. 113–15). First, innovative social services strengthen users’ capabilities rather responding to their deficits. Helping people to help themselves is the guiding principle of services that seek to mitigate feelings of powerlessness and dependency. Drawing from the discourse on empowerment, a key inspirational source of social innovation (De Pieri and Teasdale 2021), service innovations seek to enhance users’ skills in a collaborative (i.e. non-directive) way. Examples are, among others, low threshold offers in order to improve language or computer skills of migrant women within an informal setting. Second, the innovative nature of service innovation refers to a ‘kinder’ framing of ‘target groups’ which avoids discrimination and stigmatization. While classic workfare programmes draw a sharp line between insiders (i.e. job owners) and outsiders (i.e. job seekers), enforcing the latter to participate in, for example, standardized training, innovative offers pursue a more open approach that does not follow prescribed blueprints by demonstrating that ‘alternatives to contractualized work-first activation are possible’ (Lindsay et al. 2018, p. 47). Schemes that help all citizens, no matter whether they are employed or unemployed, to develop a personal pathway towards social and work integration within their local environment fit that category. Third, service innovations bridge the gap between professional services and people’s life. Welfare services and entitlements are of little help, if they either remain unused or do not meet individual needs and the particularities of local contexts. To address this problem, service innovations seek to adjust welfare services closer to the level of communities and neighbourhoods. To be mentioned in this regard are all sorts of mentoring programmes that familiarize people in Benjamin Ewert

298  Encyclopedia of social innovation

need (e.g. migrants but also others who feel ‘left behind’) with local support structures and, therewith, reduce the distance to welfare administrators. Fourth, personalized support packages are a recurrent feature of service innovation. While welfare bureaucracies are often organized along clearly divided responsibilities (e.g. employment, housing) that correspond with constructions of ideal target groups, social reality is much messier. Usually, deprived people suffer from multiple problems and, hence, are permanently challenged to navigate themselves through segmented or siloed welfare systems. In contrast, ‘one stop entry points’ offer joint assessments of individuals’ needs and a bundling of support measures that, in some cases, are coordinated by case managers. Welfare innovations that entail one or more of these features favour social inclusion but do not automatically lead to an upsurge of social cohesion. Instead, the latter depends on the actual meaning of social innovation within welfare systems and applied policies for social cohesion.

Reflection and outlook: governing welfare innovation that foster social cohesion

To seize social welfare innovation’s impact to promote social cohesion, we have to understand their intended role within welfare systems and specific contexts of welfare provision. In general, Oosterlynck et al. (2019, p. 217) differentiate three meanings ascribed to welfare innovation in government programmes. Each meaning has specific implications for the correlation between welfare innovation and social cohesion. First, welfare innovations may lead by example and kick off a process of reshaping welfare policy at large; second, in sharp contrast, welfare innovations could be also exploited as mere ‘implementation vehicles’ (ibid.) to translate conventional welfare policy paradigms to local communities and ‘hard to reach’ groups. Third, welfare innovations may be utilized as welcome ‘gap fillers’ temporarily covering major deficits of the welfare system. In line with the first meaning, one could argue that if welfare innovations, as introduced in the previous section, are perceived as ‘blueprints for future Benjamin Ewert

welfare provision’ (Ewert and Evers 2014) their impact on social cohesion would be the greatest, though reasonable doubts are justified since welfare innovation is per definition attached with risk and uncertainty; moreover, the concept often conveys alternative and contested notions of a cohesive society that still have to earn public support. Less controversial – though, due to a lack of consistency and sustainability also less effective in terms of cohesion building – is therefore the second meaning of welfare innovation in governance programmes suggesting ‘to test small-scale social policy reforms’ (Oosterlynck et al. 2019, p. 218); whereas an increase of social cohesion becomes unlikely, or largely illusory, if few numbers of eye-catching welfare innovations are deemed to mask massive welfare retrenchments and social policies that put self-responsibility over collective protection (Sinclair and Baglioni 2014). In reality, different political meanings of welfare innovation may coexist in an uneasy way within the same welfare system requiring the analysis of ‘sectoral specificities’ (Oosterlynck et al. 2019, p. 225) or welfare innovation dynamics between sectors. Thus, more attention has to be paid to the variety of policies pursued (→ GOVERNANCE OF SOCIAL INNOVATION) to make welfare systems more socially innovative and their respective advantages and disadvantages to strengthen social cohesion. Once again, three approaches could be theoretically delineated despite some potential overlapping in practice. First, welfare administrations may pursue a laissez-faire approach by intentionally leave, for a limited time period, spaces for actors from the fringes of civil society to innovatively respond to social needs they perceive most important or which are unmet by the welfare system. A textbook example has been the ad hoc engagement of German citizen initiatives during the peak of the refugee crisis in 2015. Besides of emergency aid in terms of food, clothes and shelter, such initiatives partly also organized medical services for incoming migrants and asylum seekers. While policymakers and administrators’ support of this welfare innovation has been largely ideational, it also entailed the temporarily provision of public infrastructure such as premises or additional man power. Over the years, ad hoc refugee aid has partly been transformed in civic integra-

Welfare innovation for social cohesion  299

tion networks and regular mentoring programmes. However, the example of refugee aid also showcases the controversy attached to welfare innovation’s normative impetus: as it turned out, in parts of the society social inclusion of migrants is seen as a threat rather than a promise. Second, policymakers may opt to promote welfare innovation through ‘market-making and market-shaping activities’ (Jenson 2015, p. 89). Within the last decade this strategy has been vigorously pursued by the EU and the OECD based on the intention to combine social concerns with politics of economic growth and social investment (ibid.). Following this logic, fostering social cohesion through welfare innovation becomes the ‘business’ of social entrepreneurs and public private partnerships. As assumed, in fields such as employment or childcare market, providers are in a better position to design the last mile of service delivery in a ‘consumer friendly’ way. While this approach has been pushed the debate on social innovation from minority to mainstream politics (Sabato et al. 2017), it definitely comes with a price. The approach equates social cohesion with welfare users’ market participation and, hence, redirects the focus from bottom up and experimental innovations that are embedded in local environments (→ SOCIAL AND TERRITORIAL INNOVATION DEVELOPMENT). Third, governments can test welfare innovations that fit best to their polities’ specific conditions. So called pilot programmes enable governments to ‘try out new things and offers, while the respective local partners get some leeway to bring in innovative ideas and practices’ (Evers and Ewert 2021, p. 148). For example, across European cities, mentoring programmes have been successfully adopted by local governments to facilitate migrant integration, though it is a fine line between, on the one hand, stabilizing and upscaling inclusive civic innovations in local settings, and, on the other hand, domesticating them through processes of professionalization and benchmarking. Ideally, pilot programmes initiate collaboration between state, public and civic actors in order to abandon well-trodden social policy paths. However, pilots should not be exploited as a mean to merely generate preconceived notions of social cohesion.

Irrespective of the policy mix applied to promote welfare innovation that foster social cohesion, future research should be encouraged to pay more attention on the respective interplays between (local) welfare systems, policy actors and innovators. Perceived in a broader sense, social cohesion results not only from role model innovations but from the degree the latter become regular components of welfare practices and policies. Benjamin Ewert

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Bonifacio, M. (2014), ‘Social innovation: a novel policy stream or a policy compromise? An EU perspective’, European Review, 22 (1), pp. 145–69. Bonoli, G. (2005), ‘The politics of the new social policies: providing coverage against new social risks in mature welfare states’, Policy and Politics, 33 (3), pp. 431–49. De Pieri, B. and S. Teasdale (2021), ‘Radical futures? Exploring the policy relevance of social innovation’, Social Enterprise Journal, 17 (1), pp. 94–110. Evers, A. and B. Ewert (2015), ‘Social innovation for social cohesion’, in A. Nicholls, J. Simon and M. Gabriel (eds), New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 107–27. Evers, A. and B. Ewert (2021), ‘Understanding co-production as a social innovation’, in E. Loeffler and T. Bovaird (eds), The Palgrave Handbook of Co-Production of Public Services and Outcomes, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 133–53. Evers, A., B. Ewert and T. Brandsen (2014), Social Innovations for Social Cohesion: Transnational Patterns and Approaches from 20 European Cities, Liege: EMES European Research Network, accessed 19 October 2022 at http://​www​.wilcoproject​.eu/​ereader​-wilco/​. Ewert, B. and A. Evers (2014), ‘Blueprints for the future of welfare provision? Shared features of service innovations across Europe’, Social Policy and Society, 13 (3), pp. 423–32. Jenson, J. (2010), Defining and Measuring Social Cohesion, London: Commonwealth Secretariat and United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. Jenson, J. (2015), ‘Social innovation: redesigning the welfare diamond’, in A. Nicholls, J. Simon and M. Gabriel (eds), New Frontiers

Benjamin Ewert

300  Encyclopedia of social innovation in Social Innovation Research, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 89–106. Lindsay, C., S. Pearson, E. Batty, A. M. Cullen and W. Eadson (2018), ‘Co‐production and social innovation in street‐level employability services: lessons from services with lone parents in Scotland’, International Social Security Review, 71 (4), pp. 33–50. Mulgan, G. (2019), Social Innovation; How Societies Find the Power to Change, Bristol: Policy Press. Oosterlynck, S., A. Novy and Y. Kazepov (2019), ‘Conclusion: local social innovation and welfare reform’, in S. Oosterlynck, Y. Kazepov and A. Novy (eds), Local Social Innovation to Combat Poverty and Exclusion:

Benjamin Ewert

A Critical Appraisal, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 217–27. Sabato, S., B. Vanhercke and G. Verschraegen (2017), ‘Connecting entrepreneurship with policy experimentation? The EU framework for social innovation’, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 30 (2), pp. 147–67. Schiefer, D. and J. van der Noll (2017), ‘The essentials of social cohesion: a literature review’, Social Indicator Research, 132, pp. 579–603. Sinclair, S. and S. Baglioni (2014), ‘Social innovation and social policy – promises and risks’, Social Policy and Society, 13 (3), pp. 469–76. Steiner, A., J. Barraket, F. Calo, J. Farmer and S. Teasdale (2021), ‘Guest editorial’, Social Enterprise Journal, 17 (2), pp. 157–64.

53. Ageing societies and social innovation Introduction

Social innovation predates its cousin technological innovation, which emerged in the 1940s, by almost 150 years (Godin 2012). It is a contested concept (Ayob et al. 2016), in part because of the diversity of its application as both a concept and a practice (i.e. describing both new processes and novel outputs and outcomes) (Moulaert et al. 2017). Nonetheless, at least in academic literature, a gradually shared understanding seems to be emerging that social innovation is both (a) a novel solution (product, service, or practice) to tackle social issues and/or to create social values, and (b) a process to change social values, behaviour, rules, and relationships. Social innovation is distinct from social entrepreneurship and social enterprise, and embraces the actions of diverse stakeholders such as governments, private businesses, and social movements. Innovation may emerge at the micro level, driven by individuals or single organizations; at the meso level from industry, different sectors, cities and communities; and/or at the macro level across society (Howaldt et al. 2017; Mulgan 2019). Ageing societies present a challenge in developed/high-income countries, where people are living longer in poorer health and the state often relies upon the third sector (charities, social enterprises) for their social care (Henderson et al. 2019). Caring for older people will come under even more pressure in the coming decades as the world population is forecast (Vollset et al. 2020) to shrink significantly due to low fertility. As this happens, caring for ageing populations will become an urgent problem in developing/ low-income countries as well, particularly as they struggle to ensure their economic resilience. Few social innovation studies acknowledge the complex impacts of an ageing society, but two exceptions are Heinze and Naegele (2012) and Klimczuk and Tomczyk (2020). Heinze and Naegele (2012) draw together fundamental changes in family/household structures/social networks; workforce ageing; age specific morbidity; long-term care; lifelong learning; and active ageing. Similarly, Klimczuk and Tomczyk (2020), weave

themes of older peoples’ perceived identity; quality of life; active ageing; healthy ageing; innovation in care services; and the competencies and creativity of older people into the complex social innovation landscape. Based on findings from 17 countries, they agree with Henderson et al.’s (2020) findings that the social perception of older people affects their societal roles and well-being. In this entry, we organize these emergent themes into three categories (1) Ageing-Driven Systemic Change in societies; (2) Ageing-Driven Innovative Solutions, as emerging age-related societal needs have to be resolved in new ways; and (3) Ageing as an Asset in and of itself, driving the creation of socially innovative processes and initiatives by and for older people (Figure 53.1). The next three sections discuss these categories in detail. The fifth section then demonstrates how sharing the experiences of one’s culture or society can benefit the global perspective and the sixth section offers preliminary conclusions.

Ageing as a systemic change

The significant growth of the elderly population is transforming many societies, their economies and industries, and impacting employment, public services, and social and political activities. This transformation has become a fertile landscape for the emergence of social innovation (Heinze and Naegele 2012). Demographic change drives systemic societal change in a number of ways, six of which are highlighted below. Firstly, older people are now consumers rather than clients of their own social care (Henderson et al. 2019) and economically are an increasingly lucrative consumer market (i.e. the silver economy). Secondly, an ageing workforce is inhibiting the emergence of new skilled labour, putting more pressure on older people to stay in work, compounded by industries shifting away from labour intensive practices. Thirdly, increasing pension-, medical-, and ageing-related welfare expenditures present fiscal challenges to public spending. Fourthly, a balanced contribution between the stakeholders in the ‘welfare diamond’ (state, market, community, and family) is required to address these fiscal challenges (Jenson 2015). Fifthly, political power is increasingly held by older people as a major voter group in democracies. Finally, intergen-

301

302  Encyclopedia of social innovation

Figure 53.1

Three aspects of ageing society on social innovation

erational inequality and poverty is increasing in some countries, depending on the local distribution of income and assets. These systemic changes require a major transformation and renegotiation of the social contract within societies, similar to the transformative systemic disruption of the formation of welfare states in post-World War Two Europe. Yet currently, social innovation literature rarely explores such whole systemic transformations (Mulgan 2019) though some studies consider it within specific fields like social care (e.g. Henderson et al. 2019). Still, without understanding the mechanisms of these systemic changes, social innovation research risks failing to claim its place in the current ageing driven fundamental transformations of society, beyond providing some useful but temporary expedients.

Ageing-driven social innovation solutions

Apart from systemic changes driven by an ageing society, older people have specific risks and needs that must be addressed despite the pressure on public spending, including coping with chronic diseases such as dementia; effective and efficient provision of health (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION IN HEALTH) and social care; lifelong education; mobility and age friendly communities/infrastructure; bridging the digital divide (Konig et al. Ken Aoo and Fiona Henderson

2018); social exclusion; stigma and ageism (Henderson et al. 2020). Ageing-related social innovation literature most often focuses on initiatives to resolve these needs, and particularly on reporting innovative care approaches, including (a) integrated care, which is a coordination of service providers and other stakeholders, such as through innovative policy in Scotland (Henderson et al., 2019); (b) home-based and community-based care, as a more efficient alternative to institutional care like the ‘connected home’ in Germany (Heinze and Naegele, 2012); (c) electronic or mobile services using technologies to consult with professionals and/or to arrange necessary support, such as Vitaever in Italy and Smart Elderly Care in China (Heales and Green, 2016); (d) active ageing or healthy ageing by promoting healthy behaviour and lifestyles, often conducted as communal activities, like dementia friendly golf in Scotland (Norval et al. 2021); (e) the role of social enterprise as service providers as well as employers, in some cases replacing public services in resource scarce areas (Henderson et al. 2020); (f) cross-sectoral cooperation to create new solutions (Heinze and Naegele 2012; Mulgan 2019). While this research is helpful to policymakers and practitioners, as well as older people themselves, these practices are often funded by generous public expenditure or

Ageing societies and social innovation  303

philanthropy, and hence are difficult to replicate in resource poor societies. Even in developed countries, governments rarely commit more resources post study, making these initiatives difficult to scale.

Ageing as an asset for social innovation

Mainstream social innovation literature frames older people as the beneficiary of social innovations. A small number of studies have focused on older people as proactive participants in the economy, starting new initiatives and supporting others. For example, ‘senior entrepreneurship’ focuses on social enterprises or ‘work integrated enterprises’, and the economic and social impacts created by seniors tackling diverse social issues in communities (Jenson 2015; Socci et al. 2020). Moreover, Stypinska et al. (2019) argue that senior entrepreneurship in Poland contributes not only as an economic activity, but also to maintaining social connectedness, personal self-confidence and empowerment, and the skills and knowledge of older people. Furthermore, younger older people (in their 60s or early 70s) in Japan are becoming the main social support in their local communities, supporting both vulnerable older people and younger families (Aoo et al. 2019). As older people remain healthier for longer due to better diet and healthcare, older people can offer socially innovative solutions rather than simply be the problem.

Ageing as a global issue: lessons from Japan

With more than 1 in 4 residents (28.6 per cent) of Japan aged 65 and over (Statistics Bureau of Japan 2021), Japan has the oldest population in the world. This rapid change has happened within living memory and, as a result, Japan has struggled to move its economy from its golden age model of world leading manufacturing towards its new reality as a country with a shrinking population and a post-industrial diversified economy. All three trends described earlier are evident in Japan as its ageing population changes government priorities and policies. In the fiscal year 2020, social security was the biggest government expenditure (33.6 per cent), within which 45.5 per cent was

spent on pensions, 32.0 per cent was spent on medical care, and 9.7 per cent spent on long-term care. Older people were the primary beneficiaries of all three (Ministry of Finance 2021). Japan has attempted to reduce the pressures of an ageing demographic using a socially innovative approach, establishing a highly effective and sophisticated national system of Long-Term Care Insurance for older citizens within a short period of time. However, the system depends greatly on subsidized institutional and private care provided by paid professionals without exploiting emerging technologies (Aoo 2017; Tamiya et al. 2011). Another approach developed to fully utilize the scarce and stretched resources, and to improve access to diverse welfareand well-being-related services at local community association level is ‘Small Scaled Multifunctional Self Governance’ system (SSMFSG 2017). This system tries to mobilize local communities to complement formal care services to tackle diverse local issues, but still struggling to scale up to national scale. Other than these, there are a number of existing good practices in Japan for ageing-driven social innovations, including older citizens starting community-based business or care activities; active ageing approaches to reduce the need of elderly care; and the use of information technology to streamline local medical and social care. Despite these initiatives, there remains little evidence that Japanese society has achieved the systemic changes required to meet the fundamental demographic challenges it faces. The social challenge of ageing populations is increasingly global and faced by multiple societies today. How, then, can we apply the evidence from ageing-related social innovation literature to address common issues? Simple replication may not be the solution in many cases, as transnational knowledge sharing of a successful and effective solution from one country may not be a blueprint for another country with different contexts, systems, and available resources, such as public finance and medical and social care facilities and expertise. However, that does not mean that the knowledge gained in these studies is not useful in other countries, even if the solution is not directly replicated. For example, while the Japanese long-term care Ken Aoo and Fiona Henderson

304  Encyclopedia of social innovation

system may be too costly for most countries, there are still some aspects of the Japanese approach that have been successfully adapted by other countries. The barriers to replication include the systems and methodologies used by Japanese care professionals, which are not financially practical in many other countries as Japanese carers are extremely strict about their skills and methods. However, the adaptation of the Japanese approach to social networking was achieved in an international preventive long term care project between Fukuoka city, Japan and Bangkok metropolitan area, Thailand. The Fukuoka/ Bangkok settings focused on developing their local networks to support active ageing of older people through mobilizing community volunteers and other stakeholders, adapting rather than merely replicating the Japanese system. Therefore, although the contexts were different, the knowledge and experience from Japan proved invaluable to the Thai participants, assisting them to both evaluate the situation of older people they worked with, and to develop preventive care programmes (Bangkok Metropolitan Preventive Long Term Care Council 2020). Such creative adaptation and application may be quite useful when we plan for the cross-border scaling of social innovation initiatives.

Conclusion

This entry has presented a new typology of ageing-related social innovation research by organizing existing research into three themes, and described how current social innovation literature is heavily focused on innovative solutions for the specific and often localized needs of ageing societies. More research is needed to better understand how ageing affects the fundamental structure of societal and economic systems (Ageing-Driven Systemic Change); and how older people can contribute to social innovations in ageing societies (Ageing as an Asset). To gather this insight, we must move beyond the case study approach currently dominating ageing-related social innovation literature. The typology presented here offers the structure to achieve this through ageing-related social innovation research conducted by multidisciplinary teams. Critically, future research must consider social innovations from a holistic whole system perspective, in Ken Aoo and Fiona Henderson

which older people are positioned as active participants rather than singular beneficiaries. Ken Aoo and Fiona Henderson

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Aoo, K. (2017), ‘Aging society in Japan: a process of social innovation and the roles of civil society’, Korean NPO Review, 16 (2), pp. 67–84. Aoo, K., N. Abe and M. R. Kano (2019), ‘To be supported, or not to be: images of older people in policy and the reality in local communities in Japan’, Frontiers in Sociology, 5, article 16. Ayob, N., S. Teasdale and K. Fagan (2016), ‘How social innovation “came to be”: tracing the evolution of a contested concept’, Journal of Social Policy, 45 (4), pp. 635–53. Bangkok Metropolitan Preventive Long Term Care Council (2020), Final Report, Bangkok Metropolitan Area Preventive Care Project (in Japanese), accessed 8 September 2021 at http://​ www​.aabc​.jp/​images/​pdf/​20200214​.pdf. Godin, B. (2012), ‘Social innovation: utopias of innovation from c.1830 to the present’, Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation, Working Paper No. 11, accessed 20 September 2021 at http://​www​.csiic​.ca/​PDF/​ SocialInnovation​_2012​.pdf. Heales, C. and H. Green (2016), Social Innovation in Health and Social Care: Case Study Results, a deliverable of SI-DRIVE project, Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle. Heinze, R. G. and G. Naegele (2012), ‘Social innovations in ageing societies’, in H.-W. Franz, J. Hochgerner and J. Howaldt (eds), Challenge Social Innovation: Potentials for Business, Social Entrepreneurship, Welfare and Civil Society, Heidelberg: Springer, pp. 153–67. Henderson, F., K. Hall, A. Mutongi and G. Whittam (2019), ‘Social enterprise, social innovation and Scottish self-directed care’, Social Enterprise Journal, 15 (4), pp. 438–56. Henderson, F., A. Steiner, M. Mazzei and C. Docherty (2020), ‘Social enterprises’ impact on older people’s health and wellbeing: exploring Scottish experiences’, Health Promotion International, 35, pp. 1074–84. Howaldt, J., A. Schroder, A. Butzin and D. Rehfeld (2017), Towards a General Theory and Typology of Social Innovation, a deliverable of SI-DRIVE project, Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle. Jenson, J. (2015), ‘Social innovation: redesigning the welfare diamond’, in A. Nicholls, J. Simon, and M. Gabriel (eds), New Frontiers in Social

Ageing societies and social innovation  305 Innovation Research, Baskingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 89–106. Klimczuk, A. and L. Tomczyk (eds) (2020), Perspectives and Theories of Social Innovation for Ageing Population, Lausanne: Frontiers Media SA. Konig, R., A. Seifert and M. Doh (2018), ‘Internet use among older Europeans: an analysis based on SHARE data’, Universal Access in the Information Society, 17 (3), pp. 621–33. Ministry of Finance, Japan (2021), ‘Japanese public finance fact sheet’, accessed 21 January 2022 at https://​www​.mof​.go​.jp/​english/​policy/​ budget/​budget/​fy2021/​02​.pdf. Moulaert F., A. Mehmood, D. MacCallum and B. Leubolt (2017), ‘Social innovation as a trigger for transformations: the role of research’, accessed 4 October 2022 at https://​publications​ .europa​.eu/​en/​publication​-detail/​-/​publication/​ a7b4de0a​-1070–11e​8–9253–01a​a75ed71a1/​ language​-en. Mulgan, G. (2019), Social Innovation: How Societies Find the Power to Change, Bristol: Policy Press. Norval, R. S., F. Henderson and G. Whittam (2021). ‘Playing the long game: exploring the phenomenon of dementia-friendly golf’, Dementia, 20 (8), https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​ 1471301221101949. Socci, M., D. Clarke and A. Principi (2020), ‘Active aging: social entrepreneuring in local communi-

ties of five European countries’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17 (7), article 2440. SSMFSG [Small Scaled Multifunctional Self Governance Newtork] (2017), ‘Current status and institutional challenge for small scaled multifunctional self governance’ (in Japanese), accessed 23 January 2022 at https://​ www​ .soumu​.go​.jp/​main​_content/​000459163​.pdf. Statistics Bureau of Japan (2021), ‘News bulletin December 28, 2021’, accessed 21 January 2022 at https://​www​.stat​.go​.jp/​english/​info/​news/​ 20211228​.html. Stypinska, J., A. Franke and J. Myrczik (2019), ‘Senior entrepreneurship: the unrevealed driver for social innovation’, Frontiers in Sociology, 4, article 30. Tamiya, N., H. Noguchi, A. Nishi, M. R. Reich, N. Ikegami, H. Hashimoto, K. Shibuya, I. Kawachi and J. C. Campbell (2011) ‘Population ageing and wellbeing: lessons from Japan’s long-term care insurance policy’, The Lancet, 378 (9797), pp. 1183–92. Vollset, S. E., E. Goren, C.-W. Yuan, J. Cao, A. E. Smith … and C. J. L. Murray (2020), ‘Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: a forecasting analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study’, The Lancet, 396 (10258), pp. 1285–306.

Ken Aoo and Fiona Henderson

54. Workplace innovation Introduction

The European Workplace Innovation Network (EUWIN) describes workplace innovation as ‘new and combined interventions in work organisation, human resource management, labour relations and supportive technologies’ (EUWIN 2022, p. 133). Furthermore, the term describes a participatory process of innovation that leads to empowering workplace practices and sustains continuing learning, reflection and innovation (EUWIN 2021; Oeij et al. 2023). EUWIN is a European-wide network of researchers and practitioners to promote and develop workplace innovation in European organizations. It has been active since 2012, and its actions are closely intertwined with the social innovation community. The cited statement is a renewal of the previous collaboration agreement between the partner networks, developed during several meetings, leading to the Dortmund– Brussels Position Paper (2012) on workplace innovation. The definition aims mainly at means and also requires a perspective on outcomes to get a clear perspective on what is meant with workplace innovation. The most elaborate definition of workplace innovation can be found in the overview book on workplace innovation: Workplace Innovation is an integral set of participative mechanisms for interventions relating to structural (e.g., organisational design) and cultural aspects (e.g., leadership, coordination and organisational behaviour) of the organisation and its people with the objective to simultaneously improve the conditions for the performance (i.e. productivity, innovation, quality) and quality of working life (i.e., wellbeing at work, competence development, employee engagement). (Oeij and Dhondt 2017, p. 66)

This definition includes a set of measures that a company should take and the criteria against which the performance of a company should be measured. Whereas the EUWIN definition sees participation as a sufficient condition, Oeij and Dhondt’s definition assumes that not just any participatory intervention is suf-

ficient. It is also a question of companies committing to the performance that puts both the interests of the company and those of the employees first. The combination of the idea of participation and positive outcomes for employed at the organizational level, is in line with the broader concept of social innovation. Workplace innovation is seen as an important manifestation of social innovation at the workplace (Oeij et al. 2018). The essence of workplace innovation is that employees take more control of their destiny at the company level. This entry discusses three separate topics: the components of workplace innovation, different theoretical approaches to workplace innovation, and the specificity of the concept for practice and policymakers.

Key findings

The EUWIN community developed the concept of the Fifth Element to operationalize the concept of workplace innovation: ● The first element is how to empower jobs and create self-managed teams. ● The second element is flexible organizational structures, people-centred management practices and streamlined systems and procedures based on trust. ● The third element is systematic opportunities for employee-driven improvement and innovation. ● And the fourth element is co-created and distributed leadership combined with ‘employee voice’ in strategic decision-making. Workplace innovation is an organizational concept, but the coming together of these elements form a system of mutually reinforcing practices that create surprising synergies. This synergy leads to stronger enterprising behaviour, a culture of innovation, high levels of employee engagement, and more organizational and individual resilience. This extra-energy in organizational processes is labelled as the ‘Fifth Element’. The Fifth Element helps practitioners in developing solutions for organizations (Oeij and Dhondt 2017). Several theoretical approaches, however, underpin this practical development of the concept. Historically, the first evidence that building on the commitment and input of

306

Workplace innovation  307

the organizational members delivers posi- the application of workplace innovation tive results for organizations goes back to helped explain how multifactor productivity the 1930s and 1940s. In the United States, in the United States improved dramatically human resources management was developed in the 1990s. to make better use of the capabilities and However, an accepted definition never motivation of employees (Koch 2011). really emerged during that period, so workIn the 1950s, with the introduction of long- place innovation as a concept ended up in wall coal mining in the North of England, it several discussions. Architects started to see was clear that new technology would only workplace innovation as everything that had deliver if the right organizational environ- to do with designing offices according to ment and employment relationship were activities (casual conversation, concentrated developed (Trist and Bamforth 1951). The work, meetings, phone conversation, etc.) first socio-technology theorists insisted on rather than organizational positions or tasks optimizing the social context (in casu teams) (Blok et al. 2017). The work psychological next to the technological context. Dutch literature pointed to the possibility of creatsocio-technical theorists insisted that both ing work situations in which employees had the social and the technology dimensions activating work (Karasek and Theorell 1990; cannot be separated and needed joint opti- McMurray and Dorai 2003; McMurray et al. mization (Benders et al. 2000). The Dutch 2021). Sociologists and economists insisted version is called ‘modern socio-technology’ on the organizational context that had to be (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION AND created to see workplace innovation (Oeij et al. 2017). TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION). It is also at this time that workplace innoThe concept of workplace innovation itself has only been coined recently. Workplace vation came into the realm of social innoinnovation only appears in the scientific vation. Social innovation was established in reference sources Scopus (https://​ www​ the late 2000s as a major driver of social .scopus​.com) after the mid-1990s. Until then, change. Especially after the financial crisis of scholars mainly used team-based organiza- 2008, social innovation took on an increastions (Trist and Bamforth 1951) or New ingly important position with the Occupy Production Concepts as characterizations of movement and the various social challenges human-centred company policies (Kern and of poverty, energy, environment and so on. Schumann 1984; Schumann et al. 1994). New Workplace innovation was then identified as Production Concepts were used to provide another important development in the emerga neutral definition of different types of ing social innovation movement. Social innobusiness practices. Kern and Schumann had vation of work and employment starts from a preference for production concepts that a bottom-up organization. The essence of supported skilled trades. The point was to workplace innovation is that employees take discern the importance of management (and more control of their destiny at the company capital) in the application of technology and level. organizational concepts. The core discussion is why this Fifth It was not until the 1990s that the under- Element can arise in organization. And the standing emerged that companies could find follow-up questions are what organizations an optimal mode of production that could should do to implement workplace innovation serve the interests of both management (pro- and how policymaking can support organiductivity) and employees (commitment) zations. Brynjolfsson and Milgrom (2013) (Sandberg 1995). The first publications with point out the importance of complementarity workplace innovation in the title appeared. of organizational measures. A parallel set The new concept of workplace innovation of practices can help companies perform was then able to keep up with the changing better, with the added bonus that employees economic context of the Dotcom bubble. well regard it. Complementarity of measures Workplace innovation fitted into the thinking has as side effect that solutions are not easy of the New Economy, where technology and to copy from case to case. This defines the employees would be given an important role central issue with workplace innovation: if it in making the new economy happen (Black is a set of complementary measures aimed at and Lynch 2004). According to these authors, Steven Dhondt

308  Encyclopedia of social innovation

improving bottom-up participation, how can other companies really learn from it? The discussion on workplace innovation has also led to a lot of research and policy interventions. Many researchers have the ambition to provide stronger proof of the importance and necessity of workplace innovation. As Brynjolfsson and Milgrom (2013) note, a whole set of case studies has been conducted to indicate the importance of broad-based investments such as workplace innovation. Many surveys demonstrate the importance of workplace innovation practices by companies (Parent-Thirion et al. 2017). At best, case studies and surveys only provide associations and not final evidence of the importance of workplace innovation. In fact, evidence requires research to be conducted at multiple levels in companies: both at the company level and at the employee level (CEE and UNSA-GREDEG 2008). This type of research is rarely carried out. Even less research is available in which company conditions are monitored or in which the impact of company concepts is examined over time. Regarding the latter, new research released by Eurofound on the impact of COVID-19 on business practices is of interest (Eurofound 2021). Companies identified as ‘high investment and high involvement’ before the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as other concepts, were re-examined one year later. This analysis allows us to examine the robustness of workplace innovation policies. Preliminary results show that workplace innovation-focused companies continue to perform stronger despite the COVID-19 pandemic. The explanation is that such companies are better prepared for such a crisis, but equally important is the finding that these companies do more with their internal resources (read employees) to get through the crisis (Eurofound 2015). Trust in their employees ensures that they cooperate to help the company overcome the crisis (Eurofound and Cedefop 2020; Eurofound 2021). Less attention can be found in research on how employees themselves experience workplace innovation. The strength of workplace innovation business models is seen in the fact that they create activating workplaces. Employees are confronted with high task demands but have sufficient control capacity to deal with these demands (Karasek and Theorell 1990). Part of the scientific debate focuses on whether employees actuSteven Dhondt

ally (socially and financially) benefit from these work situations (Osterman 2018). A recent review of health research indicates that jobs with an imbalance of job demands and control capacity increase the risk of mental health, coronary heart disease and even mortality (Niedhammer et al. 2021). For employees and trade unions, there always remains the question of who actually benefits the most from such business concepts (Sandberg 1995). Policymakers are triggered by concepts such as workplace innovation since it benefits both employers and employees. For many policymakers, this is especially attractive since, certainly until the 2000s, they were primarily focused on investing to enact measures that would lead to more safe workplaces (Occupational Health and Safety). There was always a feeling among policymakers to be on the cost side of company policy. With workplace innovation, the perspective of also being on the benefit side appeared. The question for policymakers has then always been how to support businesses and workers. The answer to the question has always been conditional from the research point of view: there has always been a caveat about the possible impact of measures. In the Nordic countries, there has been heavy investment in various improvement programmes over a long period of time (Alasoini 2016). However, even there, evaluators are critical about the impact of these programmes. In fact, evaluation research on the impact of these programmes has been inconclusive (Dhondt 2022). The least we can say is that there is little coherence and consistency in the different programmes that are implemented.

Critical reflection

These results lead us to a critical reflection on the progress of the concept and what should be the research and action agenda in the future. Different approaches to workplace innovation continue to exist, so unity in conceptual thinking seems unlikely. A dialogue between the parties is underway (see Oeij et al. 2022), but disciplinary differences create interpretations that coexist. As indicated, researching the importance of workplace innovation for companies and employees remains a difficult task. The panel research set up by Eurofound deserves more attention (Eurofound 2021).

Workplace innovation  309

Policywise, however, the attention for workplace innovation is on the increase. The European Commission has focused on Industry 5.0 as a new context for business policy (DG R&I 2021). This recognizes that the current concepts promoted for business are too one-sidedly focused on profit and technology. Industry 5.0 must focus on human-centric sustainability and resilience. This will give business policy the focus it needs again. At the same time, a link is made to the cross company effects of business contexts. We cannot escape the impression that Industry 5.0 is, in fact, no different than the combination of workplace innovation and social innovation at the corporate level. Companies should focus on their short-term interest and pay attention to the impact on their employees and the company external effects of their policies. Thus, the two topics, workplace innovation and social innovation, are both on the agenda. The only comment here is that human-centric does not go far enough. Adapting technology to people is insufficient to bring about technology adoption (i.e. the desired improvement on the shop floor). The focus must be broader: participation, engagement and learning perspectives, with which workplace innovation and initiatives such as EUWIN get the attention they deserve. Steven Dhondt

Management, vol. 16, Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing, pp. 145–62. Brynjolfsson, E. and P. Milgrom (2013), ‘Complementarity in organisations’, in R. Gibbons and J. Roberts (eds), The Handbook of Organisational Economics, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 11–55. CEE and UNSA-GREDEG (2008), The Meadow Guidelines, Paris: CEE, accessed 11 November 2022 at http://​www​.meadow​-project​.eu/​. DG R&I (2021), Industry 5.0: Towards a Sustainable, Human-Centric and Resilient European Industry (R&I Paper Series – Policy Brief), Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, https://​doi​.org/​10​.2777/​ 308407. Dhondt, S. (2022), ‘The positive employment impact of the Liideri programme’, European Journal of Workplace Innovation, 7 (1), pp.  20–28, https://​doi​.org/​10​.46364/​ejwi​.v7i1​ .907. Dortmund–Brussels Position Paper (2012), accessed 2 August 2022 at https://​ www​ .workplaceinnovation​.org/​kennis/​dortmund​ ‐brussels‐​position‐p​aper‐12th‐​june‐2012/​. Eurofound (2015), Third European Company Survey – Workplace Innovation in European Companies, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Eurofound (2021), Business Not As Usual: How EU Companies Adapted to the COVID-19 Pandemic, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Eurofound and Cedefop (2020), European Company Survey 2019: Workplace Practices Unlocking Employee Potential, European Company Survey 2019 series, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. References EUWIN (2022), Workplace innovation – Europe’s Entries marked in bold are further reading competitive edge: a manifesto for enhanced performance and working lives’, European Journal material. of Workplace Innovation, 7 (1), pp. 132–41, Alasoini, T. (2016), ‘Workplace development https://​doi​.org/​10​.46364/​ejwi​.v7i1​.935. programmes as institutional entrepreneurs: Karasek, R. and T. Theorell (1990), Healthy Work: why they produce change and why they do Stress, Productivity, and the Reconstruction of not’, Doctoral Dissertations 12/2016, School of Working Life, New York: Basic Books. Science, Aalto University, Helsinki. Kern, H. and M. Schumann (1984), Das Ende Benders J., H. Doorewaard and E. Poutsma der Arbeitsteilung? Rationalisierung in der (2000), ‘Modern socio-technology’, in M. M. Industriellen Production, München: Verlag Beyerlein (ed.), Work Teams: Past, Present and C.H. Beck. Future, Social Indicators Research Series, vol. Koch, K. (2011), ‘During Great Depression, human 6, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 169–80, https://​doi​ relations movement took shape through HBS’, .org/​10​.1007/​978–94–015–9492–9​_10. The Harvard Gazette, accessed 2 August 2022 Black, S. E. and L. M. Lynch (2004), ‘What’s at https://​news​.harvard​.edu/​gazette/​story/​2011/​ driving the new economy? The benefits of 12/​rethinking​-work​-beyond​-the​-paycheck/​. workplace innovation’, Economic Journal, 114 McMurray, A. J., N. Muenjohn and C. (493), F97–F116. Weerakoon (eds) (2021), The Palgrave Blok, M., F. Van der Meulen and S. Dhondt Handbook of Workplace Innovation, Cham: (2017), ‘A comparison between new ways of Palgrave Macmillan. working and sociotechnical systems’, in J. De McMurray, A. J. and R. Dorai (2003), ‘Workplace Leede (ed.), New Ways of Working Practices: innovation scale: a new method for measuring Antecedents and Outcomes, Advanced Series in

Steven Dhondt

310  Encyclopedia of social innovation innovation in the workplace’, 5th European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities. Niedhammer, I., S. Bertrais and K. Witt (2021), ‘Psychosocial work exposures and health outcomes: a meta-review of 72 literature reviews with meta-analysis’, Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 47 (7), pp. 489–508. Oeij, P. R. A. and S. Dhondt (2017), ‘Theoretical approaches supporting workplace innovation’, in P. R. A. Oeij, D. Rus and F. D. Pot (eds), Workplace Innovation: Theory, Research and Practice, Aligning Perspectives on Health, Safety and Well-Being, Cham: Springer, pp. 63–78. Oeij, P. R. A., S. Dhondt and A. McMurray (2022), ‘Workplace innovation literature review: a converging or diverging research field? A preparatory study for a research agenda’, Leiden: TNO Healthy Living (R12732). Oeij, P. R. A., S. Dhondt and A. J. McMurray (2023), A Research Agenda for Workplace Innovation: The Challenge of Disruptive Transitions, Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar Publishing. Oeij, P., S. Dhondt and M. Ooms (2017), ‘Social innovation in the Netherlands’, in J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka, A. Schröder and M. Zirngiebl (eds), Atlas of Social Innovation – New Practices for a Better Future, Dortmund:

Steven Dhondt

Sozialforschungsstelle, TU Dortmund, pp. 105–7. Oeij, P., S. Dhondt, F. Pot and P. Totterdill (2018), ‘Workplace innovation as an important driver of social innovation’, in J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka, A. Schröder and M. Zirngiebl (eds), Atlas of Social Innovation – New Practices for a Better Future, Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle, TU Dortmund, pp. 54–7. Osterman, P. (2018), ‘In search of the High Road: meaning and evidence’, ILR Review, 71 (1), pp. 3–34. Parent-Thirion, A., G. Vermeylen, M. Wilkens, I. Biletta and F. D. Pot (2017), ‘Towards the High Road of Workplace Innovation in Europe? An illustration of the usefulness of the dataset of the European Working Conditions survey’, in P. R. A. Oeij, D. Rus and F. D. Pot (eds), Workplace Innovation: Theory, Research and Practice, Cham: Springer Verlag, pp. 261–77. Sandberg, A. (ed.) (1995), Enriching Production: Perspectives on Volvo’s Uddevalla Plant as an Alternative to Lean Production, Aldershot: Avebury. Schumann, M., V. Baethge-Kinsky, M. Kuhlmann, C. Kurz and U. Neumann (1994), Trendreport Rationalisierung: Automobilindustrie, Werkzeugmaschinenbau, Chemische Industrie, Berlin: Edition Sigma. Trist, E. and K. Bamforth (1951), ‘Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting’, Human Relations, 4, pp.  3–38, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​ 001872675100400101.

PART VI BUSINESS AND ECONOMY

55. Cooperatives and social innovation Introduction

Popular economy, solidarity economy, labour economy, alternative economy and cooperative economy are some of the terms used to refer to alternative ways of implementing socio-economic practices. These terms can have different meanings but most scientific interpretations consider cooperatives as key instruments of the solidarity economy (Razeto 1994, p. 37). This integration of solidarity in the economy aims to transform the current development models. Cooperatives are organizations that foster solidarity among their members through self-management and collective ownership. These organizations were originally created to address the employment crisis through social innovation practices of mutual benefit in which the promoters organize themselves in order to provide certain products or services to the market. There is therefore a coincidence between beneficiaries and managers, or in other words, it is the beneficiaries themselves who self-manage. This intertwining and interdependence between associative action and public action is one of the most remarkable characteristics of the solidarity economy. Gaiger’s (2004) typology allows us to delve deeper into the nature of the different solidarity economy initiatives: – Self-managing production enterprises based on the integral socialization of the means of production and collective work processes. He attributes to these enterprises the highest levels of self-management and cooperation. – Worker or service cooperatives in which work is carried out collectively or individually. The enterprise normally captures the demand for labour and distributes it on a rotational basis among the members, whose occupation is variable. In other cases, it is the members themselves who attract clients and offer them their professional services using the legal form of the cooperative. – Enterprises aimed at strengthening individual or family production by giving them greater opportunities for capitalization or entry into the market, as in the

case of cooperatives. These hardly alter the ownership regime, as is the case with marketing and credit cooperatives. – Income support initiatives for individuals who have another main occupation. These therefore take on a secondary and sometimes ad hoc character, without bringing about profound changes in the economic life of the workers. A ‘cooperative economy’ and social innovation (Mulgan 2006) cannot be understood disconnectedly. The cooperative economy can be an important instrument to boost social innovation (Richez-Battesti et al. 2012). According to Bouchard (2013), in the current global context, cooperatives can play a fundamental role. Systemic changes are taking place towards a sustainable development model, affecting the future of work and employment. Rampant inequality and social individualism are the dominant tendencies but at the same time, countless initiatives are emerging to counteract these dynamics, trying to balance the distribution of power, and focusing on the pre-distribution of wealth. In this context, cooperativism plays an important role in reducing economic and social differences, offering an alternative development model. At the local level, cooperatives are multiplying and disseminating and, at the same time, they are generating structural changes in living conditions, in employment, and in the planning and implementation of public policies. Innovation through the cooperative economy is a contemporary phenomenon, a quest to increase the participation of civil society in development. Growing social needs are usually not satisfied by public or private institutions because capitalist enterprises do not make sufficient profits or because public authorities are not capable of tackling such complex demands (Borzaga and Defourney 2001) or react too late. Thus, innovation is needed. ‘Social economy’ (→ SOCIAL ECONOMY) is then used as an instrument to develop new, more democratic and more respectful solutions to the needs of people and communities in the perspective of sustainable development. Cooperative economy projects itself as a critique of the capitalist economy and capitalist institutions and, at the same time, it can be an alternative which is able to integrate the economic, social and political points of view.

312

Cooperatives and social innovation  313

The democratic nature and the social aims are two essential characteristics shared by the solidarity economy (Laville 2000) represented by cooperatives and other forms of social innovation. The first refers to the participation of workers, volunteers, community representatives and/or users in decision-making, while the social innovation purpose is related to the satisfaction of the needs of either the members of the organization or of the community as a whole. Unlike the traditional way of understanding social economy, the concept of solidarity economy has a more transformative connotation, although it is also true that the term social and solidarity economy is becoming more and more widely used. The specific nature of the term social economy, which is deeply rooted in Europe, is defined on the basis of the objectives pursued and the form of organization and management. From a normative point of view, the most frequently mentioned distinguishing features are the following: (1) purpose of service to its members or to the community (social purposes), (2) autonomy of management, (3) democratic decision-making process, and (4) freedom of membership. Solidarity economy refers to other ways of doing economy based on solidarity and mutual aid, aiming to respond to the needs of the groups that undertake them. Many of these initiatives are driven by the new social movements and are autonomous searches for solutions to social through an intervention of economic scope in a mainly associative framework (Laville 2000). Solidarity economy is a concept linked to alternative development proposal, based on transformative values, and which aims to reproduce life for all, including that of future generations. However, this positive vision that links the solidarity economy to new paradigms of society has its flipside in a more pessimistic view, in which it is represented as an economy of the marginalized and at the margins of the system, with little chance becoming an alternative. It should not be forgotten that solidarity economy initiatives, far from being based on a conscious commitment to transforming the economy, are often not based on a conscious commitment to social transformation, but are merely a reaction to the economic crisis – an economy of the poor and for the poor – or a palliative to the public

sector’s decline in the provision of social services.

Key findings

Social innovation and the cooperative economy are based on relational processes, not just transactional. In addition to satisfying a particular need, there is also the feeling of belonging to a collective and of participating in a common destiny. Bouchard (2013) considers that there are two important factors that show the potential of the cooperative economy for innovation. The first factor is related to the limits imposed on financial profits and to the prohibition of the distribution of shares. These limits, set on the distribution of profits, make cooperative economy entities attractive for the development of products that have a complementary public component. The second factor relates to the broader meaning of the cooperative economy: creating protected democratic spaces or the promotion of social integration (Enjolras 2002). In other words, the cooperative economy is committed to design new institutions, especially if the existing institutions are unable to cope with new social needs. Not only that, it sometimes tries to redefine the institutional dimension of the development model by establishing, among other things, the relations between market, state, network and community (Lévesque 2005). Along the same lines, Gaiger (2004) affirms that the solidarity economy is not a phenomenon that has arisen immediately, but requires the prior existence of a common identity. Gaiger warns that the mere condition of necessity – negative pressure – in the emergence of these initiatives places them in a situation of risk of involution as soon as other options appear. However, the research carried out by this author has shown that identity can be considered as the main driver of entrepreneurship (→ SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP). Gaiger (2004) mentions other elements that can either favour or hinder the genesis and development of solidarity economy initiatives. These elements are related to the global context, the role played by external agents and the technical and financial support available to them. The positive conditions include (1) the presence in the popular milieus of associative practices and tradition, which Gorka Espiau Idoiaga

314  Encyclopedia of social innovation

promote a sense of belonging and mutual recognition, particularly a sense of identity and a sense of belonging to the community, and (2) the experiences of struggle and mobilization that make it possible to create bonds of trust and to develop skills for organizing and defending their interests. Innovation can absorb temporary tensions without making internal contradictions disappear. It is therefore also important to bring to light the limits of the social economy, such as the existing precarious working conditions in the social economy, the significant differences in social relations and the lack of positive results in terms of environmental quality. Nor can it be forgotten that the social economy alone does not have the capacity to change deeply rooted trends. As far as cooperatives are concerned, the loss of identity and dynamism has gone hand in hand with their insertion into the market economy, in such a way that their subjugation to the logic of the market might limit the potential to develop a truly transformative project. In cooperatives, reciprocity is limited to the inside of the enterprises, while their relations with the environment are governed by the principle of exchange. Therefore, cooperatives are integrated into the market economy as a subset of the market: In cooperatives, the rules of reciprocity within equality are re-modelled in such a way as to be compatible with and integrated into market exchanges. The only thing they concern is the relationship between the activity of individuals and that of the company in order to ensure an equitable contribution to the means necessary for its operation and a fair distribution of its results. (Laville and García Jané 2009, p. 86)

From a normative point of view, there is a distancing from the principles that originally powered the need of an alternative social economy. This is manifested in the weakening of internal solidarity ties, weak participation and the over-emphasis on economic objectives to the detriment of social goals. Along the same lines, Singer (2004) denounces the abandonment in practice of self-management by the different forms of cooperativism that emerged in the nineteenth century, such as agricultural marketing cooperatives, credit cooperatives and, to a lesser extent, production cooperatives. In this context, cooperativism began to be valued by Gorka Espiau Idoiaga

its members only in terms of the services it provided and has thus lost in certain cases its transformative mission.

Outlook

The cooperative economy has learnt to compete head-to-head with traditional companies in order to fulfil its social mission effectively. Competitiveness has naturally been incorporated into its social innovation narrative and action. This behaviour is consistent with various research that demonstrates the greater impact of long-term value-based decisions (Flyvbjerg et al. 2003). The social dimension of cooperatives is therefore intrinsically related to competitiveness and differs from traditional approaches to corporate social responsibility. When successful, cooperative economy practices are not only good businesses that distribute profits fairly. They are very often more competitive in the market because of their social practices. Intuitively, successful cooperatives operate as social movements (Leadbeater 2018). The logic and mechanisms that connect them cannot be understood exclusively from a traditional commercial approach. The members of the cooperative feel part of something bigger than a company. Some of them describe it as an experience, others as a family or a network, but its origin clearly responds to the need to create a movement in favour of the social and economic transformation of a particular territory. In practical terms, this movement approach allows them to channel internal competition in a positive way, as well as to maximize existing resources, align different strategies and build a transformation narrative that connects all actors within the ecosystem in a deeper way, compared to traditional corporate practices. For these reasons, in order to understand more deeply such ecosystems of social innovation and sustainable human development, it is necessary to incorporate the perspectives and repertoire of actions associated with social movements (Leadbeater 2018). From this perspective, it is possible to better understand how different organizations and institutions can network without the need to establish rigid structures or complex legal arrangements around more sophisticated leadership, as well as to incorporate practices of radical democracy (Laclau and Mouffe 1985).

Cooperatives and social innovation  315

Cooperatives cannot be dissociated from their territory. Normally, cooperatives are born as a social and economic response to the needs of a community that was struggling with an extremely difficult situation. For this reason, cooperatives and enterprises are deeply linked to their region. This connection influences the decision-making process and differentiates them from traditional companies, especially with regard to long-term investments, creating a more resilient model (Morgan 2016). Cooperatives are used to responding positively to major moments of crisis (Ortega and Uriarte 2015) but they find it more difficult to innovate in times of stability. It is easier to generate internal solidarity mechanisms in the face of a difficulty or common enemy than to open up to new systems of open innovation and cooperation when things are not going so badly. The great challenge for social innovation ecosystems built on cooperative economy, which have achieved good results at certain times, is to constantly reinvent themselves (Errasti et al. 2003). For all these reasons, success cannot be mimetically replicated. Cooperatives also challenge social innovation approaches built on the ‘culture of networked self-interest’ (Cardoso and Jacobetty 2012, p. 183) when it comes to generating processes of territorial transformation. Instead of looking for ‘talent’ in exceptional people, cooperatives demonstrate that anyone can behave innovatively if the conditions are created (Hodgson 2017a). This understanding of innovation at the community level is consistent with much other research developed in other community transformation processes. Systemic changes only occur when the whole community feels invited or empowered to act differently (Hodgson 2017b). Cooperatives contribute through a different salary policy and inter-cooperation mechanisms to distribute wealth at source and avoid tendencies towards inequality. Looking to the future, cooperatives invites us to think about the possibility of transforming digital business models into a ‘cooperative platform economy’ (Kenney and Zysman 2016) and providing new types of solutions to socio-ecological transformation processes such as energy transition (Capellán-Pérez et al. 2018). In this sense, robotization could also be positively exploited if the principles

of distributed production are applied and combined with the social economy practices developed by cooperatives. The innovation ecosystem generated by cooperatives is made up of a complex network of agents and processes that operates on the basis of criteria of transparency, radical democracy and equity. Unfortunately, there are very few examples of social innovations (Murray et al. 2010) that incorporate operating principles such as one person, one vote, the sovereignty of the assembly of members when making strategic decisions, internal solidarity mechanisms, worker relocation policies and a commitment to wage balance. These strict procedures of transparency and democracy could not be built without a commitment to equality between the people and organizations that make up the corporation. It is impossible to understand how public–private cooperation develops so naturally without this transversal element of the value system. On the contrary, public–private partnerships can be easily manipulated in other types of collaborations where mechanisms and procedures of equality between actors cannot be constructed. Cooperatives show us that both in the business model and at the territorial level, it is possible to build competitive and large-scale models for fighting inequality. Gorka Espiau Idoiaga

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Bouchard, M. J. (2013), ‘Introduction: the social economy in Quebec: a laboratory of social innovation’, in M. J. Bouchard (ed.), Innovation and the Social Economy, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, pp. 3–24. Borzaga, C. and J. Defourny (eds) (2001), The Emergence of Social Enterprise, London and New York: Routledge [paperback edition 2004]. Capellán-Pérez, I., A. Campos-Celador and J. Terés-Zubiaga (2018), ‘Renewable energy cooperatives as an instrument towards the energy transition in Spain’, Energy Policy, 123, pp. 215–29. Cardoso, G. and P. Jacobetty (2012), ‘Surfing the crisis: cultures of belonging and networked social change’, in M. Castells, J. Caraca and G. Cardoso (eds), Aftermath: The Cultures of the

Gorka Espiau Idoiaga

316  Encyclopedia of social innovation Economic Crisis, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 177–209. Enjolras, B. (2002), L’économie solidaire et le marché. Modernité, société civile et démocratie, Paris: L’Harmattan. Errasti, A. M., I. Heras, B. Bakaikoa and P. Elgoibar (2003), ‘The internationalisation of cooperatives: the case of the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation’, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 74 (4), pp. 553–84. Flyvbjerg, B., N. Bruzelius and W. Rothengatter (2003), Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gaiger, L. I. (2004), ‘Emprendimientos económicos solidarios’, in A. D. Cattani (ed.), La otra economía, Buenos Aires: Altamira, pp. 229–41. Hodgson, M. (2017a), Humanity at Work: Mondragon, a Social Innovation System Case Study, London: The Young Foundation. Hodgson, M. (2017b), A Tale of Two Cities: Community Perspectives and Narratives on Inequality, Struggle, Hope and Change, London: The Young Foundation. Kenney, M. and J. Zysman (2016), ‘The rise of the platform economy’, Issues in Science and Technology, 32 (3), pp. 61–9. Laclau, E. and C. Mouffe (1985), Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics, London: Verso. Laville, J.-L. (2000), L’économie solidaire. Une perspective internationale, Paris: Desclée de Brouwer. Laville, J.-L. and L. García Jané (2009), Crisis capitalista y economía solidaria. Una economía que emerge como alternativa real, Barcelona: Icaria. Leadbeater, C. (2018), ‘Movements with missions make markets’, UCL Institute for

Gorka Espiau Idoiaga

Innovation and Public Purpose, Working Paper Series (IIPP WP 2018–07). Lévesque, B. (2005), Innovations et transformations sociales dans le développement économique et le développement social: approches théoriques et politiques publiques, Les Cahiers du Crises, ET0507, Montréal: UQAM, accessed 17 October 2022 at http://​www​.crises​.uqam​.ca/​ upload/​files/​publications/​etudes​-theoriques/​ ET0507​.pdf. Morgan, K. (2016), ‘Collective entrepreneurship: the Basque model of innovation’, European Planning Studies, 24 (8), pp. 1544–60, https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1080/​09654313​.2016​.1151483. Mulgan, G. (2006), ‘The process of social innovation’, Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1 (2), pp. 145–62. Murray, R., J. Caulier-Grice and G. Mulgan (2010), The Open Book of Social Innovation, London: The Young Foundation. Ortega, I. and L. Uriarte (2015), Arrasateko kooperatibagintzaren erronkak eta dilemak: Fagor Etxetresnak kooperatibaren krisiaren ondotik, Lanki Kuadernoak, 11, Eskoriatza: Mondragon Unibertsitatea. Razeto, L. (1994), Fundamentos de una Teoría Económica Comprensiva, Santiago de Chile: PET. Richez-Battesti, N., F. Petrella and D. Vallade (2012), ‘L’innovation sociale, una notion aux usages pluriels: Quels enjeux et défis por l’analyse?’, Innovations, 38, pp. 15–36. Singer, P. (2004), ‘Economía solidaria’, in A. D. Cattani (ed.), La otra economía, Buenos Aires: Altamira, pp. 199–212.

56. Corporate social innovation Introduction

Innovation is key to business success, but it has not traditionally featured in corporate social responsibility (CSR). Today, forward-looking firms are bringing social innovation into their economic, social, and environmental agendas. Mirvis et al. (2012, p. 2) define corporate social innovation (CSI) as follows: Corporate Social Innovation is a strategy that combines a unique set of corporate assets (innovation capacities, marketing skills, managerial acumen, employee engagement, scale, etc.), often in collaboration with other sectors and firms, to create breakthrough solutions to complex economic, social, and environmental issues that bear on the sustainability of both business and society.

The roots of CSI trace to the developing world where it was aimed to create new markets to alleviate poverty. Banks, beginning with Grameen Bank launched by Nobel Peace Prize winner Mohammed Yunus, introduced micro-credit lending whereby villagers could pool their modest savings and get small loans. Repayment rates at Grameen have been upwards of 97 per cent. This model spread to other businesses where, for example, Mexican cement-maker Cemex’s Patrimonio Hoy programme gives customers technical assistance and loans to design, build and fund improvements in their housing. The partnership between Hindustan Lever and Project Shakti, which has poor women travel to nearby villages in India to sell hygienic soap and toothpaste and dispense health advice to rural customers, showed the potential of CSI in other applications and industries. Nowadays, it is used to devise life-changing apps, formulate healthier food recipes, develop energy-saving technologies, and incubate business ideas aimed at social good. The core purpose of social innovation is to produce ‘a novel solution to a social problem’ (Phills et al. 2008, p. 38) that creates ‘lasting social change’ (Phills et al. 2008, p. 36). Its practical applications were historically based in government and nonprofits but in recent

years extended to (1) social entrepreneurship (→ SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP) and (2) socio-commercial enterprise (Dees 2001; Dees and Elias 1998). How did it get into business? On the supply side, legions of young people began to fashion themselves as social entrepreneurs, incubate their ideas in college social innovation labs, and build them out at innovation hubs that provide work space, mentoring, peer coaching, and ‘shark-tank’ experiences. Angel investors, social investment funds, and crowd-funding platforms back promising social innovators. While this movement took shape outside of mainstream business, many of its proponents and practices migrated into business and are transforming research and development (R&D), product development and marketing, and the very purpose of business. Growing numbers of small businesses (and few large ones) define themselves as B Corps (focusing on profit and social good) and big ones turn to CSI to develop something new to benefit both the business and society. On the demand side, CSI builds on and advances existing concepts and practices as to how business relates to society (Dionisio and de Vargas 2020). CSR involves employee volunteerism and a company’s philanthropic contributions to society. CSI engages employees in socially relevant R&D and draws on the full range of corporate assets to address societal challenges (Table 56.1). The embrace of ‘shared value’ principles (Porter and Kramer 2011) saw companies commercialize their social investing to open new markets, improve profitability, and strengthen competitive positioning. The key qualifier is that investments are calibrated within the profit-making calculus. CSI focuses attention equally on the social impact of investments and applies to both charitable and commercial activity. It is a vehicle to transform and scale new ideas into processes, products, and services that contribute to sustainable social change.

Findings

Innovative firms strive to green their operations for eco-efficiency, develop socially conscious products for upscale consumers, reach out to base-of-the-pyramid markets, and engage employees in sustainability and socially responsible ventures. This requires companies to revamp business models;

317

318  Encyclopedia of social innovation Table 56.1

What makes CSI different?

Traditional CSR

Corporate Social Innovation

Philanthropic intent

Strategic intent

Money, manpower

R&D, corporate assets

Employee volunteerism

Employee development

Contracted service providers

NGO/government partners

Social and eco-services

Social and eco-innovations

Social good

Sustainable social change

Source: Mirvis and Googins (2021, pp. 295–307).

develop new ways of making, selling, and distributing goods and services; and forge new kinds of relationships and partnerships. Notably, all of these moves require social innovation and call for new innovation sources, methods, and participants. Many firms have well-developed innovation protocols and teams that encompass R&D, product and marketing units, and their sales force. But existing processes and personnel are oriented to innovation in traditional markets and investment decisions are based solely on commercial criteria. Confronting social challenges requires firms to reach beyond their usual customer base into diverse communities and disadvantaged populations. Problems identified are often nested in complex and unfamiliar socio-political dynamics that complicate any solution. Social value propositions for innovating are based on multiple and often non-financial investment criteria. And product, programme, or platform innovations must be tailored to new users and situations. A turn to CSI finds companies adopting approaches pioneered by social innovators:

New sources for CSI

1. New Sources: Companies are turning to open-innovation, crowd sourcing, user-innovation, and doing their own venture funding. 2. New Methods: Companies are using indigenous research, social design practices, and incubators/accelerators internally and with external parties. 3. New Players: Companies are engaging socially conscious employees, social entrepreneurs and enterprises, and other firms and sectors to co-create and scale breakthrough solutions to complex economic, social, and environmental issues.

Open social innovation Through open social innovation platforms, companies seek ideas from inventors, entrepreneurs, as well as students and the public (Chesbrough and Di Minin 2014). Through its open innovation platform (Open4U), the Spanish bank BBVA hosted a hackathon where developers devised apps that mined BBVA data to enable users to get reliable information about new neighbourhoods where they might move and find the most affordable mortgage rates.

Philip H. Mirvis

Different innovation sources feature in different kinds of CSI (Mirvis et al. 2016). To develop eco-innovations, healthier foods, or socially conscious products, companies repurpose R&D and engineering to green their operations, fortify food ingredients, or open new markets among underserved consumers. For example, to reach those lacking modern hygiene, the Japanese company LIXIL assembled a team of engineers to design SATO low-water-use toilets that are affordable, easy-to-install, have an innovative trap door technology that eliminates odours, and a self-sealing toilet pan that keeps flies and insects away. In many cases, existing internal resources are not sufficient and companies reach out to others for ideas and assistance. Kanter (1999) sees the social sector as a ‘beta site’ for business innovation. Accordingly, tech and communication companies have joined with social sector partners to design or tailor products to meet the needs of the elderly, physically disadvantaged, or impoverished.

Challenges and contests Innovation challenges and contests sponsored by companies can have both philanthropic

Corporate social innovation  319

and commercial aims (Adamczyk et al. 2012). Intel launched its Make It Wearable Challenge to bring students, designers, engineers and inventors together with industry professionals to come up with ideas for wearable devices (cameras, sensors, body-borne computers, and even drones). Unilever’s Foundry provides a platform for a global crowdsourcing community to develop new and innovative ways of tackling sustainability problems. User-driven innovation Involving users in product development ‘democratizes’ innovation (von Hippel 2005). LEGO got into user-driven innovation when its brand fans began to propose ‘idea sets’ for the company. Now open innovation is institutionalized with LEGO Ideas. Here’s how it works: (1) submit your proposal for a new LEGO set, complete with a model, photos, and a description; (2) gather support from the LEGO brand community; and (3) if successful, your idea becomes a real LEGO set that any fan can purchase around the world. You even get a royalty on sales, and recognition as the set’s creator! Many LEGO users have devised brick constructions that promote STEM learning for youth. Venture funding Companies can function like social venture capitalists and run workshops and labs for social entrepreneurs where their employees provide mentoring, business guidance, and technical assistance. German software maker SAP runs an innovation accelerator for entrepreneurs that are set to scale. SAP technology, workshops applying design thinking, and mentorship by SAP employees are cornerstones of the accelerator model, which also offers access to impact investors provided through an Impact Capital network available to SAP’s nonprofit entrepreneur partners.

New methods for CSI

Marketing has moved into a world of value-based consumption. Leading companies are adopting social design principles and design thinking to develop products that are good for people and the world (Brown and Katz 2009; Heller 2018).

Indigenous research Procter & Gamble (P&G) turned around and grew its business in Brazil by having employees live in and observe low-income households. Insights gained from these experiences led P&G to create new products, such as an inexpensive, environmentally friendly and hands-friendly detergent for those without washing machines who hand-wash clothes. To develop this ‘native capability’, company innovators need to engage ‘fringe stakeholders’ in their strategic planning and work on the ground with indigenous populations (Hart and London 2005). Design thinking, prototypes and failing fast Traditional corporate innovation is marked by detailed financial and strategic planning, an innovation funnel where ideas are continuously screened and calibrated based on risks-and-returns, and long lead times. With CSI, the approach is more entrepreneurial and favors ‘smart’ action over detailed planning, moving quickly from the white board to the real world, trying different things out, failing fast, and learning continuously (Kiser et al. 2017). During an innovation effort with KickStart, IDEO led the design team to construct 95 prototypes of an irrigation pump out of Lego, plastic, paper, foam, and then steel. Each prototype revealed a new learning that enabled the team to radically reduce the cost of production. The prototypes were sent to Kenya for testing by small-scale farmers. Incubators/accelerators Barclays Social Innovation Facility is an internal accelerator for the multinational banking company to develop commercial finance solutions to social and environmental challenges. Employees within Barclays develop their ideas in a three-day intrapreneur lab, then receive three months of internal mentoring before pitching their innovations to senior executives. Projects launched include a credit card aimed at millennials that ‘rounds up’ the charge at bank expense and donates the added funds to social purposes, loans with reduced credit charges for consumers who otherwise would not qualify for such rates, and a suite of impact-investing products.

Philip H. Mirvis

320  Encyclopedia of social innovation

Enterprise-wide social innovation To make social innovation an ongoing part of the business, Danone runs many small-scale ‘lab to land’ projects to protect and restore the planet. To promote corporate-wide learning, an annual meeting of Danone’s Social Innovation Lab brings together employees from different country business units to share their innovative ideas and best practices on both social (say, cooperative farming arrangements or serving poor customers) and environmental issues (say, how to measure impacts or water use). Participants learn from successful models, analyse unprofitable ventures, and propose new ideas in brainstorming sessions in a variety of workshops. A recent lab included a review of over 70 social innovation projects including Danone’s work with SAP to develop carbon emission metrics, its social business partnership with Grameen to scale a yogurt business in Bangladesh, and its many projects with community groups supported via the Danone Ecosystem Fund. To institutionalize the idea of continuous social change, Danone indexes one third of managers’ bonuses to achieving social impact.

New players in CSI

CSI is not limited to R&D, engineering, and product development specialists. Just as companies have opened their innovation programmes, and turned to more participatory methods, new ‘players’ have joined the game. Employee intrapreneurs John Elkington (2008) defines a corporate social intrapreneur as someone who (1) works inside organizations to develop practical solutions to social or environmental challenges where market failures stall progress; (2) applies principles of social entrepreneurship inside an organization; and (3) has an ‘insider–outsider’ mindset and approach. David Grayson likens social intrapreneurs to jazz musicians in that they must go through a period of ‘woodshedding’ to develop social and technical skills, ‘listen’ to what is happening in both the business and wider world, and then ‘improvise’ continuously as their innovations take shape and unfold (Grayson et al. 2014). To activate its guiding value of ‘innovate every day’, Swedish tech company Ericsson runs a grassroots Collaborative Idea Management Program that enables employPhilip H. Mirvis

ees to propose and build on innovative ideas in every region and layer of the company. Social entrepreneur partners Why would a company work with social entrepreneurs and their enterprises? For one, it is a new form of corporate philanthropy which catalyses innovative social action and, as a social enterprise accelerates, helps to build its capacities and heighten its impact. This adds vitality to the social sector and exposes a firm to new ideas and practices promulgated by creative start-up NGOs, social businesses, and hybrids. Second, firms gain new insights into social issues and innovations and develop new relationships that expand the ‘social capital’ of their companies. The Singapore Development Bank worked with social entrepreneurs to build the social sector in the nation and to learn how to better provide for its financial needs. Innovating with communities Major corporations have sponsored employee volunteerism for decades. With the advent of global pro-bono programmes, they are expanding their scope and turning their focus to social innovation. In these efforts, innovation is about problem solving with society and pooling corporate thinking and community wisdom to do things in a new way. Pro bono employees bring a business mindset, management tools, and technology to their assignments while local clients bring their facility in bricolage – applying or recombining existing ‘resources at hand’ to address social issues seldom encountered in corporate jobs. The task is to co-create solutions to the problems at hand – something that actually works (Mirvis and Googins 2018). Accenture Development Partnership (ADP), a social business within the global consulting firm, enables its employees to work on socially beneficial projects free of corporate overhead charges. To date ADP has undertaken over 600 projects in 55 countries where its professionals (at 50 per cent salary reduction) work in partnership for up to six months with NGOs to bring business solutions to humanitarian problems. Social innovation partnerships Complex problems call for complex solutions and organizations from different industries

Corporate social innovation  321

and sectors bring unique and essential assets to the work of social change. Recognition of this is leading many companies to collaborate with NGOs, government, other companies, and foundations to address social challenges (Kania and Kramer 2011; Nelson 2017). Dionisio and de Vargas (2021) analyse a variety of CSI efforts connecting companies and NGO partners in areas of economic development, health, housing, and social inclusion (→ SOCIALLY INCLUSIVE BUSINESS). The mission of the Sustainable Food Laboratory is to accelerate the shift of sustainable food from niche to mainstream. The lab’s interests encompass the fertility of soil, water and biodiversity protection, the livelihoods and practices of farmers and farm workers, energy use and waste discharge, and the quality and affordability of food. The over 80 lab members and partners including businesses large and small and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Catholic Relief Services, Fair Trade USA, and the Food Marketing Institute. The diverging interests in this mix often find common ground in joint projects. In various combinations they are involved in connecting small scale producers to modern markets, green farmer training projects, reducing greenhouse gases and water emissions in farm operations, food safety and sustainability certification schemes, and consumer education and engagement.

Critical reflection and outlook

In its original formulation, social innovation was aimed to produce social benefits of ‘intrinsic value’ that are ‘not reducible to economic or socio-economic terms’ (Dees 2001). With the rise of social entrepreneurs, B-Corps, and profit-making companies producing social impact, Mirvis and Googins (2022) document social value creation in innovations that yield both intrinsic (e.g. social and psychological) and extrinsic (e.g. economic and socio-economic) benefits. This includes efforts to create jobs or promote community economic development; provide training that prepares people for work or gains them upward mobility; increase access to banking, technology, and health care; and produce goods and services that make people smarter, healthier, happier, safer, or more self-confident, creative, and productive. In

this framing, social value encompasses the financial and non-financial benefits that companies produce that enhance the physical, psychological, social, and economic well-being of people and society, the health of the planet, and the future of humankind. What’s the payoff for companies? Access to new markets and sources of revenue, more engaged and motivated employees, an enhanced reputation, and the satisfaction that comes from helping to solve social problems facing both business and society. Looking ahead, CSI is still a ‘new’ idea for business and for company–community investment and cooperation (Gibson 2022). Key challenges calling for further research and experimentation centre on (1) reconciling the relative focus of CSI on producing Return on Investment versus social impact; (2) including ‘fringe’ stakeholders, activists, and critics in CSI efforts; and (3) understanding the relevance and role of CSI in different kinds of economies and political systems (cf. Howaldt et al. 2021). Philip H. Mirvis

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Adamczyk, S., A. C. Bullinger and K. M. Möslein (2012), ‘Innovation contests: a review, classification and outlook’, Creativity and Innovation Management, 21 (4), pp. 335–60. Brown, T. and B. Katz (2009), Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation, New York: Harper Business. Chesbrough, H. and A. Di Minin (2014), ‘Open social innovation’, in H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke and J. West (eds), New Frontiers in Open Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 169–88. Dees, J. G. (2001), The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship, Kansas City: Kauffman Foundation. Dees, J. G. and J. Elias (1998), ‘The challenges of combining social and commercial enterprise’, Business Ethics Quarterly, 8 (1), pp. 165–78. Dionisio, M. and E. R. de Vargas (2020), ‘Corporate social innovation: a systematic literature review’, International Business Review, 29 (2), 101641. Dionisio, M. and E. R. de Vargas (2021), ‘Integrating corporate social innovations and

Philip H. Mirvis

322  Encyclopedia of social innovation cross-collaboration: an empirical study’, Journal of Business Research, 139, pp. 794–803. Elkington, J. (2008), The Social Intrapreneur: A Field Guide for Corporate Changemakers, London: Sustainability. Gibson, C. B. (2022), ‘Investing in communities: forging new ground in corporate community co-development through relational and psychological pathways’, Academy of Management Journal, 65 (3), pp. 930–57, https://​doi​.org/​10​ .5465/​amj​.2020​.1664. Grayson, D., M. Mclaren and H. Spitsek (2014), Social Intrapreneurism and All That Jazz, Sheffield: Greenleaf. Hart, S. L. and T. London (2005), ‘Developing native capability: what multinational corporations can learn from the base of the pyramid’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, 3 (2), pp. 28–33. Heller, C. (2018), The Intergalactic Design Guide: Harnessing the Creative Potential of Social Design, Washington, DC: Island Press. Howaldt, J., C. Kaletka and A. Schröder (2021), ‘A research agenda for social innovation: the emergence of a research field’, in J. Howaldt et al. (eds), A Research Agenda for Social Innovation, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 1–20. Kania, J. and M. Kramer (2011), ‘Collective impact’, Stanford Innovation Review, 9 (1), pp. 36–41. Kanter, R. M. (1999), ‘From spare change to real change: the social sector as beta site for business innovation’, Harvard Business Review, 77 (3), pp. 122–32. Kiser, C., D. Leipziger and J. J. Shubert (2017), Creating Social Value: A Guide for Leaders and Change Makers, New York: Routledge.

Philip H. Mirvis

Mirvis, P. H. and B. Googins (2018), ‘Engaging employees as social innovators’, California Management Review, 60 (4), pp. 25–50. Mirvis, P. H. and B. Googins (2021), ‘Corporate social innovation: the next stage of CSR’, in T. Maak, N. Pless, M. Orlitzky and S. Sandhu (eds), Routledge Companion to Corporate Social Responsibility, New York: Routledge, pp. 295–307. Mirvis, P. H. and B. Googins (2022), Sustainability to Social Change: Lead Your Company from Managing Risks to Creating Social Value, London: Kogan Page. Mirvis, P. H., B. Googins and C. Kiser (2012), Corporate Social Innovation, Wellesley, MA: Social Innovation Lab, Babson University. Mirvis, P. H., M. E. B. Herrera, B. Googins and L. Albareda (2016), ‘Corporate social innovation: how firms learn to innovate for the greater good’, Journal of Business Research, 69 (11), pp. 5014–21. Nelson, J. (2017), ‘Partnerships for sustainable development: collective action by business, governments and civil society to achieve scale and transform markets’, Business and Sustainable Development Commission, and Corporate Responsibility Initiative, Harvard Kennedy School. Phills Jr, J. A., K. Deiglmeier and D. T. Miller (2008), ‘Rediscovering social innovation’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6 (4), pp. 34–43. Porter, M. E. and M. R. Kramer (2011), ‘Creating shared value’, Harvard Business Review, January–February, pp. 1–17. von Hippel, E. (2005), Democratizing Innovation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

57. Degrowth

a survey carried out in France just prior to the Covid-19 epidemic.2

Introduction

Why object to growth?

As early as the 1970s, the European philosophers André Gorz and Jacques Grinvald were the first to use the word décroissance (degrowth) in the sense we understand it today. But the calls for a radical downscaling of production and consumption failed to gain currency at the time, with the onset of economic recession in the wake of the oil crisis and the imposition of neoliberal policies in the 1980s. Talk of degrowth was drowned out by calls for ‘sustainable development’, a reformist programme vigorously promoted by major international institutions, including the United Nations. The idea of degrowth was revived early in the new millennium, first in France, particularly with the work of economist Serge Latouche, along with Vincent Chesnay and Bruno Clémentin, two anti-advertising activists1 who coined the phrase décroissance soutenable (sustainable degrowth) in response to the rhetoric around sustainable development, a proposition they saw as a dead end – at best a bid to pollute less in order to pollute longer. The term degrowth was coined as a missile word deployed to explode the belief that human progress, in the global North as much as in the global South, depends on continued economic growth. But while it essentially originated as a provocative slogan, the idea of degrowth began to generate sustained interest. Groups were formed, books and articles written, and lectures and conferences organized. The degrowth movement grew – in France, but also in other parts of Latin Europe such as Spain, Italy, the French-speaking part of Switzerland, and Belgium (Wallonia) (Latouche 2019). Today, the idea has supporters throughout the high-GDP per capita countries, but also in other parts of the world. It is also increasingly an object of public discussion, as major newspapers and broadcast media provide a forum for ‘growth objectors’ (objecteurs de croissance, a play on the French term for conscientious objectors). Recent polls indicate that a growing number of citizens in OECD countries are in favour of degrowth: 59 per cent of Europeans, on average, and up to 70 per cent of British people, according to

Critiques of growth follow three main lines of argument. First is the contention that our societies must exit the race for economic growth before degrowth is forced on us in a brutal fashion by the planet’s biophysical limits. We cannot continue producing more and more stuff without depleting natural resources and generating unmanageable quantities of waste. Renewable resources are only renewable up to a point, and there are no substitutes for breathable air, potable water and fertile land. Nor is the capacity of the planet’s ecosystems to assimilate our waste unlimited (Meadows et al. 2013). The ongoing global race for growth magnifies the danger not only of societal collapse, but also of a sixth mass extinction that could imperil the survival of the human species. Second, growth has not fulfilled the promises typically held out for it (Parrique 2019). To begin with, it does not guarantee a brighter future for subsequent generations, since the unfolding ecological catastrophe threatens the very conditions of their existence. Further, growth is no longer a factor in improving the well-being of so-called developed countries, since beyond a certain level of GDP per capita (which has largely been surpassed in the global North) there is no correlation between the rate of growth and indicators of well-being. Finally, the pursuit of growth does not contribute to reducing socio-economic inequalities whether within or between states. On the contrary, as Thomas Piketty’s work has amply demonstrated, save in exceptional circumstances and given adequate political measures, growth tends to produce structural inequality between the owners of capital and those who sell their labour power on the market (Piketty 2013). Measured against the egalitarian ideal to which liberal democracies purportedly subscribe, growth is thus a deeply unjust phenomenon (Hickel 2020). And the indictment is that much stronger if we take into consideration the deleterious impact of growth on the fate of other living beings, especially those endowed with sentience like ourselves. Third, the pursuit of growth must be abandoned because it reduces us all to cogs in the technical and economic macrosystems

323

324  Encyclopedia of social innovation

which underpin it. Having become ‘the tools of our tools’, to borrow a phrase from Henry David Thoreau, we simply no longer have the opportunity to decide together on how we should live (Anders 2002; Illich 2008). These decisions are now largely determined by economic and technical imperatives over which even the most powerful politicians have no real control. The dependence of our societies on fossil fuels, for example, dictates a need to wage war in distant countries or destroy vast areas of land to secure our supply of oil. Generally speaking, the race for growth in which we are all summoned to take part thus has a deeply alienating character, which constitutes yet another reason to oppose it, at least if we attach the slightest importance to the exercise of our freedom (Kurtz 2019; Marion 2015; Postone 2003).

The degrowth project

For degrowth proponents, a decrease in GDP is not a goal in and of itself. The aim is more far-reaching, namely, to supplant a societal model based on the relentless drive to produce goods and services through a collective effort to create more sustainable, just and democratic societies (D’Alisa et al. 2014; Schmelzer et al. 2022). Degrowth should therefore be conceived as a break with the established order and a transition toward a post-growth world. Advocates generally focus on three main principles: produce less, share more, decide together (Abraham 2019). Defenders of sustainable development and green growth count on the prospect of decoupling production from adverse environmental impacts, primarily by means of technological innovation. However, despite the considerable gains made in energy efficiency since the outset of the industrial era, this decoupling has not been achieved, and not actually existing technologies hold out that promise. Of course, it is possible to some degree, to reduce the quantity of materials and energy required to produce each individual commodity and to minimize the waste generated in the process. This results in relative decoupling. However, as long as the total quantity of goods continues to increase, the consumption of natural resources (matter and energy) will also rise, along with the amount of waste generated (Hickel and Kallis 2020; Parrique et al. 2019). Consequently, the only way to bring an end to the accelerating ecological disaster Yves-Marie Abraham

is to set limits to the production of goods and services, that is, to produce less. Yet an overall decrease in production in societies which are deeply unequal, and where a growing number of people simply do not have the material means to lead a dignified life, would exacerbate existing injustices. Therefore, in keeping with the egalitarian ideal that has informed, at least in theory, both capitalist and historical socialist societies, and to avoid precipitating social breakdown, a second principle must be implemented in tandem with the downscaling of production: we must share more of the means required to secure the necessities of life. In concrete terms, to allow every human being to live decently within the planet’s biophysical boundaries, we must set limits on capital accumulation and private property. With this in mind, degrowth proponents typically support basic income and maximum income policies (Liegey et al. 2013). They also advocate debt cancellation for the countries of the global South. How can we set limits to production and partake of the means of sustaining life in an equitable way? Once again, to remain true to the ideal of freedom that our societies supposedly embrace, but also in the interest of efficiency, advocates of degrowth call for these decisions to be taken in a rigorously democratic fashion. At present, we do not have the power to decide together how we wish to live, not only because our political institutions are not democratic (Rancière 2005), but above all because these institutions are themselves essentially subject to the imperative of infinite growth (Marion 2015). If we are to have any hope of regaining control of our lives, we must start by collectively unplugging ourselves from the technical and economic macrosystems underlying contemporary societies, which unavoidably dominate us all in an impersonal way (Gras 1997). At that point we will be able to go about democratizing our political institutions, for instance by rediscovering the virtues of the ancient practice of drawing lots to assign certain tasks to members of our communities. These principles could be implemented in the first place by relocalizing the production of necessary goods and services with a view to self-sufficiency (→ EXNOVATION). Such a shift would ideally be orchestrated by federated municipalities governed by direct democracy. These communities would opt

Degrowth  325

for low-tech, that is, methods of production that are ecologically sustainable, adapted to locally available resources (especially in the case of energy), widely accessible and controlled by users, and which do not require vast and complex infrastructure (Bihouix 2014). This entire transition would be based on the restoration and expansion of ‘the commons’, which may be defined, following Pierre Dardot and Christian Laval, as self-managed collectives whose members equitably share the means of existence (land, tools and knowledge) in an effort to gain independence from private enterprise and the state (Abraham 2019; Akbulut 2017; Dardot and Laval 2014).3

Growth: a doomed gamble

In answer to the frequent charge of utopianism, proponents of degrowth counter that the real utopians are those who perpetuate the belief that the race to produce ever more commodities can continue, when every day there is greater and starker evidence that planetary biophysical limits are being breached. The pace of economic growth, already faint in the countries of the global North, will run up against these limits. Degrowth is thus no longer a matter of choice; it is our future. Either it will unfold in a chaotic way, undoubtedly with disastrous consequences for the most vulnerable among us, or it will be undertaken voluntarily as a controlled democratic process to the extent possible. Another common objection is that the political vision of degrowth is at odds with human nature. Here the assumption is that the pursuit of growth and techno-scientific omnipotence is an inherent trait of our species and that there is no point in resisting it because if you repress what comes naturally it will rebound with a vengeance. To challenge these received ideas, degrowth theorists employ what anthropologist Louis Dumont called the ‘anthropological detour’: by contrasting our world as it is currently constituted with other civilizations and other ways of being human, they reveal that there is nothing natural or universal about prevailing modes of thought and behaviour. For growth objectors, humans are first and foremost ‘imagining animals’, to borrow a phrase from André Malraux. As the history of our species shows, this being is capable of conceiving all sorts of different worlds.

Despite the fact that modern capitalist civilization has extended itself on a planetary scale with such force that some have pronounced the end of history, there is no reason to think that this capacity has been lost. To stimulate it, we must begin by decolonizing the dominant imaginary, as Serge Latouche urges (Latouche 2019), in order to divest ourselves of everything that leads us to envisage our world as the only possible world. Moreover, not everything need be invented anew. There are concepts and strategies waiting to be rediscovered and revived, such as the idea of the commons (→ THE REVIVAL OF THE COMMONS), which has been very widely espoused by degrowth proponents (Mies 2014; Ostrom 2010). Indeed, as Elinor Ostrom set out to show, the commons constitute a vital institution in human history, and while they have been eroded and dismantled by the liberal capitalist and twentieth-century communist regimes that have continuously fed on them, they are already re-emerging and taking shape spontaneously, assuming new forms, and thriving in the many cracks and crevices of the existing order. Growth objectors typically favour an interstitial political strategy (Lepesant 2013; Olin Wright 2017). They eschew visions of the ‘Grand Soir’ – a revolutionary seizure of the state expected to usher in a better world. Recalling the outlook of the so-called utopian socialists of the nineteenth century, degrowth partisans believe in creating myriad concrete alternatives that make it possible to disconnect from the technical and economic macro-systems on which our lives depend today. However, this strategy does not exclude political activism aimed at securing direct and indirect state support for such initiatives, including efforts to enact ‘revolutionary reforms’ (Gorz 1969) such as basic income and the reduction of working time. The aim is for these alternatives to proliferate and form increasingly extensive networks until they reach a critical mass that can produce chain reactions leading to a sweeping transformation of our societies. We are obviously far from reaching this stage. However, major historical shifts often happen suddenly. Moreover, the degrowth movement could well gain momentum in response to the system failures that are bound to occur in the near future, particularly in view of the Yves-Marie Abraham

326  Encyclopedia of social innovation

current pace of ecological degradation. The danger, of course, is that these breakdowns will become the pretext for authoritarian crisis management bordering on fascism. It is thus all the more pressing to promote the idea of sustainable degrowth in the public sphere.

Degrowth and social innovation

Degrowth, as we have defined it, is at odds with what some have termed as a weak conception of social innovation, which refers to concrete (often individual) initiatives aimed in a limited way at repairing some of the damage wrought by our societies’ mode of production (Nyssens 2015; Juan and Laville 2020). In the best case here, the ‘social innovators’ play the role of Capital’s garbage collectors: they apply their efforts to dealing with the ‘negative externalities’ of capitalist production, which may help to streamline the process, but fails to resolve any of its inherent contradictions. And while there is nothing ignominious about the role of trash collector, its purpose is not to change the world. Degrowth has greater affinities, however, with strong conceptions of social innovation. This second approach involves working out new ways of meeting basic human needs and aspirations that have the potential not only to remedy current ills, but also to eliminate their underlying causes by completely transforming societal dynamics, whether in terms of sustainability, social justice or democracy (Nyssens 2015; Juan and Laville 2020). But the advocates of a strong conception of social innovation are often quite vague about the nature of the desired social transformation and seem, by and large, not to be committed to anything more than a type of economic pluralism in what is essentially a social-democratic reformist vision (Bouchard and Lévesque 2013; Laville 2014). Of course, not providing very precise answers to the question ‘What kind of world do we want?’ makes it easier to achieve greater unity. But this carries the risk of generating a false consensus that would actually reinforce the status quo in the event that differences of opinion proved so strong as to preclude common action. As for institutional pluralism (market, state and third sector), there is every reason to fear that it will be insufficient to quell capitalism’s destructive forces given the overwhelming dominance of this socio-economic system in our lives, as evidenced by the limited impact Yves-Marie Abraham

of the social and solidarity economy in the last 150 years in terms of producing social change in Western societies (Luxemburg 1997; Hély and Moulévrier 2013). As a political proposition, degrowth avoids these two pitfalls. It emphasizes that we will not be able to extricate ourselves from the current ecological, social and political crises without revolutionary social change, which means, above all, bringing an end to capitalism with its economic growth imperative. In practice, this entails challenging institutions like free enterprise, private (profit-producing) property, and wage labour and on behalf of such alternatives as the commons, rather than gambling on institutional pluralism (Abraham 2019; Akbulut 2017). Degrowth thus provides a general framework for evaluating existing social innovations and determining whether they help build a society in which we ‘produce less, share more, and decide together’. Do they have a communalist orientation? How likely are they to support the transition to post-growth societies? At the very least, degrowth can stimulate those who wish to work in the field of social innovation to think about what that commitment implies. Finally, the degrowth proposition also has the merit of resonating with basic values such as freedom and equality as well as with the desire to protect of the living world. It holds out the promise of transcending partial struggles, waged separately and singly, in defence of one or another of these three essential values. Degrowth is therefore the only viable path to achieving social justice and democracy while operating within planetary biophysical limits. Yves-Marie Abraham

Notes

1. In 1999, Chesnay and Clémentin founded an ad-bashing group, ‘Casseurs de Pub’, whose aim was ‘to encourage graphic design and art informed by a critique of consumer society and dedicated to promoting alternatives’ (translation). 2. See http://​www​.odoxa​.fr/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2021/​ 02/​O doxa​- Commission​- Innovation​- Medef​- Le​ -progres​-3​.pdf. 3. As we can see, degrowth shares common ground with ecosocialism. However, degrowth supporters are generally more sceptical than ecosocialists of the virtues of the state and warier of industrial techniques as building blocks of post-capitalist worlds that can succeed in actualizing the ideal of autonomy, that is, our capacity to decide collectively on ways of living together.

Degrowth  327

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Abraham, Y.-M. (2019), Guérir du mal de l’infini. Produire moins, partager plus, décider ensemble, Montréal: Écosociété. Akbulut, B. (2017), ‘Commons’, in C. L. Spash (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Ecological Economics: Nature and Society, London: Routledge. Anders, G. (2002), L’obsolescence de l’Homme. Sur l’âme de l’époque de la deuxième révolution industrielle, Paris: Encyclopédie des nuisances. Bihouix, P. (2014), L’âge des Low Tech. Vers une civilisation techniquement soutenable, Paris: Seuil. Bouchard, M. and B. Lévesque (2013), ‘L’innovation et les transformations sociales: une approche théorique plurielle de l’économie sociale. Le cas du Québec’, in D. Hiez and É. Lavillunière (eds), Théorie générale de l’économie sociale et solidaire, Luxembourg: Larcier, pp. 113–43. D’Alisa, G., F. Demaria and G. Kallis (2014), Degrowth: A Vocabulary for a New Era, London: Routledge-Earthscan. Dardot, P. and C. Laval (2014), Commun. Essai sur la révolution au XXIème siècle, Paris: La Découverte. Gorz, A. (1969), Réforme et révolution, Paris: Seuil. Gras, A. (1997), Les macro-systèmes techniques, Paris: PUF (“Que sais-je?”). Hély, M. and Moulévrier, P. (2013), L’économie sociale et solidaire: de l’utopie aux pratiques, Paris: La Dispute. Hickel, J. (2020), Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World, London: Penguin Random House. Hickel, J. and G. Kallis (2020), ‘Is green growth possible?’, New Political Economy, 25 (4), pp. 469–86. Illich, I. (2008), Œuvres complètes, volumes 1 and 2, Paris: Fayard. Juan, M. and J. Laville (2020), ‘Pour un questionnement critique de l’innovation sociale’, in M. Juan, J. Laville and J. Subirats (eds), Du social business à l’économie solidaire: Critique de l’innovation sociale, Toulouse: Érès, pp. 7–40. Kurtz, R. (2019), La substance du capital, Paris: L’échappée.

Latouche, S. (2019), La décroissance, Paris: PUF (“Que sais-je?”). Laville, J. (2014), ‘Innovation sociale, économie sociale et solidaire, entrepreneuriat social: Une mise en perspective historique’, in J. Klein, J. Laville and F. Moulaert (eds), L’innovation sociale, Toulouse: Érès, pp. 45–80. Lepesant, M. (2013), Politique(s) de la décroissance. Propositions pour penser et faire la transition, Paris: Utopia. Liegey, V., S. Madelaine, C. Ondet and A.-I. Veillot (2013), Un projet de décroissance. Manifeste pour une Dotation Inconditionnelle d’Autonomie, Paris: Utopia. Luxemburg, R. (1997), Réforme sociale ou Révolution ? Et autres textes politiques, Paris, Les amis de Spartacus. Marion, L. (2015), Comment exister encore? Capital, techno-science et domination, Montréal: Écosociété. Meadows, D., D. Meadows and J. Randers (2013), Les limites à la croissance, Montréal: Écosociété. Mies, M. (2014), ‘No commons without a community’, Community Development Journal, 49, Issue suppl_1, January, pp. 106–17. Nyssens, M. (2015), ‘Innovation sociale et entreprise sociale: quels dialogues possibles? Une perspective européenne’, in J.-L. Klein et al. (eds), La transformation sociale par l’innovation sociale, Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec, pp. 335–48. Olin Wright, E. (2017), Utopies réelles, Paris: La Découverte. Ostrom, E. (2010), Gouvernance des biens communs. Pour une nouvelle approche des ressources naturelles, Bruxelles: De Boeck. Parrique, T. (2019), ‘The political economy of degrowth’, PhD dissertation, Stockholms Universitet. Parrique, T., J. Barth, F. Briens, C. Kerschner, A. Kraus-Polk, A. Kuokkanen and J. H. Spangenberg (2019), Decoupling Debunked: Evidence and Arguments Against Green Growth as a Sole Strategy for Sustainability, Brussels: European Environmental Bureau. Piketty, T. (2013), Le capital au XXIème siècle, Paris: Seuil. Postone, M. (2003), Temps, travail et domination sociale, Paris: Mille et une nuits. Rancière, J. (2005), La haine de la démocratie, Paris: La fabrique. Schmelzer, M., A. Vansintjan and A. Vetter (2022), The Future Is Degrowth: A Guide to a World beyond Capitalism, London: Verso.

Yves-Marie Abraham

58. The potential of social innovation for future employment trends Introduction

The following section is divided in two subsections, the first one focused on policy priorities as set up by the major world organizations, and the second one targets the problems faced by persons affected by different types of vulnerable situations, with gender as a transversal category impacting and accentuating all.

For a few years, the concept of social innovation has become increasingly evident in political, scientific and public debates (Howaldt 2018; Kiem 2011; Misuraca and Pasi 2019). However, although social innovation has traditionally offered timely responses to the challenges of employment (long-term or youth unemployment, gender inequalities,…), there is growing consensus among practitioners, policymakers and the research community that widespread social innovation is further required to address the significant multi-level challenges of employment in line with glocal1 policy priorities (e.g. No future of work without social innovation Manifesto2). Its perspective is becoming increasingly relevant in relation to artificial intelligence (Bokhari and Myeong 2022), human–robot interaction (Colla et al. 2017) and foresight studies (Wilkinson 2016). The impetus for this renaissance is being driven by new projects, initiatives and efforts to establish innovation. A rich body of EU, national and international projects3 (e.g. SI-DRIVE4 and its results5) has brought together the diverging dynamics of theory and praxis by proposing a preliminary global mapping of social innovation practices, based on a coherent methodology, and the development of empirically tested foundations of social innovation. Social innovation can anticipate and give solutions to future challenges and opportunities of employment (Enciso-Santocildes et al. 2019). The statistics generated by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics predict the types of jobs that will be growing until 2030. We can note how increased digitalization affects the quick decline of some jobs (e.g. telephone operators, word typists), how home and care services will increase but are low paid, or how higher pay is related to higher education. Joint collaborative efforts of policymakers, practitioners, employers and employees are seen as a way to overcome barriers to fair employability.

The challenges of employment

Although there has been a fall in the global unemployment rate, it must be stressed that there are still more than 170 million people out of work. Moreover, women, young people (aged 15–24) and people with disabilities are still much less likely to be in employment. The analysis of policy priorities prior and after the COVID-19 pandemic revealed that policy objectives have shifted with the challenges provoked by the health crisis. Several lines of action for policies are strengthening the institutions of work, employment and social protection; a shift from an informal to formal economy; gender equality; enhancing employment for young people; and lifelong learning opportunities in terms of the skills needed for new working environments. According to the OECD findings (OECD 2022) after the COVID crisis and its ongoing impact on the labour market, a special emphasis is put on the groups whose working conditions were negatively affected to a greater extent: migrants, ethnic/racial minorities, indigenous people, and young people and women who belong to the previously mentioned groups. Another crucial issue that has been brought to the fore with the pandemic is the match between social innovation and the precariousness of essential jobs (care, cleaning, etc.). Most mainstream policies for employment are focused on high-skilled profiles, whereas low-skilled, worst paid and less socially recognized, but essential jobs, are kept to the margins and mainly covered by social innovation. New policy recommendation advice is needed to ensure that disadvantaged groups acquire skills for future job opportunities in line with the triple transition (green, digital and social) (Caro-Gonzalez et al. 2023). Fighting discrimination and enhancing geographical and social mobility should be included too.

328

The potential of social innovation for future employment trends  329

The problem of employment as addressed by major world organizations According to the OECD Employment Outlook 2021 (OECD 2021), the economic recovery underway in OECD countries has not yet generated enough new jobs to bring employment back to pre-pandemic levels in most OECD economies. The International Labour Organization (ILO 2020a; ILO 2020b) points out that the persistence of various decent work deficits reinforces the importance of tackling the different needs people have in their working environment. It warns that with the current dynamics, achieving the goal of decent work for all set by the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is unattainable for a large majority of countries. It urges policymakers to address this issue to avoid the risk that many business models, particularly those enabled by new technologies, will bury the gains made in labour formality or social protection. SDG 8 motivates the international community to promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth of full and decent employment for all. This is far from being achieved. The least developed countries recorded an increase in annual gross domestic product growth of less than 5 per cent over the last five years, not having achieved the target of at least 7 per cent annual growth. Article 3 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)6 states that EU member states and the Union itself must work to develop a coordinated strategy for employment, for the promotion of a skilled, trained and adaptable workforce, as well as labour markets that can respond to economic change to achieve the goals of full employment and social progress. The Union should develop policy coordination instruments for fiscal, macroeconomic and structural policies reflecting the interdependence between states. This would result in positive spill-over effects on social and economic policies. The European Pillar of Social Rights,7 the reference framework for monitoring member states’ employment and social performance, drives reforms at national level for a renewed EU process of convergence, supporting well-functioning and fair labour markets and welfare systems. Following an assessment of developments in labour markets and the social situation since the adoption of the

Employment Guidelines in 2018, it is envisaged that some updates will be necessary. The Employment and Social Developments in Europe report8 has put the spotlight on youth employment challenges. D’Andrea (2022) has provided key evidence of the context young people have to face during recovery from the COVID-19 crisis. Young people are the group most affected by the pandemic and the slowest to recover due to their more vulnerable and precarious situation in the world of work. The importance of education and acquisition of new skills, together with additional active labour market and social policy interventions to support the successful labour integration of young people is highlighted in the face of the problem (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION IN EDUCATION). A European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (EISMEA)9 report on workplace innovation (WPI)10 stresses people-centred working conditions based on trust, self-managed teams, upskilling of employees, and co-created leadership that includes employees in decision-making processes. Casini et al. (2018) delved into well-being and social innovation at work. Difficulties faced by different people to enter, maintain or re-enter the labour market Although social innovation is getting stronger in response to the different challenges posed by employment, its main strength lies in giving responses to vulnerable people’s problems. A systematic review11 on mentoring employment for vulnerable groups revealed that there have not been sufficient studies focused on this issue. Long-term unemployed A report on long term unemployment by OECD12 underlies the dangerous long-term effects this has on people’s mental health, skills development, happiness and future employability prospects. The EU Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI)13 strives to give social innovation solutions14 where greater alignment is needed between employment institutions, economic development policies and practices. Youth unemployment and child labour According to ILO’s report on global youth employment,15 there are six million more

Antonia Caro-González and Marta Enciso-Santocildes

330  Encyclopedia of social innovation

unemployed youths in 2022 than in 2019. Nowadays, around 73 million are estimated to be unemployed. A statistical brief by the ILO16 highlights that the youth are easier to fire as they work in less-protected (temporary and informal) jobs, and have less access to information and support for business. According to Carcillo et al. (2015), and taking into account youth not in employment, education or training (NEET) indicators,17 people with lower educational degrees were more negatively affected. Baglioni and Sinclair (2018) provided examples of social innovation initiatives for youth unemployment by focusing on enhancing their skills and experience. A report by Generation Unlimited,18 PwC and UNICEF observes a great mismatch between young people’s training, education and job skill requirements. Businesses and governments are invited to define local and national skills development programmes, create national forums with key stakeholders to share information, and build a national digital skills verification trust. The Public Employment Services (PES) Network19 highlighted the importance of investment in young people regarding their soft skills, self-confidence, mental health, digital skills, and vocational coaching, among others. An example of how social innovation fights child labour is provided by the research carried out by Sadabadi et al. (2022). Gender as a transversal aggravating factor The gender gap in employment20 distinguishes aggravating employment factors for women: overrepresentation in vulnerable jobs, unequal pay, traditional conceptions of gender roles by societies, work–family balance, lack of affordable care for children, lack of safe and accessible transport. Different efforts have been made to tackle gender employment through the benefits of social innovation such as studied, for example, by Sarkki et al. (2021), Tiessen et al. (2021), the SEiSMiC Gender Action Plan and Toolkit,21 the British Council’s project on the role of social enterprise in women’s empowerment,22 and the OECD’s Women’s Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation.23

New trends: areas where social innovation has great potential

Some relevant areas where social innovation can intervene are investing in digital skills for employment, telework and workplace innovation (→ WORKPLACE INNOVATION), and urban/rural interaction (e.g. brain gain through telework). The potential of digital skills for employment A recent systematic review (van Laar et al. 2020) identifies seven core skills24 with digital components that crosscut the different areas of intervention for social innovation to overcome the skills gaps and mismatches (high-skilled shortage, the great dropout, brain drain and brain gain). The Connect Employment Shuttles25 is an excellent example of how social innovation plays a crucial role by joining digitalization, social inclusion and re-insertion into the labour market along with teamwork, collaboration and networking (Enciso-Santocildes et al. 2021). Telework/workplace innovation Since the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a reinvention of the way work is understood and executed. Due to mobility problems and restrictions, there has been a transition to telework in a short period of time, which is here to stay, with a number of advantages and disadvantages in the face of the unknown. The adaptive processes are still underway and the results of these new dynamics are still to be evaluated (Kharlamov et al. 2021; García-Morales et al. 2021). Technological breakthroughs are forcing organizations to quickly adapt their organizational cultures, systems and workplaces to a new digital era. Besides, in many countries during the COVID-19 pandemic most employers and employees were required to adapt to new, unforeseen circumstances and to adapt to teleworking to a larger extent than before. Therefore, an even greater flexibility in work arrangements is needed, including flexible working hours and working from home or any other location in remote mode. One of the challenges is setting new legislation to regulate and improve working conditions in this extended teleworking era. We find examples of national legislations (e.g. Finnish and Dutch legislation) being

Antonia Caro-González and Marta Enciso-Santocildes

The potential of social innovation for future employment trends  331

adapted to the new requirements, based on the European Framework Agreement on Telework. In the Netherlands, the Arbowet Decree26 highlights health, safety and taxation rules. The Dutch Flexible Working Act (FWA) enables employees to adjust their working hours and as a result of COVID-19, an amendment was made by the Dutch parliament in which the employee’s application for the workplace can only be rejected when the employer proves it has major business reasons for it. In the case of Finland, the Framework Agreement on telework is taken as a basis; the workers’ unions focus their negotiations on reconciliation, health and well-being. The most significant change in the new Working Hours Act was the concept of flexible working hours, an arrangement in which employees have the right to decide the timing and the place of work, whereas the employer will define work duties, targets and the work schedule. The key role of social innovation to promote employment opportunities for boosting urban–rural dialogue and integration In conjunction with one of the principles underpinning the SDGs, and the European Pillar of Social Rights (‘no one left behind’), a dialogue and equal distribution of resources must be established. Rural areas are often largely forgotten, as many efforts, resources and investments are focused on urban areas (e.g. smart city agendas). Social innovation in the rural context is increasingly drawing researchers’ attention (cf. Lipták 2019; Lombardi et al. 2020; Schermer and Kroismayr 2020; Živojinović et al. 2019), as social innovation has an important role in understanding the need to accommodate the integration of urban–rural environments and work on them with initiatives to boost quality employment. If the rural world is not incorporated, the already existing inequality could increase exponentially.

Challenges and opportunities that new technologies bring to social innovation and employment

Social innovation is a catalyst that gathers employers, employees, practitioners and policymakers to jointly create innovative policy

and regulatory frameworks to meet people’s skills and competences development needs for fairer employment. Social innovation in combination with new technologies applied to the work environment can offer novel solutions while balancing the demand of highly qualified and specialized professionals with low-qualified but essential professionals. Although new technologies provide many benefits, their fast progress is a counterpoint for timely and quality adaptation periods for many professionals. This is even more difficult for persons in vulnerable situations. Therefore, training, pathways and courses are often flawed with an underlying problem of adaptability of the workforce to the new dynamics. For this reason, many companies train their employees or recruit very specific profiles. Social innovation has a crucial role to play in the education sector in the coming years. When technology is put solely at the service of production and the logic of the capitalist market, it might hinder creativity or undervalue many branches and careers that do not have such a direct link with technology. In response to this we find the emergence of STEAM education27 to promote the entry into this type of technical career but also in the humanistic branch. This moment brings a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to rebuild more resilient labour markets, addressing long-standing structural problems that have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 crisis. Failure to address inequality and exclusion now is likely to result in deeper social divisions with negative impacts on productivity and economic recovery. After previous crises, most countries quickly tighten their purse strings. This time, however, countries are committing unprecedented resources to recovery over the next five to ten years. Investing in productivity and employment will help get people back to work. To achieve sustainable development and progress towards the SDG Target 8.5 (‘full and productive employment and decent work for all […] and equal pay for work of equal value’28), it is necessary to promote productive activities, innovation and formalization, optimizing the rational use of resources. Furthermore, employees have to constantly learn new skills and improve (upskilling and

Antonia Caro-González and Marta Enciso-Santocildes

332  Encyclopedia of social innovation

re-skilling) their capabilities and competencies in a lifelong learning approach. Antonia Caro-González and Marta Enciso-Santocildes

Notes

1. UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 2. Available at https://​www​.weceurope​.org/​uploads/​ 2019/​07/​2017​_WEC​_Social​-Innovation​-Manifesto​ .pdf. 3. A list can be retrieved from the search ‘social innovation and employment’ in CORDIS: https://​ cordis​. europa​. eu/​s earch​? q​= ​s ocial​% 20AND​ %20innovation​%20AND​%20employment​&​p​=​1​&​ num​=​10​&​srt​=R ​ elevance:​decreasing. 4. Available at https://​www​.si​-drive​.eu. SI-DRIVE has mapped, analysed and promoted social innovation in Europe and beyond across several research lines among which employment represents one of the main activities. Its empirical and theoretical findings are revealed in the Atlas of Social Innovation. It represents the base of the European School of Social Innovation (ESSI). 5. A variety of case studies (available at https://​ www​. si​- drive​. eu/​w p​- content/​u ploads/​2 017/​0 3/​ R17014​_ D5​. 3CaseStudyResults​_ EMPL​_ corr2​ .pdf) derived from the SI-Drive project analyse their impact on the policies across three practice fields of employment (youth and vulnerable groups unemployment, social entrepreneurship and workplace innovation and conditions). 6. Available at https://​www​.oecd​-ilibrary​.org/​ sites/​5a700c4b​-en/​index​.html​?itemId​=/​content/​ publication/​5a700c4b​-en. 7. The upskilling Pathways initiative is a key piece of the European Social Pillar of Social Rights, which promotes equal rights to inclusive and quality education and training and learning throughout life to sustain labour markets and welfare systems together that work correctly (https://​ec​.europa​.eu/​ social/​main​.jsp​?catId​=​1224). 8. Available at https://​ec​.europa​.eu/​social/​ BlobServlet​?docId​=​25875​&​langId​=​en. 9. See https://​ec​.europa​.eu/​info/​departments/​small​ -and​-medium​-sized​-enterprises​_en. 10. Available at https://​eismea​.ec​.europa​.eu/​ publications/​workplace​-innovation​-uptake​-smes​ -action​-report​_en. 11. Available at https://​www​.fhi​.no/​globalassets/​ bilder/​rapporter​-og​-trykksaker/​2018/​arbeidsrettede​ -mentorprogrammer​-for​-sarbare​-grupper​-rapport​ -2018​.pdf. 12. Available at https://​www​.oecd​.org/​cfe/​leed/​ Tackling​% 20Long​_ Term​% 20unemployment​_​ %20WP​_covers​.pdf. 13. See https://​ec​.europa​.eu/​social/​main​.jsp​?catId​=​ 1081. 14. Examples of the projects where social innovation has a potential to deal with unemployment can be consulted at https://​easi​-socialinnovation​ .org/​1 0​- social​- innovation​- projects​- to​- tackle​ -unemployment​-in​-europe/​. 15. Available at https://​www​.ilo​.org/​wcmsp5/​groups/​ public/​-​-​-dgreports/​-​-​-dcomm/​-​-​-publ/​documents/​ publication/​wcms​_853321​.pdf.

16. Available at https://​www​.ilo​.org/​wcmsp5/​groups/​ public/​-​-​-ed​_emp/​documents/​briefingnote/​wcms​ _795479​.pdf. 17. Available at https://​data​.oecd​.org/​youthinac/​youth​ -not​- in​- employment​- education​- or​- training​- neet​ .htm. 18. Available at https://​www​.generationunlimited​.org/​ media/​5 201/​f ile/​U NICEF​- PwC​- GenU​- reaching​ -yes​-thought​-leadership​.pdf. 19. Available at https://​ec​.europa​.eu/​social/​main​ .jsp​?langId​=​en​&​catId​=​105​&​furtherNews​=​yes​&​ newsId​=​10272. 20. Available at https://​www​.ilo​.org/​infostories/​ Stories/​Employment/​barriers​-women/​#intro. 21. Available at https://​www​.academia​.edu/​10769259/​ Gender​_ and​_ Social​_ Innovation​_ in​_ Cities​.​ _SEiSMiC​_Gender​_Action​_Plan​_and​_Toolkit. https://​www​.britishcouncil​.org/​society/​ 22. See s o c i a l ​- e n t e r p r i s e / ​a c t i v i s t ​- e n t r e p r e n e u r​ -role​- social​- enterprise​- supporting​- women​ %E2​% 80​% 99s​- empowerment​# :​~ :​t ext​= ​f or​ %20women's​%20empowerment​.​-​,Activist​%20to​ %20entrepreneur​% 3A​% 20the​% 20role​% 20of​ %20social​% 20enterprise​% 20in​% 20supporting​,​ %2C​%20the​%20UK​%20and​%20USA). 23. Available at https://​www​.oecd​-ilibrary​.org/​industry​ -and​-services/​women​-s​-social​-entrepreneurship​ -and​-innovation​_5jxzkq2sr7d4​-en. 24. These are technical, information, communication, collaboration, creativity, critical thinking and problem-solving. 25. See https://​www​.lan​zaderascon​ectaempleo​.es/​. 26. Available at https://​paltheoberman​.nl/​en/​news/​460/​ legislative​-proposal​-work​-where​-you​-want. 27. STEAM is an educational approach that integrates the arts into the better-known, commonly used STEM model, which includes science, technology, engineering and mathematics. STEAM programmes may comprise any of the visual or performing arts, such as photography, design, painting, dance and/or writing. 28. See https://​sdgs​.un​.org/​goals/​goal8.

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Baglioni, S. and S. Sinclair (2018), Social Innovation and Social Policy: Theory, Policy and Practice, Bristol: Policy Press Scholarship Online. Bokhari S. A. A. and S. Myeong (2022), ‘Use of artificial intelligence in smart cities for smart decision-making: a social innovation perspective’, Sustainability, 14 (2), 620, https://​doi​.org/​ 10​.3390/​su14020620. Carcillo, S., R. Fernández, S. Königs and A. Minea (2015), ‘NEET youth in the aftermath of the crisis: challenges and policies’, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 164, Paris: OECD Publishing. Caro-Gonzalez, A. et al. (2023), ‘The Three MuskEUteers: envisaging and pursuing a "one for all, all for one" triple transition: social, green and digital’, in R. Petrevska Nechkoska, G.

Antonia Caro-González and Marta Enciso-Santocildes

The potential of social innovation for future employment trends  333 Manceski and G. Poels (eds), Facilitation in Complexity: From Creation to Co-Creation, from Dreaming to Co-Dreaming, from Evolution to Co-Evolution, Cham: Springer Nature. Casini, A., R. Bensliman, E. Callorda Fossati, F. Degavre and C. Mahieu (2018), ‘Is social innovation fostering satisfaction and well-being at work? Insights from employment in social enterprises providing long-term eldercare services’, International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29, pp. 1244–60. Colla, V., A. Schroeder, A. Buzzelli, D. Abbà, A. Faes and L. Romaniello (2017), ‘Introduction of symbiotic human-robot-cooperation in the steel sector: an example of social innovation’, Matériaux & Techniques, 105 (5–6), https://​doi​ .org/​10​.1051/​mattech/​2018017. D’Andrea, S. (2022), ‘Implementing the work-life balance directive in times of COVID-19: new prospects for post-pandemic workplaces in the European Union?’, ERA Forum, 23, pp. 7–18. Enciso-Santocildes, M., A. Echaniz-Barrondo and L. Gómez-Urquijo (2021), ‘Social innovation and employment in the digital age: the case of the connected employment shuttles in Spain’, International Journal of Innovation Studies, 5 (4), pp. 175–89. Enciso-Santocildes, M., A. Mugarra Elorriaga and A. Caro (2019), Shaping the Future of Employment in Europe: Social Innovation as a Driver for Social Change/Modelando el futuro del empleo en Europa: Innovación social como un motor para el cambio social, Madrid: Editorial Dykinson. García-Morales, V. J., A. Garrido-Moreno and R. Martín-Rojas (2021), ‘The transformation of higher education after the COVID disruption: emerging challenges in an online learning scenario’, Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 616059. Howaldt, J. (2018), ‘Rethinking innovation: social innovation as important part of a new innovation paradigm’, in J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka, A. Schröder and M. Zirngiebl (eds), Atlas of Social Innovation. Volume 2: A World of New Practices, München: oekoem verlag, pp. 15–19. ILO [International Labour Organization] (2020a), ‘The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on jobs and incomes in G20 economies’, accessed 28 September 2022 at https://​www​.ilo​.org/​ wcmsp5/​groups/​public/​-​-​-dgreports/​-​-​-cabinet/​ documents/​publication/​wcms​_756331​.pdf. ILO [International Labour Organization] (2020b), ILO Monitor: COVID-19 and the World of Work. Updated Estimates and Analysis, Geneva: ILO. Kharlamov, A. A., A. N. Raskhodchikov and M. Pilgun (2021), ‘Smart city data sensing during

COVID-19: public reaction to accelerating digital transformation’, Sensors, 21 (12), 3965. Kiem, M. (2011), ‘Designing the social, and the politics of social innovation’, Design Philosophy Papers, 9 (3), pp. 207–16. Lipták, K. (2019), ‘The importance of social innovations in rural areas’, Deturope, 11 (3), pp. 160–74. Lombardi, M., A. Lopolito, A. M. Andriano, M. Prosperi, A. Stasi and E. Iannuzzi (2020), ‘Network impact of social innovation initiatives in marginalised rural communities’, Social Networks, 63, pp. 11–20. Misuraca, G. and G. Pasi (2019), ‘Landscaping digital social innovation in the EU: structuring the evidence and nurturing the science and policy debate towards a renewed agenda for social change’, Government Information Quarterly, 36 (3), pp. 592–600. OECD (2021), OECD Employment Outlook 2021: Navigating the COVID-19 Crisis and Recovery, Paris: OECD Publishing, accessed www​ .oecd​ 28 September 2022 at https://​ -ilibrary​.org/​sites/​5a700c4b​-en/​index​.html​ ?itemId​=/​content/​publication/​5a700c4b​-en. OECD (2022), The Unequal Impact of COVID-19: A Spotlight on Frontline Workers, Migrants and Racial/Ethnic Minorities, accessed 28 September 2022 at https://​www​.oecd​.org/​ coronavirus/​policy​-responses/​the​-unequal​ -impact​-of​-covid​-19​-a​-spotlight​-on​-frontline​ -workers​-migrants​-and​-racial​-ethnic​-minorities​ -f36e931e/​. Sadabadi, A. A., F. S. Fehri and F. Kiarash, (2022), ‘Social innovation action research for lifestyle improvement of child labour in Tehran (social innovation’s idea on child labour lifestyle)’, Systemic Practice and Action Research, 35 (1), pp. 89–105. Sarkki, S., C. Dalla Torre, J. Fransala, I. Živojinović, A. Ludvig, E. Górriz-Mifsud, M. Melnykovych, P. R. Sfeir, L. Arbia, M. Bengoumi et al. (2021), ‘Reconstructive social innovation cycles in women-led initiatives in rural areas’, Sustainability, 13, 1231. Schermer, M. and S. Kroismayr (2020), ‘Social innovation in rural areas’, Österreich Z Soziol, 45, pp. 1–6. Tiessen, R., T. Laursen, B. Lough and T. Mirza (2021), ‘Gender-focused social innovation and the role of international development volunteers in promoting women’s economic empowerment’, in R. Tiessen et al. (eds), Innovations in Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment, Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, pp. 91–107. van Laar, E., A. J. A. M. van Deursen, J. A. G. M. van Dijk and J. de Haan (2020), ‘Determinants of 21st-century skills and 21st-century digital skills for workers: a systematic literature

Antonia Caro-González and Marta Enciso-Santocildes

334  Encyclopedia of social innovation review’, SAGE Open, 10 (1), https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1177/​2158244019900176. Wilkinson, A. (2016), ‘Using strategic foresight methods to anticipate and prepare for the jobs-scarce economy’, European Journal

of Futures Research, 4 (12), https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1007/​s40309–016–0094–0. Živojinović, I., A. Ludvig and K. Hogl (2019), ‘Social innovation to sustain rural communities: overcoming institutional challenges in Serbia’, Sustainability, 11, pp. 1–27.

Antonia Caro-González and Marta Enciso-Santocildes

59. The revival of the commons Social ‘innovation’ or old-fashioned correction mechanism?

In a world where markets and states seem to have reached the limit of their capacities to govern resources in a sustainable way, society is turning increasingly to joint resource management: initiatives of stakeholders pursuing their economic and social goals via collective action are popping up throughout the developed world. Examples of such initiatives are energy consumers’ collectives, car sharing, and the development of open-source software (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION IN ENERGY SYSTEM TRANSFORMATION). Although they may seem rather marginal, these forms of institutionalized collective action are gaining momentum. Many of the initiatives use the concept of the commons to emphasize that they are sharing a resource. In fact, the term commons is a pars pro toto, part of a broad array of types of institutions for collective action that work along the same way of governance. Institution for collective action (ICA) is a more neutral term to describe institutional arrangements that are formed by groups of people to overcome certain common problems over an extended period of time by setting certain collective rules regarding access to the group (membership), use of collectively owned resources and services (collective action), and management of these resources and services (self-governance) (Ostrom 1990). Instead of using the term to refer to shared resources only, it is thus best seen as a governance regime, which tries to solve the social dilemma that emerges when a group of people is being formed – with membership conditions linked to it – decides to create, manage, monitor and use a collective resource. Whereas governments are involuntarily confronted with social dilemmas on a regular basis and develop legislation to make sure that the solution is equal for all citizens, commoners actually seek to create a social dilemma but at the same time also put in the effort to solve it by making joint agreements on what needs to be done to make sure the cooperation leads to good resource management that benefits all in an equitable

way. However, the pursuit of these citizens to create and at the same time solve a social dilemma is in itself not innovative. The commons as institutionalized forms of collective action have a long history, dating to the late medieval period, which can provide insights in both the motivations of citizens to choose this form of governance, and in the conditions for durable collective resource management.

Commons as a correction mechanism?

The common is a historical concept with European roots, going back to medieval collective resource usage and management in agriculture (De Moor et al. 2002). When we dive into long-term European history, there seem to be several periods when organizations were set up through collective action, self-governance and high member participation, which had rather similar institutional designs as those we see emerging today (Reynolds 1984; Greif 2006).1 For the Netherlands, a wave of collective action emerged around 1200 (De Moor 2008; De Moor 2013, pp. 12–14). Commons and waterboards in the countryside and guilds and beguinages in the cities were set up to regulate access to goods and services among stakeholders. Rapid development of merchant and craft guilds, commons, collective irrigation systems, and other forms of ICAs has also been described for Italy, Germany and other European countries (Ehmer 2008; Mocarelli 2008; Soly 2008). From the fifteenth century onwards, commons in England and Wales were going through a dissolution process, referred to as enclosures. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, national governments across Europe orchestrated a dissolution of guilds, commons and other types of ICAs. Paradoxically, whilst citizens and local governments in the Western world nowadays increasingly put the commons forward as an alternative governance regime for public and private good provision, commons in the developing world are still under pressure to dissolve, to be replaced by a market-driven, individualized use of land and resources. The latter process can be considered as an example of history repeating itself, though on another continent.

335

336  Encyclopedia of social innovation

After the top-down dissolution of ICAs in Europe, a second period of accelerated development of organizations based on very similar principles surfaces. Between 1880 and 1920, cooperatives were set up in farming, banking and many other sectors to provide access to, for instance, working material, capital, and social security (De Moor 2013, pp. 16–17). Studies on historical forms of collective action elsewhere in Europe suggest that similar waves existed throughout Europe in roughly the same two periods, but with a variety in appearance, depending on the local problems citizens tried to address collectively. During the second period, the Rochdale principles – until today perceived as the ideals cooperatives should pursue – were first set out (1844), the first Swedish consumer cooperative emerged (1850), and in the 1860s the German Raiffeisen Bank developed, soon to be replicated in other countries (Fairbairn 1994; Fjørtoft and Gjems-Onstad 2013, p. 583). The current surge in ICAs has been attributed to market imperfections that arise after periods of accelerated development of the free market, in which privatization plays an important role (Verhofstadt and Maertens 2014; Dedeurwaerdere et al. 2015). The first wave of ICA-formation was preceded by an accelerated development of the agricultural and urban labour markets during the Middle Ages. Market imperfections also seem to have been the main stimulus of particularly rural cooperatives in the nineteenth century, following a strong wave of liberalization and privatization. In historical literature, the rise of the cooperatives in agriculture in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries has been explained from the advantage of cooperatives over private factories in reducing transaction costs with suppliers (O’Grada 1977; Van Zanden 1994; Henriksen 1999; O’Rourke 2006; Frenken 2014). Given their emergence and growing popularity right after periods of increased stress on and commercialization of resources, in some cases also followed by a crisis, we can consider commons as a form of a correction mechanism: when the cracks in the economic system become apparent, citizens try to find alternative solutions, which are less directed towards commercial use of resources but more towards self-sufficiency.

Tine De Moor

The commons as a pars pro toto?

Throughout the last century, the concept of commons has become synonym for both collectively held resources and a mode of governance (De Moor 2019). It got ample attention in both academic literature and economics textbooks after the coinage of the tragedy of the commons-metaphor by Hardin (1968). In his article, he claims the inevitable overexploitation of the commons, but in his description he clearly refers to open-access resources, which follow perverse incentives for overexploitation. Although there is consensus about the necessity of a governance framework ensuring sustainable resource use, opinions on how to shape this framework did and still do vary. Hardin (1968), Acheson (2011) and others argue that the solution is to be found in either strong government control or private use of resources. From the 1990s onwards, following Ostrom’s seminal book Governing the Commons (Ostrom 1990), models for resource management through collective action have been increasingly studied. Ostrom (1990) details her eight design principles for robust ICAs, which together form the output of a multiple-case study of commons that managed to survive without government influence for longer periods. These consist of: (1) well-defined boundaries, (2) proportional equivalence between benefits and costs, (3) collective-choice arrangements, (4) monitoring, (5) graduated sanctions, (6) conflict-resolution mechanisms, (7) minimal recognition by governments of the rights of local people, (8) appropriate coordination among relevant groups in the case of large social systems. Although Ostrom did not see these as a checklist, but as the outcome of her study, the design principles have been very popular among practitioners looking for a resilient form of collective resource management. In the meantime, the work by Ostrom has led to both methodological innovation in the domain of commons studies (IAD-framework, Institutional Grammar) (Crawford and Ostrom 1995; Ostrom 2009) and to the continuously increasing body of insights on the commons (e.g. in the International Journal of the Commons, established by the International Association for the Study of the Commons).2 The resources commoners deal with are sometimes referred to in the literature as

The revival of the commons  337

common pool resources. The resources are used as a pars pro toto as well: it is assumed that the resources as such are the commons. However, as stated earlier, the commons are a concept referring to a governance regime, whereby a group of people holds a collective property and needs to decide collectively over the common pool resources. In order to make sure that members of the group act reciprocally, the members have to ensure that all group members get sufficient benefits out of the collective resources. If done on a continuous basis, this leads to the formation of an institution, a Common Pool Institution, necessary to make sure that rules are developed and adapted over time to the changing circumstances. These multiple interrelated factors make the study of the internal functioning of commons complex: whereas in private or public property arrangements are made by individuals or governments respectively, in an ICA a collectivity of entitled users may be involved in both the use of the benefits and the design of the institution to regulate use, access, management

and governance. With ICAs relying heavily on group norms and reciprocal behaviour, the interac­tion between users, resources and institutions is all the more important to understand periods of crisis and dissolution of the commons (Bruynis et al. 2001; Birchall and Simmons 2004; Jussila et al. 2012). Figure 59.1 shows the three dimensions that together constitute the governance regime. Bringing together these dimensions, and visualizing their interaction, is important to overcome the tendency of the current debate on commons to focus on one particular aspect. Resource users establish the three dimensions (institutions, users and resources) themselves to regulate and provide order in the use and management of a common-pool resource, but also to prevent its over-exploitation and guarantee its sustainable provision over time. As it becomes evident from the self-governance and collective features, such a governance model differs markedly from a state-driven organization as well as from market-based appropriation.

Source: De Moor (2015, 2021). Note: The dynamics of the commons as a governance regime can be captured in three terms: efficiency, social equity and utility.

Figure 59.1

Three dimensions of the commons, as expressed in the SICADE-model

Tine De Moor

338  Encyclopedia of social innovation

The commons as part of interdisciplinary study

Until approximately 2005, the study of commons was based nearly exclusively on extensive empirical, analysis-based research, with many theoretical spin-offs based on that research and often in line with the Ostrom’s fundamental work, and delivered by researchers from a wide range of disciplines, including history, sociology, law, natural resource management and biodiversity studies. Over the past decade a more normative approach to commons emerged (Hardt and Negri 2011; Dardot and Laval 2015; Federici 2018), closely knit to more ideological interpretations and the implications thereof in practice. The latter builds on current citizens’ movements but also revives older sentiments about collective ownership, management and use of resources. It confronts the world of commons researchers with a need to consider factors barely regarded so far, such as power relationships, fair distribution of goods, and societal implications of the choice for a particular type of resource governance. Though a broader, multi-faceted approach should be applauded and demonstrates that the field of commons studies is permeating in all corners of academic research and even beyond, this book also reminds us that there is still a relatively wide gap between various approaches to commons as governance models. What binds those interested in commons together is a fundamental belief in the capacities of self-governance and collective action by citizens with the purpose of solving current major societal problems. The gap we still encounter today consists of two parts. On the one hand, the normative approach is capable of delivering rather abstract scenarios as solutions to major societal problems, but lacks the empirical, systematic study of – so far, relatively few – examples of supra-national governance regimes based on self-governance and collective action. On the other hand, researchers offer many research results based on systematic analysis of local commons, but has so far undertaken little effort to translate these into new governance models that could tackle the global resource crisis and other challenges that go with it. Tine De Moor

Tine De Moor

Notes 1.

Some current initiatives also like to promote historical parallels between their own activities and organization today and those organizations they consider their predecessors, for instance in the name they choose. For example, the Energiemarke (energy common) in Haarlose Veld combines references to the historical use with generating renewable energy through landscape. 2. See https://​www​.thecommonsjournal​.org/​.

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Acheson, J. (2011), ‘Ostrom for anthropologists’, International Journal of the Commons, 5 (2), pp. 319–39. Birchall, J. and R. Simmons (2004), ‘What motivates members to participate in co-operative and mutual businesses?’, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 75 (3), pp. 465–95. Bruynis, C. L. et al. (2001), ‘Key success factors for emerging agricultural marketing cooperatives’, Journal of Cooperatives, 16, pp. 14–25. Crawford, S. E. S. and E. Ostrom (1995), ‘A grammar of institutions’, The American Political Science Review, 89 (3), pp. 582–600. Dardot, P. and C. Laval (2015), Commun. Essai sur la révolution au XXIe siècle, Paris: La Découverte. De Moor, M., L. Shaw-Taylor and P. Warde (2002), The Management of Common Land in North West Europe, c.1500–1850, Turnhout: Brepols. De Moor, T. (2008), ‘The silent revolution: a new perspective on the emergence of commons, guilds, and other forms of corporate collective action in Western Europe’, International Review of Social History, 53 (S16), pp. 179–212. De Moor, T. (2013), Homo Cooperans: Institutions for Collective Action and the Compassionate Society, Utrecht: Utrecht University. De Moor, T. (2015), The Dilemma of the Commoners: Understanding the Use of Common Pool Resources in Long-Term Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. De Moor, T. (2019), ‘From historical institution to pars pro toto’, in B. Hudson et al. (eds), Routledge Handbook of the Study of the Commons, London: Routledge, pp. 319–33. De Moor, T. (2021), ‘Three waves of cooperation: a millennium of institutions for collective action in historical perspective (case study: the Netherlands)’, in E. Brousseau et al. (eds), Institutions of International Economic Governance and Market Regulation, Oxford: Oxford Handbooks online. Dedeurwaerdere, T., A. Polard and P. Melindi-Ghidi (2015), ‘The role of network

The revival of the commons  339 bridging organisations in compensation payments for agri-environmental services under the EU common agricultural policy’, Ecological Economics, 119, pp. 24–38. Ehmer, J. (2008), ‘Rural guilds and urban–rural guild relations in early modern central Europe’, International Review of Social History, 53 (S16), pp. 143–58. Fairbairn, B. (1994), The Meaning of Rochdale: The Rochdale Pioneers and the Co-Operative Principles, Saskatoon, SK: Centre for the Study of Co-operatives. Federici, S. (2018), Re-enchanting the World: Feminism and the Politics of the Common, Oakland, CA: PM Press/Kairos. Fjørtoft, T. and O. Gjems-Onstad (2013), ‘Norway and Scandinavian countries’, in D. Cracogna et al. (eds), International Handbook of Cooperative Law, New York/London: Springer, pp. 563–83. Frenken, K. (2014), ‘The evolution of the dutch dairy industry and the rise of cooperatives: a research note’, Journal of Institutional Economics, 10 (1), pp. 163–74. Greif, A. (2006), Institutions and the Path to the Modern Economy: Lessons from Medieval Trade, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hardin, G. (1968), ‘The tragedy of the commons’, Science, 162 (3859), pp. 1243–8. Hardt, M. and A. Negri (2011), Commonwealth, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Henriksen, I. (1999), ‘Avoiding lock-in: cooperative creameries in Denmark, 1882–1903’, European Review of Economic History, 3 (1), pp. 57–78. Jussila, J. J. et al. (2012), ‘Learning from and with customers with social media: a model for social customer learning’, International Journal of

Management, Knowledge and Learning, 1, pp. 5–25. Mocarelli, L. (2008), ‘Guilds reappraised: Italy in the early modern period’, International Review of Social History, 53 (S16), pp. 159–78. O’Grada, C. (1977), ‘The beginnings of the Irish creamery system, 1880–1914’, Economic History Review, 30 (2), pp. 284–305. O’Rourke, K. H. (2006), ‘Late 19th century Denmark in an Irish mirror: land tenure, homogeneity and the roots of Danish success’, in J. L. Campbell et al. (eds), National Identity and the Varieties of Capitalism: The Danish Experience, Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, pp. 159–96. Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, E. (2009), ‘A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems’, Science, 325 (5939), p. 419. Reynolds, S. (1984), Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe, 900–1300, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Soly, H. (2008), ‘The political economy of european craft guilds: power relations and economic strategies of merchants and master artisans in the medieval and early modern textile industries’, International Review of Social History, 53 (S16), pp. 45–71. Van Zanden, J. L. (1994), The Transformation of European Agriculture in the 19th Century: The Case of the Netherlands, Amsterdam: VU University Press. Verhofstadt, E. and M. Maertens (2014), ‘Smallholder cooperatives and agricultural performance in Rwanda: do organizational differences matter?’, Agricultural Economics, 45 (S1), pp. 39–52.

Tine De Moor

60. Social economy A relationship between economy and society, and a sector of the economy

organizations with plural forms and activities based on a set of ‘a-capitalist’ principles (Demoustier 2001).

Distinctive characteristics

The social economy, also known as the social and solidarity economy, is both a phenomenon and a concept. It unfolds in all regions of the world, although at different rates and following different traditions. In the 28 European countries, it amounts more than 6 per cent of the working population, and up to 10 per cent in countries such as France. The concept refers both to a mode of economic development that is more social and solidarity-based than the dominant economy (substantive approach), and to the set of enterprises and organizations that adopt behaviours that can contribute to such an economy (statutory approach). When identified as a sector, the social economy is typically comprised of organizations and enterprises with the legal status of associations, non-profit organizations, cooperatives and mutual societies, as well as some philanthropic foundations and other similar organizations or forms of exchange that adopt social economy values and principles. Among these are primacy of people over capital, democratic governance, responsiveness to the needs of members and communities, independence and autonomy from government, and limited or prohibited distribution of profits (part of which must be reinvested in the enterprise’s activity or vested in the community). The social economy is developing in all sectors of economic activity. When identified as a modality of economic development, the social economy is presented as a social movement seeking an alternative to capitalism and authoritarian state-dominated economic systems. Its initiatives are characterized by the fact that they combine market, non-market and non-monetary resources, subordinating the principles of public (and philanthropic) redistribution and of market exchange to the principle of reciprocity of social ties (Gardin 2006; Laville 2007). The solidarity economy is defined less by the legal status of the organizations than by the citizens’ commitment and the political demand for public action. The grouping of terms, ‘social and solidarity economy’, allows the demarcation of a set of

At least three aspects distinguish the social economy from the mainstream economy. Each is central to different visions of the social economy and of ideal-type forms of organization, referring to parent concepts. These visions are not mutually exclusive and still subject to debate, being grounded in different epistemes. However, they convey different conceptions of what enables the social economy to contribute to social innovations. Economic democratization The dominant vision of the social economy is mainly focused on the objectives of economic democratization through organizations and enterprises that, while being privately owned (in the sense of not owned by government), are under the collective governance of their members’ associations. The ideal type of this vision is the cooperative (→ COOPERATIVES AND SOCIAL INNOVATION), an organization that allows for the democratic participation of the people concerned and affected by the activities of the enterprise (producers, workers, consumers), thereby promoting their participation in the orientation of the economy and contributing to its democratization (Draperi 2007). The primacy of people over capital is reflected in the egalitarian participation in democratic control: one member, one vote. The members of these organizations can be individuals (natural persons) or enterprises (legal persons). Economic democratization may also manifest itself through multi-stakeholder participation in organizational governance (Borzaga and Defourny 2001), territorial governance (local, regional) (Moulaert and Nussbaumer 2005) and through projects aimed at mutual or collective interests, or even the management of commons. Social economy organizations may be inserted or not in the market, depending on their economic activity. The other typical organizational form of this vision is that of the association, which highlights the importance of the freedom of individuals to produce, deliberate and decide collectively. This vision of the social economy is particularly present in

340

Social economy  341

countries of Latin culture (Belgium, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain in continental Europe; Latin American and French-speaking African countries; Quebec in North America), which use the terms social economy and social and solidarity economy, or, in the global South, popular economy, to qualify initiatives that are oriented by self-organization and management practices (Eynaud et al. 2019). Surplus distribution Part of what distinguishes the social economy is the management of surplus, which is either reinvested in the purpose of the organization or distributed to users in proportion to their activity (vs. to capital shares). This feeds a different vision, that of a not-for-profit sector of the economy, in which the ideal type is the non-profit organization (NPO). The terms used include non-profit sector, charities, third sector, voluntary sector, philanthropy (Anheir 2014). The term social economy is in fact rarely used as it covers a broader array of organizations and practices.1 Organizations with profit distribution constraint may engage in responsibilities of general interest such as health and culture. The strict non-distribution constraint encourages governments, donors and volunteers to contribute resources, and it justifies fiscal benefits. Such elements suggest that the organization is not a capitalist enterprise and that it contributes to the public interest. The autonomy of management and the independence of its governance distinguish it from state-controlled companies. The main theories of non-profit organizations are contract failure, government failure and philanthropic failure. In this perspective, the social economy occupies a residual space between the market and the state, and mainly mobilizes civil society to occupy it. The size and scope of the non-profit sector varies greatly from country to country, namely depending on the size of the welfare state (Mertens 1999). This vision is particularly developed in Anglo-Saxon countries (Australia, United States, United Kingdom) and in Central and Eastern Europe. Social purpose enterprises Social economy organizations are set up by collective entrepreneurs motivated by aspirations for a more equitable economy. A more

recent vision is concentrated on enterprises essentially engaging in social purpose activities. This perspective focuses on the social missions and impacts of the enterprises aiming to solve social and environmental problems. Here, the term social enterprise (→ SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP) is often used to describe organizations with multiple emerging configurations (Defourny and Nyssens 2017). To achieve large-scale impacts, enterprises must mobilize more resources. These can come from new financial tools developed within the social economy framework, often called solidarity finance. They can also come from the market or from so-called strategic philanthropy. Enterprises must adapt their strategies or business models to scale their impacts. New business forms, new labels and new accounting standards also support the engagement of private social entrepreneurs, often individuals, in this trend. As a result, these new social impact enterprises are less specific in terms of dynamics and organizational forms – including NPOs engaged in entrepreneurial projects, multi-member cooperatives set up for general interest activities, and social or environmental purpose private for-profit commercial enterprises.2 However, it is a more demanding definition in terms of the demonstration of the impacts produced. Institutional constraints are commonly found in legislations to guarantee the social purpose of the non-statutory social enterprise, such as the obligation to principally reinvest surpluses for that purpose in the business or in the community. Initially presented by some as a broader category that would include the social economy, social enterprise is now seen as a new modality within the field of the social economy. This vision is mostly present in Anglo-Saxon countries, in Central and Northern Europe, and in Asia.

The social economy field

These different views of the social economy are not mutually exclusive and boundaries between forms of organizations can be porous. We can nonetheless define different subsets of organizations which can be seen as constitutive of a social economy field (Figure 60.1). Many countries have legal frameworks for cooperative, mutual societies and associative or non-profit organizations, as well as provisions for the recognition of sub-sectors such Marie J. Bouchard and Benoît Lévesque

342  Encyclopedia of social innovation

Figure 60.1

Subsets of the social economy

as charities, work integration social enterprises, and so on. An increasing number of countries have adopted comprehensive legal frameworks for the social economy, some utilizing a substantive approach that provides a guiding set of principles and values, others using primarily a statutory approach that identifies the legal forms as well as specifies common principles and values, enabling additional legal entities to be recognized as part of the social economy. Various national and international networks have been created around the social economy, such as the United Nations Inter-Agency Task Force on the Social and Solidarity Economy,3 and the Intercontinental Network for the Promotion of Social Solidarity Economy (RIPESS).4

Social economy and social innovation

Although social innovations do not emerge exclusively within the social economy, they have deep roots there, since the social economy does not subordinate societal or environmental causes to the pursuit of profit, but rather combines these causes with the social dimension already inscribed in its organizational forms. The social economy is an important vector of social innovations seen as new processes fostering new more equitable social relationships within the enterprise and within the economy.

Marie J. Bouchard and Benoît Lévesque

Historically, the social economy has emerged in the bosom of industrial societies, developing in waves in response to successive economic crises. These crises manifest an incompatibility between the dynamics of economic development and the existing institutional and social forms. The social economy has a historical precedence over public action in the social field, being at the origin of the idea of collective good and of numerous social rights. In this sense, even if the notion was not used, the social economy has always carried social innovations, at least in its phases of emergence. Social innovation may even occur in mature sectors (Vézina et al. 2017; Bretos et al. 2020). In recent years, a new generation of social innovation has emerged in the social economy, based on new principles such as the circular economy, the economy of functionality, the commons, and so on. Although all social economy is not always socially innovative, the social economy is increasingly seen as a vector of social innovations, namely in their organizational, institutional and systemic dimensions. In each of these aspects, two models can be identified, one for which social innovations are place-based and embedded in the practices of the concerned social actors, another in which social innovations are conceived and implemented from above by agents who are external to the problem or issue addressed.

Social economy  343

Embedded model of social economy innovation In an embedded model, social innovations of the social economy emerge from collective actions involving the participation of the social actors who are at the forefront of the social transformations in progress – women, users, consumers, workers, ecologists, citizens – through the organizations that involve them. Social economy enterprises can be particularly conducive to social innovation (Lévesque 2004; Bouchard and Lévesque 2017) since, unlike capitalist enterprises, they explicitly recognize the social dimension in their rules, values, and practices (Vienney 1994). The social economy presents a matrix of social innovation insofar as it brings together an association of persons and an enterprise, and as it fosters cooperation between stakeholders. Such cooperation instils values of solidarity in the process of creating activities, which are consequently adapted to new aspirations (as in the case of fair, ethical or green financial products), to new needs of people (as in the case of work insertion or of home services for the elderly), new expectations in terms of the environment and land use (as in the case of recycling centres and community-supported agriculture), or management of the commons (such as the arbitration between the multiple uses of river watersheds or a forest). Social economy innovations (at the micro level) often come in clusters and can be generic or cross-sectoral. This is the case, for example, with the joint construction of supply and demand by professionals and users, which can be found in early childhood services as well as in local community development. This practice implies the creation of public spaces, revealing a political dimension that is often overlooked when it comes to social innovations. These innovations are then likely to spread, tending to contribute to a movement of social transformation (on a macro scale), insofar as they succeed in linking local and even personal projects to collective societal dynamics and issues. To achieve this, new types of institutional relationships within organizations (multi-party governance) are also developing at the inter-organizational (e.g. network governance) and geo-institutional (e.g. socio-territorial governance) levels

(Itçaina and Richez-Battesti 2018). This governance favours the co-construction of public policies by the recipients and the instituted powers (Fraisse 2013), thus participating in a new mixed economy of well-being or welfare mix, and other trajectories of North– South and South–South solidarity. This suggests the relevance of the notion of an ecosystem of social innovation in the social economy – a system that strengthens the capacity of local actors to engage in social innovations and interact with public and market agents. Such a system can be developed from the bottom up, embedded in the local socio-economic fabric and networked through sectorial and territorial support organizations. It is then built upon multi-level governance systems, to take part in trans-territorial networks, and to mobilize monetary and non-monetary resources from beyond their immediate geographic area (Amin et al. 2002). These intermediary public spaces can become sources for innovation in public policy. Even if the innovations of the social economy may be perceived a priori as intangible or quantitatively insignificant, their message is qualitatively essential to produce and accelerate transformations and orient them towards other values. Entrepreneurial model of social economy innovation In an entrepreneurial model, social economy innovations are conceived as a response to market failures, insufficient public action, and the limits of philanthropy itself. Social change, according to this model, requires the dissemination of models, the growth in size and funding of innovative organizations, and coordination between initiative holders and funders. These approaches include the need to generate networking among social economy entrepreneurs to share practices, and to establish links with the holders of important financial resources (public or private), namely when technological innovations are also involved. New measures of impact (such as social return on investment) are being sought to direct public subsidies and private investments towards social profitability, with private–public financial instruments. Philanthropic intermediaries bridge social entrepreneurs with large organizations (universities, donors, foundations, international organizations) and Marie J. Bouchard and Benoît Lévesque

344  Encyclopedia of social innovation

governments, with the aim of professionalizing their work and guiding them to social investments. These intermediaries facilitate the creation of an environment conducive to the legitimization of new organizational forms. While both models involve more or less the same components, the embedded model emerges out of democratic innovations developing from below while the entrepreneurial model comes from above, through business schools in conjunction with philanthropic foundations. Tensions between the two can be observed when the second model emerges in settings where the first model already exists.

Conclusion

Whether defined as an ethical and value-based approach to economic development or as a distinct sector of the economy, the social economy is an important agent of social innovation. The reference to a sector that includes cooperatives, non-profits, mutual societies, and foundations raises questions about the actual application of social economy principles to all these organizations, particularly democratic governance and voluntary membership. On the other hand, the reference to a non-profit sector that excludes most cooperatives points to the relative lack of understanding of the financial logic of cooperatives, which would be better understood based on a concept of ‘limited profitability’. Moreover, the rise of the social impact measurement trend, which encourages all enterprises, regardless of their legal status, leads to question the orientations taken by some large social economy organizations which, despite their specific historical status, sometimes have difficulty meeting such challenges. On the other hand, it poses the problem of targeting public policies to innovative social enterprises which may behave according to social economy values but without institutional guarantees that they will keep on doing so in the long term. Three characteristics of the social economy are also potential sources of social innovations. The democratic governance of member-based organizations and of multi-stakeholder networks anchors social innovations in the needs and aspirations of those concerned by a problem or an issue Marie J. Bouchard and Benoît Lévesque

and involves their participation and thereby fosters their emancipation. The limitation or prohibition in profit distribution, including asset lock, facilitates the pursuit of general interest objectives and is indicative of the capacity of the social economy to make niches out of market, public and philanthropic failures. The entrepreneurial impetus focusing primarily on social purposes enables the social economy to address challenging large-scale societal and environmental problems with new forms of organizations and modalities for financing their activities. As described above, two main models of social innovation systems exist in the social economy, depending on whether the social innovation emanates from the demand of social economy actors seeking to meet their needs in an innovative way (innovation pull), or whether it is developed from an external offer to support innovative social entrepreneurs (innovation push). The first is built from grass-root initiatives and multi-scalar embeddedness in civil society and public policy networks. The other model is created by external agents that help link entrepreneurs to their needed support, namely philanthropic financing. Social economy embedded models are strongly tied to territory and to community-based social economy actors, whereas social entrepreneur intervention model is often decontextualized with little connection to the needs and territories where they are experienced. Hence, the need to create sui generi ecosystems in support of social entrepreneurs. The practices and roles as well as the theoretical field of the social economy are multifaceted and ever evolving. Limits of the social economy in achieving a credible alternative to capitalism are exacerbated by the current wave of neoliberalism. New social innovations and new forms of organizations will soon be needed, namely, to face justice issues in a scenario for a social and ecological transition. Evolution of the social economy is therefore something to be expected in the near future. Marie J. Bouchard and Benoît Lévesque

Notes

1. When referring to ‘third sector’ in Europe, the notion is closer to that of the social economy (Evers and Laville 2004; Monzón and Chaves 2008).

Social economy  345 2.

For more on these new forms of social enterprises, see the EMES project: https://​emes​.net/​research​ -projects/​social​-enterprise/​icsem​-project/​. 3. See https://​unsse​.org/​. 4. See http://​www​.ripess​.org/​.

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Amin, A., A. Cameron and R. Hudson (2002), Placing the Social Economy, London: Routledge. Anheier, H. K. (2014), Nonprofit Organizations: Theory, Management, Policy (2nd edn), London: Routledge. Borzaga, C. and J. Defourny (eds) (2001), The Emergence of Social Enterprise, London: Routledge. Bouchard, M. J. and B. Lévesque (2017), ‘Les innovations sociales et l’économie sociale: nouveaux enjeux de transformation sociale’, in J. Defourny and M. Nyssens (eds), Économie sociale et solidaire. Socio-économie du 3e secteur, Brussels: De Boeck, pp. 397–442. Bretos, I., M. J. Bouchard and A. Zevi (2020), ‘Institutional and organizational trajectories in social economy enterprises: resilience, transformation and regeneration’, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 91 (3), pp. 351–8. Defourny, J. and M. Nyssens (2017), ‘Mapping social enterprise models: some evidence from the ICSEM project’, Social Enterprise Journal, 13 (4), pp. 318–28. Demoustier, D. (2001), L’économie sociale et solidaire. S’associer pour entreprendre autrement, Paris: Syros. Draperi, J.-F. (2007), Comprendre l’économie sociale: Fondements et enjeux, Paris: Dunod. Evers, A. and J.-L. Laville (eds) (2004), The Third Sector in Europe, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Eynaud, P., J.-L. Laville and L. dos Santos (eds) (2019), Theory of Social Enterprise

and Pluralism: Social Movements, Solidarity Economy, and the Global South, New York: Routledge. Fraisse, L. (2013), ‘The social and solidarity-based economy as a new field of public action’, in F. Moulaert, D. MacCallum and A. Mehmood (eds), The International Handbook on Social Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 361–70. Gardin, L. (2006), Les initiatives solidaires. La réciprocité face au marché et à l’État, Ramonville: Érès. Itçaina, X. and N. Richez-Battesti (eds) (2018), Social and Solidarity-based Economy and Territory: From Embeddedness to Co-construction, CIRIEC Collection on Public and Social Economy, Brussels: Peter Lang. Laville J.-L. (2007), L’économie solidaire. Une perspective internationale, Paris: Hachette. Lévesque, B. (2004), ‘Les entreprises d’économie sociale, plus porteuses d’innovations sociales que les autres?’, in Fonds québécois de la recherche sur la société et la culture (ed.), Le développement social au rythme de l’innovation, Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec. Mertens, S. (1999), ‘Nonprofit organisations and social economy: two ways of understanding the third sector’, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 70 (3), pp. 501–20. Monzón, J.-L. and R. Chaves (2008), ‘The European social economy: concepts and dimensions of the third sector’, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 79 (3–4), pp. 549–77. Moulaert, F. and J. Nussbaumer (2005), ‘Defining the social economy and its governance at the neighbourhood level: a methodological reflection’, Urban Studies, 42 (11), pp. 2071–88. Vézina, M., M.-C. Malo and M. Ben Selma (2017), ‘Mature social economy and social innovation: the case of the Desjardins environmental fund’, Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 88 (2), pp. 257–78. Vienney, C. (1994), L’économie sociale, Paris: La Découverte.

Marie J. Bouchard and Benoît Lévesque

61. Social entrepreneurship Introduction

Since moving beyond its earlier ‘preparadigmatic’ (Nicholls 2010) phase, the social entrepreneurship field of scholarship has become increasingly sophisticated and multifaceted. Over the course of some 30 years, the field has come to encompass several sub-concepts: social entrepreneur, social enterprise, market orientation, social value creation (→ SOCIAL VALUE IN MANAGEMENT AND SOCIAL INNOVATION RESEARCH), and social innovation. The intertwining and multiple configurations of the various aspects of social entrepreneurship has resulted in scholars often using terms such as social innovation and social entrepreneurship interchangeably. However, we note that although closely aligned to social entrepreneurship, social innovation is not a requisite of social entrepreneurship, nor are social entrepreneurs necessarily innovative. Similarly, not all social ventures are market-oriented social enterprises, and not all social enterprises are entrepreneurial. Social entrepreneurship is an ‘essentially contested concept’ with social value creation the only common element across definitions (Choi and Mujamdar 2014). Definitions of the various sub-concepts of social entrepreneurship vary with the context of the research and the logics of justification of scholars. Hence, we do not delimit the discussion here by defining social entrepreneurship and distinguishing between sub-concepts. While the complexity of social entrepreneurship makes reaching definitional consensus a difficult, if not futile, task, this has not hindered scholarly advancement of the field. There is a rapidly growing cumulative body of literature, including several recent reviews and meta-analyses, which have become invaluable for distinguishing themes in the literature and presenting typologies of social entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurs. We know now that the social value created by social entrepreneurship has tended to be assumed, rather than empirically evidenced. Such reviews have also underscored the predominance of qualitative studies, and the need for a diversity of approaches, especially rigorous quantitative

empirical investigations. They have ascertained various regional variants of social entrepreneurship, particularly across Europe and North America, and emphasized the lack of research at the ethics-social entrepreneurship nexus. In this entry, we provide a brief historical overview of the evolution of the social entrepreneurship concept, identify the main theoretical approaches used to explain social entrepreneurship, and end by highlighting possible future directions.

Chronological overview

Individuals, organizations and community groups using entrepreneurial means to address social challenges is not a new phenomenon. Nineteenth-century examples include private companies providing social housing and the early cooperative movement. However, the scholarly roots of social entrepreneurship are more recent, varied and intertwining. In 1980 Bill Drayton founded Ashoka, emerging as an exemplar of what has come to be termed ‘the social innovation school’. By the 1980s, US nonprofits were already starting to experiment with ‘earned income’ approaches as a way of supplementing grant revenue. Popular management texts (e.g. Emerson and Twersky 1996) offered ‘how to’ guides for nonprofit leaders seeking to transform their organizations to become more business-like. Dennis Young’s now seminal If Not for Profit, for What? Developing a Supply Side Theory of Nonprofit Behavior drew from entrepreneurship theories and offered a counterpoint to the dominant demand side approaches then typical in a nonprofit field dominated by economists (Young 1983). In the mid 1990s, Harvard Business School began teaching ‘Entrepreneurship in the Social Sector’, acclaimed as the world’s first social entrepreneurship course. This was aimed at nonprofit leaders, as part of the Harvard Social Enterprise Initiative (Austin and Rangan 2019). In England, Charles Leadbeater published ‘The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur’ (Leadbeater 1997) which was to become influential on Blair’s New Labour and his ‘Third Way’ beyond the state and market, with social entrepreneurs using their skills to work at the interface of public policy and the nonprofit sector to catalyse resources in order to regenerate deprived communities (Haugh and Kitson 2007). In 1996, EMES – a group of scholars initially formed around

346

Social entrepreneurship  347

a European research project – focused on the emergence of social enterprise in Europe. While not explicitly using the term ‘social entrepreneurship’, their work highlighted the importance of the collective dimension of organizations pursuing social change. In the early years of the new millennium, these roots began to converge as social entrepreneurship caught the popular and academic imagination. Muhammad Yunus was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize jointly with Grameen Bank for their work on microcredit in Bangladesh in 2006. Influential textbooks (e.g. Mair et al. 2006; Nicholls 2008) started to emerge and leading management journals published special issues devoted to social entrepreneurship, drawing together authors from the Academy of Management conferences. Interdisciplinary conferences such as the international social entrepreneurship research conference (which later became ISIRC: the International Social Innovation Research Conference) and the Social Entrepreneurship Research Conference held annually in the USA eventually started to lead to the cross-fertilization of ideas, concepts, and theories.

Theoretical perspectives

While we have seen a focus on the role of organizations in driving positive social change (Stephan et al. 2016), it is notable that most studies of social entrepreneurship tend to ignore impact. Saebi et al. (2019, p. 89) highlight that there is no hard evidence to demonstrate it can alleviate poverty or bring about institutional change. Rawhouser et al. (2019) has shown that despite how social impact is conceptualized in different ways, and at different levels; notably, most social entrepreneurship theories and research have tended to assume the social impact, while focusing attention on the process leading to the impact. Entrepreneurship theories Early scholars followed Young (1983) in applying entrepreneurship theories to the social sector. Initially the focus was drawn from Schumpeterian perspectives to explain hero social entrepreneurs such as Muhammad Yunus and generally characterized as unique individuals who recognize injustice, disrupt inequitable structures and forge new, more

equitable, ‘equilibria’ (Martin and Osberg 2007). Subsequent extension of entrepreneurship theories explored opportunity recognition. There has been a focus on individual traits, with studies suggesting that social entrepreneurs are motivated more by compassion and prosocial motivations (e.g. Miller et al. 2012) while others have focused on resource acquisition, showing how social entrepreneurs mobilize resources from complex environments under conditions of resource scarcity, through processes of ‘bricolage’ (Desa 2012; Janssen et al. 2018). Institutional approaches Beginning around 2010, institutionalist approaches started to incorporate some of the European work on social enterprise (Defourny and Nyssens 2010) to critique the hero entrepreneur perspective as failing to recognize the collective dynamics of social change, or the perspectives of systems actors in resisting change (Montgomery et al. 2012). From an institutional perspective, social entrepreneurship is a collective process, involving collaboration between a wide variety of actors aimed at building awareness of the need for change, and attracting support and resources for creating change. Subsequent institutionalist research has recognized the importance of government support in facilitating social entrepreneurship in the global North (Stephan et al. 2015), while focusing on social entrepreneurship as filling institutional voids in countries characterized by a lack of resources and a weak state. More recently, institutional work has focused attention on the tactics used by social entrepreneurs to blend, or separate competing institutional logics in order to preserve organizational stability and/or create change (Battilana and Dorado 2010). Economic perspectives (intensifying the search for theory) Economic theories have focused mainly on the social enterprise form which, like the nonprofit, offers a particular challenge to classical economic theory predicated on the maximization of self-interest. Theories have focused on the emergence of social enterprise as a response due to market and state failures and their subsequent evolution to satisfy unmet needs. At the level of the firm, scholars have explored the distinction between value

Anne de Bruin, Simon Teasdale and Michael J. Roy

348  Encyclopedia of social innovation

creation and value capture, theorizing that social entrepreneurs seek to maximize value creation (for others) as opposed to more conventional entrepreneurs who maximize value capture (for themselves). Thus, social entrepreneurship generates positive externalities which benefit society as a whole (Santos 2012). Discursive perspectives Critical discursive approaches on social entrepreneurship, often deriving from Foucauldian perspectives, theorize social entrepreneurship as a form of discourse aimed at transforming responsibility for social welfare from governments to citizens. Here, the premise is that governments and big business (through funding actors such as Ashoka) set out how social entrepreneurs should behave through the promotion of positive exemplars (Parkinson and Howorth 2008). This is combined with the careful targeting of resources aimed at nudging individuals and groups to respond to signals. Such a governmentality approach responsibilizes citizens as entrepreneurs of the self able to respond to social problems and maintain social harmony, while avoiding the need for direct government control (see, for example, Dey and Steyaert 2010).

Future directions Ecosystems Empirical studies have recently tended to emphasize that social entrepreneurship best flourishes with public support (Stephan et al. 2015). Increasingly, academic research has focused on the characteristics of the ecosystem in which social entrepreneurship operates, and what should be in place, in a given context, in order for social entrepreneurs to overcome key constraints and obstacles (Roy and Hazenberg 2019). Ecosystems comprise a dynamic mix of interacting elements, actors, and environmental conditions, all with the intention of sharing value within and beyond a community. Human and social capital, markets, policy, finance, culture, and supporting structures all interact to influence formal and informal networks. Understanding how best to coordinate the various actors involved, and the networks in which they operate, can help social entrepreneurship

to thrive. These ‘Social Entrepreneurship Ecosystems’ are best conceptualized (and thus studied) as complex systems, characterized by a complex array of interactions and evolutionary pathways. Beyond Anglo-American perspectives While most of the research literature emanates from the global North, the subject material of social entrepreneurship is often located in the global South. Some authors question whether the theories developed in elite business schools are neatly applicable to contexts so far removed. Rivera-Santos et al. (2015) show how institutional factors shape social entrepreneurship in sub-Saharan Africa, identifying four predominantly African contextual dimensions: acute poverty, informality, colonial history, ethnic group identity. They explore their influence on the way social ventures perceive themselves and on their choice of activities. Subsequently Littlewood and Holt (2018) explore the interplay between the institutional environment and social entrepreneurship in South Africa. Such studies invite more careful exploration as to how social entrepreneurship is likely to be shaped differently, and differently shape environments in different contexts (see, for example, Bhatt et al. 2019). Intersectionality Critical approaches point towards a characterization of social entrepreneurship as something that is done by predominately privileged white men in the global North to predominately poor women in the global South (Dey et al. 2016). Various studies using the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor data have shown that women are overrepresented as social entrepreneurs when compared to mainstream entrepreneurship. More detailed exploration suggests that the field of social entrepreneurship is highly gendered, with women concentrated in lower paid and lower status positions and sectors (Teasdale et al. 2011). An emergent stream of work has focused on the empowerment dimension of social entrepreneurship, particularly for poor women micro-entrepreneurs in the global South as a way of freeing themselves from patriarchal structures (e.g. Haugh and Talwar 2016). This invites research exploring how dimensions of class, gender, ethnicity intersect, and how social entrepreneurship

Anne de Bruin, Simon Teasdale and Michael J. Roy

Social entrepreneurship  349

might tread the fine line between empowerment and reproducing existing/introducing new patterns of inequality. Reimagined trajectory The COVID-19 pandemic, together with the heightened climate emergency and governmental commitment to the United Nations Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals, we believe heralds in a new phase for social entrepreneurship research. As mentioned earlier (cf. Rawhouser et al. 2019), hitherto social entrepreneurship research has focused more on the processes whereby social entrepreneurs seek to create positive social value. We still know little about what difference social entrepreneurship makes, particularly at a societal level. Now, more than ever before, it is critical to move the scholarly focus firmly on the positive (and negative) social outcomes created by social entrepreneurs and social mission driven hybrid organizations. However, as Bacq and Lumpkin (2021) aptly point out, commercial entrepreneurship is also adjusting and repositioning toward finding solutions to new economic and social challenges brought on by COVID-19. As such, research needs to adapt focus away from mission drift prominent in the pre-COVID era, and towards the mission agility of social entrepreneurship. Dynamic rebalancing of social and economic goals is a likely consideration in plotting the future trajectory of social entrepreneurship. Furthermore, as Bacq and Lumpkin (2021) also highlighted, social entrepreneurship regularly assumes market means to help solve societal problems, but this begs the question as to what happens when markets are disrupted, or simply do not function, such as we saw during the COVID shutdowns. Nevertheless, in the face of such uncertainties and exogenous disruptions, the collaborative ethos that characterizes social entrepreneurship augurs well for enacting solutions to social challenges throughout the pandemic and beyond. It could be a mesh for binding together cross‐sector solutions both for local level problems, such as mitigating food insecurity of vulnerable people by distributing, for example, unused restaurant supplies that would otherwise been discarded due to the pandemic closures, as well as complex global challenges, such as mounting inequalities made significantly worse by the pandemic,

and severe environmental problems posed by the climate crisis. Going forward into the post-COVID era, perhaps a questioning of neoliberal ideology and discourses that underpinned the rise of social entrepreneurship will also lead to a recalibrated trajectory. Increased state intervention and pragmatic approaches to dealing with the economic and social (including health) challenges presented by the pandemic is altering the previous state-profit-nonprofit sectoral mix. The pandemic has also heightened the importance of locality, geography, and place and weakened belief in the imperative of globalization. While it is still too early to tell how these changes will rechart the course of social entrepreneurship, we consider that turning the compass firmly toward the positive social impacts of social entrepreneurship will be to head in the right direction. Anne de Bruin, Simon Teasdale and Michael J. Roy

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Austin, J. and V. K. Rangan (2019), ‘Reflections on 25 years of building social enterprise education’, Social Enterprise Journal, 15 (1), pp. 2–21. Bacq, S. and G. T. Lumpkin (2021), ‘Social entrepreneurship and COVID-19’, Journal of Management Studies, 58 (1), pp. 285–8, https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1111/​joms​.12641. Battilana, J. and S. Dorado (2010), ‘Building sustainable hybrid organizations: the case of commercial microfinance organizations’, The Academy of Management Journal, 53, pp.  1419–40, https://​doi​.org/​10​.5465/​AMJ​ .2010​.57318391. Bhatt, B., I. Qureshi and S. Riaz (2019), ‘Social entrepreneurship in non-munificent institutional environments and implications for institutional work: insights from China’, Journal of Business Ethics, 154 (3), pp. 605–30, https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1007/​s10551–017–3451–4. Choi, N. and S. Mujamdar (2014), ‘Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: opening a new avenue for systematic future research’, Journal of Business Venturing, 29, pp. 363–76. de Bruin, A. and Teasdale, S. (eds) (2019). A Research Agenda for Social Entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar Publishing. Defourny, J. and M. Nyssens (2010), ‘Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United

Anne de Bruin, Simon Teasdale and Michael J. Roy

350  Encyclopedia of social innovation States: convergences and divergences’, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1 (1), pp. 32–53, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​19420670903442053. Desa, G. (2012). ‘Resource mobilization in international social entrepreneurship: bricolage as a mechanism of institutional transformation’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, https://​journals​.sagepub​.com/​doi/​10​.1111/​j​ .1540–6520​.2010​.00430​.x. Dey, P., H. Schneider and F. Maier (2016), ‘Intermediary organisations and the hegemonisation of social entrepreneurship: fantasmatic articulations, constitutive quiescences, and moments of indeterminacy’, Organization Studies, 37 (10), pp. 1451–72, https://​doi​.org/​ 10​.1177/​0170840616634133. Dey, P. and C. Steyaert (2010), ‘The politics of narrating social entrepreneurship’, Journal of Enterprising Communities, 4 (1), pp. 85–108. Dey, P. and C. Steyaert (eds). (2018). Social Entrepreneurship: An Affirmative Critique. Edward Elgar Publishing. Emerson, J. and F. Twersky (1996), New Social Entrepreneurs: The Success, Challenge, and Lessons of Non-Profit Enterprise Creation, The Roberts Foundation. Haugh, H. and M. Kitson (2007), ‘The third way and the third sector: New Labour’s economic policy and the social economy’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31 (6), pp. 973–94, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1093/​cje/​bem027. Haugh, H. M. and A. Talwar, A. (2016), ‘Linking social entrepreneurship and social change: the mediating role of empowerment’, Journal of Business Ethics, 133, 643–58, https://​doi​.org/​ 10​.1007/​s10551–014–2449–4. Janssen, F., A. Fayolle and A. Wuilaume (2018), ‘Researching bricolage in social entrepreneurship’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 30 (3–4), pp. 450–70, https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1080/​08985626​.2017​.1413769. Leadbeater, C. (1997), The Rise of the Social Entrepreneur, DEMOS, http://​www​.demos​.co​ .uk/​publications/​socialentrepreneur. Littlewood, D. and D. Holt (2018), ‘Social entrepreneurship in South Africa: exploring the influence of environment’, Business and Society, 57 (3), pp. 525–61, https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1177/​0007650315613293. Mair, J., J. A. Robinson and K. Hockerts (eds) (2006), Social Entrepreneurship, Palgrave Macmillan. Martin, R. L. and S. Osberg (2007), ‘Social entrepreneurship: the case for definition’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring, pp. 28–39. Miller, T. L., M. G. Grimes, J. S. McMullen and T. J. Vogus (2012), ‘Venturing for others with heart and head: how compassion encourages social entrepreneurship’, The Academy

of Management Review, 37 (4), pp. 616–40, https://​doi​.org/​10​.5465/​amr​.2010​.0456. Montgomery, A. W., P. A. Dacin and M. T. Dacin (2012), ‘Collective social entrepreneurship: collaboratively shaping social good’, Journal of Business Ethics, 111, pp. 375–88. Nicholls, A. (ed.) (2008), Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change, Oxford University Press. Nicholls, A. (2010), ‘The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: reflexive isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic field’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34 (4), pp. 611–33. Parkinson, C. and C. Howorth (2008), ‘The language of social entrepreneurs’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 20 (3), pp.  285–309, http://​dx​.doi​.org/​10​.1080/​ 08985620701800507. Rawhouser, H., M. Cummings and S. L. Newbert (2019), ‘Social impact measurement: current approaches and future directions for social entrepreneurship research’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43 (1), pp. 82–115, https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1177/​1042258717727718. Rivera-Santos, M., D. Holt, D. Littlewood and A. Kolk (2015), ‘Social entrepreneurship in sub-Saharan Africa’, The Academy of Management Perspectives, 29 (1), pp. 72–91, https://​doi​.org/​10​.5465/​amp​.2013​.0128. Robinson, J., J. Mair. and K. Hockerts (eds) (2009), International Perspectives on Social Entrepreneurship. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Roy, M. J. and R. Hazenberg (2019), ‘An evolutionary perspective on social entrepreneurship “ecosystems”’, in A. De Bruin and S. Teasdale (eds), A Research Agenda for Social Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 13–22. Saebi, T., N. J. Foss and S. Linder (2019), ‘Social entrepreneurship research: past achievements and future promises’, Journal of Management, 45 (1), pp.  70–95, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​ 0149206318793196. Santos, F. M. (2012), ‘A positive theory of social entrepreneurship’, Journal of Business Ethics, 111 (3), pp.  335–51, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​ s10551–012–1413–4. Stephan, U., M. Patterson, C. Kelly and J. Mair (2016), ‘Organizations driving positive social change: a review and an integrative framework of change processes’, Journal of Management, 42 (5), pp. 1250–81. Stephan, U., L. M. Uhlaner and C. Stride (2015), ‘Institutions and social entrepreneurship: the role of institutional voids, institutional support, and institutional configurations’, Journal of International Business Studies, 46 (3), pp.  308–31, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1057/​jibs​.2014​ .38. Teasdale, S., S. McKay, J. Phillimore and N. Teasdale (2011), ‘Exploring gender and social

Anne de Bruin, Simon Teasdale and Michael J. Roy

Social entrepreneurship  351 entrepreneurship: women’s leadership, employment and participation in the third sector and social enterprises’, Voluntary Sector Review, 2 (1), pp.  57–76, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1332/​ 204080511X560620. Young, D. R. (1983), If Not for Profit, for What?: A Behavioral Theory of the Nonprofit Sector

Based on Entrepreneurship, Lexington Books, http://​digitalarchive​.gsu​.edu/​facbooks2013/​1/​. Ziegler, R. (ed.) (2009), An Introduction to Social Entrepreneurship: Voices, Preconditions, Contexts. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Anne de Bruin, Simon Teasdale and Michael J. Roy

62. Social value in management and social innovation research Introduction

Social value has become an important topic of research, especially with regard to solving unmet social needs or delivering social impact in society in relation to social innovation. Research on social value has flourished in different management fields, such as accounting, entrepreneurship, cross sector partnerships, and social innovation. Yet, social value is both an ambiguous and contested concept (Choi and Majumdar 2014). It is also referred to using other terms, such as social impact (→ SOCIAL IMPACT MEASUREMENT), social return, and social performance. Recent contributions to social value research have pointed out that social value is not adequately conceptualized and that the concept lacks definitional clarity (Rawhouser et al. 2019). We contend that part of the confusion concerning the use of social value stems from the nature of the words value and social. On the one hand, the Cambridge English Dictionary identifies four main meanings of value: (1) ‘the importance or worth of something for someone’, (2) ‘how useful or important something is’, (3) ‘a number or symbol that represents an amount’, and (4) value in plural, which refers to ‘the beliefs that people have about what is right, wrong, and most important in life, business, etc. which control their behaviour’ (Cambridge University Press 2021). On the other hand, social relates to society, order in society, or the way people live together in society (Cambridge University Press 2021). Hence the combination of the substantive value and adjective social inherently leads to a polysemic construct; its open-ended definition is prone to negotiation among the constituents of society. This entry addresses two needs. The first one concerns the lack of definitional clarity of the construct that remains one major issue in social value research (Rawhouser et al. 2019). To address this issue, the entry addresses the diversity of intellectual contributions to the study of social value and iden-

tifies the main areas related to social value. The second concerns the intersection between social value, now a prominent term in areas related to management, and social innovation. The analysis identifies three main areas around social value-related research, namely: (1) strategy and social entrepreneurship, (2) impact assessment and evaluation, and (3) marketing and social psychology. The remaining sections in this entry focus on social value mainly in the management research. We address the development of social value-related research in three main areas. Finally, this entry comments on future directions in social value-related research.

Main knowledge areas

There are three major knowledge areas in the social value related research: (1) strategy and social entrepreneurship, (2) impact assessment and evaluation, and (3) marketing and social psychology. Area 1: social value as organizational processes in strategy and social entrepreneurship Area 1 focuses on the study of organizing social value related to (social) entrepreneurship, strategy, or corporate social responsibility (→ SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP). This heterogeneous multidisciplinary knowledge area comprises three different subgroups (see Table 62.1 for a summary). The first subgroup concerns a strategic view of social value creation by business firms, mainly in three related forms, namely (1) stakeholder theory (Freeman 1984) and the expansion of corporate responsibility to social value creation (or destruction) beyond the economic value generated by the firm; (2) corporate performance in the form of strategic corporate social responsibility – related to socially responsible programmes with a positive impact on society or communities (McWilliams and Siegel 2001); and (3) research around the concept of ‘creating shared value (CSV)’ (Porter and Kramer 2011) that aims to create value through the design of core corporate activities and go beyond a dichotomic view of mutually exclusive views of corporate social performance and financial performance. The second subgroup focuses on social business models such as social ventures

352

Social value in management and social innovation research  353 Table 62.1 Area Area 1

Subgroup 1

Mapping meanings of social value Knowledge areas

Main phenomenon

Purpose of the research in

studied

relation to social value

Social

Business role in

Establishing a business case for

entrepreneurship;

society; organizing to pro-social activities; identifying or part of the society that results from

corporate social

meet social needs

Subgroup 3

Social value is the benefit to society

and conceptualizing practices,

addressing a social need through

responsibility;

processes, and organizational

organizational activities

strategy Corporate social

Corporate social

forms that catalyse social change Establishing a business case for Social value is created when business

responsibility;

performance;

pro-social activities

strategy

the legitimacy of

economic goals; embracing social

business and society

value aims to increasing competitive

Business models

BoP; microfinance

inserts social goals beyond usual

advantage

intersection Subgroup 2

Meaning of social value

Conceptualizing novel social

Social value is the improvement of

businesses models to solve

the well-being of a target population

social issues

through business

Social

The legitimacy

Conceptualizing social

Social value is carried out by dedicated

entrepreneurship

of socially driven

entrepreneurship; justifying the

organizations that integrate meeting

ventures; hybrid

need for social enterprises as

social needs in their core mission;

organizing; processes a new organizational form

generating social value is the raison

of creating social

d’être of the organization.

value Area 2

Impact assessment Infrastructure and and evaluation

Assessing the social impacts of

Social value is contained in the

development project projects on local communities

communities’ norms and culture,

performance

which are perpetuated through social interactions.

Area 3

Marketing; social

Consumption goods; Explaining the role of social

Social value is the self-concept

psychology

commodity use

value – preference – in agents’

gain related to actor’s consumption

decisions/actions

decision.

with a frequent focus on poverty alleviation including BoP (base of the pyramid) (Seelos and Mair 2007) and microfinance (Yunus et al. 2010). The third subgroup focuses on social entrepreneurship from different angles: on the one hand, it addresses the legitimacy of creating and accounting for social value by business organizations. The discussion also displays divergent views about the means that lead to social value creation in the context of social entrepreneurship (Zahra et al. 2009). On the other hand, it addresses hybrid organizations that combine non-profit and profit goals (Ebrahim et al. 2014), respond to diverse institutional logics, aim to achieve conflicting goals, and are accountable to diverse stakeholders. For hybrid organizations, social value creation depends on an organization’s capacity to balance both goals. In general, this area advocates a specific meaning of social value that posits social

outside of the private benefit. Hence here social is collective benefits that go beyond benefiting private interests. In his area, social value is conceptualized as the intended outcome of forms or processes of organizing. Here, organizing is a ‘problem solving process’ (Puranam et al. 2014, p. 7) that is oriented towards addressing issues that affect parts of the society generally outside of the organizing form itself. Area 2: social value as impact assessment and evaluation This area addresses social impact assessment defined as ‘the process of assessing or estimating, in advance, the social consequences that are likely to follow from specific policy actions or project development, particularly in the context of appropriate national, state, or provincial environmental policy legislation’ (Burdge and Vanclay 1996, p. 59). Ghita Lkhoyaali and Emmanuel Raufflet

354  Encyclopedia of social innovation

This area about social value develops concepts and standards of impact assessment and discusses the social and environmental impacts of programmes, policies, and infrastructure projects. Social impact assessment has evolved into an interdisciplinary field of practice and research against a background of growing concern for sustainable development, social responsibility of organizations, and social acceptability of projects, programmes, and organizations (Salathé-Beaulieu 2018). In this area of social value, social relates to society or a community and the way people live together (Vanclay 2002). Social value is conceptualized as the property of a collectivity. As opposed to the conceptualization in the first area, here social value is not to be created through an organizing form, but it is to be preserved and perpetuated through interactions within a collectivity. In this case, social value exists a priori, yet it is conserved or/and enhanced through human interactions. Area 3: social value in marketing and social psychology Area 3 represents the interest in value and social value that started in the 1970s with the evolution of marketing. It focuses on the rising interest in what makes consumers select and buy goods. It discusses value in two ways, respectively, the perception of value in the context of individual consumption (Sweeney and Soutar 2001) and how individuals’ preferences affect their decisions and their allocation of resources (Bogaert et al. 2008). In this third area, social is internal to individuals, it is tied to cognitive perceptions of self and others in society (Van Lange et al. 1997; Sheth et al. 1991). In this area, social value is conceptualized as an attribute of individuals that is revealed when action, choice, or making a decision is required.

Future directions: social value and social innovation

In all, several knowledge areas have contributed to the development of research on social value. However, the juxtaposition of the words social and value coined by scholars of various disciplines has generated several and different concepts around diverse empirical phenomena. Indeed, social value is genGhita Lkhoyaali and Emmanuel Raufflet

erally perceived as a positive term; however, it carries different purposes and different attempted scales for social change. Social value and social innovation have similarities and differences. While social value is mainly centered on the interface between business organizations and society social innovation is initiated and led by an actor and set of actors in a collective entrepreneurial process, in order to change a set of new social, organizational or institutional arrangements, or provide new products or services with an explicit social purpose. Social innovation as a collective process intends to and results voluntarily or involuntarily to respond to an aspiration, meet a need, provide a solution to a problem or take advantage of an opportunity for action in order to change social relations, transform a framework of action or propose new cultural orientations (CRISES 2021). As an organizational process in the first area, social value is a complement to market value, which is relevant to social innovation in the public sector (O’Flynn 2007) where social value is useful to assess public goods and services, and may be provided by public entities but as well by private ones, whether for-profit or not-for-profit. While both relate to processes and degrees of social change, they may differ in several triggers, processes and expected outcomes. First, the overall firm or individual social/ business entrepreneurial-centred process of social value creation contrasts with the collectively and community-driven social innovation initiatives. Second, as for processes, while social value creation seems to be mainly related to firms and for-profit organizations, social innovation does seem to be more centred on civil society organizations and participation. Third, while social value creation is directly or partially related to market mechanisms, social innovation may tend more to relate to generate local and community capacities, empowerment, and social cohesion most often overlooked by market mechanisms and evaluation. As mapped in this entry, social value has become a significant concept, mapping the connections between social value and social innovation will need further investigation. Ghita Lkhoyaali and Emmanuel Raufflet

Social value in management and social innovation research  355

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Bogaert, S., C. Boone and C. Declerck (2008), ‘Social value orientation and cooperation in social dilemmas: a review and conceptual model’, British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, pp.  453–80, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1348/​ 014466607x244970. Burdge, R. J. and F. Vanclay (1996), ‘Social impact assessment: a contribution to the state of the art series’, Impact Assessment, 14 (1), pp.  59–86, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​ 07349165​.1996​.9725886. Cambridge University Press (ed.) (2021), Cambridge Dictionary, https://​dictionary​ .cambridge​.org/​. Choi, N. and S. Majumdar (2014), ‘Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: opening a new avenue for systematic future research’, Journal of Business Venturing, 29 (3), pp. 363–76. CRISES (2021), ‘At the crossroads of possibilities: social innovations against social, environmental and epistemic injustices?’, accessed 9 November 2022 at https://​sites​.grenadine​.uqam​ .ca/​sites/​crises/​en/​colloque2021. Ebrahim, A., J. Battilana and J. Mair (2014), ‘The governance of social enterprises: mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations’, in A. P. Brief and B. M. Staw (eds), Research in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews (Vol. 34), Elsevier, pp. 81–100. Freeman, R. E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman. McWilliams, A. and D. Siegel (2001), ‘Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective’, Academy of Management Review, 26 (1), pp.  117–27, https://​doi​.org/​10​.5465/​amr​ .2001​.4011987. O’Flynn, J. (2007), ‘From new public management to public value: paradigmatic chance and managerial implications’, AJPA, 66 (3), pp. 353–66, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1111/​j​.1467–8500​.2007​ .00545​.x. Porter, M. E. and M. R. Kramer (2011), ‘Creating shared value’, Harvard Business Review, 89 (1–2), pp. 62–77. Puranam, P., O. Alexy and M. Reitzig (2014), ‘What’s “new” about new forms of organizing?’, Academy of Management Review, 39,

pp.  162–80, https://​doi​.org/​10​.5465/​amr​.2011​ .0436. Rawhouser, H., M. Cummings and S. L. Newbert (2019), ‘Social impact measurement: current approaches and future directions for social entrepreneurship research’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43 (1), pp. 82–115, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​ 1042258717727718. Salathé-Beaulieu, G. (2018), Évaluation et mesure d’impact en économie sociale: ligne du temps. Territoires innovants en économie sociale et solidaire (TIESS), accessed 9 November 2022 at https://​www​.tiess​.ca/​mesure​-dimpact​-social​ -ligne​-du​-temps/​. Seelos, C. and J. Mair (2007), ‘Profitable business models and market creation in the context of deep poverty: a strategic view’, Academy of Management Perspectives, 21 (4), pp. 49–63, https://​doi​.org/​10​.5465/​amp​.2007​.27895339. Sheth, J., B. Newman and B. Gross (1991), ‘Why we buy what we buy: a theory of consumption values’, Journal of Business Research, 22, pp. 159–70, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​ 0148–2963(91)90050–8. Sweeney, J. and G. Soutar (2001), ‘Consumer perceived value: the development of a multiple item scale’, Journal of Retailing, 77, 203–20, pp.  https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​ S​0022–4359(​01)00041–0. Van Lange, P. A. M., W. Otten, E. M. N. DeBruin and J. A. Joireman (1997), ‘Development of prosocial, individualistic, and competitive orientations: theory and preliminary evidence’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 (4), pp. 733–46, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1037/​ 0022–3514​.73​.6​.1330. Vanclay, F. (2002), ‘Conceptualising social impacts’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22 (3), pp. 183–211, https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1016/​S​0195–9255(​01)00105–6. Yunus, M., B. Moingeon and L. Lehmann-Ortega (2010), ‘Building social business models: lessons from the Grameen experience’, Long Range Planning, 43 (2–3), pp. 308–25, https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.lrp​.2009​.12​.005. Zahra, S. A., E. Gedajlovic, D. O. Neubaum and J. M. Shulman (2009), ‘A typology of social entrepreneurs: motives, search processes and ethical challenges’, Journal of Business Venturing, 24 (5), pp. 519–32, https://​doi​.org/​ 10​.1016/​j​.jbusvent​.2008​.04​.007.

Ghita Lkhoyaali and Emmanuel Raufflet

63. Socially inclusive businesses Introduction

Socially inclusive businesses (henceforth SIB) are market-based ventures which seek to improve in some way the quality of life of low-income actors by engaging them with regular markets as either consumers, suppliers/providers, distributors, sellers, and/or producers/workers in value chains of goods production and service delivery. This may be implemented through diverse organizational settings (e.g. businesses, networks, partnerships), and institutional forms (e.g. private, non-profit, public actors). Considering that SIB have the purpose of improving in the quality of life of disadvantaged people through innovative market-based ventures and arrangements, it is possible to include them within the field of social innovations, as newer, more systemic – and therefore more sustainable – solutions to lasting societal problems that in turn generates value for the whole society via more effective, efficient or fairer initiatives (Phills et al. 2008). Additionally, having in mind that social innovations lead to ‘new solutions that imply conceptual, process, product, or organisational change, which ultimately aim to improve the welfare and wellbeing of individuals and communities’,1 SIB contribute to them through market-based mechanisms.

Definition and evolution of a socially inclusive business concept

SIB is a concept that emerged in the first years of the new millennium, although its roots can be traced back years earlier. As will be seen, the role of low-income sectors in this literature was the subject of thoughtful reflections, and it tended to emphasize the engagement of underprivileged sectors as suppliers (Kolk et al. 2014, p. 363), while other authors emphasized that the role of underprivileged was somewhat more complex, defining SIB as business models linking low income sectors with mainstream markets seeking to improve their living conditions while building social capital and stronger citizenship, therefore generating social and economic value (Márquez et al. 2010).

Born to some extent in relation to other managerial concepts and practices that emerged a few years before, such as business at the base of the pyramid (henceforth BBoP), SIB incorporates a different lens to look at how companies or other organizations engage the poor and other socially excluded groups. BBoP refers to revenue-generating ventures and enterprises that specifically target the base of the pyramid population. Among different types of businesses, multinational companies were initially seen as the key actor to take advantage of the ‘wealth’ found in the BBoP world and had a paramount role in ‘creating opportunities’ for them. The first references to BBoP are the seminal works of Prahalad, Hart and London; for instance, Prahalad and Hart (2002, p. 2) mentioned that the ‘real source of market promise is not the wealthy few … [but] billions of aspiring poor who are joining the market economy … is a time for [multinational companies] … to look at globalization strategies through a new lens of inclusive capitalism’. There is a clear common ground of BBoP with the inclusive goal of SIB, but with large global companies leading the way in the former. However, in the first decade of the 2000s, from this initial view of BBoP as an opportunity for big companies providing goods and services to the poor as consumers (BoP 1.0), a shift began to exploring the roles that the disadvantaged can play as suppliers and distributors (BoP 2.0), and more recently a third iteration of the BBoP approach (BoP 3.0), which integrates environmental sustainability concerns along with a triple-bottom-line perspective into BBoP initiatives (Dembek et al. 2020; Lashitew et al. 2022; Du et al. 2021). Other authors concur on the first two stages, but the next one was broken down into BoP 3.0, a phase called as sharing fortune (a perspective resulting from the criticism of the effect of some business practices on poor sectors), and BoP 4.0, called enabling fortune, that implies more protective business practices regarding deprived sectors. This last evolutionary stage is summarized by Borchart et al. (2020, p. 172) when mentioning that a BoP 4.0 approach implies enabling fortune in a shared and sustainable way between big corporate players, local firms and poor communities. When BBoP proponents increasingly tended to focus more on the inclusion of low-income sectors in the value chain rather

356

Socially inclusive businesses  357

than on how to reach them for offering products and services, it started to entangle its route with SIB, as Kolk et al. (2014, p. 363) explained: ‘As the BoP literature has increasingly looked at business impacts through supplier and cocreator relationships, it has converged strongly with the research on socially inclusive business.’ Therefore, BBoP and SIB have some similarities and overlapping trends between the concepts and practices, but it is also worth mentioning their differences. In this sense, Ogliastri et al. (2015, pp. 171–2) asserts that while BBoP is more related to innovative products, technologies and hybrid business models, SIB is connected to the inclusion of disadvantaged sectors in existing value chains. More generally, Lashitew et al. (2022) state that the BBoP field is based on conceptual contributions ranging from social entrepreneurship and social impact, business models, organizational processes and capabilities, and value creation/marketing. In turn, research on SIB evolved to consider also other private actors such as small and medium enterprises, and hybrid ones such as social enterprises (considering among them civil society organizations and co-ops), while analysing the role of neglected sectors, not only as customers but also in other stages of the value chain, and how economic and social value were created in these different organizational forms (Márquez et al. 2010). In sum, the conceptual connection between BBoP and SIB approaches emerges from the notion that the pursuit of inclusion and social value, on the one hand, and profit, on the other, can complement each other. In this vein, according to Schoneveld (2020), BBoP and SIB both express this notion of two parallel features: on the one hand, incorporating low-income actors into value chains, and, on the other hand, this type of venture must be part of the organizational core business (e.g. being financially sustainable). In addition, the concept of social business “was promoted” or “was disseminated” by Grameen Bank founder and Peace Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus, who defined it as ‘designed and operated just like a “regular” business enterprise, with products, services, customers, markets, expenses and revenues. It is a no-loss, no-dividend, self-sustaining company … , but whose primary purpose is

to serve society and improve the lot of the poor’ (Yunus et al. 2010, p. 309). In social businesses, potential profits are reinvested in the business endeavour itself rather than paid out to its owners, allowing expansion of the produced positive social impact (→ SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP). Finally, the evolution of the concepts has also permeated the agenda of international institutions, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which has produced a good practice compendium on inclusive business.2 Within the OECD framework, inclusive business refers as well to business creation by people from disadvantaged and under-represented groups in entrepreneurship such as youth, women, seniors, unemployed, immigrants, ethnic minorities, and people with disabilities. On the other hand, the European Union (EU) frames the phenomena within the umbrella of social economy and inclusive entrepreneurship, seeking ‘… to ensure that all people … have equal opportunities to create and run a business’.3 In turn, the World Bank mentions that ‘Inclusive businesses are companies that develop innovative ways to do commercially-viable business with people living at the base of the pyramid … and to expand access to basic products and services’.4 Not surprisingly, the International Finance Corporation (IFC, part of The World Bank Group) frames the concept as follows: ‘By integrating the “base of the economic pyramid” into value chains as suppliers, employees, distributors, retailers, and customers using commercially viable methods, the private sector can foster opportunity, expand access, and improve lives through solutions that are sustainable, replicable, and scalable.’5 Throughout the evolution of the SIB concept, a search for new, novel, or innovative ways to overcome social exclusion and poverty can be observed, showing how social innovations through market-based approaches can make a contribution to overcome institutional limitations and organizational barriers to create sustainable solutions to this enduring problem.

Key topics and findings

Several topics can be highlighted in SIB literature. Among them can be mentioned the institutional and organizational arena of Gabriel Berger and Leopoldo Blugerman

358  Encyclopedia of social innovation

– and the role that low-income sectors have on – SIB, the geographical focus of inclusive ventures, the creation of social and economic value, the integration of inclusive ventures within the core business of the companies, the tensions of scaling up SIB, the types of innovation involved in designing and implementing SIB, challenges and barriers and, more recently brought into question, gender issues. Organizations, institutional forms, hybridity challenges, and the role of low-income sectors Debates brought about recognition of different types of organizations engaged in SIB/ BBoP. While in the early years the lead actors in this field were multinational companies (e.g. earlier works of Prahalad, Hart and London), later the role of new actors was considered. Local businesses, social enterprises, public utilities companies, and organizational networks or partnerships gained legitimacy as protagonist or associates in these inclusive ventures. Briefly, the more recent literature has emphasized that SIB ventures are led by several organizational forms (e.g. small and medium enterprises, partnerships) coming from diverse institutional realms, such as non-profits or multinational companies (Rosca et al. 2017). Research along these lines shows that the more embedded were the actors involved on inclusive projects, the more economically sustainable the initiative become (Lashitew et al. 2020). But also new challenges appeared, especially regarding business coordination and governance, due to the diverse and often hybrid nature of the actors involved within these new types of networked SIB (e.g. Dembek et al. 2020; Márquez et al. 2010; Kolk et al. 2014; Schoneveld et al. 2020). In the same line, poor sectors shifted from being considered just a passive recipient (as consumers), towards a more active role in adding value and having more agency capabilities in inclusive value chains (as producers, partners, etc., of SIB/BBOP goods and services – e.g. Dembek et al. 2020; Márquez et al. 2010), developing in many cases social innovations in processes and organizational arrangements. Geographic focus As explained, initial writings on BBoP were directed to reflect on cases or innovations Gabriel Berger and Leopoldo Blugerman

led by multinational companies but occurring mainly in underprivileged settings, such as Southern Asia (e.g. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh), Latin America (e.g. Mexico, Brazil), Africa (e.g. Nigeria), and, more generally, the global South. As research on SIB developed, more attention was put on other low-income settings with institutional voids in which other types of organizations created new and innovative approaches for engaging SIB (e.g. in Márquez et al. 2010). As the effects of the 2008 ‘financial crisis’ impacted on developed nations, the literature on SIB also extended its scope to richer countries (Yunus et al. 2015; Rosca et al. 2017), or the global North. In the case of the EU, more recent attention to inclusive businesses complemented a long tradition and promotion of social economy. The key finding, according to Yunus (2015, p. 9), was that whether in the global North or in the South, companies must bear in mind that social businesses ‘have social goals and business spill overs, not the reverse’, and despite these ventures being recent, ‘early evidence suggests, however, that it can help companies looking for market-based solutions to poverty issues’ (ibid.). However, institutional voids and other macro-contextual reasons must be accounted for when analysing several dimensions of inclusive business models, and a bigger effort to professionalize SIB practice is needed (e.g. Mair et al. 2012; Desa and Koch 2014; Parmigiani and Rivera-Santos 2015) to make the SIB promise of improving disadvantaged sectors’ quality of life a reality. These efforts to overcome limitations and voids, as well as to adapt the SIB concept to different contexts, demand and become fertile opportunities to social innovations to organizational processes and designs. Social and economic value Concomitantly to the contextual strains, one of the most important and long-lasting issues in SIB debates are the challenges of simultaneously creating social value and financial return (Lashitew et al. 2022; Márquez et al. 2010; Kolk et al. 2014; Dembek et al. 2020). This is a central issue related not only to the urgency of operating in underprivileged settings, but especially to the rather hybrid nature of SIB regardless of its organizational form. In addition, an increasingly more complex notion of value was developed when

Socially inclusive businesses  359

analysing the results of inclusive business models taking into consideration tangible and nontangible dimensions of it (Márquez et al. 2010). Then, amidst this environment, the use of market mechanisms to pursue a social mission led the analysis on to an ethical discussion: how profitable can an SIB be? Other authors have noted that the dilemma of seeking profits versus poor sectors’ engagement and improvement of their quality of life may create some form of a trade-off, but in practice financial results are not as frequent as expected. As Gutierrez and Vernis (2016, p. 285) put it, the link between company profit seeking and low-income sectors can be dubious, but there are proofs of social value delivery of these ventures for poorer sectors; however, the low profitability claim of SIB/BBoP can be reassessed when looking at indicators of marketing results (regarding branding, low-income sector information, etc.) in addition to those of financial results (Kolk et al. 2014, p. 357). In any case, Márquez et al. (2010, p. 324), broadening the organizational focus and analysing this intrinsic tension, concluded that the answer is not as simple as it may seem, and is necessarily a new perspective combining effectively both the social and the business cases. In such a constrained setting, this outlook needs a multi-faceted commitment, both to the human dimension and to financial results, to compassion and efficiency (ibid.). A dozen years later, Lashitew et al. (2022, p. 462) showed their key findings for social value creation very much in the same terms as Márquez et al. (2010), by emphasizing complex/multifaceted dimensions reflecting the evolution of BBoP stages mentioned above, including elements such as empowerment when assessing the impact of these ventures. Thus, once again, the mixture of the social and the economic, the inclusive and the business is expressed in SIB. Key findings regarding this dimension underscore the impact and possibilities to accomplish this task, but only by integrating views. To do so, the ambidexterity, that is, the possibility of successfully addressing both exploration (‘experimenting with new configurations’ – Reficco and Gutierrez 2016, p. 464), and exploitation (‘refining and extending existing

competencies and resources’ – ibid.), within an organizational setting, seems to be crucial. Centrality and scale The literature underscores and discusses how important or core the inclusiveness goal must be within a market-based initiative to be considered an SIB. In this sense, an initiative must show inclusion at its purpose and be financially sound to qualify as such. This key finding regarding these two attributes shows consensus on the literature (e.g. Michelini and Fiorentino 2012; Schoneveld et al. 2020), and on international institutions promoting these practices (e.g. IFC). This implies that philanthropic or corporate social responsibility (→ CORPORATE SOCIAL INNOVATION) programmes cannot be seen, by and large, as SIB. In addition to placing inclusion and financial viability as core attributes of SIB, another topic discussed in the literature related to the appropriate scale for an SIB. For the first references on the topic, the main problem recognized was related to rewriting expectations regarding scale, ‘from a “bigger is better” ideal to an ideal of highly distributed small-scale operations married to world scale capabilities’ (Prahalad and Hart 2002, p. 3). As SIB were gaining momentum in the first decade of 2000, and the type of organizations engaging with low-income sectors (or that were identified by scholars) were not just multinational companies, research started to include small and medium enterprises, social enterprises and so on, and models of scaling social impact begun to be discussed. Different dimensions of scaling were recognized, such as breadth (quantitative and organizational scaling) or depth (functional and political), in terms of Desa and Koch (2014). New business models were developed as different types of organizations engaged in SIB creating in this process relevant social innovations in products/services, processes and arrangements. Levels, scope and type of innovation Another topic discussed in the literature is the level and scope of innovation found in SIB models, such as radical (Prahalad and Hart 2002), disruptive (Reficco and Gutierrez 2016), stand-alone or ecosystemic (Dembek et al. 2020, p. 381). Gabriel Berger and Leopoldo Blugerman

360  Encyclopedia of social innovation

The initial call for radical changes at the organizational level implied in the first approaches to BBoP (when poor sectors were a rather terra incognita to multinational companies) led the way towards incremental changes at the organizational level and to an ecosystemic building approach (e.g. Dembek et al. 2020). Research found that upstream and/or downstream inclusive innovations may appear throughout the whole value chain and among different stakeholders, regardless of its organizational form (multinational companies, small and medium enterprises, social enterprises, etc.), institutional realms (private, non-profit, public, hybrid), or scope (local, national, global, via international regimes, etc.). Hence, as Rosca et al. (2020, p. 9) assert, including local actors all along the value chain was underscored in the literature as an important element to expand social and economic development. In addition, and emphasizing the analytical value of a systemic perspective, Lashitew et al. (2022, p. 457) extend further the idea signalling that researchers have recently advocated ecosystemic-based business models via partnerships with civil society and other local stakeholders. In addition, another stream of analysis focused on frugal and reverse innovations, and its ties with sustainability. In terms of Rosca et al. (2017, p. 4), frugal innovation implies lesser complexity and a more sustainable and better relation between costs and value delivered for BBoP customers. Complementarily, when the frugal innovations make their way back from the global South to consumers in the global North, these are called reverse innovations. The recognition of frugal and reverse innovations across the globe emerged from linking disparate parts and realities in global value chains both upstream and downstream (e.g. Parmigiani and Rivera-Santos 2015), moving beyond a linear direction from north-based multinational companies to south-based BBoP consumers, such as was the focus at the end of 1990s. Challenges and barriers of implementation The ‘hurdles of implementing BOP models’ (Seelos and Mair 2007, p. 49) were addressed by several authors, with different emphasis across the years. Recently, Lashitew et al. (2020, p. 423) summarized the challenges of Gabriel Berger and Leopoldo Blugerman

integrating social and environmental themes in the core business: lack of motivation for change, need for new capabilities (such as organizational ambidexterity, partnerships, co-creation, native capabilities, and bricolage); goal and identity conflict; and the difficulty to acquire legitimacy. In turn, Reficco and Gutierrez (2016, pp. 463–5) broke down barriers to successful BBoP implementation in large corporations into internal and external factors. For the external factors these are: ‘opaque market information, poor regulatory environments, subpar physical infrastructure, lack of access to financial services, inadequate connectivity … cultural differences … and misfit between mainstream supply with demand ... due to problems of affordability, acceptability, availability, or awareness’ (ibid.), while for the internal dimension the elements are the necessity of considering how organizational culture, incentives, and processes are integrated with BBoP strategies. This led to the authors to suggest that organizational ambidexterity (the capacity to pursue simultaneously organizational exploration and exploitation) is a key feature to a successful integration of disruptive business models within existing organizational structures. Gender issues Finally, among societal changes that impacted on cultural, social, political, and economic spheres in recent years, gender issues became part of the agenda in several fields of management studies. Women’s access to markets (credit, labour, etc.) have an impact on poverty reduction, an increase of productivity, and an impact on children’s nutrition, child survival and less domestic violence.6 Therefore, these issues also emerged as a relevant topic on SIB; thus, for instance, gender impact on leadership in BBoP settings (Yunus et al. 2010), or in social entrepreneurship (Rosca et al. 2020) became dimensions included in research and publications. In this vein, looking at gender issues in SIB may shed light on critical social innovation processes within families and businesses. In this sense, Rosca et al. (2020, p. 9) underscored key findings with implications both theoretical but also on public policy fields: is crucial the role of family support in women social entrepreneurs acting in the

Socially inclusive businesses  361

global South, a context when they usually face several layers of inequality. The role of personal resources and private networks is a common feature, and sociocultural barriers impose a difficulty in the possibility of scaling-up and collaboration in these ventures, therefore, the public sector players and policies may need to be engaged to impact more positively on women-led social inclusive ventures.

Critical reflections and outlook

In a nutshell, and with a wider perspective, what the literature underscores and identifies as challenges to implementing SIB can be interpreted as an expression of two classic topics in the management field regarding strategy (e.g. Mintzberg et al. 2020; Porter 1997): the need of strategic consistency between organizational means and ends, and strategy response to an environment with scarce resources. When analysing SIB at an organizational or partnership level it is necessary to reflect on the intrinsic tension between its means (market mechanisms, or financial returns), and its goals (social inclusion/social values), in an environment with very limited financial means, such as SIB ecosystems. In sum, the challenge is not only about implementation, is also about strategy formulation and adaptation to context constraints. Despite the developments on SIB literature and practice, a quarter of a century has passed since the first SIB/BBoP papers were published, and the inequalities between global North and South, and between both ends of the socioeconomical pyramid in both developed and emerging nations have not diminished since then – and in fact it has increased in part due to the impact of COVID-19, which has exacerbated pre-existing inequalities.7 With this landscape in mind and analysing how the first BBoP cases documented (in multinational companies) fared, one can provocatively say that 25 years later the promise of fortune creation, sharing or enabling casts doubts. As Lashitew et al. (2022, p. 447) suggest, academic advancements on the fields has not improved performance of BBoP ventures when it comes to assessing its impact on poverty reduction, and therefore, criticizing its efficacy, ethically and even showing negative externalities. In the same vein, for Dembek et al. (2020, p. 16), the rather transformative perspective that was

proposed in the SIB/BBoP has been questioned by other authors, since many of these ventures has not shown profit and/or do not impact positively on poverty reduction, and this also has moral implications. Moreover, according to some authors, the promotion of some SIB/BBoP practices (e.g. microfinance) is a way of justifying the retreat of the welfare state. In this sense, as Karnani (2011, pp. 82–4) concludes: ‘Many social problems are linked to market failures. In that case “doing well” and “doing good” are in conflict. It is then necessary to impose some constraints on firm behaviour to achieve larger social objectives.’ Despite this account of inefficacy, or the claim that SIB/BBoP becomes a useful tool to reinforce a system that creates inequality and poverty, there are several cases of positive social impact in inclusive ventures analysed by SIB/BBoP literature and promoted by several public and international initiatives, mostly of small and medium enterprises, social enterprises, networks, and so on. In this line, the poor performance of inclusive ventures in reducing poverty or inequality calls for the continued search for yet larger and more impactful efforts from the business sector. Another criticism of the academic community working on SIB/BBoP lies in the primacy of focusing on successful ventures: this tendency, a rather extended practice in several academic fields, may cause a bias, an inflation of academic works that reflect on micro (and successful) views – and the consequent literature reviews are fed by those cases – instead of having a bigger picture that reflects more on contextual, socioeconomical, cultural and political, structural conditions that tend to perpetuate complex and intertwined layers of inequality – not only measured by income. Perhaps being more macro, more interdisciplinary, and studying failed cases in the analysis of SIB/BBoP ventures can help the field to gain more explicative (and perhaps transformative?) power. The hybrid interconnection of the social and the business dimensions in SIB/ BBoP practices seems to be a good predictor of the effectiveness that an interdisciplinary approach may have when analysing inclusive ventures at a more aggregated level. Finally, it is also interesting to reflect on the fact that increasingly more disciplines Gabriel Berger and Leopoldo Blugerman

362  Encyclopedia of social innovation

became involved in SIB/BBoP research and analysis. In the early period of the field, systematic research and study on SIB were more related to strategy, and corporate social responsibility. But more recently, marketing, logistics, ethics, gender studies, and so on, have entered the scene, reflecting a growing attention on several important dimensions of SIB management. Additionally, as Du et al. (2021) trace, an additional set of topics has emerged in recent times: native capability, appropriate technology, sustainable innovations, knowledge sharing. In addition, SIB in different industries has also become a focus of recent research such as renewable energy, healthcare services, regenerative agriculture. It is foreseeable that given the complexity and dynamism of the subject, newer topics will deserve attention in the years to come. This process of connecting SIB with new issues and different industries shows their strength as a source of new social innovations addressing the everlasting challenges of social inclusion and poverty alleviation. Gabriel Berger and Leopoldo Blugerman

Notes

1. OECD (2022), Social Innovation, accessed 12 October 2022 at https://​www​.oecd​.org/​cfe/​leed/​ social​-economy/​social​-innovation​.htm. 2. OECD (2016), Inclusive Business Creation, accessed 12 August 2022 at https://​www​.oecd​ -ilibrary​. org/​i ndustry​- and​- services/​i nclusive​ -business​- creation​- good​- practice​- compendium​ _9789264251496​-en. 3. European Commission (2021), Social Economy and Inclusive Entrepreneurship, accessed 12 October 2022 at https://​ec​.europa​.eu/​social/​main​ .jsp​?catId​=​952​&​langId​=​en. 4. World Bank Group (2022), What Is Inclusive Business?, accessed 12 October 2022 at https://​olc​ .worldbank​.org/​content/​what​-inclusive​-business. 5. International Finance Corporation (2022), IFC’s Work on Inclusive Business, accessed 12 October 2022 at https://​www​.ifc​.org/​wps/​wcm/​connect/​ Topics​_ Ext​_ Content/​I FC​_ External​_ Corporate​ _Site/​Inclusive+​Business. 6. Nextbillion (2022), What Is the BoP Sector Doing to Improve Gender Equality?, accessed 12 October 2022 at https://​n extbillion​. net/​w hat​- is​- the​- BoP​- sector​ -doing​-to​-improve​-gender​-equality/​. 7. International Monetary Fund (2022), Global Inequalities, accessed 12 October 2022 at https://​ www​.imf​.org/​en/​Publications/​fandd/​issues/​2022/​ 03/​Global​-inequalities​-Stanley, or World Inequality

Gabriel Berger and Leopoldo Blugerman

Lab (2022), World Inequality Report, accessed 12 October 2022 at https://​wir2022​.wid​.world/​ www​-site/​uploads/​2022/​03/​0098–21​_WIL​_RIM​ _RAPPORT​_A4​.pdf.

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Borchardt, M., N. O.Ndubisi, C. J. C. Jabbour, O. Grebinevych and G. M. Pereira (2020), ‘The evolution of base of the pyramid approaches and the role of multinational and domestic business ventures: value-commitment and profit-making perspectives’, Industrial Marketing Management, 89, pp. 171–80. Dembek, K., N. Sivasubramaniam and D. A. A Chmielewski (2020), ‘Systematic review of the bottom/base of the pyramid literature: cumulative evidence and future directions’, Journal of Business Ethics, 165, pp. 365–82. Desa, G. and J. L. Koch (2014), ‘Scaling social impact: building sustainable social ventures at the base-of-the-pyramid’, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 146–74. Du, H.S., J. Xu, Z. Li, Y. Liu and S. K. Wah Chu (2021), ‘Bibliometric mapping on sustainable development at the base-of-the-pyramid’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 281, 125290. Gutierrez, R. and A. Vernis (2016), ‘Innovations to serve low-income citizens: when corporations leave their comfort zones’, Long Range Planning, 49, pp. 283–97. Karnani, A. (2011), ‘“Doing well by doing good”: the grand illusion’, California Management Review, 53 (2), pp. 69–86. Kolk, A., M. Rivera-Santos and C. Rufín (2014), ‘Reviewing a decade of research on the “base/ bottom of the pyramid” (BOP) concept’, Business & Society, 53 (3), pp. 338–77. Lashitew, A. A., L. Bals and R. van Tulder (2020), ‘Inclusive business at the base of the pyramid: the role of embeddedness for enabling social innovations’, Journal of Business Ethics, 162 (2), pp. 421–48. Lashitew, A. A., S. Narayan, E. Rosca and L. Bals (2022), ‘Creating social value for the ‘base of the pyramid’: an integrative review and research agenda’, Journal of Business Ethics, 178, pp. 445–66. Mair, J., I. Marti and M. J. Ventresca (2012), ‘Building inclusive markets in rural Bangladesh: how intermediaries work institutional voids’, Academy of Management Journal, 55 (4), pp. 819–50. Márquez, P., E. Reficco and G. Berger (eds) (2010), Socially Inclusive Business: Engaging the Poor through Market Initiatives in

Socially inclusive businesses  363 Iberoamerica, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Michelini, L. and D. Fiorentino (2012), ‘New business models for creating shared value’, Social Responsibility Journal, 8 (4), pp. 561–77. Mintzberg, H., B. Ahlstrand and J. B. Lampel (2020), Strategy Safari, London: Pearson UK. Ogliastri, E., A. Prado, U. Jäger, A. Vives and E. Reficco (2015), ‘Social business’, in J. D. Wright (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Vol. 22, Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 168–73. Parmigiani, A. and M. Rivera-Santos (2015), ‘Sourcing for the base of the pyramid: constructing supply chains to address voids in subsistence markets’, Journal of Operations Management, 33, pp. 60–70. Porter, M. E. (1997), ‘Competitive strategy’, Measuring Business Excellence, 1 (2), pp. 12–17. Phills, J. A., K. Deiglmeier and D. T. Miller (2008), ‘Rediscovering social innovation’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6 (4), pp. 34–43. Prahalad, C. K. and S. L. Hart (2002), ‘The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid’, Strategy + Business, 26, pp. 2–14. Reficco, E. and R. Gutierrez (2016), ‘Organizational ambidexterity and the elusive quest for successful implementation of BoP

ventures’, Organization & Environment, 29 (4), pp. 461–85. Rosca, E., N. Agarwal and A. Brem (2020), ‘Women entrepreneurs as agents of change: a comparative analysis of social entrepreneurship processes in emerging markets’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 157, 120067. Rosca, E., M. Arnold and J. C. Bendul (2017), ‘Business models for sustainable innovation – an empirical analysis of frugal products and services’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, pp. S133–S145. Schoneveld, G. C. (2020), ‘Sustainable business models for inclusive growth: towards a conceptual foundation of inclusive business’, Journal of Cleaner Production, 277, pp. 1–13. Seelos, C. and J. Mair (2007), ‘Profitable business models and market creation in the context of deep poverty: a strategic view’, Academy of Management Perspectives, 21 (4), pp. 49–63. Yunus, M., F. Dalsace, D. Menascé and B. Faivre-Tavignot (2015), ‘Reaching the rich world’s poorest consumers’, Harvard Business Review, March, https://​hbr​.org/​2015/​03/​ reaching​-the​-rich​-worlds​-poorest​-consumers. Yunus, M., B. Moingeon and L. Lehmann-Ortega (2010), ‘Building social business models: lessons from the Grameen experience’, Long Range Planning, 43 (2–3), pp. 308–25.

Gabriel Berger and Leopoldo Blugerman

PART VII SCIENCE AND RESEARCH

64. Citizen science Introduction

Citizen science is an invention that can be approached from several points of view (Hecker et al. 2018). A first point of view often describes citizen science as a novel phenomenon in which masses of volunteer contributors, using online platforms and smartphones, collect and classify millions of observations, thus providing data to the frontiers of science (Silvertown 2009; Goodchild 2007). In this outlook, citizen scientists equipped with various smart devices can with ease and little prior training submit their observations of the natural world to scientists, who in turn discover something hitherto unknown, or answer a research question. A second view paints a radically different picture. Here citizen science consists of a concerned group of citizens, which has identified a social problem and decided to conduct a scientific inquiry to solve it. Environmental hazards, pollution, and adverse health effects of industries and natural resource exploitation are often the kind of troubles that affected citizens have decided to protest against. But instead of submitting a petition to their local representatives, they begin to measure, observe and collect various experiences of the abnormalities affecting the citizens (Corburn 2005; Ottinger 2010). These two views involve an inherent contradiction in the context of modernity. The two concepts citizen and science are often thought of, especially in the Western history of ideas, as having two completely different origins (Latour 2013). While the citizen, and consequently the notion of citizenship, is viewed as a socially constructed being, made possible by freedoms granted by the rule of law, this is not the case with science. Instead, the meticulous study of the laws of nature makes scientific research different from any other enterprise (Irwin 1995). While the true freedoms of the citizen are secured by democratic elections and freedom of speech, the true facts of science belong to a meritocratic elite and the careful progress of experiments and adherence to the scientific method (Merton 1973). Despite this apparent conceptual contradiction, citizen science will appear both in the context of scientific discoveries as well as in civil rights struggles.

This contradiction between a democratic notion of citizenship and a meritocratic conception of science remains unresolved in theory. However, as will be shown, this opposition is what makes citizen science possible in the first place, as an interesting social innovation and as mode of organization in both science and society. In this entry, citizen science as an innovation both in science and in activism will be presented.

Definition

As the use of the term citizen science in scientific literature has increased over the past two decades (Kullenberg and Kasperowski 2016), evidence of a rising trend in popularity. However, there are multiple concepts that are used to refer to citizen science, sometimes as synonyms, sometimes denoting a particular orientation (Pelacho et al. 2021), making a complete overview difficult. For example, citizen science may be called volunteer-based monitoring, civic science, street science, community science or crowd science, only to mention a few widely used terms. However, it has been argued that citizen science, as an actual practice, presented itself already at the dawn of the scientific revolution. Before the professionalization of science and research, in which universities employed and paid scientists to generate new knowledge, most scientists were indeed a citizen who simply had an interest in the advancement of knowledge in a particular field. Scientists such as Charles Darwin devoted their time and energy into the pursuit of knowledge without a professional title (Silvertown 2009). Of course, such a way of life depended on the economic independence of the citizen, as well as his gender, as the domains of dissemination as well as its cultural forms of appreciation were mostly a male enterprise. A minimal definition of citizen science, which will include most of the terms used in the scholarly literature, has two necessary features. Firstly, it is a practice that involves, either partially or fully, nonprofessional researchers. They are often referred to as volunteers, amateurs or laypersons. Secondly, the practice of citizen science makes use of scientific methods, albeit seldom with the same financial resources for instrumentation or laboratories as institutionalized science affords. Scientific methods are transparent,

365

366  Encyclopedia of social innovation

possible to replicate and criticize, and are used in a similar way as in conventional science, even though seldom published in specialized journals or conference proceedings.

Citizen science as a social innovation in science

Science, at least since its origins in the scientific revolution, is in itself a social innovation, in the sense that it is a collective enterprise requiring a community of peers to facilitate the dissemination of knowledge, sharing of methods and to organize a critical debate. Institutions such as scientific journals, conferences and official forms of collaboration, enable knowledge transactions among peers across time and space, connecting universities and laboratories around the world. However, most of these arenas were designed exclusively for professional scientists throughout the twentieth century. Even though these institutions were exclusive to professional scientists, the contributions of citizen scientists were often of crucial importance, even if seldom credited properly (Cooper et al. 2014). For example, the Christmas Bird Count has since 1900 relied on thousands of reports from amateur ornithologists for bird observations (Bonney et al. 2009). This way, citizen science may be viewed as a social innovation that extends conventional science to include members of the public as a wider social category. However, it is with the help of digital technologies (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION IN THE DIGITAL AGE) that the most recent wave of interest in citizen science has emerged. Internet technologies do not merely add a more efficient transport layer of information, replacing paper protocols and postal letters for reporting. Rather, the use of online platforms (Hagen 2020) affords citizen scientists to engage in mass scale, with a low threshold of participation and with the possibility of online community formation. Image classification platforms such as iSpot and Zooniverse, or species observation projects such as Natusfera or iNaturalist, gather millions of observations and classifications every year, as well as widely used community features for knowledge sharing and debate. However, as the threshold of participation lowers, and the user base scales up, the question of data quality appears. This question Christopher Kullenberg

has been at stake throughout the history of citizen science, namely the question whether an untrained amateur is able to record data with the same kind of accuracy and experience as a trained and professional scientist. With online platforms, this question becomes even more elaborate, as the multitude of users often present themselves with a degree of anonymity, and may include individuals in broad categories of age, culture and learning backgrounds. Even though there is an ongoing discussion in most citizen science projects, the commonplace arrangement is the use of a protocol for observations or classifications (Delaney et al. 2008). Standardized protocols can simplify the data reporting procedure and citizen scientists can be trained for a delimited area of knowledge, such as distinguishing between a fixed set of species or differentiating patterns in an image, including transcribing handwritten documents into machine readable text. Additionally, protocols can be adapted to user-friendly software applications, lowering the threshold for curious users even further. However, the most important feature of standardized protocols is the possibility of testing the accuracy of citizen science observations with those of trained scientists (Crall et al. 2011). In such tests, samples of citizen science observations are sliced into variables of gender, age and education. Then these variables can be compared to those made by the scientists themselves, thus asserting the level of accuracy. While the use of standardized reporting protocols is often suitable for the natural sciences, the social sciences and humanities have often been less visible in adopting such a research design. However, there has recently been an increase in digital citizen humanities projects (Heinisch et al. 2021; Mahr et al. 2018), in which standardized reporting, such as transcribing or annotating digital material, is combined with wider contextual knowledge (Rohden et al. 2019). Thus, while natural science practices, such as ornithology or amateur astronomy, are more widely known to have reported observations to scientists, the humanities and social sciences are today making use of digital technologies for sharing of large archives and inventing novel ways of making a contribution.

Citizen science  367

Citizen science as activism

Citizen science as activism entails a paradox, one which makes it both strategically efficient, yet fragile at the same time. As scientific research is ideally thought of as value-free and unpolitical, the facts presented by citizen science activists acquire the status of being neutral and objective, rather than partisan or biased towards a certain interest. If matters of fact are regarded as neutral, they hold up much better in, for example, legal instances (Kullenberg 2015). However, because citizen science activism begins outside established institutions, as opposed to professional science incorporating centuries of progress, they are more liable to the critique of representing a particular interest rather than knowledge as such. While citizen science can be seen as a method of extending conventional scientific research by scaling up the number of observers and classifiers of data, as outlined above, there is a qualitatively different point of view that instead departs in political activism. The former is defined by a problem that originates in the interest of science, while the latter departs in a community issue. Such instances of citizen science activism are most frequently occurring in cases of environmental pollution, public health or nature conservation, in which concerned members of the public, an NGO or activist group turn to science in order to draw attention to a perceived problem. Examples of issues include air or water contamination, surges in crime or poverty, urban noise, and threats to habitats of endangered species. By collecting and analysing data about such phenomena, activists make use of citizen science as an additional strategy, often used in combination with petitions, protests and other communicative efforts. However, the citizen science approach comes with a few notable advantages. The results of citizen science, as long as they are made rigorously and transparently, can be used as evidence in legal cases, as well as providing institutionalized science and government bodies with new knowledge. One often mentioned example is the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, which collects air samples in close proximity to petrochemical industries using cheap buckets and plastic bags as instruments to extract quantities of air to be sent in laboratories for analysis (Ottinger 2010). This way the activists of the

Louisiana Bucket Brigade are able to fight the polluting corporations to the extent of claiming damages for relocation to a place where the air is less harmful to breathe, while simultaneously drawing attention to the consequences of industrial pollution.

Conclusion

As shown in this entry, there are two forms of citizen science, at least when defined as the participation of non-scientist volunteers using scientific methods to generate knowledge. One form departs within the borders of conventional science, which then extends its social limits by inviting non-scientists to a certain degree in the knowledge process. Today, this form of citizen science enjoys both the financial and epistemic resources of institutionalized research and has become increasingly popular with the adoption of internet technologies and mobile devices. The other form departs in a concerned community in the need of describing in particular an environmental, social or health related problem. As they turn to scientific methods in their struggles, they become citizen scientists. Even though they often lack resources, both in terms of economy as well as credibility of conventional science, their findings often make a special difference for the community. This way the practice of citizen science creates a bridge across the contradiction between democratic and meritocratic modes of social organization, sometimes in the form of science inviting citizens, sometimes with citizens using scientific methods for activism. The phenomenon of citizen science draws the attention to at least two central themes in the theory of science. Firstly, the question of whether the experiential reality of an untrained amateur is on equal grounds with a professional scientist is challenged. Sometimes this gravitates towards thinking that the professional scientist embodies the gold standard of experience, but at times this can be reversed, especially when members of the public invoke local knowledge of their surroundings, or amateur scientists refer to their thousands of hours spent in the field rather than in a library or a laboratory. Finally, citizen science has begun to challenge the conventional idea of a securely monitored border between political activism and value-free science (→ CO-CREATION IN SOCIAL INNOVATION). When activists Christopher Kullenberg

368  Encyclopedia of social innovation

present matters of fact, sheets of data and systematic reports instead of petitions or street protests, their issues have to be considered in a different way, one which takes into account their scientific descriptions of reality rather than their views on reality. Conversely, the same border is also challenged when citizens join a scientific project with interests that diverge from those of the scientists. For example, citizens may contribute with millions of species observations, not so much for the purpose of advancing knowledge in zoology, but primarily to make a difference in species preservation and biodiversity. Thus, inviting citizens to science and inviting science to citizenry, are two lines of social innovation that make citizen science a phenomenon that transforms our conception of the relation between science and society in general. Christopher Kullenberg

citizen science and scientific citizenship’, Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies, 8 (1), pp. 4–15. Hecker, S., R. Bonney, M. Haklay, F. Hölker, H. Hofer, C. Goebel, M. Gold, Z. Makuch, M. Ponti, A. Richter, L. Robinson, J. R. Iglesias, R. Owen, T. Peltola, A. Sforzi, J. Shirk, J. Vogel, K. Vohland, T. Witt and A. Bonn (2018), ‘Innovation in citizen science – perspectives on science-policy advances’, Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 3 (1), p. 4. Heinisch, B., K. Oswald, M. Weißpflug, S. Shuttleworth and G. Belknap (2021), ‘Citizen humanities’, in K. Vohland, A. Land-Zandstra, L. Ceccaroni, R. Lemmens, J. Perelló, M. Ponti, R. Samson and K. Wagenknecht (eds), The Science of Citizen Science, Cham: Springer International, pp. 97–118. Irwin, A. (1995), Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development, Abingdon: Routledge. Kullenberg, C. (2015), ‘Citizen science as resistance: crossing the boundary between reference and representation’, Journal of References Resistance Studies, 1 (1), pp. 50–76. Entries marked in bold are further reading Kullenberg, C. and D. Kasperowski (2016), material. ‘What is citizen science? – A scientometric meta-analysis’, PLoS ONE, 11 (1), accessed at Bonney, R., C. B. Cooper, J. Dickinson, S. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1371/​journal​.pone​.0147152. Kelling, T. Phillips, K. V. Rosenberg and Latour, B. (2013), An Inquiry into Modes of J. Shirk (2009), ‘Citizen science: a developExistence: An Anthropology of the Moderns, ing tool for expanding science knowledge Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. and scientific literacy’, BioScience, 59 (11), Mahr, D., C. Göbel, A. Irwin and K. Vohland pp. 977–84. (2018), ‘Watching or being watched’, in Citizen Cooper, C. B., J. Shirk and B. Zuckerberg (2014), Science: Innovation in Open Science, Society ‘The invisible prevalence of citizen science in and Policy, London: UCL Press, pp. 99–109. global research: migratory birds and climate Merton, R. K. (1973), ‘The normative strucchange’, PLoS ONE, 9 (9), e106508. ture of science’, in The Sociology of Science: Corburn, J. (2005), Street Science: Community Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Knowledge and Environmental Health Justice, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ottinger, G. (2010), ‘Buckets of resistance: standCrall, A. W., G. J. Newman, T. J. Stohlgren, K. ards and the effectiveness of citizen science’, A. Holfelder, J. Graham and D. M. Waller Science, Technology & Human Values, 35 (2), (2011), ‘Assessing citizen science data quality: pp. 244–70. an invasive species case study’, Conservation Pelacho, M., G. Ruiz, F. Sanz, A. Tarancón and Letters, 4 (6), pp. 433–42, https://​ doi​ .org/​ 10​ J. Clemente-Gallardo (2021), ‘Analysis of the .1111/​j​.1755​-263X​.2011​.00196​.x. evolution and collaboration networks of citizen Delaney, D. G., C. D. Sperling, C. S. Adams and science scientific publications’, Scientometrics, B. Leung (2008), ‘Marine invasive species: 126 (1), pp. 225–57. validation of citizen science and implications Rohden, F., C. Kullenberg, N. Hagen and D. for national monitoring networks’, Biological Kasperowski (2019), ‘Tagging, pinging and Invasions, 10 (1), pp. 117–28. linking – user roles in virtual citizen science Goodchild, M. F. (2007), ‘Citizens as sensors: the forums’, Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, world of volunteered geography’, GeoJournal, 4 (1), p. 19. 69 (4), pp. 211–21. Shirk, J. L., H. L. Ballard, C. C. Wilderman, Hagen, N. (2020), ‘Scaling up and rolling out T. Phillips, A. Wiggins, R. Jordan, E. through the Web: the “platformization” of McCallie, M. Minarchek, B. V. Lewenstein,

Christopher Kullenberg

Citizen science  369 M. E. Krasny and R. Bonney (2012), ‘Public Participation in Scientific Research: a Framework for Deliberate Design’, Ecology and Society, 17 (2), art29.

Silvertown, J. (2009), ‘A new dawn for citizen science’, Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24 (9), pp. 467–71.

Christopher Kullenberg

65. Social innovation and its actors: the role of university research Presenting universities as sites contributing to social innovation

For some conceptualizations of social innovation, modern science is seen as alien, given that it is done mainly in institutions in which making money or gaining prestige are significant goals. Moreover, given that social innovations are characterized as arising from the participation of their beneficiaries, modern science, being highly esoteric, can be considered an insurmountable barrier to participating. Social innovation should be characterized in the first place as any other innovation, that is, as a problem solver; it has been defined as ‘new ideas that meet unmet ends’ (Mulgan et al. 2007, p. 4). The origin of these new ideas may be diverse, including those cultivated through academic research, that is, at universities. From the perspective of social innovation, thus, universities may become sites able to contribute to it. More than a century ago, in 1918, the students of the University of Cordoba, Argentina, were the actors of a highly influential institutional innovation that spread over Latin America as the Movement of the University Reform. It included the co-government of the university by students and established extension or outreach as a new university mission, at the same level as teaching and research. In its manifesto, the university students included a surprising phrase: ‘From now on, only the true builders of the soul, the creators of truth, of beauty and good will be able to be teachers in the future university republic’ (Manifiesto Liminar [1918] 2018).1 So, from the perspective of universities, the idea that part of their institutional commitment is related to ‘the good’ besides the truth and the intellectual reproduction of the elites opens an opportunity to become actors in social innovation. However, this is not a given: possibility and opportunity need to be fulfilled. The following sections will further explore the role universities may play in achieving social inclusion, the difficulties that such endeavour needs to overcome, and some examples from an underdeveloped country that demonstrate

that universities can indeed be put at work to foster social innovation.

Social inclusion and the role of knowledge

Overcoming social exclusion is a way of characterizing social inclusion, this being a goal for social innovation. Amartya Sen (2000) proposed a useful classification of forms of social exclusion, easy to link with the role knowledge plays in each of them. Active, that is, the result of a will to exclude, or passive, as a consequence of actions not intended to exclude. He also posited that exclusions could vary between those constitutive, life-threatening, and those without such gravity that, nevertheless, may become a heavy burden to everyday life. Current modes of producing and using knowledge have led to all of these expressions of social exclusion, giving rise to widespread inequalities. As Charles Tilly put it: [U]nequal access to knowledge and unequal control over its production or distribution matter in the 21st-century world not only because of knowledge’s intrinsic value but also because its unequal distribution causes other sorts of inequality. Knowledge gives political, financial, and existential advantages to its holders. Returns from knowledge allow its holders to reproduce the institutions and relations that sustain their advantages. In such areas as public health, food supply, environmental quality, and lethal combat, applications of knowledge strongly affect who survives and who lives comfortably. (Tilly 2005, p. 122)

Not all the modalities of social exclusion proposed by Sen can be fought through academic research. ‘Knowledge-active exclusion’, for instance, related to intellectual property rights, is a political issue. But ‘knowledge-passive exclusion’, expressed in the biases of research agendas that do not incorporate problems that affect vulnerable populations, can be fought through university research policies. Tilly’s assertion shows the difficulties of redressing the current social exclusion consequences of advanced knowledge production; fostering a different orientation for knowledge is needed. This in part implies, as David Hess (2007) put it, to do ‘undone science’, the type of science that economic interests leave undone, like research on neglected diseases, or research

370

Social innovation and its actors  371

on cheap substitutes to goods and services conceived in conditions of abundance for relatively well-off users that are unaffordable for the many, particularly in underdeveloped countries. A word of caution is needed here. Science, and technological fixes, cannot solve social exclusion problems, as they cannot, by themselves, solve other social objectives aimed at overcoming evils rooted in long-standing injustice. As Richard Nelson (1977) posited in his book The Moon and the Ghetto we know too little about the complex dynamics of social exclusion to design social technologies that are able to act efficiently to revert it. Besides that, power relations complicate the use of science and technology for the common good. That said, they can be a tool in the quest for social inclusion. Health is a clear example of how science and technology may work against one of the cruelest forms of exclusion. One way is researching health problems that, by not being addressed, exclude diverse types of populations from the potential benefits of knowledge. Another way is re-innovating, that is, doing differently what already exists but is out of reach for many people for different reasons, to make it available in the conditions people live. The first synthetic vaccine against Hemophilus Influenza type b, a Cuban re-innovation, is an example of the latter, for it allowed through a revolutionary approach, synthetic chemistry versus fermentation, a very cheap massive production process. Another example, Uruguayan, is a lamp to treat neonatal-severe jaundice using ten times fewer light-emitting diode bulbs through a light concentrator, making the lamp much cheaper. Those are innovations ‘under the sun’: never before were the underlying problems solved in that way. These two examples share two intertwined features: they aim at social inclusion, and they take into account the economic, social, cultural, and infrastructural conditions of the users. They may be labelled social innovations because they indeed implied new ideas that meet unmet ends. The heuristics followed made them frugal innovations or innovations in scarcity conditions (Srinivas and Sutz, 2008). They share another feature: they are based on advanced knowledge. Not all social innovations need to be based on this type of knowledge, for instance, grass-root innovations (→ GRASSROOTS

INNOVATION FOR TRANSFORMATIVE SOCIAL CHANGE). But when advanced knowledge comes to the fore in social innovation, universities become key players.

Current university trends and possible counter-trends

To what extent can we say that universities are devoted to ‘the good’ understood as the good for society and the most vulnerable within it? It is not easy to give a positive answer. The taxonomy of universities proposed by Müller (1996) starts with the university of faith, devoted to teaching the received truths, followed by the university of reason, adding research as a new university mission intertwined with teaching. The university of discovery blossomed in the twentieth century, producing the knowledge that led to revolutionizing social life in an unprecedented way. We found then a glimpse of a new type of institution emerging: the university of calculus. That is a university in which participants ‘… would not necessarily share any common set of values beyond the economic imperative of producing well enough to be compensated, and vice versa’ (Müller 1996, p. 21). The university of calculus has become, in many senses, a good description of academic life today. The push towards individualism and against those collective efforts that take time away from achieving personal goals has been denounced from various points of view (Slaughter and Rhoades 2004; Martin and Whitley 2010; Newfield 2008). Among the things that this trend put aside are outreach and extension, that is, working with others outside academia, an unavoidable step to get social innovations done. So, the question arises: will the university, as an institution, be able to allow and promote social innovation? The literature has started answering questions like that (Benneworth and Cunha 2015; Majewski, Domanski and Howaldt 2018; Majewski, Domanski and Janz 2019). Several denominations have been proposed for universities where social innovations are considered a valuable activity, for instance, engaged university, at a local level (Benneworth 2013), and developmental university, at a more general level (Arocena et al. 2018). The role of universities in social innovation has been explored through teaching activities (McKelvey and Zaring Judith Sutz

372  Encyclopedia of social innovation

2017) and research activities (Arocena and Sutz 2021) (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION IN EDUCATION). Research is at the centre of a battle for the soul of universities; its directionality becomes tensioned between its economic usefulness, its excellence as a source of international prestige and recognition, and its usefulness for direct social purposes. The resolution of this tension cannot be the abandonment of any of these orientations but making room for legitimizing the newest and the weakest of the three: social commitment through knowledge production. What needs a university researcher to commit herself to knowledge production related to social innovation? Let’s adopt a characterization of social innovation in this context as a solution to a problem that affects those that do not have the power – in terms of knowledge, money, or other ways of influence – to make their needs and interests prevail. To foster the involvement of researchers with social innovation a university should provide: (i) assurance that devoting time to these types of problems will not harm their academic careers; (ii) knowledge about problems affecting vulnerable populations that fall within their range of expertise; (iii) resources to organize research projects dealing with such problems. The first requisite refers to research evaluation. The literature on the harms that current research evaluation criteria have upon science itself as well as upon its social usefulness is overwhelming. The two following quotations are telling: ‘Long-term involvement with society, which is both complex and uncertain, sits at odds with an academic career progression that values a constant stream of research outputs’ (Trencher et al. 2013, p. 20). Moreover ‘… the effort required to engage with civil society and to use societal challenges as the fundamental platforms for much of the work can actually distract from the raw pursuit of academic excellence’ (Brink and Hogan, 2016, pp. 252–3). Several efforts around the world are being made to counteract these trends; DORA (Declaration of Research Assessment, n.d.) is perhaps the most encompassing, with thousands of institutions adhering to its principles. It can be stated that efforts made to change the prevailing criteria for research evaluation constitute a necessary first step in making academic research a tool for social innovation. Judith Sutz

The second requisite leads to the following questions: What does a researcher, in general, know about problems that represent unmet needs? What do vulnerable people, poor and lacking formal education, know about how knowledge can help solve some of the pressing difficulties they face? We have here a typical situation needing mediation. People who are unable to express their needs in terms intelligible to researchers, and researchers possibly able to address those needs if they would be aware of them, need mediators to put them in contact. Universities may articulate a mediator function in several ways. They can build interdisciplinary bodies specialized in fostering multiple dialogues, particularly in unearthing problems that may be difficult to identify by those who suffer from them. They may use the third mission of outreach or extension to systematically interact with communities at the territorial level and serve as antennas to detect problems that can later enter, duly translated, into research agendas. They can encourage students to engage with efforts of this kind. The sensibility that arises from such undertakings leads to mobilizing questions. As an anecdote, after a talk on social innovation in the Faculty of Sciences at the University of the Republic, in Uruguay, a student asked in a regular course: ‘what can molecular biology do for social inclusion?’ Working together, the teacher and some students found a research question related to a pressing social problem of public health and developed a project to find the answers. The point is that for research agendas to systematically address issues that may lead to social innovations, it is necessary to have a stream of relevant questions associated with problems affecting people’s lives and well-being. Such questions are quite different from those that arise from the inner disciplinary logic; a conscious effort is needed to build them. The third requisite is proof of the willingness of universities to engage with social innovation because it implies committing resources to the task. Moreover, it is not enough to call for research projects that aim at solving social problems. To deserve the label social innovation, it is necessary to involve the expected innovation users in the definition of the problem; this involvement needs to be prescriptive. Fulfilling requisites like those just mentioned needs the transformation of research practices; this, in turn, needs to be enabled

Social innovation and its actors  373

by research policy. The following section presents some examples of innovations at the level of research policy that fulfils this enabling role.

Examples of how university research policy may foster social innovation Supporting new research agendas through project financing As already signalled, specific resources are needed to support research projects with aims and methodologies akin to social inclusion. This was done at the University of the Republic, through a Research and Innovation Oriented Towards Social Inclusion programme, which has been implemented for more than ten years. An overview of the programme has been written (Tomassini et al. 2019) and its challenges were analysed (Alzugaray et al. 2012). One difficulty with this type of project is that, as already mentioned, consulting their external stakeholders is relevant to assess to what extent they perceive the problem that research wants to solve as a problem for them and not for researchers disguising in social terms a classical R&D proposal. This requires specific schemes for evaluating proposals that take more time and effort than classical ones, for instance by interviewing stakeholders to make sure they recognize the problems as theirs; only then should the classical process of academic quality assessment start. Another difficulty is that, differently from academic research, publishing the results is not enough. Implementing to some extent the results is fundamental, but this often requires the will of actors outside the university. Sometimes such will is present at the beginning of the project, and then a change in the configurations of actors leads to neglecting the results, as often occurs when a change in the ideological orientation of the national government takes place. The many difficulties notwithstanding, good research results from programmes like this put knowledge a step nearer to solving problems suffered by those usually far away from academic efforts.

Changing some engrained routines in research policy formulations Routines are part of research policy; innovation, as Schumpeter teaches, is about changing routines. For instance, usually, only academics may present proposals to research councils. That leaves aside the possibility for non-academics to fully participate in research projects and get recognition for doing so. Allowing teams to include people outside academia in their projects facilitates social innovation. Another ingrained routine in universities, part of the evolution towards the university of calculus, is to admit formal external relations mainly with enterprises. Almost all universities have a university–industry relations office, giving for granted that ‘enterprises’ and ‘industry’ refer to for-profit businesses, partly because of expectations that they will contribute to financing the university in return for technology transfer. However, enterprises can be cooperative organizations, and industry may refer not only to entrepreneurs but to organized workers. Setting a research programme to deal with problems emerging from a wider characterization of production, including diverse formal and informal actors, would again foster social innovation. Research routines exist as well outside universities. Underdeveloped countries routinely buy knowledge abroad, lacking a tradition of innovative public procurement or linking public policies to endogenous research. At the most, some short-term local consultancy works are contracted. In this case, promoting social innovation would imply initiating a long-term joint effort by a university and a public enterprise to identify problems that need research and then work together to formulate projects. These changes in research policy routines to make more room for social innovation have been implemented at the Universidad de la República. The first one, by a simple change in the requisites for presenting proposals to the research council: instead of requiring that when there are two Principal Investigators both need to belong to the university, it was allowed that in such case one of them could be any person that provides some kind of important expertise for the project. The second one was implemented by allowing trade unions, cooperatives and social movements to act as partners in university Judith Sutz

374  Encyclopedia of social innovation

research projects, as long as business firms. The third one was particularly interesting and it involved working with public enterprises to understand the kind of problems they face that need research to be solved, then organize dialogues between the managers and employees that have detected such problems and university researchers able to dialogue around them and, finally, put in place a call for projects where fully fledged research proposals aiming to solve the problems were jointly elaborated and presented. These examples point all in the same direction: opening spaces for those outside academia, particularly weak knowledge actors or actors in the public sphere, to participate in the definition of the research effort (Arocena and Sutz 2021). That widens the scope of research, facilitates the incorporation of problems that academic researchers have no means to identify by themselves, and establishes – hopefully – a trusting relationship between actors that need each other even if sometimes they fail to recognize it. Coming to the present: lessons from the Covid-19 pandemic The Covid-19 pandemic put the division between the haves and the have-nots under a dramatic light: everything related to the pandemic, the serological tests, the ventilators for intensive care treatment, and even the modest swabs to take samples, became unavailable due to the hoarding of rich nations. In many Latin American countries – and elsewhere – a wave of knowledge-based social innovations took place as an answer to the organized demand for life-saving solutions, the public universities being at the first line. Why call a swab, a serological test, or a method for the disinfection of a hospital ward social innovations? Because they were made differently from those unavailable through the market due to the hoarding. They were done through the effort of the universities, were not for profit, were done under the sign of urgency and scarcity, and were oriented to save lives. Those that profited more from those innovations were, in the first place, the ones that would have been left behind if these solutions were not made available to them, the poorer and more vulnerable. Additionally, something new happened: people started feeling

Judith Sutz

science as ‘their’ problem-solver in a very direct way; researchers become popular and were listened to regularly in the media, and new entrants surpassed by hundreds the normal entrance rate at the university, stimulated by the hope to follow their steps. The response in terms of social innovations to the Covid-19 pandemic just described shows the road ahead: enhancing research capacities at the university and using them, as the students of Cordoba said, to make good.

Final remarks

New ideas to solve unmet needs can come from different sources; usually, good solutions combine different types of insights; the participation of those who suffer from unmet needs in the definition of problems and the design of solutions is key to orienting efforts in the right directions. Advanced knowledge produced at universities may be a source of particularly useful insights for solving thorny problems affecting vulnerable people, excluded from solutions that others have at hand. Fulfilling this opportunity to make good requires that universities legitimate social innovation as a university goal. This may be established at the discourse level, but the subtle – and not so subtle – barriers that such a goal encounters amidst the current worldwide university trends call for institutional and research policy changes. Which changes are those? This entry suggests some of them. If pressured to name one, perhaps what comes first is the change in the incentives that mold academic decisions. Which actors will commit themselves to fostering this and the other required changes? Answering this question needs to better understand the power structure in universities, the interests that guide the actions of the different actors at play, and the kind of symbolic rewards society gives to academic efforts and achievements. This direction of research is being pursued; its results will surely provide a better understanding of how to get the university more actively involved in social innovation. Judith Sutz

Note 1.

Quotation translated by the author.

Social innovation and its actors  375

References

2022 at https://​www​.unc​.edu​.ar/​sobre​-la​-unc/​ manifiesto​-liminar. Entries marked in bold are further reading Martin, B. and R. Whitley (2010), ‘The UK material. research assessment exercise: a case of regulatory capture?’, in R. Whitley, J. Gläser and Alzugaray, S., L. Mederos and J. Sutz (2012), L. Engwall (eds), Reconfiguring Knowledge ‘Building bridges: social inclusion problems Production: Changing Authority Relationships as research and innovation issues’, Review of in the Sciences and their Consequences for Policy Research, 29 (6), pp. 776–96. Intellectual Innovation, New York: Oxford Arocena, R., B. Goransson and J. Sutz (2018), University Press, pp. 51–79. Developmental Universities in Inclusive McKelvey, M. and O. Zaring (2017), ‘Co-delivery Innovation Systems: Alternatives for Knowledge of social innovations: exploring the university’s Democratization in the Global South, London: role in academic engagement with society’, Palgrave Macmillan. Industry and Innovation, 25 (4), pp. 1–18. Arocena, R. and J. Sutz (2021), ‘Universities Mulgan, G., S. Tucker, R. Ali and B. Sanders and social innovation for global sustaina(2007), ‘Social innovation: what it is, why it ble development as seen from the south’, matters and how it can be accelerated’, Working Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Paper, Oxford Said Business School, Skoll 162, 120399. Center for Social Entrepreneurship, accessed Benneworth, P. (2013), ‘University engagement 17 June 2022 at https://​i3w7d2w8​.stackpathcdn​ with socially excluded communities: towards .com/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2012/​10/​Social​ the idea of “the engaged university”’, in P. -Innovation​-what​-it​-is​-why​-it​-matters​-how​-it​ Benneworth (ed.), University Engagement with -can​-be​-accelerated​-March​-2007​.pdf​?x93244. Socially Excluded Communities, Dordrecht: Müller, S. (1996), ‘The advent of the university Springer, pp. 3–31. of calculation’, in J. Müller (ed.), Universities Benneworth, P. and J. Cunha (2015), in the Twenty-First Century, Oxford: Berghahn ‘Universities’ contributions to social Books, pp. 15–23. innovation: reflections in theory & prac- Nelson, R. (1977), The Moon and the Ghetto: An tice’, European Journal of Innovation Essay on Policy Analysis. New York: W.W. Management, 18 (4), pp. 508–27, https://​doi​ Norton. .org/​10​.1108/​EJIM​-10​- 2013–0099. Newfield, C. (2008), Unmaking the Public Brink C. and J. Hogan (2016), ‘Newcastle University: The Forty-Year Assault on the University and the development of the concept Middle Class, Cambridge, MA: Harvard of a world-class civic university’, in J. Goddard, University Press. H. Hazelkorn, L. Kempton and P. Vallance Sen, A. (2000), ‘Social exclusion: concept, appli(eds), The Civic University: The Policy and cation, and scrutiny’, Social Development Leadership Challenges, London: Edward Elgar Papers No. 1, Asian Development Bank. Publishing, pp. 240–56. Slaughter, S. and G. Rhoades (2004), Academic DORA Declaration on Research Assessment (n. Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, d.), accessed 17 June 2022 at https://​sfdora​.org/​. State, and Higher Education, Baltimore, MD: Hess, D. (2007), Alternative Pathways in Science The Johns Hopkins University Press. and Industry: Activism, Innovation, and the Srinivas, S. and J. Sutz (2008), ‘Developing counEnvironment in an Era of Globalization, tries and innovation: searching for a new anaCambridge, MA: The MIT Press. lytical approach’, Technology in Society, 30 (2), Majewski, M., D. Domanski and J. Howaldt pp. 129–40. (2018), ‘Social innovation as a chance and Tilly, C. (2005), Identities, Boundaries, and Social a challenge for higher education institutions: Ties, Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. why higher education institutions are impor- Tomassini, C., C. Zeballos, M. Goñi Mazzitelli, tant for social innovation and how they can M. Rodales and J. Sutz (2019), ‘Ten years of promote social innovation initiatives and research and innovation for social inclusion projects’, in J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka, A. in the Uruguayan Public University: policy Schröder and M. Zirngiebl (eds), Atlas of lessons learned’, in J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka, A. Social Innovation, Munich: Oekom, pp. 51–4. Schröder and M. Zirngiebl (eds), Atlas of Social Majewski, M., D. Domanski and S. Janz (2019), Innovation, Vol. 2: A World of New Practices, ‘Bridging the gap between academia and Munich: Oekom, pp. 160–63. practice: social innovation through knowl- Trencher G., M. Yarime, K. McCormick et al. edge exchange’, in J. Howaldt, C. Kaletka, A. (2013), ‘Beyond the third mission: exploring Schröder and M. Zirngiebl (eds), Atlas of Social the emerging university function of co-creation Innovation, Vol. 2, Munich: Oekom, pp. 146–9. for sustainability’, Science and Public Policy, Manifiesto Liminar de la Federación Universitaria 41 (2), pp. 1–29. de Córdoba ([1918] 2018), accessed 17 June

Judith Sutz

66. Social innovation and social sciences Introduction

The relationship between social innovation and social sciences is rather ambiguous than straightforward. On the one hand, one could think that social innovation is for social sciences the natural equivalent of what technical-economic innovation is for natural, technical and engineering sciences, namely a powerful impact dimension that manifests itself through the use of scientific knowledge in the practical economic sphere; or in the case of social innovation in the social or societal sphere. On the other hand, social innovation seems to appear only as a rather marginal note in the broad social science canon. Empirical studies confirmed that social innovation processes and the underlying resources, capabilities and constraints are related to different actors of the social innovation ecosystem, but that academia is only marginally involved (Howaldt 2019; Schuch 2019). Both statements are true and yet fall short of understanding the complex relationship between social innovation and social science. To shed light on this complex relationship, we first make a short excursion into the history of ideas of social innovation and look then at how social innovation is institutionally anchored in the social sciences today.

Social innovation in the social sciences

In order to understand the meaning of social innovation in the social sciences and its different interpretations over time, it is important to take a brief look at the development of social innovation in the history of ideas. As a term in its own right, social innovation came into focus in the later nineteenth century. Godin and Schubert (2021) vividly describe how the term had a subversive connotation because it was associated with a turning away from a status quo that was entrenched by tradition, rule or religion. This negative connotation of social innovation was increasingly replaced by a progressive social reform connotation. Social innovation became associated with social progress (i.e. with an inherently politically charged term). It is thanks to Gabriel

Tarde that the term social innovation found its way into the emerging social sciences around the turn of the twentieth century (Howaldt et al. 2015). Tarde used it to explain social change, which in turn is kicked off by competing innovations that struggle for dominance and consolidation. While Tarde centres on the competition of better ideas, as well as drivers and barriers for their diffusion, Lester Ward’s1 evolutionist approach is about a ‘surplus energy’ that drives social change. It was Albert Wolfe, who focused on pressing social problems as starting point for social innovation to initiate social progress. The link between social innovation and technological change as a source for pressing social problems was further elaborated by Ogburn in his notion of an ‘adaptive culture’ that reacts to the ‘material culture’ (Godin 2010) and after the Second World War by Wilbert Moore and others. For Moore, technological progress is firstly a central starting point for social adaptation and secondly a mindset according to which social innovations are modelled. Social innovation as an interventionist response to social problems was further developed by Peter Drucker into a broader instrumental understanding in which social innovation is not only reactive or curative to problems, but also has the potential for something fundamentally new. For Drucker the most important innovations of the twentieth century were social or organizational in nature (Godin and Schubert 2021). He combines this emancipatory approach with the entrepreneurial idea of innovation through management and organization. Social entrepreneurship, although mainly conceptualized as of the last millennium switch, is still today shaping the public discourse on social innovation. In the 1960s, social innovation was predominantly framed as a problem/solution package that manifested itself in an engagement of academia with civil society in interventionist, highly practice-oriented projects. Social innovation took on an instrumental-entrepreneurial socio-technical character. Although the term social innovation moved into book and paper titles in the late 1960s (Godin and Schubert 2021), its popularity came soon to an end. Edwards-Schachter and Wallace (2017) speak about a ‘neglected period’ for social innovation from 1975 to 1995, in which the focus on technological innovation became dominant both in aca-

376

Social innovation and social sciences  377

demic and policy circles making social innovation a peripheral issue. Despite this shift, social innovation in relation to socio-technical innovation did not entirely disappear. As mentioned by Godin and Schubert (2021), scholars of technological innovation frequently acknowledged the relevance of social innovation, however mostly en passant (e.g. Kuznets 1972), partly referring back to the seminal work of Schumpeter, who understood ‘creative destruction’ not limited to the economic sphere but affecting the whole of society. As a rationale for the loss of importance of social innovation as a theoretical concept, the competition between ideas, which has led to the dominance of technological innovation as a driver of social change at the expense of social innovation, seems too short-sighted. It may be assumed that, at least in the German-speaking world, the so-called positivism controversy in the early 1960s and the strong turn of the social sciences towards explanatory social sciences supported by quantitative methods in the 1970s and 1980s were hardly beneficial for an actor-centred and action research-oriented occupation with social innovation. Another aspect has also become formative for the current constitution of social innovation, namely the normative orientation with regard to social innovation. In the German-speaking world, Wolfgang Zapf (1989) is particularly noteworthy in this regard. He understood social innovations as new ways of behaviour that solve problems better than previous practices and are therefore worth imitating and institutionalizing. In this way, they provide orientation for social change with the purpose of social progress. Especially in the English-speaking world, mission-driven approaches appeared to emancipating social innovation as an innovation approach of its own from an all-embracing socio-technical understanding of innovation. Social innovation, not least due to a series of societal crises during the last 20 years in the Western or global hemisphere has been strongly normatively charged and framed by policymakers as an instrumental solution pathway. In this regard, a separate class of actors for socially innovative measures has been modelled, gathering around the terms social business and social entrepreneurship.

Accordingly, policymakers have also set up funding pots, which now and then also promote the commodification of social services in a neo-liberal basic understanding. Practice centres for social innovation were also founded in several countries (→ COLLABORATIVE SPACES FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION). This actionist-interventionist approach, with a more or less explicit agenda of reorganizing the economy, politics and civil society (Howald et al. 2015; Mair 2010) may also have led to the fact that, according to Godin and Schubert (2021), social innovation is now understood by most researchers as performative, programmatic and normative. For the generation of social impact by changing practices, many authors assume that transdisciplinary research, defined as a research process that includes non-academic knowledge embedded in non-academic actors in consultative, contributory, cooperative or co-creating way(s) (Shirk et al. 2012), is not only helpful (Spaapen and van Drooge 2011; Kalliomäki et al. 2021), but even indispensable (Howaldt 2019; Murray et al. 2010; BEPA 2010). Moulaert et al. (2013) characterize a specific type of social innovation research that seeks to find the right balance between ‘research on action’, ‘action in research’ and ‘research through and by action’. Against this background, approaches such as design thinking (Schaper-Rinkel and Wagner-Luptacik 2014), co-creation (Kaisler and Missbach 2020) or citizen science (Schäfer and Kieslinger 2016; Kullenberg and Kasperowski 2016), just to name a few, are employed. In line with this is the revival of action research (Gustavsen 2012), which aims at an engaged sociology as a coach, partner or supporter (Howaldt and Schwarz 2021) for the (self‑)empowerment of practitioners (e.g. social entrepreneurs or NGOs). It broadly applies participatory as well as inclusive methods and sometimes distances itself from neoliberal strategies through a joint problematization approach. Transdisciplinary research is not easy, and often fails to reach higher levels of engagement, due to difficulties in including stakeholders, communication problems, regulatory issues, different understandings of a research problem and mentalities and identities between the target groups and the researchers, different cultures and procedures Klaus Schuch

378  Encyclopedia of social innovation

in relation to decision-making, different considerations of how to use the results, difficulties in dealing with and communicating critical issues, and different interests, priorities and perspectives of researchers and practice partners, including occasional resistance by practice partners (Schuch et al. 2022).

Academic institutionalization of social innovation

The impression that social innovation is only a marginal note in the powerful and broad canon of social sciences might be reinforced by the limited institutional anchoring of social innovation in university structures. There might be just a few chairs for social innovation, and just a few institutes or departments explicitly dealing with social innovation at universities. Moreover, most of them rather put social innovation in the normative context of social entrepreneurship or social public policy, but rarely is social innovation a topic in its own terms, that explores and guides from a strong theory-practice understanding different perspectives and engages different disciplines. Against this backdrop, it is also hardly surprising that the first institutes that explicitly dealt with social innovation as a core issue, were either founded outside university structures, such as the Centre for Social Innovation in Vienna, or on the margins of university structures, often deliberately in the direction of third mission and social outreach. A prominent example is the Center of Social Innovation at the Graduate School of Stanford Business. Another often-used indicator to assess the degree of institutionalization of a branch of science is the extent and quality of available thematic publication media, especially scientific journals. This indicator for academic institutionalization, however, has to be viewed critically in the case of social innovation, because social innovation has many points of contact, can be studied from different angles and is, so to speak, inherently multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary. Thus, the classic approach of ‘one (or) several journals for one discipline’ is only valid to a limited extent from the outset. Many of the fundamental publications on social innovation, especially in the first ‘boom’ years of the recent upswing of social innovation research (1995–2010) can be attributed to the ‘grey literature’. They sometimes have Klaus Schuch

the character of agenda-setting, sometimes also of guidance, mostly not very theoretical, but practically oriented. From around 2010 onwards, academic publications have increasingly been added, often in the form of academic anthologies or book volumes. The funding of a few hundreds of projects dealing with social innovations under the European Commission's framework programmes for research and innovation (in particular FP7 and H2020), has also contributed to this academic twist, although many of those projects were quite practice-oriented. Ground-breaking projects of a more conceptual nature include SI-DRIVE, TRANSIT and TEPSIE, to name but a few (Moulaert et al. 2017). In some countries, such as Germany, national funding bodies have then taken the topic further, but that was rather the exception to the rule. Social innovation as a research topic to which explicit national or regional calls for proposals are dedicated remains rare. If so, social innovation in research funding is a tolerated cross-cutting topic without corresponding particular appreciation. In the 2010s the first journals emerged with an explicit focus on social innovation. These are usually of mixed quality and have rather practice-oriented approaches like the Social Innovations Journal originating from a private initiative with a strong focus on social innovators and entrepreneurs, the International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation published by Inderscience since 2011, and The European Public & Social Innovation Review edited by Sinnergiak Social Innovation (University of the Basque Country), with a first issue published in 2015. Only the Stanford Social Innovation Review published by the Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society at Stanford University, addressing change-makers from different institutional background, has been established for some time. The first issue was published in 2003. As mentioned above, some researchers publish in journals from other focus areas due to the multidisciplinary nature of social innovation. Those who deal with innovation policy in general and anchor social innovation in more socio-technical discourses, for example, publish in established journals such as Research Policy or in new journals such as Novation – Critical Studies of Innovation. Others who focus more on the aspects of social change or social policy

Social innovation and social sciences  379

publish in correspondingly different journals such as Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research and Social Policy and Society, to name just a few examples. A dominant publication medium that deals specifically with either the theory or the practice of social innovation (or both) does not exist. While, on the one hand, this is logical due to the multi- and transdisciplinary character of social innovation, it also makes, on the other hand, the formation of an academic social innovation school of thought more difficult. In order to fill this missing centre at least partially through a coordinating multiplier function, the European School of Social Innovation was founded in 2014. Universities are also confronted with difficulties in giving social innovation a place in their third mission that is equal to the importance of economic-technical innovations and the associated impacts of knowledge and technology transfer. Schuch (2019) cites both supply-side and demand-side deficits as the reason for the comparatively low importance of social innovation in the third mission of universities, but their elimination is increasingly being recognized and addressed by individual universities (Roessler and Brinkmann 2020). At the same time, the discourse on the establishment of a transformative science paradigm (→ TRANSFORMATIVE RESEARCH), for example to achieve the goals of the Agenda 2030, contains positive impulses for an at least partial reorientation of academic knowledge production and third mission understanding of universities towards greater consideration of non-technological outreach and impact creation in society (Ramirez et al. 2019; Sachs et al. 2019; Schot et al. 2018). Only time will tell how far social innovations really become transformative in the sense of more or less directed social change, without being reduced to socio-technical approaches or even used only for ‘prettification’ when technical measures fail (see Mazzucato’s reference to citizens picking up plastic from littered beaches; Mazzucato 2018, p. 20), but are understood in an enlightening and emancipatory sense. Most likely, all directions will coexist.

Concluding theses and outlook

Due to the given brevity of this entry and the complexity of the interplay between social innovation and the social sciences, which

are moreover in a state of flux, it is impossible to draw summative conclusions. Rather, a handful of concluding theses are formulated for further reflection. First, the still dominant instrumental focus of social innovation with its strong impact orientation is not necessarily attractive, but can also be off-putting for social scientists (Schuch and Šalamon 2021). Quick fixes, inadequate problem analyses, actionist rather than reflexive approaches, a dominance of practice with a simultaneous academic secondary role, as they occur in a truncated understanding of social entrepreneurship/social innovation constellations, offer only insufficient incentives for social science engagement. In addition, these constellations are often empirically only isolated case studies, not very suitable for higher-quality publications, which is still the currency of science. More important in this context, however, seems to be, that despite the fact that social science scholarship is often committed to do research for the good of society, the interest of researchers is often not oriented towards producing usable results, but rather to raise awareness and influence society to create capabilities of self-understanding in different contexts (Reale et al. 2017; Benneworth 2015; Nussbaum 2010). Secondly, it can be assumed that different understandings of scientific research or scientificity, which exist in several facets in the social sciences and led to trench warfare between representatives of different schools in the 1960s and 1970s, have contributed to a distanced sceptical attitude of some social scientists towards the phenomenon of social innovation. It will not be possible to determine this precisely, and the positivism controversy (Dahms 1994) mentioned above may also seem far-fetched, but social science canonization and the formation of schools has always been contested terrain. An example of this is the ever renegotiated interface between sociology, economics and technology, which is so central to one strand of social innovation research that focuses on technological progress as a driver of social change. Thirdly, the degree of institutionalization of social innovation at universities shows that it is perhaps an emerging, but by no means a broadly institutionally anchored thematic field in the social science canon and its structures. The study of social entrepreneurship, Klaus Schuch

380  Encyclopedia of social innovation

on the other hand, at least in education, has made its way into business schools and business universities. Fourthly, the relation between social science and social innovation almost certainly also has something to do with the terminology and delimitation and the associated definitional difficulties and operationalization problems of social innovation. There is no universally accepted definition of social innovation, although existing ones do provide sufficient epistemological guidance (Schuch and Šalamon 2021). Perhaps more problematic than any diversity of definitions is the simplistic, sometimes politically charged, use of social innovation as a buzzword. In addition, difficulties in analytically reducing the complexity and diversity of social innovation make empirical verification and measurability difficult. Fifth, and this can be regarded as an outlook, the new transformation approach in science could offer a bridge between the normative-entrepreneurial approach, the socio-technical systems approach and a reflective emancipatory approach to both explain, direct and shape social change. In this approach, social innovation is understood not merely as curative to mitigate problems, but transformative. In a society increasingly shaped by technology, both socio-technical system approaches as well as actor-related, behaviourist and structuralist perspectives with a focus on the change of social practices through social reflection and learning processes and towards possibly desired but certainly contested social utopias will probably be of central importance. Social innovation should not be understood as an incremental socio-technical solution approach (a ‘quick fix’ for which there may be funding), but as fundamentally anchored in our society and its social change, influenced by different structural conditions and development possibilities. Correspondingly, Howaldt and Schwarz (2021) emphasize that social innovation is inherent in the basic structure of the ‘social’, and in this respect, ‘social innovations are not only a social phenomenon but also a sociological project’ (p. 50), albeit probably less anchored in Mode-1 than Mode-2 structures. Unfortunately, research policy and research funding do not yet operationalize this. Nor has it yet arrived as such at the core of the social sciences, but change as often claimed – even in intellectual or scientific paradigmatic Klaus Schuch

terms – usually emerges at the margins and not at the centre. Klaus Schuch

Note 1.

For literature references from the researchers mentioned in this section on the history of ideas in social innovation, see Godin and Schubert (2021).

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Benneworth, P. (2015), ‘Tracing how arts and humanities research translates, circulates and consolidates in society: how have scholars been reacting to diverse impact and public value agendas?’, Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 14 (1), pp. 45–60. BEPA [Bureau of European Policy Advisers] (ed.) (2010), Empowering People, Driving Change: Social Innovation in the European Union, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Dahms, H.-J. (1994), Positivismusstreit: Die Auseinandersetzung der Frankfurter Schule mit dem logischen Positivismus, dem amerikanischen Pragmatismus und dem kritischen Rationalismus, Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft. Edwards-Schachter, M. and M. L. Wallace (2017), ‘“Shaken, but not stirred”: sixty years of defining social innovation’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119, pp. 64–79. Godin, B. (2010), ‘Innovation without the word: William F. Ogburn’s contribution to the study of technological innovation’, Minerva, 48 (3), pp. 277–307. Godin, B. and C. Schubert (2021), ‘Research on the history of innovation: from the spiritual to the social’, in J. Howaldt et al. (eds), A Research Agenda for Social Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 21–38. Gustavsen, B. (2012), ‘Social innovation and action research’, in H.-W. Franz et al. (eds), Challenge Social Innovation: Potentials for Business, Social Entrepreneurship, Welfare and Civil Society, Berlin, New York: Springer, pp. 353–66. Howaldt, J. (2019), ‘New pathways to social change – creating impact through social innovation research’, fteval Journal for Research and Technology Policy Evaluation, 48/July, pp. 37–48. Howaldt, J., R. Kopp and M. Schwarz (2015), On the Theory of Social Innovations: Tarde’s Neglected Contribution to the Development of

Social innovation and social sciences  381 a Sociological Innovation Theory, Weinheim: Beltz Juventa. Howaldt, J. and M. Schwarz (2021), ‘Social innovation and social change’, in J. Howaldt et al. (eds), A Research Agenda for Social Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 39–57. Kaisler, R. E. and B. Missbach (2020), ‘Co-creating a patient and public involvement and engagement: how to guide “for researchers”’, Research Involvement and Engagement, 6 (32), https://​ doi​.org/​10​.1186/​s40900–020–00208–3. Kalliomäki, H., S. Ruoppila and J. Airaksinen (2021), ‘It takes two to tango: examining productive interactions in urban research collaboration’, Research Evaluation, 30 (4), pp. 529–39, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1093/​reseval/​rvab028. Kullenberg, C. and D. Kasperowski (2016), ‘What is citizen science? A scientometric meta-analysis’, PLoS ONE, 11 (1), https://​doi​ .org/​10​.1371/​journal​.pone​.0147152. Kuznets, S. (1972), ‘Innovations and adjustments in economic growth’, The Swedish Journal of Economics, 74 (4), pp. 431–51. Mair, J. (2010), ‘Social entrepreneurship: taking stock and looking ahead’, in A. Fayolle and H. Matlay (eds), Handbook of Research on Social Entrepreneurship, Northampton, MA and Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 15–28. Mazzucato, M. (2018), Mission-Oriented Research & Innovation in the European Union: A Problem-Solving Approach to Fuel Innovation-Led Growth, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Moulaert, F., D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood and A. Hamdouch (2013), ‘General introduction: the return of social innovation as a scientific concept and a social practice’, in F. Moulaert et al. (eds), The International Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 13–24. Moulaert, F., A. Mehmood and B. Leuboit (2017), Social Innovation as a Trigger for Transformations: The Role of Research, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, https://​doi​.org/​10​.2777/​ 68949. Murray, R., J. Caulier-Grice and G. Mulgan (2010), The Open Book of Social Innovation, NESTA and the Young Foundation. Nussbaum, M. (2010), Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ramirez, M., O. Romero, J. Schot and F. Arroyave (2019), Mobilizing the Transformative Power of the Research System for Achieving

the Sustainable Development Goals, SPRU Working Paper Series. Reale, E. et al. (2017), ‘A review of literature on evaluating the scientific, social and political impact of social sciences and humanities research’, Research Evaluation, 27 (4), pp.  298–308, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1093/​reseval/​ rvx025. Roessler, I. and B. Brinkmann (2020), ‘Soziale Innovationen – Die Hochschulen als unterschätzte Treiberʼ, DUZ Spotlight, DUZ Magazin für Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft, 11, pp. 37–52. Sachs, J. D., G. Schmidt-Traub, M. Mazzucato, D. Messner, N. Nakicenovic and J. Rockström (2019), ‘Six transformations to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals’, Nature Sustainability, 2, pp.  805–14, https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1038/​s41893–019–0352–9. Schäfer, T. and B. Kieslinger (2016), ‘Supporting emerging forms of citizen science: a plea for diversity, creativity and social innovation’, Journal of Science Communication, 15 (2), pp. 1–12. Schaper-Rinkel, P. and P. Wagner-Luptacik (2014), ‘Design thinking’, in J. Howaldt et al. (eds), Theoretical Approaches to Social Innovation: A Critical Literature Review, TU Dortmund, Sozialforschungsstelle, pp. 97–103. Schot, J., A. Boni, M. Ramirez and F. Steward (2018), Addressing SDGs through Transformative Innovation Policy, accessed 9 September 2022 at https://​www​.tipconsortium​ .net. Schuch, K. (2019), ‘The contribution of social sciences and humanities to social innovation’, in J. Howaldt et al. (eds), Atlas of Social Innovation, Vol. 2: A World of New Practices, Munich: Oekom Verlag, pp. 95–8. Schuch, K., D. Lampert, T. Neuhuber, K. Koller, U. Demir and L.-A. Plumhans (2022), Social Innovation as Valuation and Outcome Category of SNSF-funded Research, Bern: SNSF. Schuch, K. and Šalamon, N. (2021), ‘Social innovation and social sciences: reflections on a difficult relationship’, in J. Howaldt et al. (eds), A Research Agenda for Social Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 245–62. Shirk, J. L. et al. (2012), ‘Public participation in scientific research: a framework for deliberate design’, Ecology and Society, 17 (2), https://​ www​.jstor​.org/​stable/​26269051. Spaapen, J. and L. Van Drooge (2011), ‘Introducing “productive interactions” in social impact assessment’, Research Evaluation, 20 (3), pp. 211–18. Zapf, W. (1989), ‘Über soziale Innovationenʼ, Soziale Welt, 40, pp. 170–83.

Klaus Schuch

67. Transformative research Defining transformative research

The term transformative research began to become prominent in the United States at the beginning of the twenty-first century, when research funding organizations complained that the peer review system for research proposals was prioritizing research that fit well with already developed concepts and theories and thus tended to support more conservative approaches rather than ground-breaking innovative research (NSF 2012, p. 10). The National Science Foundation (NSF) therefore fostered a discussion on how to overcome this conservative tendency in its evaluation procedures and instead identify and fund high-risk research proposals with the potential for overall impact on a given scientific field. It defined transformative research as ‘research driven by ideas that have the potential to radically change our understanding of an important existing scientific or engineering concept or leading to the creation of a new paradigm or field of science or engineering’ (National Science Board 2007, p. 10). The main impetus of this discussion was directed at innovations within the scientific field itself. More radical innovations should lead to ongoing economic success and contribute to advantages in global competition. Although transformative research could also have an impact on cultural values and societal developments (Trevors et al. 2012, p. 119), the dominant understanding of transformative research here mainly focused on internal scientific innovations. In contrast to this understanding of the NSF, there have been conceptualizations of transformative research in the context of sustainability that explicitly strive to contribute to ongoing societal transformation processes for more ecological and social justice (→ SUSTAINABLE INNOVATION). These understandings of transformative research are rooted in sustainability studies and their increasing focus on solution-oriented research approaches (Wiek and Lang 2016).1 The Germany Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU 2011) differentiated between two types of research that are necessary for the transition towards carbon-neutral societies: transformation research and transform-

ative research. Transformation research was described as addressing ‘the future challenge of transformation realization. This discipline explores transitory processes in order to come to conclusions on the factors and causal relations of transformation processes’ (ibid., p. 22). While this type of research mainly focuses on descriptive or analytical research on transformation processes, transformative research is conceptualized as research for transformation processes: it ‘actively advances the transformation. Transformative research supports transformation processes with specific innovations in the relevant sectors’ (ibid.) and thereby serves as a catalyst for societal transformation processes. Based on this description, transformative research is rooted in transdisciplinary approaches and thus focuses on capturing and integrating different forms of knowledge – e.g., system knowledge, target knowledge and transformation knowledge. It proposes the integration of non-scientific perspectives throughout the entire research process – from defining the research problem to disseminating results. Additionally, it strengthens an experimental mode together with non-scientific stakeholders with the aim of fostering and accelerating change processes and learning from them (Schneidewind et al. 2016a; Fazey et al. 2018; Hölscher et al. 2021). For this reason, appropriate research designs for this type of research are seen in experimental environments such as real-world laboratories (Schäpke et al. 2018). In line with this strand of discussion, transformative research for sustainability aims not only to change the insights, schools of thought or paradigms within the scientific field, like in the discussions initiated by the NSF, but to link research and practice and thereby contribute to societal change processes through diverse interventions. As the research objects of transformative researchers include societal changes, social innovation research has been at the forefront of transformative research (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION AND THE REMAKING OF STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS AND REGIMES). Social innovation is conceptualized ‘in terms of changing social relations, and transformative change as the process of challenging, altering, or replacing dominant institutions in a specific socio-material context’ (Pel et al. 2020, p. 2). Within social innovations, like urban gardens, maker

382

Transformative research  383

spaces or eco-villages, changed relationships emerge in which new ways of acting, organizing, framing and knowing are practised (Haxeltine et al. 2016). Transformative researchers strive to influence relations with their knowledge-based interventions, for example through concrete methods for communication, meaning-making by the actors they are working with and learning within experiments (Singer-Brodowski et al. 2018) and thereby fostering relations. Thus, transformative research is predestined to stimulate, reflect and support social innovations.

Key findings

As the research approach of sustainability-oriented transformative research is comparatively new, there is a desideratum when it comes to overarching and systematized empirical insights about the procedures and impact of this type of research. For this reason, in this section, some key characteristics2 are suggested to describe transformative research for sustainability and to connect transformative research approaches to social innovations. Transformative research – like its related research modes of e.g. intervention research (Krainer and Lerchster 2012) or action research (Fazey et al. 2018) – aims at the change of physical and social structures (Schäpke et al. 2017, pp. 11ff., based on Luederitz et al. 2017). Thus, it explicitly follows a normative aim not only to describe or analyse complex sustainability transformation processes but to actively catalyse and accelerate them, which is the first characteristic of transformative research. With their focus on real-world interventions through researchers and their evaluation, the aim of transformative research is not only to produce knowledge about the effectiveness of certain measures or to gain a deeper understanding of certain phenomena but to contribute more broadly to environmental and social justice (Mertens 2009). One of the key arguments for applying transformative research procedures is the experimental mode they propose, which serves as a second characteristic. The transformation processes towards sustainability are deeply connected to changing ways of consuming, producing and politically negotiating societal developments, where no blueprints exist. This uncertain knowledge

base combined with the necessary speed of evidence-informed sustainability solutions in general lead to a strong plea for experiments, where knowledge and practices can be systematically entangled and at the same time unfold their impact. Nevertheless, the kind of real-world experiments (Groß et al. 2003) in transformative research can be neither fully controlled nor easily transferred to other contexts (also Bergmann et al. 2021, p. 545). Hence, the discussion on comparing and generalizing scientific insights of transformative research is an important task for the future. What many approaches of transformative research do have in common and what also can be seen as a requirement for transformative research within social innovation contexts is that they leave the classical realm of ‘objective’ observation of social phenomena from a standpoint that is distanced from the research object and for this reason cannot be neutral (Fassin 2012, p. 5). On the contrary, they aim to support change processes towards a more desired future (although the concrete shape of this future may also be a negotiated artefact) and have to acknowledge a specific positionality (the third characteristic). They therefore recognize that the researcher, evaluator or monitor is very much involved in the context that is to be changed through scientific activities. This illustrates the necessity to balance critical analysis of and engaged support for the respective context. The acknowledgement of and dealing with a certain form of positionality leads to a fourth characteristic of transformative research approaches: reflexivity. Although projects with conventional evaluation approaches integrate measures that address uncertainty and the potential disagreement of certain actors within the evaluated context, they do not necessarily address the complexity and systemic stability of systems (inertia of problems) that are deeply historically rooted and involve path dependencies (Arkesteijn et al. 2015, p. 101). For this reason, pleas for reflexive evaluation approaches are made that are based on the fact that policymakers or other influential actors have a special interest in research and evaluation designs and their results, even though this is usually not made visible. Reflexive research approaches that integrate these insights about inertia and the researchers’ own embeddedness in respective evaluation constellations have the potential Mandy Singer-Brodowski

384  Encyclopedia of social innovation

to challenge ‘power configurations as a stabilizing mechanism’ (ibid., p. 106) and therefore better address systemic stability. The strong focus on reflexivity is also represented in research approaches for organizational development (Krainer and Lerchster 2012). Research interventions in this context do not only have to be built on the reflexivity of the involved researchers, but scientific results into respective organizational dynamics or tendencies can also enlighten the perspectives of practical partners collaborating in such research projects and thereby strengthen the reflexivity of non-scientific partners. This leads to the last characteristic of transformative research that shall be discussed here. The interventions that are proposed, supported and catalysed by transformative researchers quite often focus on fostering communication, changing meaning-making or building new collaborative practices and cultures through learning (in the broadest sense) within complex societal transformation processes.3 For example, a transformative research approach has been argued for in a study on developing green skills in South Africa (Rosenberg et al. 2016) and one on the transformation of regional or local cultures in favour of sustainability within real-world labs (Parodi et al. 2018). Many of the contexts in which transformative research procedures are used are linked to social movements, pedagogical efforts, organizational development or local sustainability practices, where learning is a key mode for change. Learning, with its ‘cross-cutting character’ (Bergmann et al. 2021, p. 546), inspires creativity to tackle problems, fosters the entanglement of perspectives from different sectors and enables the advancement of new ways of relating and being. Especially from a pragmatist theoretical perspective, learning in the context of sustainability transitions can ‘be conceptualised as a process in which persons and the world transform simultaneously and reciprocally through interaction and experimentation with sustainability challenges’ (van Poeck et al. 2018). This also holds true for transformative research approaches (Singer-Brodowski et al. 2018) and represents a strong link to social innovations with their aim of new ways of acting, organizing, framing and knowing described at the beginning of this section.

Mandy Singer-Brodowski

Critical reflection and outlook

Transformative research has not only been applied by individual researchers but also been developed towards an organizational agenda for non-university research institutes in Germany, such as the Wuppertal and the former Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies (IASS) now Research Institute for Sustainability (RIFS) in Potsdam. Against the background of these institutionalization processes, Meisch (2020) outlines epistemological and political challenges that occurred in the recent debate and that shall be used here for a critical reflection about the limitations of transformative research for social innovations: 1. Solution orientation: The first challenge for transformative research is its strong orientation towards ‘solving’ respective problems, which can lead to ‘risks restricting scientific interest to issues that can be described in terms of problems/solutions and to the production of knowledge that is of immediate practical use (solutionism)’ (Meisch 2020, p. 10). This strand of critique has put forward the distinction between basic research and applied research, strongly arguing in favour of curiosity-driven basic research (Strohschneider 2014). Nevertheless, transformative research should not replace basic research (Schneidewind et al. 2016b, p. 15) and there are various ways to reduce the risks of solutionism. Researchers could strengthen their critical and self-reflective perspectives on stakeholder expectations of ‘problem-solving’, align the transformative procedures with problematizing the social constitution of many problems, and try to respond to them instead of solving them (Wehling 2022). 2. Wicked sustainability problems: The second risk of transformative research is that some of the most urgent sustainability challenges are so complex, controversial and multifaceted that they cannot be tackled easily by researchers within concrete research projects (Meisch 2020, p. 10). Especially when researchers try to translate such wicked problems (Rittel and Webber 1973) into concrete study designs, there is a risk that the ‘focus on solutions can blind actors to the

Transformative research  385

fact that there are categories of problems that cannot be solved [or] […] encapsulated within a simple problem/solution scheme’ (Meisch 2020, p. 10). In the worst case, transformative research projects produce findings that are ‘deficient’ or even ‘harmful’ (ibid.). For this reason, it is pivotal for transformative researchers when designing their studies not only to critically evaluate the scale of their scientific contribution, but also to negotiate potential side-effects for cooperation partners and broader developments. This again requires a high degree of reflexivity on the part of transformative researchers. 3. Post-political focus: A third risk of transformative research stems from the intentionally strengthened connection between politics and science in the joint production of knowledge. The reproach here is that if scientific experts are actively striving to contribute to societal transformation processes, scientific expertise is to be privileged in controversial political transformation processes and technocratic approaches are to be favoured in comparison to the political struggle concerning social issues (ibid., p. 10). As scientists are not democratically elected to shape transformation processes, this brings the danger of an ‘expertocracy’ (Strohschneider 2014). Transformative research can deal with these accusations if it recognizes the above-mentioned need for reflexivity. Researchers can show sensitivity to these issues and try to reduce the complexity of their policy and practical recommendations as well as remain aware of their particular legitimation as scientists with a certain amount of power. In light of these challenges, there is a need for pluralism in transformative research procedures for social innovations, which also means that researchers should not expect a societal consensus in highly controversial transformation processes but instead be prepared to moderate and sometimes even mediate between diverging interests or conflicting partners (Meisch 2020, p. 11). This often presupposes a balancing act between appreciating the different actors involved on the one hand and protecting the normative goal of a just transition towards sustainability on the other. Additionally, there is

a need for scholars to engage in continuous self-reflection regarding scientific practices from the very outset. This includes reflection about participating and missing actors, the (un‑)expected impacts of their results, their personal roles as researchers or the potential scope for action, including questions of power, which are also relevant for social innovation research. This ambitious agenda of transformative research requires capacity on the part of researchers, a change of incentives and supportive organizational conditions. For this reason, transformative research needs changes within the academic systems in the sense of a reorientation of the organizational and systemic preconditions (transformative science, Schneidewind et al. 2016a). Transformative science seeks to strengthen the self-reflexivity of all the actors involved in the academic system (including funding organizations or policymakers) in order to support the capacity of the academic system to contribute to sustainability transitions. The book Transformative Science, published in 2013 for the German context, included recommendations for supporting sustainability in research, teaching and governance of higher education institutions as well as non-university research institutes. On a more programmatic level, it intended to broaden debates on, for example, traditional quality criteria such as citation indexes and their limitations in regard to showing the societal impact of research. It is interesting that at this point, the authors of the book are very much in line with the NSF’s suggestions to support transformative (basic) research in order to overcome conservative tendencies in review procedures and to strengthen a more progressive approach to impact the scientific field as well as society. Mandy Singer-Brodowski

Notes 1.

Wiek and Lang used the term ‘transformational research’ instead of ‘transformative research’. 2. The following key characteristics overlap and slightly differ from the key characteristics that have been identified within transdisciplinary research in real-world labs (Bergmann et al. 2021). 3. This focus on learning may be one reason for their strong connection to research approaches in educational science (Mertens 2009).

Mandy Singer-Brodowski

386  Encyclopedia of social innovation

References

at https://​publications​.iass​-potsdam​.de/​ pubman/​item/​item​_6000351. Entries marked in bold are further reading Mertens, D. M. (2009), ‘Transformative research material. and evaluation’, accessed 20 September 2021 at http://​site​.ebrary​.com/​lib/​alltitles/​docDetail​ Arkesteijn, M., B. van Mierlo and C. Leeuwis .action​?docID​=​10257323. (2015), ‘The need for reflexive evaluation National Science Board (2007), Enhancing approaches in development cooperation’, Support of Transformative Research at the Evaluation 21 (1), pp. 99–115, https://​doi​.org/​ National Science Foundation, accessed 30 10​.1177/​1356389014564719. June 2022 at https://​www​.nsf​.gov/​pubs/​2007/​ Bergmann, M., N. Schäpke, O. Marg, F. nsb0732/​nsb0732​.pdf. Stelzer, D. J. Lang and M. Bossert (2021), NSF [National Science Foundation] (2012), ‘The ‘Transdisciplinary sustainability research in Promise and perils of transformative research: real-world labs: success factors and methods for report on the workshop “transformative change’, Sustainability Science, 16, pp. 541–64, research: ethical and societal implications”’ https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​s11625–020–00886–8. held in Arlington, Virginia, 8 and 9 March Fassin, D. (2012), ‘Introduction: toward a crit2012, accessed 30 June 2022 at https://​digital​ ical moral anthropology’, in D. Fassin (ed.), .library​.unt​.edu/​ark:/​67531/​metadc84363/​. A Companion to Moral Anthropology, Parodi, O., C. Waitz, M. Bachinger, R. Kuhn, S. Wiley-Blackwell Companions to Anthropology, Meyer-Soylu, S. Alcántara and R. Rhodius Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1–17. (2018), ‘Insights into and recommendaFazey, I., N. Schäpke, G. Caniglia, J. Patterson, tions from three real-world laboratories: an J. Hultman and B. van Mierlo (2018), ‘Ten experience-based comparison’, GAIA – essentials for action-oriented and second order Ecological Perspectives for Science and energy transitions, transformations and climate Society, 27 (1), pp. 52–9, https://​ doi​ .org/​ 10​ change research’, Energy Research & Social .14512/​gaia​.27​.S1​.12. Science, 40, pp.  54–70, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​ Pel, B., A. Haxeltine, F. Avelino, A. Dumitru, R. j​.erss​.2017​.11​.026. Kemp and T. Bauler (2020), ‘Towards a theory Groß, M., H. Hoffmann-Riem and W. Krohn of transformative social innovation: a relational (2003), ‘Realexperimente: Robustheit und framework and 12 propositions’, Research Dynamik ökologischer Gestaltungen in der Policy, 49 (8), https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.respol​ Wissensgesellschaft’, Soziale Welt, 54 (3), .2020​.104080. pp. 241–57. Rittel, H. W. J. and M. M. Webber (1973), Haxeltine, A., F. Avelino, B. Pel, A. Dumitru, ‘Dilemmas in a general theory of planning’, R. Kemp and N. Longhurst (2016), ‘A framePolicy Sci, 4 (2), pp. 155–69. work for transformative social innovation’, Rosenberg, E., P. Ramsarup, S. Gumede and TRANSIT Working Paper # 5, 5 November, H. Lotz-Sisitka (2016), ‘Building capacaccessed 30 June 2022 at http://​ www​ .tra​ ity for green, just and sustainable futures – nsitsocial​innovation​.eu/​content/​original/​Book​ a new knowledge field requiring transformative %20covers/​Local​%20PDFs/​240​%20TRANSIT​ research methodology’, Journal of Education, _WorkingPaper​_no5​_TSI​%20framework​ 65, pp.  95–122, https://​doi​.org/​10​.17159/​ _Haxeltine​%20et​%20al​_November2016​ i65a05. _AH041116​.pdf. Schäpke, N., F. Stelzer, M. Bergmann, M. Hölscher, K., J. M. Wittmayer, M. Singer-Brodowski, M. Wanner et al. (2017), Hirschnitz-Garbers, A. Olfert, J. Walther, G. ‘Reallabore im Kontext transformativer Schiller and B. Brunnow (2021), ‘Transforming Forschung: Ansatzpunkte zur Konzeption science and society? Methodological lessons und Einbettung in den internationalen from and for transformation research’, Research Forschungsstand’, Leuphana Universität, Evaluation, 30 (1), pp. 73–89, https://​doi​.org/​10​ Lüneburg (IETSR Discussion Papers), retrieved .1093/​reseval/​rvaa034. from https://​epub​.wupperinst​.org/​frontdoor/​ Krainer, L. and R. E. Lerchster (eds) (2012), deliver/​index/​docId/​6629/​file/​6629​_Schaepke​ Interventionsforschung, Wiesbaden: Springer .pdf. VS. Schäpke, N., F. Stelzer, G. Caniglia, Luederitz, C., N. Schäpke, A. Wiek D. J. Lang, M. M. Bergmann, M. Wanner and M. Bergmann, J. Joannette et al. (2017), ‘Learning Singer-Brodowski (2018), ‘Jointly experthrough evaluation – a tentative evaluative imenting for transformation? Shaping scheme for sustainability transition experireal-world laboratories by comparing them’, ments’, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.jclepro​.2016​ GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science .09​.005. and Society, 27 (1), pp. 85–96, https://​doi​.org/​ Meisch, S. (2020), ‘Transformative research: 10​.14512/​gaia​.27​.S1​.16. the IASS approach’, paper presented at Schneidewind, U., M. Singer-Brodowski and K. the IASS Potsdam, accessed 30 June 2022 Augenstein (2016a), ‘Transformative science

Mandy Singer-Brodowski

Transformative research  387 for sustainability transitions’, in H. G. Brauch, U. Oswald Spring, J. Grin and J. Scheffran (eds), Handbook on Sustainability Transition and Sustainable Peace, Cham: Springer International, pp. 123–36. Schneidewind, U., M. Singer-Brodowski, K. Augenstein and F. Stelzer (2016b), Pledge for a Transformative Science – A Conceptual Framework, accessed 30 June 2022 at https://​ epub​.wupperinst​.org/​frontdoor/​index/​index/​ docId/​6414. Singer-Brodowski, M., R. Beecroft and O. Parodi (2018), ‘Learning in real-world laboratories: a systematic impulse for discussion’, GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and doi​ .org/​ 10​ Society, 27 (1), pp. 23–7, https://​ .14512/​gaia​.27​.S1​.7. Strohschneider, P. (2014), ‘Zur Politik der Transformativen Wissenschaft’, in A. Brodocz (ed.), Die Verfassung des Politischen. Festschrift für Hans Vorländer, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 175–92. Trevors, J. T., G. H. Pollack, M. H. Saier and L. Masson (2012), ‘Transformative research: definitions, approaches and consequences’,

Theory in Biosciences/Theorie in den Biowissenschaften, 131 (2), pp. 117–23. van Poeck, K., L. Östman and T. Block (2018), ‘Opening up the black box of learning-by-doing in sustainability transitions’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 34, pp.  298–310, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.eist​ .2018​.12​.006. Wehling, P. (2022), ‘Transdisziplinarität und Solutionismus: Ein verfehlter Vorwurf, aus dem sich trotzdem einiges lernen lässt’, GAIA – Ecological Perspectives for Science and doi​ .org/​ 10​ Society, 31 (1), pp. 19–23, https://​ .14512/​gaia​.31​.1​.6. Wiek, A. and D. J. Lang (2016), ‘Transformational sustainability research methodology’, in H. Heinrichs, P. Martens, G. Michelsen and A. Wiek (eds), Sustainability Science: An Introduction, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 31–41. WBGU [Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Globale Umweltveränderungen] (ed.) (2011), World in Transition: A Social Contract for Sustainability. Berlin: WBGU.

Mandy Singer-Brodowski

PART VIII INNOVATION POLICY

68. EU policy on social innovation Defining the topic and describing its significance

Social innovation as a policy priority appears, disappears and reappears in different phases in the European policy arena, partly because it is considered a ubiquitous concept (Butzin et al. 2014). It is defined in European policymaking as a concept that entails new ideas (products, services and models) that simultaneously meet social needs (more effectively than alternatives) and creates new social relationships or forms of collaboration (participation, engagement, empowerment, co design, and bottom-up sharing of grass-roots initiatives). The concept is strongly related to notions of solutions and transformation, and thus to social impact. It is also often seen as a means of overcoming the classic division between the public and private sectors. However, due to its ubiquitous character, social innovation risks being overlooked, misinterpreted or used on an ad hoc basis in policymaking. EU policies have an important role in enhancing the ecosystem of social innovation. To create a relatively large space for policy making at EU level, the general tendency has been to maintain the most open and all-embracing definition of the concept. In the European research programme, Horizon 2020 (2014–20), for example, the EU’s innovation concept was defined as the adoption of new products, processes, marketing, or organizational approaches that create a valuable outcome in terms of financial benefit, well-being, or efficiency. This was a holistic approach to innovation, as it incorporated the use of existing technologies in new applications as well as non-technological and social innovation. The Horizon Europe programme (2021–27) is going a step further, explicitly including the necessary policies for a green transition – in addition to digital – and thus it talks about social and eco-innovation. Today essentially every innovation – including technological – is considered to be a social innovation process in these EU policy documents (Howaldt et al. 2019; Kohlgrüber et al. 2019). EU policies on social innovation have become more central after the 2008 financial

crisis, when the Bureau of European Policy Advisers (BEPA)1 investigated the definition and raison d’être of social innovation, documented the European Commission’s involvement in this field, identified the barriers to its development and suggested avenues for improvement. Prior to that, a number of policy measures, such as pilot programmes funded by the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF),2 have been initiated to empower various actors to address collaboratively the needs of their community. Since then, European policies have promoted social innovation in several sectors, such as the single market, employment and social affairs, health, education, energy, environment and research. After less EU policy activity in the field during the Juncker Commission (2014–19), there has been a new momentum for EU policies on social innovation during the von der Leyen Commission (2019–24), further strengthened by the challenges of the coronavirus crisis starting in March 2020. The main objectives of the von der Leyen Commission of green and digital transformations in a fair and inclusive manner have social transformation at their core. In this context, social innovation – including its nascent new branch of digital social innovation – allows new forms of social learning oriented towards the production of knowledge and collective problem solving (Davide et al. 2021). Therefore, there is a larger space for social innovation policies at EU level but the field still grapples with becoming a separate policy field and not just a horizontal concept cutting through all innovation processes. The EU has numerous policy and financial tools to promote social innovation. The main initiatives explicitly target the governance and funding mechanism of social innovation, including its regulatory environment, powering public sector innovation, the social economy, as well as providing policy guidance and fostering new policy practices. As for governance, starting from 2011 the Social Business Initiative3 as part of the Single Market Act I4 sought to create a favourable environment for the development of social business in Europe and of the social economy at large (→ SOCIAL ECONOMY). In this context, there were also attempts to develop common regulations to overcome the obstacles many social economy entities – with diverse legal forms – face

389

390  Encyclopedia of social innovation

in the internal market. Currently, there is only one piece of legislation in force at European level, the Statute for a European Cooperative Society. Debates on the usefulness of legislation on associations are also ongoing. A legislative initiative report facilitating cross-border activities of associations and non-profit organizations within the single market through an EU regulation was adopted by the European Parliament in February 2022 and the European Commission is proposing a legislative proposal in response in its 2023 work programme. The 2016 start up and scale up initiative, which aimed at improving start-ups’ ability to scale up, also emphasizes their role in social innovation and the importance of further supporting better access to funding for social start-ups. In addition, the 2014 public procurement rules were also supposed to launch more socially oriented initiatives, more possibilities for small and medium sized enterprises, and simpler and more flexible rules. They also introduced a new procedure for the purchase of innovative products and services (innovation partnerships). In this context, the European Commission has been facilitating the uptake of socially responsible criteria in public procurement and the promotion of their use across the EU as a response to the controversial effects on the EU public procurement rules on social enterprises. (Borzaga et al. 2020). The 2021 EU social economy action is building on these developments and foresees for 2023 a council recommendation5 on further developing the framework conditions of the social economy. This initiative should include recommendations on financial and non-financial support all through the business cycle as well as details of favourable institutional set ups and stakeholder involvement in support of the social economy. In recent years, a wide range of new funding mechanisms, from both the public and private sectors, have emerged with the specific aim of expanding innovative solutions. On the one hand, the public sector has increased funding for innovative solutions to respond to pressing social problems at a time of shrinking budgets. On the other, private investors and the banking sector are increasingly interested in the field of social impact investment, which is the provision of finance to organizations with the explicit expectation of a measurable social as well as financial return. In this context, the EU has a crucial Nora Milotay

role to play in improving access to finance for those innovative solutions that meet social needs and address societal challenges. EU funding programmes have given priority to social innovation in different ways, ranging from the big funds managed in partnership with member states to smaller and more specific funds that support social entrepreneurship. Big funds focus on core areas where strong social innovation activities can be promoted, such as research and innovation, digital technologies, small businesses, low carbon economy initiatives, the sustainable management of natural resources and the development of adequate social protection systems and labour markets, with a particular focus on vulnerable groups. They also focus on innovative financial tools, such as microfinance or on broadening of the EU’s social impact ecosystem. In the new programming period of the EU long-term budget (2021–27) – called multiannual financial framework – with the rearrangement and streamlining of the European funds close to 80 per cent of the funding programmes and most of the investments through the new instrument, Next Generation EU, can be used to support social innovation (D’Alfonso et al. 2021). However, due to the relatively small size of the EU budget compared to national budgets, its main function is to incentivize transformation and innovation on the ground that in the longer term can lead to systemic change. For example, the 2022 budget represents 1.14 per cent of EU gross national income – the €170.6 billion in total payments agreed for 2022 represents 10 per cent of annual public expenditure of Germany in 2020 (D’Alfonso et al. 2022). For that reason, the way the EU budget, combined with other EU policy tools, shapes both the quantity and quality of spending (i.e. governance mechanisms and institutions on the ground) matters in equal measure. This time, Next Generation EU is designed to give an additional boost to the resources channelled through EU budgetary instruments. Both new and old instruments seek to promote a social investment approach to financing across several sectors beyond social policy. Among the smaller funds, the European Venture Capital Funds (EuVECA) and the European Social Entrepreneurship Funds (EuSEF) are collective investment schemes that have been harmonized at European level since 2011. The latter, for example, does not

EU policy on social innovation  391

provide direct EU-level funding but sets out a label so that private investors can easily identify funds that focus on investing in social businesses across the EU. Finally, crowdfunding was also regulated in 2020 at EU level. Crowdfunding platforms operating in more than one EU member state will have to comply with a single set of basic rules – the new regulation – instead of different rules in each country. The accompanying directive aims to broaden access to finance for small companies. An important development in recent years has been to create institutions, movements and networks at EU and national level to promote social innovation, not just the policy itself, but also the process (i.e. policy for social innovation and policy as social innovation (Reynolds et al. 2017)). These new initiatives included the Social Innovation Community project helping to set up a network of networks so as to mainstream the social innovation process and align definitions and concepts; and the Social Challenges Platform where public, private or third sector stakeholders can upload challenges from migration and education, through environment, ageing, health and youth, to receive innovative solutions from innovators, start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises. Or, most recently, the call for the development of National Competence Centres for Social Innovation aims to consolidate and harness expertise in all European member states through transnational exchange and support. Another interesting avenue was opened on the way to design the 2021 EU action plan for the social economy through creating the so-called ‘Digital Road to Mannheim’. The latter was a series of social economy exchange events between 2020 and 2021 which comprised interactive sessions between different social economy actors around issues of economic development, social inclusion, green and digital transitions. Some of the most active advocates of social innovation in the European Commission services are responsible for research, the internal market, social and employment policies and digitalization. They not only strengthen EU policies but also bring about processes across Commission services that can help to strengthen social innovation policy at EU level. The Social Innovation Matrix, for example, which cuts across several relevant

services, has been involved in designing initiatives and possible calls related to social innovation in the EU’s research programme.

Key findings in research

The EU has laid great emphasis on advancing the comparative empirical research in the field of social innovation, particularly starting from the 7th Framework Programme (FP7 2007–13). This growing scientific field has opened new avenues for EU policymaking. The EU research projects have been focusing on developing theoretical frameworks that capture the diversity of social innovation as well as its application in a growing number of fields, from welfare, through security and industry, to climate policies. They have also been experimenting with innovative funding and investment solutions (e.g. the European Social Catalyst Grant). In terms of EU policy, they point to conceptual imprecision and also to the lack systematic quantitative analysis describing the enablers, critical success factors and obstacles so as to efficiently support social innovation across the board. They identify some external barriers to social innovation, such as the regulatory environment and long term funding options, and identify a number of internal barriers, such as the lack of financial and managerial knowledge and of vertical knowledge of the industry where the commercial branches of the mission-driven organization operate. The broad interpretation of the concept of social innovation risks blurring its importance as a process of change either in social relations or in narrower aggregate utility. Research on innovation distinguishes an innovation of a breakthrough (causes fundamental changes in the sector, e.g. smartphone) or disruptive (brings about a new value network, e.g. the introduction of rail-transport that completely replaced horse-drawn transport and also influenced communications, such as newspaper distribution and postal services) nature in contrast to incremental or sustained (e.g. a new model of a smartphone) innovation (Reillon 2016). Projects supported by the European research programmes tend to be more of a breakthrough or disruptive nature while those supported by other programmes, such as the European Structural and Investment Funds or the European Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI), are more incremental, and Nora Milotay

392  Encyclopedia of social innovation

adopt novelty, within the same system. At the same time, projects from the research programme have difficulties scaling up. The new European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) regulation (2021–27), for example, addresses some of these issues in theory, including obliging member states to allocate some funding for bottom-up innovative approaches based on partnerships, and to scale up innovative approaches developed under one of the Union programmes. However, for this to happen in practice, specific mechanisms would need to be in place. These could include a more impact-oriented approach to funding and innovation with a pre-defined intervention logic, and expected results, and an assessment of whether these were reached. Alternatively, selection process rules could award extra points to projects that mainstream and scale up innovations supported by Horizon Europe (Rubio et al. 2019). Impact evaluations of EU funding programmes in relation to social innovation do not distinguish between these different kinds of innovations. Moreover, the monitoring reports often point out the difficulty in recognizing the impact of the programme in terms of social innovation, partly due to the lack of clarity of the concept itself and of appropriate impact measurement methodology. There is no clear universally accepted definition of the term social impact, and it is often used interchangeably with the terms social value creation and social return. The relationship between social change and social impact needs further clarification (Maas et al. 2011; Vanclay et al. 2015) (→ SOCIAL IMPACT MEASUREMENT). In this context, a working group at EU level has developed a common approach to measuring impact in response to the Single Market Act II. It specifically focused on the social enterprise sector, with the aim of providing information to support the work of the European Social Entrepreneurship Funds (EuSEF), the European Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) and the Social Impact Accelerator (SIA). Finally, while there is large support and appreciation of the EU’s policy efforts, some research is also critical highlighting that these efforts strengthen the social entrepreneurship aspect and the direct social impact aspect (utility), and thus forget about the larger questions of social change and transformation. In addition, it is often difficult to Nora Milotay

quantify impacts. And, it is debated whether quantification, no matter how comprehensive, can express the intricate nature of the issues at hand.

Critical reflection and outlook

The green and digital transformation and Covid-19 and subsequent lockdown measures have created additional opportunities for social innovation, and thus highlighted its relevance in policymaking. The question remains, however, how EU policies can best support the understanding, seeding, growing and digitizing of social innovation (Madelin 2016). Due to the complexity of the concept and ecosystem of social innovation and its very diverse contexts in the member states, EU policies have varied impact; regulations can have controversial effects in terms of visibility of initiatives, and many organizations still cannot access sufficient funding. There are several ways for EU policy on social innovation to develop further. First, the EU can play an important role in further developing the ecosystem of social innovation. It could design an overarching EU strategy on social innovation that would serve as a framework for all the EU actions and policies. This would not only provide a broad consensus on the meaning of the concept but would also embrace the dual approach of policy for social innovation and policy as social innovation and clarify whether social innovation should be considered as a distinct policy field or rather be embedded in the larger policy field of innovation. Finally, developing a coherent framework would help to effectively link strategic thinking with policy making and policy implementation, including investment. The 2021 EU social economy action plan is making some promising steps into this direction by emphasizing the central role of social innovation in the social economy ecosystem. Such a framework would be also very timely because it fits well with new economic thinking that particularly gained ground following the 2008 financial crisis and has been putting more emphasis on society’s ills than on economic orthodoxy, and paving a way for alternative, more human-centric models of progress (e.g. purpose economics, narrative economics, poor economics). Economic thinkers, such as Marianna Mazzucato, for example, focus in their modelling on how

EU policy on social innovation  393

to combat inequality, and how to achieve a sustainable and inclusive economy. She has reiterated and reinforced her idea of using the challenging times of the coronavirus crisis as an opportunity to make a systemic shift towards an innovative entrepreneurial state where a strong (not reduced) public sector works together with the private sector to address the emerging challenges with innovative solutions. Her mission-driven approach to innovation, focusing on problem solving with systemic public policies that draw on frontier knowledge, has been an inspiration for the EU’s latest research programmes, Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe. Moreover, moving beyond the EU’s 2020 New Industrial Strategy – updated in May 2021 – the high-level expert group on the economic and societal impact of research and innovation called for Industry 5.0 that by focusing simultaneously on sustainability (economic, environmental and social) and competitiveness can be a driving force of both systemic transformation of the economy and of planetary regeneration (European Commission 2022). Second, critics and analysts also emphasize the importance of better financing systems to support each phase of the innovation chain from, seeding, through growing. Promising paths are opening up with the more streamlined EU funds in the new EU long term budget (2021–27). In addition, the green and digital transitions unwrap new avenues, particularly where the EU budget is complemented with the innovative Next Generation EU. They can help to further develop new ways of financing innovations, particularly those of higher risk. These new financing models, in turn, can help the make the solutions developed financially more sustainable and so result in fewer occasions where the established projects and networks are discontinued for lack of funding. Third, social procurement or buying for social impact principles in the EU help prioritize sustainable, fair and responsible products and services in public procurement. However, some critics point out that European policies are too soft in the field and would need to be bolstered with legislation (Krlev 2020). Fourth, in order to advance the cooperation and co-existence of technological and social innovation, providing access to data as well as to technological solutions have

to be at the core of EU policies. Organizing data commons – including data, evidence, citizen insight, and ideas related to problems of, for example, climate change but also of care or reskilling as well as facilitating access to technology, including embracing AI and machine learning – is all part of that endeavour (Mulgan 2021).6 The EU’s 2021 Path to the Digital Decade initiative can be an important entry point. The Path sets up a concrete legal framework to help achieve the 2030 Digital Compass targets, alongside four cardinal points for the next decade: digital skills, digital infrastructure, digital business, and digital public services. The Path to the Digital Decade should reinforce the EU’s digital leadership and promote human-centred and sustainable digital policies empowering citizens and businesses. The so-called social-tech entrepreneurs who put technology at the heart of social entrepreneurship and of other social economy actors can be important players within this process (Calderini et al. 2021). Nora Milotay

Notes

1. BEPA provided advice to the president of the European Commission and the Commissioners and formulated recommendations on issues regarding EU policies during the II Barroso Commission (2009–14). 2. The Europeans Structural and Investment Funds consisted of five funds between 2013 and 2020: European regional development fund (ERDF), European social fund (ESF), Cohesion Fund (CF), European agricultural fund for rural development (EAFRD), European maritime fisheries and aquaculture fund (EMFAF). For the 2021–27 programming period, the European Commission simplified these funds and focused them under different headings and policy cluster within those headings. For example, Heading II on cohesion, resilience and values or Heading III on natural resources and environment contain these funds in the new programming period 2021–27. 3. The initiative identified actions to make a real difference and improve the situation on the ground for social enterprises. 4. Single Market Act I presented by the European Commission in April 2011 set out 12 levers to boost growth and strengthen confidence in the economy. 5. A council recommendation is a non-binding act by which the European Union means to achieve certain ends without imposing a mandatory legal framework. Recommendations may relate to both policies of the EU as well as individual member states. According to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the European Commission may adopt recommendations calling on the Council

Nora Milotay

394  Encyclopedia of social innovation publication​-detail/​-/​publication/​38a2fa08–728e​ -11ec​-9136–01aa75ed71a1. Howaldt, J., Ch. Kaletka, A. Schröder and M. Zirngiebl (eds) (2019), Atlas of Social Innovation. Volume 2: A World Of New Practices, München: oekoem verlag. Kohlgrüber, M., A. Schröder, F. Bayón Yusta and A. Arteaga Ayarza (2019), ‘A new innovation paradigm combining technological and social References innovation’, Matériaux & Techniques, 107, accessed 2 November 2022 at https://​doi​.org/​10​ Entries marked in bold are further reading .1051/​mattech/​2018065. material. Krlev, G. (2020), European Policy for Social Innovation, Euclid Network, accessed 2 Borzaga, C., G. Galera, B. Franchini, S. Chiomento, euclidnetwork​ November 2022 at https://​ R. Nogales and Ch. Carini (2020), ‘Social .eu/​2020/​12/​european​-policy​-for​-social​ enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe’, -innovation/​. comparative synthesis report, European Commission, Luxembourg: Publications Office Maas, K. and K. Liket (2011), ‘Social impact measurement: classification of methods’, of the European Union, accessed 2 November in R. Burritt, S. Schaltegger, M. Bennett, T. 2022 at https://​ec​.europa​.eu/​social/​BlobServlet​ Pohjola and M. Csutora (eds), Environmental ?docId​=​22304​&​langId​=​en. Management Accounting and Supply Chain Butzin, A., D. Domanski and Ch. Kaletka (2014), Management, Eco-Efficiency in Industry ‘Theoretical approaches to social innovaand Science, vol. 27, Dordrecht: Springer, tion. a critical literature review’, in Social pp. 171–202. Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change (SI-DRIVE), Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle. Madelin, R. (2016), Innovation Policy Review, European Commission, accessed 2 November Calderini, M., V. Chiodo, F. Gerli and G. Pasi 2022 at https://​digital​-strategy​.ec​.europa​.eu/​en/​ (2021), ‘Social tech entrepreneurs: building news/​innovation​-policy​-review​-report. blocks of the new social economy’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2 June, accessed Mulgan, G. (2021), ‘The social economy and the fourth industrial revolution’, Stanford 2 November 2022 at https://​doi​.org/​10​.48558/​ Social Innovation Review, 28 April, accessed XFVW​-VX65. 2 November 2022 at https://​doi​.org/​10​.48558/​ D’Alfonso, A., A. Delivorias, N. Milotay and Z4PS​-XB62. M. Sapala (2021), Economic and Budgetary Outlook for the European Union for 2021, Reillon, V. (2016), Understanding Innovation, Briefing, European Parliamentary Research Study, European Parliamentary Research Service, accessed 2 November 2022 at https://​ Service, accessed 2 November 2022 at https://​ www​.europarl​.europa​.eu/​thinktank/​en/​ www​.europarl​.europa​.eu/​thinktank/​en/​ document/​EPRS​_BRI(2016)573968. document/​EPRS​_STU(2021)679062. D’Alfonso, A., A. Delivorias, M. Höflmayr, Reynolds, S., M. Gabriel and Ch. Heales (2017), ‘Social innovation policy in Europe: where K. Kowald, M. Pari and M. Sapala (2022), next?’, Social Innovation Community, Annual Economic and Budgetary Outlook in the State of the Union Report, Part 1, accessed European Union for 2022, Study, European media​ .nesta​ .org​ 2 November 2022 at https://​ Parliamentary Research Service, accessed 2 www​ .europarl​ .uk/​documents/​social​_innovation​_policy​ November 2022 at https://​ _in​_europe​_​-​_where​_next​.pdf. .europa​.eu/​thinktank/​en/​document/​EPRS​ Rubio, E., F. Zuleeg, E. Magdalinski, T. _STU(2022)698897. Pellerin-Carlin, M. Pilati and Ph. Ständer Davide, F., A. Gaggioli and G. Misuraca (2019), Mainstreaming Innovation Funding in (eds) (2021), Perspectives for Digital Social the EU Budget, Study, European Parliament, Innovation to Reshape the European Welfare accessed 2 November 2022 at https://​ www​ Systems, Amsterdam: IOS Press. .europarl​.europa​.eu/​thinktank/​en/​document/​ European Commission (2022), Industry IPOL​_STU(2019)636471. 5.0: A Transformative Vision for Europe. Governing Systemic Transformations Towards Vanclay, F., A. M. Esteves, E. Aucamp and D. Franks (2015), Social Impact Assessment: a Sustainable Industry. ESIR policy brief No. Guidance for Assessing and Managing the Social 3, accessed 2 November 2022 at https://​ op​ Impacts of Projects, Fargo, ND: International .europa​.eu/​en/​web/​eu​-law​-and​-publications/​ Association for Impact Assessment. of Ministers to make a decision on highly technical or practical affairs. 6. Stanford Social Innovation Review’s series on ‘European perspectives on the emerging social economy’ offers further recommended reading on European social innovation policies: see https://​ ssir​.org/​european​_perspectives​_on​_the​_emerging​ _social​_economy.

Nora Milotay

69. Next generation innovation policy Introduction: purpose and structure

This entry outlines what one could call a new generation of innovation policy. In a nutshell, innovation policy has traditionally focused on supporting activities intended to make economies more competitive and boost welfare. The new generation of innovation policy, however, is intended to support the transformation of systems in order to cope with clearly defined societal challenges. This is an ambitious development, as it necessitates a different understanding of the role of the state in innovation policy vis-à-vis society and the economy, a modernized portfolio of interventions, and new governance approaches, structures and capabilities. This entry outlines this new aspiration of innovation policy, the governance changes it requires and what role social innovation plays in this.

Traditional innovation policy: overcoming market and systemic failure

In this entry, innovation policy is defined as all state interventions supporting the generation and diffusion of new products, services or processes. Innovation policy first appeared as an explicit term and approach in the early 1970s. Around this time, the concept of innovation systems began to emerge, and with it the idea that these systems can be governed, manipulated and improved through careful state interventions. This policy idea only fully took off across the OECD world during the 1990s and it subsequently became a major building block of economic policy in every industrialized country. The main rationale for state intervention is the notion of market and system failure. The basic idea is that innovations drive competition (i.e. the more innovative an economy is, the more competitive it is). State intervention can and should significantly improve innovation activities in the economy and subsequently in society (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION AND THE NEW ROLE OF STATE). Economists and innova-

tion scholars have long argued that, without state intervention, less scientific and technological knowledge would be produced to underpin innovations due to the so-called externalities of knowledge production (Nelson 1959). Firms would underinvest, as they cannot avoid leakage of the knowledge they produce to competitors and the economy as a whole. The state is therefore bound to finance research that is generic to many applications and firms. Further, without state support, actors within the innovation system would not interact sufficiently to co-generate innovations – for a number of systemic reasons – and would not be able to develop the necessary competencies (Edquist 2011; Edler and Fagerberg 2017). The state may also intervene to overcome system failures on the demand side, such as lack of information about innovations, their very high initial costs, or the skills and capacities needed to introduce and use them (Edler 2010). Finally, it is the state that provides the regulatory and infrastructure framework conditions, which enable the introduction and diffusion of innovations (Blind 2016). Against this basic rationale, which is largely consensual across the OECD-world, a broad range of instruments has been developed (Edler et al. 2016). On the supply side, such instruments encompass the financing of public and private research, cooperation and networking between heterogeneous groups as well as capability building and advice including a range of measures to support and finance entrepreneurial activities. On the demand side, state instruments subsidize the purchase of innovations, improve information and awareness regarding innovations, support the development of application skills, and often use public procurement to create or accelerate markets for innovations.

Transformations and missions: towards the next generation of innovation policy I

Of course, innovation policy was never exclusively an economic policy. Many state intervention programmes targeted specific technologies or knowledge areas that promised to deliver a range of innovations for the economy and to improve the welfare of society. However, a new course was charted around the mid-2000s to early 2010s.

395

396  Encyclopedia of social innovation

Within Europe, a discourse on grand societal challenges unfolded, which added another pillar to the legitimacy of state intervention. Innovation policy was expected to not only improve innovation activities and capabilities as such, but was also to support innovations that contribute to solving defined challenges (Aho et al. 2006). The discourse on the need for more radical and faster sustainable system transition intensified around the same time, opening up another rationale for innovation policy (Steward 2012; Lindner et al. 2016). This discourse focused on the need to drastically and systematically improve the sustainability of all economic and societal activities that contribute to the major climate and environmental crises of our times. These activities are organized in socio-technical systems that provide societal functions such as mobility, energy, food, and so on. In order to make human activity more sustainable, so the argument goes, entire socio-technical systems need to transform and pursue more sustainable pathways (Steward 2012). For this to happen, tailored and directed ‘innovations for transformation’ are indispensable. In the late 2010s, two basic variants of the new innovation policy approach emerged. The first is the so-called ‘mission-oriented innovation policy’ approach (Mazzucato 2018; Wanzenböck et al. 2020), which builds intellectually upon a much older approach that proved with hindsight to be ahead of its time (Soete and Arundel 1993). The idea behind this approach is to move away from ‘market fixing to market co-shaping’ (Mazzucato 2018, p. 806). The basic rationale for policy, and for innovation policy in particular, is not to overcome the market and system failures and let the forces of the market define the direction of change. Instead, the state should support innovation activities in order to create markets in areas that are of societal concern. To do so, the state defines concrete missions that contribute to solving bigger societal challenges through processes of public engagement, and then mobilizes a portfolio of instruments to achieve this. Different types of missions have since been defined in both academia and policymaking (Wittmann et al. 2020; European Commission et al. 2018; Larrue 2021). As an empirical overview of approaches in OECD countries has shown, while these missions share the basic idea of normative innovation Jakob Edler

policy, the requirements for strategic orientation, policy coordination and policy implementation (Larrue 2021) differ considerably across them. A second approach of normative innovation policy is ‘transformative innovation policy’, which has the dedicated aim to transform systems – mainly into more sustainable ones (→ TRANSFORMATIVE INNOVATION POLICY). The role of the state here is less to define very narrow, concrete and stable missions, but to provide basic directionality and support societal and economic dynamics towards transformation (Schot and Steinmüller 2018; Weber and Rohracher 2012). The idea is to mobilize a range of research and innovation policy instruments to strengthen bottom up processes, to encourage experiments and to scale good transformative practice, which Schot et al. (2019) have labelled ‘experimental policy engagements’. Again, the scope goes beyond traditional innovation policy, and policy implementation relies much more on engagement, societal learning and accommodating political and societal controversy about the direction and speed of transformations (Molas-Gallert et al. 2020). Despite the fact that the arguments and motivation for the mission and the transformation approach slightly differ, the consequence is that innovation policy has assumed an additional, normative role (i.e. to support the solutions to societal challenges and systems transitions).

Resilience and technology sovereignty: towards the next generation of innovation policy II

There have been two major recent trends which add further rationales for innovation policy for many years to come. First, the COVID pandemic demonstrated the need to improve the ability of innovation systems to overcome crises and emerge from them stronger. This resilience-oriented thinking has challenged innovation policy to achieve two different but related aims: one, to improve the adaptability of the innovation system to future crises and two, to go beyond recovery and enable systems to develop new transformational paths, and emerge stronger and more diverse after crises (Boschma 2015; Asheim and Herstedt 2021; Roth et al. 2021).

Next generation innovation policy  397

To support resilience in innovation systems implies broader investment in competencies that enhance the adaptability and transformability of societies and economies. Innovation policy oriented towards improving system resilience is therefore expected to support networking, infrastructure, localized and distributed (rather than centralized) knowledge, basic research to enable the swift development of innovative responses to shocks, and mechanisms and routines to deal with uncertainty and define innovation needs. It also means supporting experimentation with developing new transformational pathways in the wake of crises (Asheim and Herstadt 2021). Early studies of the COVID-19 crisis have already confirmed a slight shift to policymaking with increased engagement of stakeholders and experts, as well as schemes that support improved networking and infrastructures (Patrucco et al. 2021). A second trend, which is in fact a specific manifestation of the quest for resilience, is the increasing demand for technology sovereignty.1 The 2010s, in particular, bore witness to almost seismic geopolitical changes combined with major shifts in the capacity of knowledge and technology production across the globe. China has risen to become a technological superpower and sparked a systems competition. At the same time, signs of the disintegration of the community of Western liberal democracies, as evidenced by the America First and Brexit movements in the USA and the United Kingdom, respectively, have brought back concerns about being dependent on external powers based on increasingly fragile and precarious trust relationships. All the major developed countries in the OECD world have started to develop concepts to define technology areas for which they seek to achieve some sort of technology sovereignty, and ways to achieve this – whether on their own, or in supranational communities such as the EU (Edler et al. 2020; Bauer and Erixon 2020). Innovation capabilities and access to technologies are bound to become much more important assets in the systems’ competition now underway, and innovation policy will have to adjust to these new pressures. Innovation policy is thus increasingly tasked with securing value chains, especially technological value chains, under conditions of geo-political uncertainty. The invisible hand of the global market

economy alone will determine less and less where certain types of knowledge, technologies and goods are produced. Rather, it is the assessment of potentially being dependent on foreign countries as relates to critical technologies that will influence innovation policymakers when making decisions about policy support and investment. These technology sovereignty considerations must be balanced with ensuring access to critical global data in the platform economy and to export markets.

Basic requirements for the new generation of innovation policy

The period in which innovation policy was limited to supporting the ability of systems to produce and use innovations more effectively and efficiently is over. The normative shift in innovation policy is irrevocable. The new policy approaches will not replace existing ones, but complement them, adding to the complexity of making and delivering innovation policy. The new generation of innovation policy, which is emerging from the trends described, has a number of specific features that will be much more prominent in the future. In fact, those features will transform the role of the state when it comes to innovation. First, innovation policy is increasingly normative, and thus politicized. Any decision about funding priorities in the future will be one based on direction and on societal preference. Policymaking and its governance need to moderate more intense normative and material conflicts in innovation policy. At the same time, the state will reassume a more prominent role. Second, the link between innovation policy and other policy areas will be much stronger. Very different models of this link can already be observed, but no matter how it is provided, a large part of what innovation policy will be doing will have to be coordinated with domains like energy, health, mobility, as well as foreign and trade policy. Deciding which areas to support and how will thus become more complex and necessitate new governance practices. Furthermore, the policy mix itself will also become more complex (Rogge and Reichardt 2016), as intelligent combinations of innovation and other domain policy instruments will be needed. Moreover, the role played by the state in Jakob Edler

398  Encyclopedia of social innovation

transforming systems will broaden (Borrás and Edler 2020), especially when it comes to the demand for and diffusion of innovations in order to accomplish transformations and missions (Boon and Edler 2018). Third, the trends described necessitate the stronger participation of stakeholders in making and delivering policy. Solving problems or supporting transformation can only succeed by mobilizing citizens, firms and research organizations. Strengthening the adaptability of systems needs to focus on investing in the capabilities and networking of stakeholders. Fourth, to achieve societal missions or large scale system transformation, societal attitudes, expectations and social practices will have to change, not least to support the diffusion and use of important technological innovations, to improve societal cohesion and increase quality of life in a sustainable manner. Thus, the next generation of innovation policy will have to take into account, initiate and further support social innovations (i.e. the intentional change of societal practice in order to satisfy societal needs better) (Howaldt and Schwarz 2010, p. 89), as an explicit lever for transformation. Fifth, innovation policy needs to be informed through more elaborated strategic intelligence. A thorough understanding of the system that is supposed to be changed and identification of the obstacles to desired transformations (Weber and Rohracher 2012) represent major steps in innovation policy design. Having to assess innovation policy that supports missions or transformations as well as the resilience of systems to future crises places higher demands on evaluation. New kinds of formative evaluations to co-design and accompany the process (Molas-Gallart et al. 2020) will be developed alongside novel approaches to map and monitor systemic change and the contribution made by policy intervention. Certainly, the next generation of innovation policies will be even more complex and diverse than policy practices up to now. Different countries and systems will place different emphasis on the various rationales and implement different intervention mixes and governance arrangements to cope with the new complexity. The original rationale of innovation policy to support economic performance and welfare in general by overJakob Edler

coming market and systemic failures will co-exist with the more recent, more normative rationales of missions and transitions. This relationship will not be an easy one, as the calls for certain transformations and missions may not always be in line with the economic rationale of strengthening a country’s international competitiveness. In addition, this co-existence will have to develop under the dual shadow of resilience and technology sovereignty. The multi-dimensional nature of future innovation policy will severely challenge the capacity of the state to deliver. Jakob Edler

Note 1.

Edler et al. (2020) define technology sovereignty as ‘the ability of a state or a federation of states to provide the technologies it deems critical for its welfare, competitiveness, and ability to act, and to be able to develop these or source them from other economic areas without one-sided structural dependency’.

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Aho, E., J. Cornu, L. Georghiou and A. Subirà (2006), ‘Creating an innovative Europe’, Report of the independent expert group on R&D and innovation appointed following the Hampton Court Summit, pp. 1–25. Asheim, B. and S. Herstad (2021), ‘Regional innovation strategy for resilience and transformative industrial path development: evolutionary theoretical perspectives on innovation policy’, Eastern Journal of European Studies, 12, pp. 43–75. Bauer, M. and F. Erixon (2020), ‘Europe’s quest for technology sovereignty: opportunities and pitfalls’, European Centre for International Political Economy, ECIPE, Brussels, accessed 19 March 2022 at https://​ecipe​.org/​publications/​ europes​-technology​-sovereignty. Blind, K. (2016), ‘The impact of regulation on innovation’, in J. Edler, P. Cunningham, A. Gök and P. Shapira (eds), Handbook of Innovation Policy Impact, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Boon, W. and J. Edler (2018), ‘Demand, challenges, and innovation: making sense of new trends in innovation policy’, Science and Public Policy, 45 (4), pp. 435–47. Borrás, S. and J. Edler (2020), ‘The roles of the state in the governance of socio-technical

Next generation innovation policy  399 systems’ transformation’, Research Policy, 49 (5), 103971. Boschma, R. (2015), ‘Towards an evolutionary perspective on regional resilience’, Regional Studies, 49 (5), pp. 733–51. Edler, J. (2010), ‘Demand oriented innovation policy’, in R. Smits, S. Kuhlmann and P. Shapira (eds), The Theory and Practice of Innovation Policy: An International Research Handbook, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Edler, J., K. Blind, R. Frietsch, S. Kimpeler, H. Kroll, C. Lerch, F. Roth, T. Schubert, J. Schuler and R. Walz (2020), ‘Technology sovereignty: from demand to concept’, 2/2020, Perspectives-Policy Brief, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI, Karlsruhe, accessed 21 March 2022 at https://​www​.isi​.fraunhofer​.de/​content/​dam/​ isi/​dokumente/​publikationen/​technology​ _sovereignty​.pdf. Edler, J., P. Cunningham, A. Gök and P. Shapira (eds) (2016), Handbook of Innovation Policy Impact, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing. Edler, J. and J. Fagerberg (2017), ‘Innovation policy: what, why, and how’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 33 (1), pp. 2–23. Edquist, C. (2011), ‘Design of innovation policy through diagnostic analysis: identification of systemic problems (or failures)’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 20 (6), pp. 1725–53. European Commission; Directorate-General for Research and Innovation; Türk, A., E. Arrilucea, F. Skov Kristensen, M. Unger et al. (2018), ‘Mission-oriented research and innovation: inventory and characterisation of initiatives: final report’, Publications Office, Brussels, accessed 21 March 2022 at https://​op​ .europa​.eu/​en/​publication​-detail/​-/​publication/​ 3b46ce3f​-5338–11e8​-be1d​-01aa75ed71a1/​ language​-en. Howaldt, J. and M. Schwarz (2010), ‘Social innovation: concepts, research fields and international trends’, in K. Henning and F. Hees (eds), Studies for Innovation in a Modern Working Environment – International Monitoring, 5, Aachen: IMA/ZLW & IfU. Larrue, P. (2021), ‘The design and implementation of mission-oriented innovation policies: a new systemic policy approach to address societal challenges’, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, accessed 21 March 2022 at https://​www​.oecd​ -ilibrary​.org/​deliver/​3f6c76a4​-en​.pdf​?itemId​ =​%2Fcontent​%2Fpaper​%2F3f6c76a4​-en​&​ mimeType​=​pdf. Lindner, R., S. Daimer, B. Beckert, N. Heyen, J. Koehler, B. Teufel et al. (2016), ‘Addressing directionality: orientation failure and the systems of innovation heuristic. Towards

reflexive governance’, Fraunhofer ISI Discussion Papers-Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis. Mazzucato, M. (2018), ‘Mission-oriented research & innovation in the European Union’, European Commission, https://​data​ .europa​.eu/​doi/​10​.2777/​360325. Molas-Gallart, J., A. Boni Aristizábal, J. Schot and S. Giachi (2020), ‘A formative approach to the evaluation of Transformative Innovation Policy’, TIPC Working Paper TIPCWP 2020–01, accessed 21 March 2022 at https://​ digital​.csic​.es/​bitstream/​10261/​235658/​1/​ Formative​_Molas​_PV​_Art2020​.pdf. Nelson, R. (1959), ‘The simple economics of basic scientific research’, Journal of Political Economy, 67 (3), pp. 297–306. Patrucco, A., D. Trabucchi, F. Frattini and J. Lynch (2021), ‘The impact of Covid‐19 on innovation policies promoting Open Innovation’, R&D Management, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1111/​radm​ .12495. Rogge, K. and K. Reichardt (2016), ‘Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: an extended concept and framework for analysis’, Research Policy, 45(8), pp. 1620–35. Roth, F., J. Edler, P. Niessen and P. Warnke (2021), ‘Systemic resilience through supporting the capacity to adapt and transform: insights from innovation research’, Perspectives-Policy Brief, Karlsruhe: Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI. Schot, J., P. Kivimaa, and J. Torrens (2019), ‘Transforming experimentation: experimental policy engagements and their transformative outcomes’, TIPC Research Report March 2019, Sussex/Utrecht. Schot, J. and W. Steinmueller (2018), ‘Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change’, Research Policy, 47 (9), pp. 1554–67. Soete, L. and A. Arundel (1993), ‘An integrated approach to European innovation and technology diffusion policy (a Maastricht memorandum)’, Commission of the European Communities, SPRINT Programme, Luxembourg. Steward, F. (2012), ‘Transformative innovation policy to meet the challenge of climate change: sociotechnical networks aligned with consumption and end-use as new transition arenas for a low-carbon society or green economy’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24 (4), pp. 331–43. Wanzenböck, I., J. Wesseling, K. Frenken, M. Hekkert and K. Weber (2020), ‘A framework for mission-oriented innovation policy: alternative pathways through the problem–solution space’, Science and Public Policy, 47(4), pp. 474–89. Weber, K. and H. Rohracher (2012), ‘Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies

Jakob Edler

400  Encyclopedia of social innovation for transformative change: combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive “failures” framework’, Research Policy, 41 (6), pp. 1037–47. Wittmann, F., M. Hufnagl, R. Lindner, F. Roth and J. Edler (2020), ‘Developing a typology

Jakob Edler

for mission-oriented innovation policies’, Fraunhofer ISI Discussion Papers-Innovation Systems and Policy Analysis.

70. Responsible research and innovation as a social innovation Introduction: responsible research and innovation and its contemporary significance

Scholars provide a variety of perspectives and assessments of what RRI need to address. Even so, they generally share the notion that RRI requires a form of governance that will direct or re-direct innovation towards socially desirable outcomes. This initial definition that Von Schomberg (2013, p. 63) provided captures the commonalities of the field:

Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) has become increasingly important since it was introduced as a cross cutting issue under the European Union (EU) Framework Programme for Research and Innovation Horizon Europe (2014–2020). Subsequently, it became an operational objective of the strategic plan for Horizon Europe (2021–2027), the new EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. In EU member states, there are also various initiatives supporting RRI, notably under schemes of national research councils (e.g. the United Kingdom, Norway and the Netherlands). The concept also resonated outside the EU, including in the United States as well as in China where it became part of the national five-year plan for science, technology and innovation. Responsible Research and Innovation originated against the background of shortcomings of the Science and Society research funding programmes of the above-mentioned countries and regions. These shortcomings were four-fold. First, RRI goes beyond the more conservative ethical, legal and social aspects studies of emerging technologies by developing approaches that will direct science and innovation towards societal challenges, underpinned by shared European values. Second, RRI involves a change from the evaluative assessments of emerging technologies to an approach based on an ethics of co-responsibility among stakeholders. Third, by focusing on innovation processes rather than on assessment of single emerging technologies, RRI advocates the inclusion and commitment of all stakeholders in the innovation process in order to make innovation manageable and directional. Fourth, RRI addresses market failures in order to deliver on socially desirable outcomes of innovation processes. It thereby includes forms of anticipatory governance (Guston 2014).

Responsible Research and Innovation is a transparent, interactive process by which societal actors and innovators become mutually responsive to each other with a view to the (ethical) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the innovation process and its marketable products (in order to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological advances in our society).

This definition was not proposed as an end-result but as a starting point for an ever-growing field of research and innovation actions. The definition highlights that conventional public policies only negatively select science and technology-related options, notably by the management of their risks. These conventional public policies assume that all innovations will contribute to common prosperity regardless of their nature. The notion of RRI makes a radical break with this conventional wisdom. Furthermore, RRI takes as point of departure that innovations can be managed into a particular direction and puts the power for socially desirable change through innovations into the hands of stakeholders and engaged citizens. This means that these stakeholders have to be incentivized or even enforced to become mutually responsive to each other in terms of social commitments. The current ‘green deal’ the EU has embarked on can be seen as such a social commitment and makes directional innovation possible (European Commission 2019). This implies the institutionalization of a form of collective co-responsibility, going beyond the traditional evaluative forms of ethics, which have concentrated on the negative constraints of new technologies (i.e. what we ‘should not do’) rather than engage with a constructive form of technology development (i.e. which direction we ought to go). In light of institutional theory (→ THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF SOCIAL INNOVATIONS), social innovation is considered a collaborative or collective action

401

402  Encyclopedia of social innovation

that reshapes interactions between various actors within an institutional environment (Satalkina and Steiner 2022). Social innovation has also been increasingly associated with responses to societal challenges, including in the form of innovation policies (Grimm et al. 2013). Against this background, the following section accounts for RRI as a social innovation in terms of four institutional changes and social innovative responses to societal challenges by incorporating it in research and innovation policy. This section is followed by a critical reflection and outlook which points to the socio-political dimension of RRI.

Key finding: four institutional changes of RRI

The first institutional change defines RRI as new paradigm for research and innovation. Currently there is no public governance mechanism which allows for public deliberation and enabling and assigning of responsibilities concerning the type of innovations that are socially desirable. Success on the market may indicate benefits for particular groups of consumers but does not constitute socially desirable outcomes in terms of producing or safeguarding public goods. A first departure point for a vision of RRI is, therefore, to advance governance mechanisms that could drive innovations to societally desirable ends, which helps to constitute, renew or preserve public goods. This implies that we should not only have professional bodies for risk assessment but also professional bodies that should look into the type of outcomes which we want to get out of research and innovation and the establishment of governance mechanisms that should give steer the innovation process. Authors in the field of RRI have called for inclusive and deliberative governance based on broad stakeholder involvement and early public intervention in research and development leading to responsive public policies (Owen et al. 2013). The second institutional change of RRI calls for the shift to value-driven innovation. Innovations often overwhelm people, and virtually no new transformative technological innovations have been predicted in advance. Even at the early stage of technology development, such as in the case of nanotechnology, the first marketed products were not what experts initially predicted. The first products involving nanotechnology were cosmetics,

despite expectations centring on healthcare and environmentally sound applications. There seems to be a general mismatch between the pace of ‘new’ products entering the market and the societal significance of those products. Notably, in areas where our innovation system relies on a handful of multinational companies, such as in the medical and agrobusiness fields, innovations are not delivering on societal expectations. In the pharmaceutical field, the economic rationale results in counter intuitive research and innovation priorities in the private sector – medicines that can treat rather than cure chronic diseases are preferable from an economic point of view. Although market innovations are very effective when they concern efficiency gains as they immediately reflect an economic rationale that honours better outcomes for lower costs, we cannot expect innovations to come equally quickly to the market when they require transformative changes, such as a change of infrastructure or a transition towards a new energy system which is infringing on vested interests. Such changes are difficult to conceive without heavy public investment. Market failure is accompanied with the non-alignment of innovations with broadly shared public values in specific innovation contexts where transformative change has become socially desirable, virtually across all topics touching on sustainable development and issues that are dependent on knowledge commons. Under the European Framework programme for Research and Innovation Horizon 2020, a number of ‘Grand Societal Challenges’ have been defined, which followed the call in the Lund Declaration for a Europe that ‘must focus on the Grand Societal Challenges of our time’ (Lund Declaration 2009, during the Swedish EU presidency). Sustainable solutions are sought in areas such as ‘global warming, tightening supplies of energy, water and food, ageing societies, public health, pandemics and security’ (ibid., p. 1). The Lund Declaration gave for the first time at European level a justification for investing in research and innovation beyond macro-economic benefits, primarily framing this in terms of responding to Grand Societal Challenges (ibid., p. 2). Although the Lund Declaration led to the adoption of Horizon 2020, which featured a focus on societal challenges, this programme still

Lucien von Schomberg and René von Schomberg

Responsible research and innovation as a social innovation  403

lacked the instruments and mechanisms to direct research and innovation towards these objectives. This changed with the event of Horizon Europe with its features of open science and mission-oriented research. Authors in the field of RRI have articulated on how to proceed with value-driven innovation; for example, the systematic use of normative principles for the design of technologies. ‘Privacy by Design’ is the most prominent example of such a normative principle for devising responsible governance of ICT (Stahl 2011). Whenever appropriate, the integration of social science and humanities within interdisciplinary research practices to increase reflexivity (Fisher et al. 2006). The third institutional change of RRI is the establishment of anticipatory governance in the science policy interface. Anticipatory governance refers to an adequate governance framework to anticipate the intended and unintended impacts of new technologies in economic, environmental, social and ethical terms. This requires extensive use of technology foresight and technology assessment (Karinen and Guston 2010). The issue of unintentional consequences of scientific and technological developments which have preoccupied various fields of study (e.g. Science and Technology Studies, Technology Assessment) can be traced back to, amongst others, the limited capacity of the scientific system to know in advance the consequences of scientific discoveries and technological actions. Virtually all complex technological innovations of benefit to society are surrounded by scientific uncertainties and several degrees of ignorance. Anticipatory governance, therefore, requires knowledge assessment mechanisms which will assess the quality of available knowledge for the policy process. Research and innovation policies are currently forced to act upon developments, such as climate change, while at the same time being uncertain about the quality and comprehensiveness of the available scientific knowledge as well as an evolving public opinion. A deliberative approach to the policymaking process itself would complement and connect with a broader public debate as such. The further institutionalization of foresight in public policy is thereby an option to implement a form of anticipatory governance

allowing for an early identification of knowledge gaps and normative issues of technology governance. The fourth institutional change refers to a required co-evolution of our social systems (e.g. science, economy, policy), by an institutionalization of a social system overarching collective co-responsibility. The scientific and public policy sphere can evolve through establishing a science–policy interface which adopts the new function of knowledge assessment and foresight to make anticipatory governance possible. The economic and scientific system can also further evolve by public governance which not only provides constraints for technological developments but also incentivizes research and innovation actions favouring particular socially desirable outcomes. This requires, among others, an alternative funding system for publicly funded research (e.g. incentivizing open scientific collaboration) as well as socio-political innovations concerning the development of non-legislative actions such as code of conducts and public-private partnerships in order to overcome and compensate for market failures in delivering socially desirable outcomes (cf. Von Schomberg 2019). An instrument for directing research and innovation to socially desirable outcomes is the implementation of mission-oriented research (Mazzucato 2018). In such missions, stakeholders and citizens collaborate on open research and innovation agendas with a social commitment to a socially desirable outcome (→ NEXT GENERATION INNOVATION POLICY). The key words here are co-creation and co-design of research and innovation trajectories. The new EU framework programme has introduced with its new features of mission-oriented research (where the targets are essentially social, not only scientific-technological) as a means for fostering innovation by co-design and co-creation towards democratically decided main objectives (e.g. as a result of deliberation among stakeholders, the member states of the EU and the European Parliament). The missions will also all have to feature an essential input from citizens. The instrument can thus be seen as a social innovation in itself.

Lucien von Schomberg and René von Schomberg

404  Encyclopedia of social innovation

The politicization of RRI: a critical reflection and outlook

Even though frameworks of RRI are widely adopted at the declarative level, they continue to face structural tensions at the operational level (Novitzsky et al. 2020). In practice, RRI may be instrumentalized to accommodate other policy goals, such as scientific excellence and economic value (Rodríguez et al. 2022; Owen et al. 2021). The antidote to the instrumentalization of RRI – within the European Commission and beyond – is to further politicize it, that is, by genuinely actualizing a plurality of perspectives, values and possibilities throughout innovation processes (Von Schomberg 2022). Doing so will inspire innovation to break through techno-economic constraints as well as other organizational, disciplinary and bureaucratic boundaries. To be sure, narrow configurations of RRI tend to limit deliberation to a small range of mostly internal stakeholders where ‘second-order reflexivity and the political are almost entirely beyond scope, or at least deeply tacit’ (Owen and Pansera 2019, p. 41). In contrast, the further politicization of RRI calls for a pluralistic and non-reductive approach of innovation processes (Blok 2019). A pluralistic approach activates the direct involvement of individual citizens beyond representative stakeholders, while a non-reductive approach does not reduce such involvement to ‘common stakes’ but instead enables individuals to articulate their own position and judgement, aligned with their own interests and value frames (van Huijstee et al. 2007). In this spirit, and by way of example, the NEMO Science Museum in Amsterdam offers an experimental platform of art and science fiction to stimulate citizens to develop and share their own vision of how the future should look like. Another way to activate citizenry in innovation processes is to organize initiatives of ‘direct democracy’ in which global challenges are publicly discussed, including those that are ‘politically’ polarized. Precisely because the actualization of plurality comes with different opinions, addresses contextual priorities, and rapidly voices undesirable effects, it ultimately generates political support. Other examples that could potentially contribute to the politicization of RRI include the New European Bauhaus and the implementation of

the Green Deal, which excite conversations beyond usual stakeholders from, for example, industry and the government, enabling citizens to deliver insights concerning the priorities and challenges in architecture and urban planning. While examples as those mentioned above are promising, they could still benefit from further empirical analysis. To what extent do they effectively actualize plurality? Is this really resulting in a more societally desirable future? Research still needs to develop a performance measurement system (cf. Neely et al. 1995) that uses key indicators to monitor how innovation effectively enables citizenry, and to what extent doing so helps tackling the so-called grand challenges of our time. Also at the conceptual level, the politization of RRI requires further substantiation. In this respect, it must thoroughly examine the relation between politics and responsibility to safeguard the legitimacy of the values and outcomes it deems societally desirable (Penttilä 2022). In doing so, it also needs to define a balance between under-inclusion and over-inclusion in innovation processes. While the literature mostly points to the problem of under-inclusion in RRI, there are also potential socio-ethical risks with over-inclusion, especially when people foster dishonest and even terrorizing intentions (Popa and Blok 2022). In this respect, it will be a crucial step to discuss and establish criteria which enhances plurality and genuinely helps to reveal each other’s blind spots and assumptions, while maintaining respect for each other’s differences. Lucien von Schomberg and René von Schomberg

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Blok, V. (2019), ‘From participation to interruption: toward an ethics of stakeholder engagement, participation and partnership in corporate social responsibility and responsible innovation’, in R. von Schomberg and J. Hankins (eds), International Handbook on Responsible Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 243–58. European Commission (2019), Communication from the Commission: The European Green Deal, accessed 30 November at https://​eur​-lex​

Lucien von Schomberg and René von Schomberg

Responsible research and innovation as a social innovation  405 .europa​.eu/​legal​-content/​EN/​TXT/​?uri​=​COM:​ 2019:​640:​FIN. Fisher, E., M. Roop and C. Mitcham (2006), ‘Midstream modulation of technology: governance from within’, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 26 (6), pp. 485–96. Grimm, R., C. Fox, S. Baines and K. Albertson (2013), ‘Social innovation, an answer to contemporary societal challenges? Locating the concept in theory and practice’, Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 26, pp. 436–55. Guston, D. H. (2014), ‘Understanding anticipatory governance’, Social Studies of Science, 44 (2), pp. 218–42. Karinen, R. and D. Guston (2010), ‘Towards anticipatory governance: the experience with nanotechnology’, in M. Kaiser et al. (eds), Governing Future Technologies: Nanotechnology and the Rise of an Assessment Regime, Dordrecht: Springer. Lund Declaration (2009), Lund Declaration, presented at the New Worlds – New Solutions. Research and Innovation as a Basis for Developing Europe in a Global Context conference, Lund, 7–8 July, accessed 30 November at https://​www​.vr​.se/​download/​18​.393​ 6818b16e6f​40bd3e5cd/​1574173799722/​Lund​ %20Declaration​%202009​.pdf. Mazzucato, M. (2018), Mission-Oriented Research & Innovation in the European Union: A Problem-Solving Approach to Fuel Innovation-Led Growth, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Neely, A., M. Gregory and K. Platts (1995), ‘Performance measurement system design: a literature review and research agenda’, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 15 (4), pp. 80–116. Novitzky, P., M. J. Bernstein, V. Blok, R. Braun, T. T. Chan, W. Lamers, A. Loeber, I. Meijer, R. Lindner and E. Griessler (2020), ‘Improve alignment of research policy and societal values’, Science, 369 (6499), pp. 39–41. Owen, R. and M. Pansera (2019), ‘Responsible innovation: orocess and politics’, in R. von Schomberg and J. Hankins (eds), International Handbook on Responsible Innovation,

Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 35–48. Owen, R., J. Stillgoe and P. MacNaughten (2013), ‘A framework for responsible innovation’, in R. Owen, M. Heintz and J. Bessant (eds), Responsible Innovation, London: John Wiley. Owen, R., R. von Schomberg and P. Macnaghten (2021), ‘An unfinished journey? Reflections on a decade of responsible research and innovation’, Journal of Responsible Innovation, 8 (2), pp. 1–17. Penttilä, L. (2022), ‘Is responsible innovation possible? The problem of depoliticization for a normative framework of RI’, NOvation: Critical Studies of Innovation, 4, pp. 107–26. Popa, E. and V. Blok (2022), ‘Responsible innovation in the age of conspiracism’, Journal of Responsible Innovation, 9 (3), https://​doi​.org/​ 10​.1080/​23299460​.2022​.2116804. Rodríguez, H., S. Urueña and A. Ibarra (2022), ‘Anticipatory responsible innovation: futures construction in the face of the techno-economic imperative’, NOvation: Critical Studies of Innovation, 4, pp. 127–46. Satalkina, L. and G. Steiner (2022), ‘Social innovation: a retrospective perspective’, Minerva, 60, pp. 567–91. Stahl, B. (2011), ‘IT for a better future: how to integrate ethics, politics and innovation’, Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 9 (3), pp. 140–56. Van Huijstee, M. M., M. Francken and P. Leroy (2007), ‘Partnerships for sustainable development: a review of current literature’, Environmental Sciences, 4 (2), pp. 75–89. Von Schomberg, R. (2013), ‘A vision of responsible innovation’, in R. Owen, M. Heintz and J. Bessant (eds), Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society, London: John Wiley, pp. 51–72. Von Schomberg, R. (2019), ‘Why responsible innovation?’, in R. von Schomberg and J. Hankins (eds), International Handbook on Responsible Innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 12–32. Von Schomberg, L. (2022), ‘Raising the sail of innovation: philosophical explorations on responsible innovation’, PhD thesis, Wageningen University.

Lucien von Schomberg and René von Schomberg

71. Social innovation and the new role of the state Introduction: motivation and relevance of the topic

Given the increasing awareness of the Grand Societal Challenges, with underlying serious global ecological and social problems, the need for change and a paradigm shift towards more sustainability has moved on the agenda of policymakers worldwide (Neumeier 2017). The international agreement on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) shows that, alongside economic prosperity, social, ecological and societal values are becoming equally important. At the same time, it has become clear that the canon of goals expanded in this way cannot solely be achieved with technological innovations, but respective changes in individual and collective behaviour (i.e. social innovations) are necessary (Howaldt et al. 2016). The innovation welfare paradigm is thus undergoing a sustainability-oriented expansion: society and nature are now joining the economy as addressees of innovations; innovations as ‘agens movens’ encompass not only (sustainable) technological, but also social and societal innovations. Social innovations are essentially based on individual and collective changes in behaviour (see Mulgan 2006a). They lead to new forms of working (e.g. home office) and consuming (e.g. green shopping) on the one hand and on the other hand to new forms of social interaction in social (social media) and economic (video conferencing) coexistence. Their starting point is usually problems or grievances within a society and vis-à-vis the natural environment. Social innovations are a key element in addressing these problems and a core driver of social change (Cajaiba-Santana 2014). They can be closely related to technological innovations and complement them; often they are even necessary for a technological innovation to succeed or be adopted (e.g. changed mobility behaviour in autonomous driving). Like technological innovations, social innovations strive for improvements (Dawson and Daniel 2010). These go hand in hand with an increase in social (e.g. distribution of wealth, health),

societal (e.g. inclusion) and ecological values (e.g. environment, climate), but can also have economic effects such as increased efficiency (e.g. home office). Innovations that address Grand Societal Challenges require a new role of the state in the promotion and control of innovations. This new role emphasizes not only the rate of innovation, but in particular the importance of the direction of the innovation process. The implementation of such a normatively shaped directional specification can only be implemented by a strong state acting in an entrepreneurial manner. The importance of the state in generating especially radical, disruptive, and revolutionary innovations, or its ability to influence technological change in a directional way, should be more widely recognized and reassessed (e.g. Mazzucato 2011; Dachs et al. 2015; Polt et al. 2014). Despite the increasing importance of social innovations for social development, the new role of the state in fostering social innovations is largely unexplored. This entry investigates potential pathways for policymakers in how social innovations can be promoted and how value from social innovations can best be captured by the society. We thereby consider the specifics of the social innovation process as well as potential barriers to social innovations. We conclude with recommendations for policymakers how to best integrate social innovations in current innovation policy approaches (→ NEXT GENERATION INNOVATION POLICY).

Key findings The social innovation process and the actors involved Compared to technological innovation, social innovation shows a couple of special features (see Mulgan 2006b). They relate to the innovation process (different phases vs one), the actors involved (one vs many) as well as the innovation model applied (technology push vs demand pull). Technological innovation is considered a linear process from the inventor via the innovator into the population of adopters. The starting point is a new idea, the invention, created by individuals or a small group of inventors. Via mainly profit-driven innovator(s), it is introduced into the market where it diffuses. Critical in this technology

406

Social innovation and the new role of the state  407

pushed process on the one hand is the acceptance of the new idea by adopters, the fit of the new idea to their preferences and needs. On the other hand, the easy imitation due to the assumed (at least partial) public good nature of the newly generated technological knowledge causes an incentive or appropriation problem for the inventor and innovator when considering investing in research and innovation. Social innovation, contrariwise, is rather considered a bottom-up process. Many actors, with various backgrounds and knowledge, are involved in creating the new idea, applying it to create in principle social values (see Lettice and Parekh 2010). The starting point in this process is a social need which pulls the actors involved to collectively search for a solution – hence innovation here is inherently collaborative. The distinction between inventors, innovators and adopters, between the phases of invention, innovation and diffusion becomes blurred – they in principle collapse into one. Critical in this process is less the fit of the solution to the problem, since it just comes from its users. And the – classical – problem of appropriation is just put on top; the exclusion of others from the returns of a social innovation would simply prevent the social innovation to get realized. However, critical in the process of social innovation is the problem of collective action or the social dilemma – nobody acts individually as long as others do not act. The rationale for policy interventions Despite its central importance, political support for stimulating and fostering social innovations is still at a very low level, especially in comparison to policies devoted to technological innovations. However, like technological innovations, barriers to social innovations exist which limit desirable social innovation processes: (1) market failures, (2) system failures, and (3) transformational failures. The rationale of science and technology policies thus revolves around resolving and overcoming respective (market and systemic) imperfections, ensuring efficient (social) innovation processes, and attaining a social optimum. Markets may fail due to various reasons (see Martin and Scott 2000): (a) the outcomes of innovation processes – newly generated knowledge – are quasi-public goods, (b)

externalities in the form of knowledge spillovers reduce the returns on innovation activities, leading to a potential underinvestment, (c) information asymmetries increase transaction costs, as potential capital providers are not able to assess the chances of success for a given innovation project adequately, (d) the outcomes of innovation processes are uncertain, deterring potential innovators. Likewise, systemic imperfections may impede optimal outcomes of innovation processes (see Woolthuis et al. 2005): (a) network failures restrict the interactions between innovation actors within and beyond innovation systems and limit knowledge flows, provoking potential path dependencies, (b) institutional failures inhibit innovation activities due to insufficient formal institutions (e.g. legal frameworks and rules such as intellectual property rights) or informal institutions (e.g. social values), (c) infrastructural failures, referring to the lack of (physical, science or technology) infrastructure, restrict efficient innovation processes, (d) capabilities failures meaning that innovation actors neither possess the competencies (e.g. absorptive capacities) to adopt and apply new knowledge, nor the flexibility to adapt to new circumstances. Finally, there are four basic factors provoking transformational failures (see Weber and Rohracher 2012): (a) demand articulation failures describing the insufficient demand for innovative products and services, which may be rooted in the lack of complementary technological and social innovations, (b) directionality failures referring to the inability to collectively coordinate and act towards (socially) desired transformation goals, (c) policy coordination failures addressing the lack of multilevel policy coordination (horizontal, vertical and temporal coordination), (d) reflexivity failures constituting the lack of adaptive policy portfolios to deal with uncertainty. Whereas system and transformational failures might impede social and technological innovations in similar ways, selected market failures might partially even favour social innovations. Given the specifics of social innovation processes, the quasi-public good character as well as existing externalities might even strengthen the impact and diffusion of social innovation or might even be necessary for social innovations to take

Uwe Cantner, Dirk Fornahl and Matthias Menter

408  Encyclopedia of social innovation

effect, hence only make social innovation outcomes and associated collective actions possible (e.g. social innovation crowdsourcing platforms). At the same time, these market failures can still impede the activities of actors to engage in the innovation process. Directionality and mission orientation In the recent past, societal problem areas or challenges have increasingly come to the fore, resulting in a ‘new mission orientation’ of innovation policy. Mazzucato and Penna (2016, p. 6) define mission-oriented innovation policy as ‘systemic public policies that draw on frontier knowledge to attain specific goals or “big science deployed to meet big problems”’. Tackling innovation missions – whether travelling to the moon or battling climate change – requires investments by both private and public actors. Addressing SDGs provides a normative orientation for the use and distribution of innovation expenditures and thus directional guidelines. In this sense, they are allocative distortions, because of an overall economic investment volume that is too low to eliminate the major societal challenges. A corresponding focus on addressing the solution of such challenges is also reflected in numerous recent innovation policy programmes at the national and international level (e.g. Horizon 2020, High Tech Strategy 2025, Grand Challenges Canada). Missions are in many cases focusing on science or research driven innovation and often have an – at least implicit – technological orientation. But to solve societal challenges, a broader perspective has to consider both social and technological innovations at the same time. Both types of innovation must be combined to become systemic innovations (Dachs et al. 2015). Such systemic innovations lead to fundamental changes in both social and technological dimensions and, most importantly, in the relations between them (Suurs and Roelofs 2014). The challenge arises that the directional specification or mission should, on the one hand, allow sufficient space for search and learning processes to generate alternative social and technological solutions, but at the same time be specific enough to address or overcome the respective problems, challenges and objectives (Dachs et al. 2015). The formulation of a new direction or mission is

a strategic political task that requires the participation of many stakeholders, allows as much openness for solutions as possible, and intervenes directly only in a catalytic way (Cantner and Vannuccini 2018; Bertschek et al. 2021 (chapter B1)). Additionally, such an approach requires sufficient patience (in the form of long-term capital, among other things) and a dynamically experimental, exploratory orientation (discovery process) (Mazzucato 2014b). Designing experimental approaches Such discovery processes are based on experimental setups and new experimentally designed governance approaches on multiple levels ranging from municipalities to the national level (Engels et al. 2019). Such design is justified by the observation that there is no single path or optimal solution for realizing technological, economic, ecological and social objectives and challenges. The experimental orientation and the accompanying focus on social learning or technology-related learning processes (‘learning by doing’ and ‘doing by learning’) can be seen as a response to the characteristic uncertainty, unpredictability and openness of future developments. Such open learning or discovery processes are embedded in the society as a whole, explicitly draw on trial and learn processes, include failures and failure tolerance and are characterized by a high degree of adaptability, anticipation and reversibility. By exploring new development corridors (including ways of working, routines, values) across different levels, this ultimately leads to the prioritization of sustainable and long-term oriented solutions and strategies in the form of specific technologies, social arrangements, development paths and activities (Späth and Rohracher 2012). For the implementation of this approach, a combination of governmental top-down control, which in particular has the task of implementing a normative direction, with a dynamic experimental and collective discovery process (bottom-up) seems to be suitable. For concrete implementation, the experimental introduction and development of socio-technical niches or niche regimes in socio-technical shelters with the explicit involvement of potential users is thereby particularly important (Coenen et al. 2010). The composition of actors relevant for the

Uwe Cantner, Dirk Fornahl and Matthias Menter

Social innovation and the new role of the state  409

experimental setup depends on the context, but probably includes in all cases a diversity of actors such as firms, universities, NGOs, civil society and administration. Social innovations are linked to these experimental approaches in two ways: First, they can be the objective of the experiments; hence, the aim is to develop social innovations to follow a certain direction or solve specific problems. Second, the experimentation process as such is in many cases already a social innovation in itself because while experimenting a change of behaviour of the involved actors is likely because of learning and interacting. Development and coordination of policy instruments In the course of the complex and differentiated – broader – understanding of (systemic) innovations described above, a portfolio of instruments is needed to address the technological as well as the social side of the innovation at the same time. Only through a process-oriented approach that factors in complex, continuously adaptable combinations of various coordinated policy instruments (instrument mix), the implementation of direction setting and an experimentally exploratory discovery process can be successfully realized. The portfolio of instruments ranges from market based, regulatory, economic, and financial to voluntary and softer, less formalized, cooperative policy instruments geared toward self-commitment and persuasion. The German Parliament, for example, dealt with the importance of social innovation in the year 2020 and it was agreed that a broad range of different approaches shall be used to increase the support for social innovations in the future – ranging from the establishment of social innovation hubs over a research programme for social innovation to start up support for social enterprises (Bundestag 2020). In addition to direct government investments in specific technologies, start up financing, the creation of networks with decentralized government and private actors, and tax incentives for specific activities are seen as particularly significant for the implementation of a directional policy on the supply side (Mazzucato 2014a). In addition to the development of new technologies, the rapid dissemination and application of technolo-

gies (diffusion or utilization orientation) and the targeted approach of diffusion-oriented instruments play an important role for mission-oriented approaches (Dachs et al. 2015) as well as for the success of social innovation. Instruments include, for example, procurement competitions (Hightech-Forum 2019), demonstration projects, and support for intellectual property rights that are as freely available as possible. Acceptance of a systemic innovation can be promoted, for example, through classic appropriately targeted financial instruments (purchase subsidies, low interest loans, tax exemptions), information provision (media campaigns, labels, celebrity endorsements) and adjustments to the economic framework. As mentioned above, to address societal challenges, policy support should be provided not only for technological innovations, but especially for systemic innovations in which social innovations play an as important role as technological ones. In order to take such innovations beyond the first phase and to enable open learning processes, support in the forms of real experiments, pilot and demonstration projects and test beds or living labs (Engels et al. 2019) as well innovation inducement prizes (Williams 2012) seem to be suitable approaches to rethink existing innovation policy instruments and test new ones (Hightech-Forum 2019). Hence, new and flexible instruments need to be conceptualized to create incentives for social innovations and in the same vein overcome the described barriers to social innovations. The complexity and the global nature of the major societal challenges are naturally accompanied by a broad spectrum of impacts and necessary approaches to solutions; for example, different industries and regions/ nations are affected by societal challenges and these challenges do not only influence the economy but also environment and society. These interdependencies call for increased policy coordination that extends across different areas and levels (Mazzucato 2018). Horizontal coordination with other policy areas (including competition policy, financial policy, industrial policy, transport policy, energy policy, agricultural policy, environmental policy) is particularly relevant for a mission-oriented as well as a transition-oriented innovation policy or for supporting and steering socio-economic tran-

Uwe Cantner, Dirk Fornahl and Matthias Menter

410  Encyclopedia of social innovation

sitions (Bertschek et al. 2021 (chapter B1)). The increased need for intelligent policy coordination is justified, among other things, by the avoidance of undesirable parallel research and overlapping competencies, the use of synergy effects, and the avoidance of unintended negative side effects of political measures (Dachs et al. 2015).

sition processes, enable a clear assignment of political responsibility, and help facilitate coordination, oversight, and control tasks. Mazzucato (2014b, p. 17) in this respect emphasizes that ‘the size of the state apparatus and purely economic efficiency of the state are the wrong focuses for organizing the state’.

Establishing new forms of organization and political leadership For the successful implementation of a directional approach to the Grand Societal Challenges, proponents of ‘political leadership’ emphasize the importance of an intelligent state that acts boldly (‘think big’) and has high absorptive capacities (‘absorptive capacity’). Ensuring sufficient state intelligence (‘policy capacity’) in turn requires a deep understanding and new ways of thinking about public organizations (Carl and Menter 2021) or about the appropriate structures of public institutions (Wu et al. 2015). For successful implementation, an intensive examination of the appropriate and necessary structures, resources, and dynamic capabilities (‘organizational change’) is necessary. An analysis of the history of innovation shows that technological development and the innovative companies involved in it were in many cases financed or indirectly supported not by private but by state venture capital through so-called mission-oriented agencies; for example, innovation agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Vinnova (Sweden), ImPACT (Japan), and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) (Mazzucato 2011). The same holds for systemic and social innovation. Such agencies can build up competencies in the field of the promotion and diffusion of social innovation, establish advisory capacities, ensure efficient project support, design funding programs, and organize transfer. They should be organized decentrally to consider local conditions and they have to be flexible to adapt to current needs and problems (Hightech-Forum 2019). For the successful mobilization of transition-oriented strategies (including setting or influencing direction), political leadership should provide sufficient voice and visibility to the intended change and tran-

Creating a balance between risks and gains for the state By analysing the history of innovation, the pioneering role of the state in high-risk financing, application and basic research, and its extraordinarily important role in radical innovations that were accompanied by particularly high risk and uncertainty can be identified. Concepts should be developed to make the decisive role of the state in the case of successful technology or innovation promotion visible to the public and to reward its direct investments in basic and applied research and its role as a risk taker accordingly in financial terms. While failures and resulting losses are usually socialized or attributed to the state, in the opposite case of success, the companies involved profit almost exclusively. The pioneering role of the state in these success stories is not usually perceived or adequately considered (Mazzucato 2011). This illustrates that the distribution of risks and rewards between private and state actors associated with the generation and implementation of new technologies and innovation in general is usually unbalanced. Indirect remuneration of state investments via the tax system seems unsuitable for this purpose for various reasons. An alternative approach by which the government can generate direct returns from its innovation investments could be for example results-based payments (royalties). A corresponding approach aims to ensure that sufficient revenues flow back from the state’s cross-industry and cross-technology activities – for example, into a National Innovation Fund – which can simultaneously shape the financing of future innovations and their direction. In addition, the state could set certain conditions and repayment terms for its investments and support of companies – analogous to income-based (student) loans – or receive shares in the respective company in return. State investment banks also play an important

Uwe Cantner, Dirk Fornahl and Matthias Menter

Social innovation and the new role of the state  411

role in generating returns and countercyclical lending (Mazzucato 2015) and in recent years in some countries so-called Social Impact Bonds gained prominence (OECD 2016). In the case of social innovations, there are two different kinds of returns which have to be considered when talking about gains for the state: first, the pecuniary ones and second, the social returns generated by the social innovation. The latter are difficult to monetarize in general and the social returns cannot be appropriated by a single entity but are often a collective good in many cases. Although a cost–benefit analysis is not possible, social innovations have a high likelihood to positively affect social well-being, which should be accounted for when deciding whether to support a social innovation. Indicator- and evidence-based policymaking As just pointed out above, a cost–benefit analysis in the case of social innovations might be hard to accomplish. In order to evaluate the successes or failures of the role of the public sector or policy interventions, the need arises to develop new indicators and tools beyond the neoclassical cost–benefit analysis to follow an evidence-based policy approach (Mazzucato 2015). Appropriate evaluation methods must explicitly account for the inherent uncertainty and risks associated with the social innovation process. The ability to distinguish whether political failures are to some extent the planned result of a process of discovery, systemic innovations, or a permanent problem due to rigid state structures and institutions is of great importance. The same holds for measuring the success of specific policy interventions. This is necessary to adapt policy instruments over time. In many cases innovation indicators are focused on technological innovation. But these indicators are not helpful to measure social innovations or the impact of these social innovations and, hence, it is problematic to aim for an evidence-based policymaking. Nevertheless, in recent years several projects and publications dealt with the topic (Krlev et al. 2014). Potential indicators include the framework conditions, entrepreneurial activities, and organizational/societal output (Krlev et al. 2014).

Critical reflection and outlook

The preceding remarks have shown that the new role of the state in the promotion of social and systemic innovations, with its increased orientation toward societal challenges and problem situations, is defined as much more active and more central. A mission-oriented and market creating innovation policy requires a dynamic, experiment-oriented approach that enables and supports public– private interactions and partnerships as a basis for generating new innovations and technological developments. This involves not only the selection of specific technologies or sectors, but also the formulation or specification of a fundamental direction for further technological as well as social development. To fulfil these new tasks, however, the state must also reposition itself. Several selected aspects were discussed in this chapter: new rationales for policy intervention, directionality and mission orientation, experimental spaces, new and coordinated policy instruments, organizational structure, balance between costs and profits and new indicators for social innovation and evidence-based policymaking. The challenges for the state are not the development of a new funding instrument, but are more fundamental, and therefore probably also more sustainable. To develop a social innovation policy for the twenty-first century, further research is needed in all of the aspects discussed in this entry (see Van der Have and Rubalcaba 2016) because until now most of the research focused on the new role of the state for technological innovations and the peculiar conditions of social innovation have not really been considered. This must change in the future. Uwe Cantner, Dirk Fornahl and Matthias Menter

References

Bertschek, I., H. Bonin, U. Cantner, C. Häussler, K. Hölzle and T. Requate (2021), Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation (EFI) Report 2021, Berlin. Bundestag (2020), Antrag der Fraktionen der CDU/CSU und SPD – Soziale Innovationen stärker fördern und Potenziale effizienter nutzen, Drucksache 19/19493. Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014), ‘Social innovation: moving the field forward. A conceptual frame-

Uwe Cantner, Dirk Fornahl and Matthias Menter

412  Encyclopedia of social innovation work’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82, pp. 42–51. Cantner, U. and S. Vannuccini (2018), ‘Elements of a Schumpeterian catalytic research and innovation policy’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 27 (5), pp. 833–50. Carl, J. and M. Menter (2021), ‘The social impact of universities: assessing the effects of the three university missions on social engagement’, Studies in Higher Education, 46 (5), pp. 965–76. Coenen, L., R. Raven and G. Verbong (2010), ‘Local niche experimentation in energy transitions: a theoretical and empirical exploration of proximity advantages and disadvantages’, Technology in Society, 32 (4), pp. 295–302. Dachs, B., M. Dinges, M. Weber, G. Zahradnik, P. Warnke and B. Teufel (2015), Herausforderungen und Perspektiven missionsorientierter Forschungs- und Innovationspolitik, Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem Nr. 12–2015, Wien, Karlsruhe: AIT/Fraunhofer ISI. Dawson, P. and L. Daniel (2010), ‘Understanding social innovation: a provisional frameworkʼ, International Journal of Technology Management, 51 (1), pp. 9–21. Engels, F., A. Wentland and S. M. Pfotenhauer (2019), ‘Testing future societies? Developing a framework for test beds and living labs as instruments of innovation governance’, Research Policy, 48 (9), 103826. Hightech-Forum (2019), Soziale Innovationen – Ein Impulspapier für das Hightech-Forum, accessed 26 July 2022 at https://​www​.hightech​ -forum​.de/​wp​-content/​uploads/​hightech​ -forum​_impulspapier​_soziale​_innovationen​-4​ .pdf. Howaldt, J., D. Domanski and C. Kaletka (2016), ‘Social innovation: towards a new innovation paradigmʼ, Mackenzie Management Review, 17 (6), pp. 20–44. Krlev, G., E. Bund and G. Mildenberger (2014), ‘Measuring what matters: indicators of social innovativeness on the national levelʼ, Information Systems Management, 31 (3), pp. 200–224. Lettice, F. and M. Parekh (2010), ‘The social innovation process: themes, challenges and implications for practiceʼ, International Journal of Technology Management, 51 (1), pp. 139–58. Martin, S. and J. T. Scott (2000), ‘The nature of innovation market failure and the design of public support for private innovationʼ, Research Policy, 29 (4–5), pp. 437–47. Mazzucato, M. (2011), The Entrepreneurial State, London: Demos. Mazzucato, M. (2014a), Building the Entrepreneurial State: A New Framework for Envisioning and Evaluating Mission-Oriented Public Investments, accessed 26 July 2022 at

https://​marianamazzucato​.com/​wp​-content/​ uploads/​2014/​09/​MOFI​-2014​-PB​-01​ -Mazzucato​.pdf. Mazzucato, M. (2014b), A Mission Oriented Approach to Building the Entrepreneurial State, paper commissioned by Innovate UK-Technology Strategy Board, November 2014 T14/165, accessed 1 February 2018 at https://​www​.gov​.uk/​government/​news/​long​ -term​-growth​-innovations​-role​-in​-economic​ -success. Mazzucato, M. (2015), ‘Innovation systems: from fixing market failures to creating markets’, Intereconomics, 50 (3), pp. 120–25. Mazzucato, M. (2018), Mission-Oriented Research & Innovation in the European Union, Brussels: European Commission. Mazzucato, M. and C. C. R. Penna (2016), The Brazilian Innovation System: A Mission-Oriented Policy Proposal, Brasília, DF: CGEE. Mulgan, G. (2006a), A Manifesto for Social Innovation: What It Is, Why It Matters and How It Can Be Accelerated, London: The Young Foundation. Mulgan, G. (2006b), ‘The process of social innovation’, Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1 (2), pp. 145–62. Neumeier, S. (2017), ‘Social innovation in rural development: identifying the key factors of success’, The Geographical Journal, 183 (1), pp. 34–46. OECD (2016), Understanding Social Impact Bonds, accessed 10 October 2021 at https://​www​ .oecd​.org/​cfe/​leed/​UnderstandingSIBsLux​ -WorkingPaper​.pdf. Polt, W., M. Berger, H. Gassler, H. Schiffbänker and S. Reidl (2014), Breites Innovationsverständnis und seine Bedeutung für die Innovationspolitik. Begründung, Messung, Umsetzung, accessed 26 July 2022 at https://​www​.swir​.ch/​images/​ stories/​pdf/​de/​1–2014​_AD​_Inn​ovationsve​ rstaendnis​_140811​.pdf. Späth, P. and H. Rohracher (2012), ‘Local demonstrations for global transitions: dynamics across governance levels fostering socio-technical regime change towards sustainability’, European Planning Studies, 20 (3), pp. 461–79. Suurs, R. and E. Roelofs (2014), Systemic Innovation: Concepts and Tools for Strengthening National and European Eco-policies, TNO report. Van der Have, R. P. and L. Rubalcaba (2016), ‘Social innovation research: an emerging area of innovation studies?’, Research Policy, 45 (9), pp. 1923–35. Weber, K. M. and H. Rohracher (2012), ‘Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change: combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive

Uwe Cantner, Dirk Fornahl and Matthias Menter

Social innovation and the new role of the state  413 “failures” framework’, Research Policy, 41 (6), pp. 1037–47. Williams, H. (2012), ‘Innovation inducement prizes: connecting research to policy’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31 (3), pp. 752–76. Woolthuis, R. K., M. Lankhuizen and V. Gilsing (2005), ‘A system failure framework for inno-

vation policy design’, Technovation, 25 (6), pp. 609–19. Wu, X., M. Ramesh and M. Howlett (2015), ‘Policy capacity: a conceptual framework for understanding policy competences and capabilities’, Policy and Society, 34 (3–4), pp. 165–71.

Uwe Cantner, Dirk Fornahl and Matthias Menter

72. Social innovation and public policy Introduction

There are long traditions of innovation in social policy and more recent experience of policies for social innovation. The first category includes the creation of comprehensive welfare states and social services to support families, the elderly or children in need. The second category includes the deliberate cultivation of a new field of finance and investment, using a variety of labels (such as social finance or impact investment), and accounting for many tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars or euros of investment by some measures; experimentation, including randomized control trials, to test novel ideas; deeper integration of civil society and social movements into policymaking, and a greater commitment to involving the beneficiaries of policy in their design; radical strategies for deepening democracy; the emergence of new subfields such as digital social innovation or civic tech. There remain a wide variety of definitions of the field, which straddles multiple scales, types of organization and ethos (see Edwards-Schachter and Wallace 2017; Godin 2012). Moreover, very different countries have attempted to develop more coherent social innovation policies – from South Korea and Canada to Slovenia, Croatia, Taiwan and Sweden (see, for example, OECD 2016 for an overview of innovation policy in Croatia). In this entry, I provide an overview.

The arrival and re-emergence of social innovation

Social innovation is not a new concept or practice, but in the first two decades of the century it became more mainstream and visible in public policy. Governments provided support for new legal forms; tax incentives; capacity-building programmes; opening out of public procurement as well as support for hundreds of social innovation centres, funds, courses and incubators of all kinds.

The move into policy

Greater interest in public policy began in the mid-2000s. There was already policy interest in supporting social entrepreneurship and social enterprise, partly prompted by well-funded initiatives like the Schwab Foundation and the World Economic Forum, Ashoka and the Skoll Foundation. These emphasized providing support for individual social entrepreneurs – and encouraged some government initiatives, such as the UK’s £100 million endowment for UnLtd in the late 1990s.1 After the 2000s there was a move to a more systematic approach.2 Policies evolved both in relation to policy for social innovation – covering law, money, procurement – and policy as social innovation, using human-centred design, citizen participation, open processes, citizens’ assemblies, public policy labs and many others (see Reynolds et al. 2018; Anheier et al. 2015).

Diversity across countries

National policy contexts remain very diverse. Bangladesh has some of the strongest institutions for social innovation like BRAC and Grameen, and has therefore had less need for national government policy. In countries such as Kenya (home of Ushahidi and some of the most dynamic digital innovation in the world) the field sits away from the state. What social innovation means in a US city, or a European nation, or a country emerging from conflict is bound to be radically different. Equally diverse are the motivations – whether to speed up solutions to big social challenges, to grow civil society, to feed a new source of jobs or to redress regional inequalities. These complexities were apparent in the work of the European Commission which set out ambitious programmes of policies on social innovation in its Innovation Union initiative (2010) (European Commission n.d.) and Social Investment Package (2013) (European Commission 2013b). These built on a broad definition of the field3 and overlapped with policies in related fields such as inclusive innovation4 (see, for example, Krlev et al. 2020). In what follows I summarize some of the key themes that tend to predominate.

414

Social innovation and public policy  415

Centres and hubs

The easiest, and often first step, has been to support the spread of social innovation centres and labs – dedicated physical spaces and organizations aiming to promote social innovation in the round (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION LABS). There are prominent examples in Quebec, Adelaide, Amsterdam, Beijing, Delhi, Lisbon, Rio, Tilburg and the Basque Country and many others. Some are based on foundations (like the Lien Centre in Singapore or Bertha in Cape Town), others on buildings (such as the CSI in Toronto) while others originated as offshoots of government (like TACSI in Australia and Nesta in the UK). TACSI is a particularly impressive example that focused on social work, and initially an imaginative programme called ‘Family by Family’ that mobilized families experiencing difficulties to help others. The programme was adopted across Australia. The appeal of supporting centres is that it can be done quite quickly and requires no major structural changes.

Law

For governments interested in improving the overall conditions for social innovation a starting point has been law – providing legal forms that better enable social innovation (→ LAW AND SOCIAL INNOVATION). The UK introduced legislation for Community Interest Companies that could take equity in the early 2000s. France created a Société Coopérative D’intéret Collectif and then the Loi Economie sociale et solidaire to allow for more flexibility. Others have promoted B-Corps as a way for business to strengthen its social commitment. Elsewhere the priority has been to establish a solid legal and constitutional basis for NGOs to operate and trade.

Investment and finance

Governments can provide money in targeted funds (as happened, for example, in Hong Kong or Australia) or they can incentivize or encourage more private investment. There’s been a big expansion of social investment funds – although only a small minority focus on innovation, these provide a new route to help innovations grow to scale – and of new funding tools that can support social innovation, such as crowdfunding platforms.

The UK, for example, created a wholesale bank – the Big Society Capital – funded out of unclaimed bank accounts, in order to invest in a new field of investment intermediaries. It also encouraged new asset classes – social impact bonds – of which there are now several hundred globally, most of them dependent on government as a contractor. In 2015, the French Public Bank of Investment created FISO (Fonds d’Innovation Sociale) – a repayable advance or zero-rate loan. The Irish government-backed Social Innovation Fund provides investment and support programmes tailored to early or later stage social innovations. The challenge in this space is to ensure funding at multiple stages – from very small grants for potentially promising ideas, to start-up funding, and ultimately funding for growth, using a widening menu including grant funds, investment through loans and equity, convertible funding, matched crowd funding as well as public procurement, outcomes-based funding and bonds, as well as participatory budgeting. The other challenge is security. It’s much easier to invest in ventures with relatively predictable earnings (like energy) or with assets to provide collateral (such as housing) (see Nicholas 2016 for a good overview of the issues).

Science and research and development

A big hope in the early 2000s was that research and development funding – which had grown as high as 4 per cent of GDP in some countries – would encompass social innovation as well as innovation in hardware. At one point the European Commission incorporated social innovation into many of its programmes, including the European Social Fund and the Horizon 2020 science and research funding and in November 2018, Carlos Moedas who was then the European Union’s commissioner in charge of research gave a fulsome endorsement: ‘In the European Union’, he said, ‘we are going to put more money into social innovation, not because it’s trendy, but because we believe that the future of innovation is about social innovation.’ Ideally a significant proportion of research and development spend, both public and private, would be directed to innoGeoff Mulgan

416  Encyclopedia of social innovation

vations that are social in both their ends and their means.5

Public sector innovation

Some public leaders promoted social innovation. Prominent examples included mayors such as the late Won Soon Park in Seoul, Ilmar Reepalu in Malmo, Virginio Merola in Bologna, and Ann Hidalgo in Paris. These efforts often overlapped with programmes to promote public participation in budget setting (as in Paris), interest in new forms of ownership and commons, or the use of open innovation tools (as London did under Mayor Sadiq Khan). There has also been growing interest within national governments in the use of new methods to promote innovation with challenge prizes, accelerators, internal teams. The UAE now commits one per cent of public spending to public innovation – a rare example of shifting towards more serious allocations. Sweden has also been a pioneer, with ambitious programmes launched in the second half of the 2010s. Taiwan is particularly interesting as an example that has sought to fuse social innovation and collective intelligence and data projects, many led by digital minister Audrey Tang. Many of these are tracked by the OECD’s OPSI.

Digital social innovation

The ubiquity of the Internet and mobile phones spawned a dynamic field of digital social innovation that has increasingly interested policymakers, partly because of the potential scalability of digital solutions. The European Commission mapped well over 2,000 organizations involved in digital social innovation projects in health, democracy and welfare and there are thousands of others around the world sometimes described with the ‘civic tech’ label. An important recent group for example worked on open-source intelligence, an approach that became particularly visible during the Ukraine war. Some of these projects are supported by social innovation incubators and accelerators of all kinds, and transnational networks of social incubators such as GSEN, Impact Hub and SenseCube. They pose policy challenges because even the most successful digital social innovations will never deliver the kind of exponential financial returns that Geoff Mulgan

support venture capital in commercial innovation (and allow it to see 90 per cent of investments fail). Instead, a greater emphasis has been put on opening up public procurement, and making more use of open source, to break open the grip of big commercial providers. Another recent interest has been in how civil society can better shape the fourth industrial revolution rather than being mainly a bystander (see Mulgan 2021).

Sectoral initiatives

The biggest challenge for social innovators has been to achieve and demonstrate big inroads on the major issues of our times such as ageing, unemployment, stagnant democracy and climate change. This implies moving from generic social innovation policies to policies that link to major challenges and specific fields such as care for the elderly, achieving net zero or employment. This is happening around climate change with technology-focused innovation partly matched with innovation around lifestyles, neighbourhoods and social practices, such as food and food waste. Much past activity focused on the individual (social entrepreneurs and innovators); the individual venture, or the individual innovation, while at the other end of the spectrum, macro initiatives tried to change the behaviour of all businesses, or all charities, or promote systems change at a global level. But more impact may come from tackling issues at a middle level – specific sectors in specific places. For example, how to sharply improve the performance of the housing sector, or childcare, or training in a city or region, or connecting social innovation to programmes to cut carbon emissions.

Evidence

The field of social innovation has spread in parallel with greater interest in evidence. In the USA, initiatives to promote evidence culminated in Congress passing the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policy Making Act in 2018. The UK set up a dozen What Works Centres covering fields such as children’s social care. There has been much debate about common standards of evidence and how to ensure that attention to impact doesn’t crush innovations too early while also measuring impact rigorously.

Social innovation and public policy  417

Capacity

Social innovation depends on certain capabilities: knowledge about how to generate ideas, develop them and scale them. Some governments have attempted to grow capacity, including many EU programmes supporting practical skills in design, prototyping, pilots, experiments, social investment, evaluation and iteration, often with the help of online tools and Massive Open Online Courses, mobilizing existing universities and colleges and creating more grassroots academies. Some of the best arguments for growing these capacities include the resilience of civil society (see, for example, Moore et al. 2012) (a point confirmed during the COVID-19 pandemic when the strength of civil society, and more specifically the strength of relationships between local government and civil society turned out to be a good predictor of performance; see Mulgan et al. 2021). Another approach, which includes significant amounts of academic writing, has emphasized social innovation in relation to local economic and social development, though this has tended to emphasize broad analysis rather than specific policy prescription (see, for example, Moulaert et al. 2007).

Leadership

A final theme has been the attempt to use the influence and convening power of government to advance social innovation. Barack Obama set up an office in the White House. Prime Minister Theresa May in the UK set up an Inclusive Economy Partnership linking business, government and civil society to speed up innovations. President Moon in South Korea set up a team for a while in the Blue House. In each case the aim was to speed up social innovation while also catalysing action outside government.

False starts and political winds?

Not everything succeeded. Obama’s Office for Social Innovation in the White House did good work but did not survive the election of Donald Trump (and was not recreated under President Biden). The UK’s Big Society programme, initiated by Prime Minister David Cameron, likewise didn’t survive a change of political leadership. Other leaders like Angela Merkel, showed interest in social innovation,

but didn’t take strategic moves to support it. Justin Trudeau in Canada was more energetic, partly thanks to a well-organized ecosystem of philanthropy and NGOs, and committed $1 billion in support for social innovation in the late 2010s.6 Meanwhile, some traditional innovation agencies adopted some of the language of social innovation. Sweden’s Vinnova, Finland’s Sitra, Canada’s MaRS and Malaysia’s AIM all to different degrees complemented technology support with a new focus on social innovation.

Common challenges

Three common problems have been apparent in all of these programmes. First, patience. It takes time to build up new sectors and habits. Modern systems of science and research and development took many decades to reach maturity. Mature social and impact investment fields have generally taken a decade or two to emerge. Second is getting the right balance between innovation and adoption. For most organizations for much of the time, innovation may be less important than effective implementation of existing ideas or adoption of ideas from elsewhere. Third is what is sometimes called solutionism: the belief, often promoted by Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and philanthropists that, for every problem, there is a solution that can be rationally discovered and then scaled up. Social issues are rarely quite so simple and generally require action on multiple fronts.

The gap and the climate

Despite the faltering spread of polices for social innovation the scale of activity is still small relative to the scale of needs. The projects and initiatives listed above are modest and most of the organizations mentioned above are fragile. In some fields, hype has greatly exceeded reality so far (including, at times, impact investment). Meanwhile, vastly more innovation funding still goes to the military than to society, and the world’s brainpower is still directed far more to the needs of the wealthy and warfare than it is to social priorities. More worrying is the shift in climate. Relatively centrist, pragmatic governments of both left and right were sympathetic to social innovation. By contrast, authoritarian Geoff Mulgan

418  Encyclopedia of social innovation

leaders – such as Bolsonaro, Dutarte, Trump and Erdogan – tend to be hostile, suspicious of civil society and activism of any kind, and much more favourable to innovation that’s linked either to the military or big business. China saw an upsurge of interest in social innovation in the 2000s but then a sharp turnaround as government tightened up controls on civil society in the 2010s. A similar pattern was seen in Russia. In the light of this experience the sometimes charged arguments (mainly in Europe) about whether social innovation and policies for social innovation are masks for neoliberalism or pro-market strategies look rather anachronistic and beside the point (see, for example, De Pieri and Teasdale 2021).

Reflection and conclusion

The good news is that the range of policy initiatives described above now means that it’s becoming possible to do more serious comparative analysis of national strategies, making it easier to learn about what does and doesn’t work, and what deserves to be copied. But the bad news is that social innovation practices and ecosystems remain fragile. Geoff Mulgan

Notes 1. 2.

3.

4. 5.

6.

These and later policies are documented in OECD (2010). In 2006 the Young Foundation and CCCPE jointly organized an event in Beijing which led to the creation of SIX, the Social Innovation Exchange. The event brought together foundations, innovators, social entrepreneurs and corporates, along with senior figures from governments in China, the UK and elsewhere. It set out a rough roadmap towards making social innovation more mainstream which was later published as Social Silicon Valleys by the Young Foundation and the Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship. See Mulgan et al. (2006). The Commission adopted a definition that I had proposed: ‘Social innovations are innovations that are social in both their ends and their means. They are innovations that are not only good for society but also enhance individuals’ capacity to act’ (European Commission 2013a, p. 6). See also Reynolds et al. (2018). See, for example, Krlev et al. (2020). See, for example, the STRINGS (Steering Research and Innovation for the Global Goals) project backed by the UN and others to steer research towards the global goals. He was able to build on an earlier wave of activity documented in Goldenberg et al. (2009).

Geoff Mulgan

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Anheier, H. K., G. Krlev, S. Preuss, G. Mildenberger, T. Einarsson and E. Flening (2015), Social Innovation in Policy: EU and Country Level Profiles and Policy Perspectives, Deliverable 2.2 of the project: ‘Impact of the Third Sector as Social Innovation’ (ITSSOIN), European Commission – 7th Framework Programme, 28 February 2015, accessed 3 June 2022 at http://​itssoin​.eu/​site/​wp​-content/​ uploads/​2015/​09/​ITSSOIN​_D2​_2​_Profiles​-and​ -policy​-perspectives​.pdf. De Pieri, B. and S. Teasdale (2021), ‘Radical futures? Exploring the policy relevance of social innovation’, Social Enterprise Journal, 17 (1), pp. 94–110. Edwards-Schachter, M. and M. L. Wallace (2017), ‘Shaken, but not stirred: sixty years of defining social innovation’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119, pp. 64–79. European Commission (2013a), Guide to Social Innovation, accessed 16 March 2022 at https://​ec​.europa​.eu/​regional​_policy/​sources/​ docgener/​presenta/​social​_innovation/​social​ _innovation​_2013​.pdf. European Commission (2013b), ‘Social investment: Commission urges member states to focus on growth and social cohesion, press release’, 20 February, accessed 8 June 2022 at https://​ec​.europa​.eu/​social/​main​.jsp​?langId​=​ en​&​catId​=​1044​&​newsId​=​1807​&​furtherNews​=​ yes. European Commission (n.d.), Innovation Union, accessed 8 June 2022 at https://​ ec​ .europa​ .eu/​info/​research​-and​-innovation/​strategy/​ past​-research​-and​-innovation​-policy​-goals/​ innovation​-union​_en. Godin, B. (2012), ‘Social innovation: utopias of innovation from c. 1830 to the present’, Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation Working Paper No. 11, accessed 16 March 2022 at http://​www​.csiic​.ca/​PDF/​SocialInnovation​ _2012​.pdf. Goldenberg, M., K. Wathira, O. Larry and M. Williamson (2009), ‘Social innovation in Canada: an update’, Canadian Policy Research Networks Research Report, September, accessed 16 March 2022 at https://​oaresource​ .library​.carleton​.ca/​cprn/​51684​_en​.pdf. Krlev, G., T. Einarsson, F. Wijkström, L. Heyer and G. Mildenberger (2020), ‘The policies of social innovation: a cross-national analysis’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49 (3), https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​ 0899764019866505. Moore, M. L., F. Westley, O. Tjornbo, C. Holroyd and A. Nicholls (2012), ‘The loop, the lens, and the lesson: using resilience theory

Social innovation and public policy  419 to examine public policy and social innovation’, in A. Nicholls and A. Murdock (eds), Social Innovation: Blurring Boundaries to Reconfigure Markets, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 89–113. Moulaert, F., F. Martinelli, S. González and E. Swyngedouw (2007), ‘Social innovation and governance in European cities: urban development between path dependency and radical innovation’, European Urban and Regional Studies, 14 (3), pp. 195–209. Mulgan, G. (2019), Social Innovation, Bristol: Policy Press. Mulgan, G. (2021), ‘The social economy and the fourth industrial revolution’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, 28 April, accessed 3 June 2022 at https://​ssir​.org/​articles/​entry/​the​ _social​_economy​_and​_the​_fourth​_industrial​ _revolution​#. Mulgan, G., R. France and J. Chataway (2021), Social Capital: What Roles Has It Played During COVID-19, and How Can It Be Harnessed For Recovery?, International Public Policy Observatory, 9 November, accessed 16 covidandsociety​ .com/​ March 2022 at https://​ social​-capital​-roles​-during​-covid​-19​-harnessed​ -for​-recovery/​. Mulgan et al. (2006), Social Silicon Valleys: A Manifesto for Social Innovation: What It Is, Why It Matters and How It Can Be Accelerated,

Spring, London: The Young Foundation, accessed 16 March 2022 at https://​yftest​ .bronzesilvergold​.co​.uk/​wp​-content/​uploads/​ 2013/​04/​Social​-Silicon​-Valleys​-March​-2006​ .pdf. Nicholas, Alex (ed.) (2016), Social Finance, Oxford: Oxford University Press. OECD (2010), ‘Social entrepreneurship and social innovation’, in SMEs, Entrepreneurship and Innovation, OECD Publishing, accessed 3 June 2022 at https://​www​.oecd​-ilibrary​.org/​ industry​-and​-services/​smes​-entrepreneurship​ -and​-innovation/​social​-entrepreneurship​-and​ -social​-innovation​_9789264080355–50​-en; https://​doi​.org/​10​.1787/​9789264080355–50​ -en. OECD (2016), Social Innovation Policy Framework for Croatia, Global Relations Policy Handbook, June, accessed 16 March 2022 at https://​www​.oecd​.org/​south​-east​ -europe/​programme/​Social​_Innovation​_Policy​ _Framework​_Croatia​.pdf. Reynolds, S., M. Gabriel and C. Heales (2018), Social Innovation Policy in Europe, Where Next?, D5.3: Annual State of the Union Report – Part 1, accessed 16 March 2022 at https://​media​.nesta​.org​.uk/​documents/​ social​_innovation​_policy​_in​_europe​_​-​ _where​_next​.pdf.

Geoff Mulgan

73. Transformative innovation policy Introduction

Socio-environmental problems (or societal challenges) are systemic problems that require both technological and social innovations, the latter understood as new practices to meet social needs. Yet, the ‘social’ is often dissociated from the ‘technical and technological’ (Aichholzer and Schienstock 1993): particularly in the policy world, the domain of social welfare is detached from the domain of science and technology, with different departments and ministries, policy approaches and instruments, and governance and appraisal models (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION AND PUBLIC POLICY). Transformative Innovation Policy (TIP) brings together these separate domains – the social and the technological – into conceptualization and practices for transformation. In contrast to traditional science, technology and innovation (STI) policies, which aim at driving economic growth and only indirectly address socio-environmental problems, tackling societal challenges is the central goal of TIP (→ NEXT GENERATION INNOVATION POLICY). Since the mid-twentieth century, STI policy has evolved under three different frames (Schot and Steinmueller 2018): ● Frame 1 (Innovation for Growth) emerged in the immediate post-war period and underlined the benefits of scientific progress and technological change for economic growth. Frame 1 STI policy seeks to rectify so-called market failures through an appropriate incentive structure (e.g. patent laws) or public investments in scientific research and development (R&D), which were expected to later become technological innovations (adhering to a linear model of innovation). Implicit in this frame is the belief that any negative social or environmental consequences of technological innovation would be solved by science, technology and economic growth. ● Frame 2 (National Systems of Innovation) emerged in the 1970s/1980s with the recognition that the translation of scientific knowledge into innovations and growth

was not automatic and varies across countries and regions, due to the distinctive constitution of ‘innovation systems’ – networks of individuals, organizations and institutions that support learning, (absorptive) capacity building and (S&T-based) entrepreneurship. Abandoning the linear model, this new frame sought to promote institutions and regulations that would help in the systemic process of translating knowledge into innovations. While addressing social or environmental problems was originally absent from this frame, recent developments have attempted to incorporate the notions of inclusive and sustainable development (Chaminade, Lundvall and Haneef 2018). ● Frame 3 (Challenge-Led Innovation) emerged in the past decade, acknowledging that science, technology and innovation can and should directly aim at addressing societal challenges. Three strands of innovation research and policy currently contribute to this frame. The first is Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy (MIP) (Mazzucato 2018; Janssen et al. 2021), a top-down government led process that aims at addressing societal challenges by defining bold targets (‘missions’) to be achieved by research and innovation efforts. The second is Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) (Owen, Macnaghten and Stilgoe 2012; Stilgoe, Owen and Macnaghten 2013), an anticipatory, reflexive, inclusive and responsive governance approach to scientific and technological development that involves societal actors in the process to align its outcomes with society’s values and aspirations. The third one is Transformative Innovation Policy (TIP) (Steward 2012; Schot and Steinmueller 2018; Diercks, Larsen and Steward 2019), a concept that changes the unit of analysis from innovation systems to sociotechnical systems, emphasizing both the technological and the social aspects of transformative change. TIP does not seek to address narrowly defined market failures but instead broad ‘transformational system failure’ (Weber and Rohracher 2012), which occurs when sociotechnical or innovation systems fail to develop solutions to societal challenges. As in MIPs TIP aims at solving societal challenges, but does not assume that govern-

420

Transformative innovation policy  421

ments start the process, nor that solutions can be pre-defined as missions. Also as with RRI, TIP incorporates mechanisms to ensure that public participation, open access, equity, ethics and justice for communities facing socio-environmental challenges are all part of the process. By changing the unit of analysis, under the TIP frame social innovation is as important as technological innovation in their contribution to transformations that address societal challenges. While appearing at different moments in history, the three frames coexist and STI policies informed by them play important roles in socio-economic development. Yet, to find solutions to pressing contemporary challenges such as global warming, demographic change and inequality, we need more emphasis on frame 3 policies. In this contribution we focus on transformative innovation policy.

Key findings about the transformative innovation policy concept

What makes Transformative Innovation Policies distinctive? Based on the recent literature on TIP, we suggest five key features: (a)

Challenge-oriented and directionality: innovation policies based on frames 1 and 2 tended to focus on the rate of technical progress but not its direction (Stirling 2009). Together with MIP and RRI, TIP is part of a new generation of policies that consider the directionalities of innovation efforts and attempt to stir them towards addressing societal challenges (Edler and Boon 2018; Kuhlmann and Rip 2018). TIP therefore explicitly considers the direction of change that is embedded in innovations. (b) Understanding of systemic innovation as a multi-level process: TIP builds on sustainability transitions theory, which focuses on sociotechnical system change. Sociotechnical innovations, according to this literature, is much broader than the narrow processes of scientific discovery and technology development, being affected by multiple social, technical, economic and

environmental mechanisms occurring simultaneously at different structuration levels (Geels 2005) (see next section). TIP therefore expands the scope of innovation policy to include a focus on behavioural and cultural change incorporating notions of social innovation. (c) Participatory coordination and governance: due to the complexity and uncertainty associated with sociotechnical system change, TIP addresses coordination failure by integrating coordination improvements as transformation occurs (Schot and Steinmueller 2018). TIP requires coordination of multiple actors through new forms of governance that allow for effective participation and inclusiveness (Könnölä et al. 2021). It focuses on emerging and open-ended coordination or ‘tentative governance’: provisional, flexible, revisable, dynamic and open approaches that include experimentation, learning, reflexivity and reversibility (Kuhlmann and Rip 2018). Furthermore, TIP requires a carefully crafted policy mix as it expands the scope of innovation policy by trying to achieve multiple goals to address transformational failures that often involve trade-offs (Diercks 2019; Rogge, Pfluger and Geels 2020). (d) Second-order learning (reflexivity) and experimentation: TIP also addresses a particular form of ‘reflexivity failures’ (Schot and Steinmueller 2018; Weber and Rohracher 2012), connected to deep or second-order learning processes (i.e. when actors question the very beliefs and assumptions that guide their actions and often represent barriers to systemic transformations). Second-order learning means actors critically reflect on their own preferences and experiment with alternatives. TIP experiments – or Experimental Policy Engagements – are critical for providing a protected space where uncertainty is embraced, trial and error is accepted and reflexivity is stimulated. (e) Continuous monitoring and (formative) evaluation: the evaluation of TIPs means assessing changes that are associated or that lead to sociotech-

Caetano C. R. Penna, Carla Alvial-Palavicino, Bipashyee Ghosh and Johan Schot

422  Encyclopedia of social innovation

nical system changes. These change processes are not only uncertain but open-ended and prone to constant reframing, so that long-term goals may change as the policy process unfolds. This is why summative evaluation approaches, which seek to establish whether the policy intervention was effective (achieved its goals) and efficient (with the lowest costs) are not appropriate. Transformative policy experiments may fail to deliver outputs and impacts, but they ensure valuable opportunities for achieving outcomes towards systemic change through processes of (second-order) learning. A formative approach focused on ‘transformative outcomes’ has therefore been advocated to evaluate TIP initiatives, as we discuss next. Working on TIP requires new approaches and organizational/institutional arrangements. With this purpose, researchers from the Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium (TIPC)1 developed an actionable framework to support and seize the transformative potential of projects, programmes and organizations addressing societal challenges (Molas-Gallart et al. 2021). This formative evaluation framework uses a set of twelve ‘Transformative Outcomes’ (TOs) (Ghosh et al. 2021) to implement and evaluate transformative change. Many of these outcomes relate to a variety of social innovations (as discussed in Table 73.1). Using TOs enables STI policy actors to overcome the transformational failures by inducing directionality, reflexive thinking and second-order learning in policy processes through experimental policy engagements (Ghosh et al. 2021). The TOs are built across three macro-processes, as conceptualized in the Multi-level Perspective (MLP) (Rip and

Kemp 1998; Geels 2005): (a) niches (protected spaces where radical social and technological innovations emerge), (b) regimes (rule-like structures and practices that guide incumbent actions) and (c) landscape (slow-moving developments over which niche or regime actors have little agency). Building niches as a macro process therefore entails nurturing and shielding new social networks and accounting for diverse expectations, while unlocking incumbent regimes include untangling existing social relations and facilitating deep-learning. Landscape pressures (such as Covid-19 or cultural change) influence these social processes in both niche and regime levels, creating opportunities or posing barriers for change. The TIPC formative evaluation approach incorporates these twelve transformative outcomes in a Theory of Change methodology, as a way to design, implement and evaluate policies, projects and programmes aimed at system transformation. A Theory of Change is an approach that provides a structured way of considering how change occurs as a result of an intervention: this ‘theory’ stresses specific assumptions about a change process (Molas-Gallart et al. 2021). Within the scope of TIP, a Theory of Change is a tool used to develop strategic thinking regarding how inputs enable activities that generate outputs and transformative outcomes, contributing to the desired impact or goal of addressing a societal challenge. TIPC’s approach is systemic and participatory, in the sense that it draws from different perspectives by actively including a variety of stakeholders; and it is systemic in that it acknowledges that a single intervention is not sufficient for system change, hence a nested approach is required to account for the interactions between different policies, programmes and other interventions in a given system.

Caetano C. R. Penna, Carla Alvial-Palavicino, Bipashyee Ghosh and Johan Schot

 

Transformative innovation policy  423 Table 73.1

Transformative outcomes and social innovation

Macro-process

Transformative

Relevance for (transformative) social innovation

outcome 1. Building and

1.1. Shielding (broad

Niches as alternative spaces for nurturing innovations require protection

nurturing niches

and deep)

against incumbent capture. Active protections in socio-cultural settings (e.g. media campaigns to promote organic food) or passive protection through social strategies (e.g. making neighbourhoods only accessible for electric vehicles) can deliver this outcome.

1.2 Learning (broad

Both broadening the scope of learning and deepening learning through

and deep)

questioning beliefs and assumptions require specific processes and forms of knowledge exchange, incorporating different forms of knowledge, involving multiple actors and aspects of sustainability (e.g. organizing interactive workshops with diverse actors).

1.3 Networking (broad Creating high-quality opportunities for collaboration between actors, and deep)

strengthening their networks, (e.g. experiment with a new way of local healthcare provision that integrates healthcare with lifestyle). It also requires mobilization of divergent viewpoints, acknowledgement of differences in values and concerns, development of mutual trust, respect, and ensuring the stability of actors/networks over time.

1.4 Navigating

Niches are also spaces where diverse societal expectations around challenges

expectations (broad and are articulated and appraised. Social innovations to enhance the credibility deep)

of expectations (among niche actors), quality (providing more evidence) and stability (expectations are not questioned anymore) are helpful (e.g. organizing future workshops; meetings addressing conflicting actor demands; creating shared visions for collective action).

2. Expanding and

2.1 Upscaling

mainstreaming niches

Upscaling involves adoption of a new set of preferences, technologies as well as wider adoption of policy measures and cultural symbols. Innovative efforts like user-clubs, new forms of science communication and marketing campaigns can promote upscaling of niche innovations.

2.2. Replicating

Replication entails intentionally duplicating similar efforts in different geographical and cultural contexts. Innovative ways of translating and local embedding of specific niche experiments in other contexts is essential to achieve this outcome (e.g. by creating an education and capability building programme for food provision and distribution among marginalized groups in multiple cities).

2.3 Circulating

Active role of intermediary actors who promote circulation of ideas, people, blueprints, technologies between niches on a continuous basis forms the core of circulation. This also requires innovative ways of translating ideas from elsewhere and local cultural embedding (e.g. inter-city networks organizing mutual visits, exchange of learning and promotional activities for urban agricultural initiatives across multiple cities).

2.4 Institutionalizing

Involves formalizing the niche and its underlying rules (beliefs and values) by consensus and legitimacy-building activities (e.g. creating a handbook, a certification scheme and standards as to how to perform an activity in a sustainable way), often carried out by institutional entrepreneurs and their social skills.

Caetano C. R. Penna, Carla Alvial-Palavicino, Bipashyee Ghosh and Johan Schot

424  Encyclopedia of social innovation Macro-process

Transformative

Relevance for (transformative) social innovation

outcome 3 Opening up and

3.1 De-aligning and

Social innovations facilitate realigning regime dimensions and destabilizing

unlocking regimes

destabilizing

them by deliberately disrupting dominant networks and their rule structures (e.g. mobilizing social protests, or going to court to challenge non-compliance with internationally agreed CO2 emission targets).

3.2 Unlearning and

Facilitating unlearning and deep learning among incumbent actors involve

deep learning in

enabling them to question their own beliefs and norms and create space for

regimes

deliberation on experiential social learning about challenges faced by the regime and how to tackle them (e.g. organizing a policy lab to discuss a variety of policy barriers for using insects as a food and how to overcome the barriers).

3.3 Strengthening

Building connections and creating linkages between niche and regime

regime–niche

actors involve spaces for their exchange of ideas and resources and finding

interactions

complementarities. Also requires innovative methods to facilitate stretch and transform type of niche empowerment (e.g. campaigning for and developing new impact investment tools that will crowd in investment into niche activities by traditional banks).

3.4 Changing

Facilitating processes to challenge individual and collective perceptions

perceptions of

on landscape pressures that vary depending on political ideology, cultural

landscape pressures

understandings, societal preferences and lifestyle of diverse groups of regime actors. Social innovations could enable anticipation and effective mobilization of landscape pressures for (re)distribution of resources and commitments to unlocking regimes (e.g. organizing specific foresight activities with regime actors about whether and how digitalization could contribute to climate action).

Source: Authors’ construction based on Ghosh et al. (2021).

Outlook

Transformative Innovation Policy contributes to the construction of the challenge-led frame to innovation. It not only incorporates technological and social innovation, but also can help to shape MIP and RRI policies by developing the concept of ‘transformative’ mission-oriented innovation policies. Combining conceptualizations of MIPs, RRI and TIPs would result in what we may call transformative (and responsible) MIP policies with the following characteristics (Penna et al. 2021): ● It should work with very broad pre-conceptions of end-states (if at all possible) or design a search process to explore a diversity of end-states and directionalities to address a societal challenge (‘mission’). And, given the political aspect of defining directions, also ask the question: end-state for whom? – thus embracing conflict and competition.2 For a MIP to be transformative, participatory processes must come to the

fore, promoting open-ended, emergent transformations. ● It should adopt a multidimensional approach to transformation understood as a sociotechnical system transition promoting the creation of the new (‘niches’) as well as the destabilization of the old (‘regimes’). ● For such transformative processes surmounted by uncertainty and contestation, the policy should modulate and coordinate ongoing change initiatives by supporting experimentation across sociotechnical systems and embedding in the process learning mechanisms. Transformative (and responsible) MIPs should recognize that governmental interventions do not necessarily start the transformation process and should, therefore, also aim at stretching ongoing transformation initiatives to overcome transformational failures. Caetano C. R. Penna, Carla Alvial-Palavicino, Bipashyee Ghosh and Johan Schot

Caetano C. R. Penna, Carla Alvial-Palavicino, Bipashyee Ghosh and Johan Schot

Transformative innovation policy  425

Notes 1.

2.

‘The Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium (TIPC) is a group of science, technology and innovation researchers, policymakers and funding agencies working together to promote frame 3 STI policy.’ See https://​www​.tipconsortium​.net/​about/​ (accessed 23 September 2021). This suggests also building bridges between the governance principles of RRI and TIP’s policy experiments, on which we do not elaborate due to space limitations. Nevertheless, this is also a promising innovation policy research avenue.

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Aichholzer, G. and G. Schienstock (1993), Technology Policy: Towards an Integration of Social and Ecological Concerns, De Gruyter Studies in Organization, Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter. Chaminade, C., B.-Å. Lundvall and S. Haneef (2018), Advanced Introduction to National Innovation Systems, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Diercks, G. (2019), ‘Lost in translation: how legacy limits the OECD in promoting new policy mixes for sustainability transitions’, Research Policy, 48 (10), 103667. Diercks, G., H. Larsen and F. Steward (2019), ‘Transformative innovation policy: addressing variety in an emerging policy paradigm’, Research Policy, 48 (4), pp. 880–94. Edler, J. and W. P. Boon (2018), ‘“The next generation of innovation policy: directionality and the role of demand-oriented instruments” – introduction to the special section’, Science and Public Policy, 45 (4), pp. 433–4. Geels, F. W. (2005), Technological Transitions and System Innovations: A Co-Evolutionary and Socio-Technical Analysis, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Ghosh, B., P. Kivimaa, M. Ramirez, J. Schot and J. Torrens (2021), ‘Transformative outcomes: assessing and reorienting experimentation with transformative innovation policy’, Science and Public Policy, 48 (5), pp. 739–56. Janssen, M. J., J. Torrens, J. H. Wesseling and I. Wanzenböck (2021), ‘The promises and premises of mission-oriented innovation policy: a reflection and ways forward’, Science and Public Policy, 48 (3), pp. 438–44. Könnölä, T., V. Eloranta, T. Turunen and A. Salo (2021), ‘Transformative governance

of innovation ecosystems’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 173, 121106. Kuhlmann, S. and A. Rip (2018), ‘Next-generation innovation policy and grand challenges’, Science and Public Policy, 45 (4), pp. 448–54. Mazzucato, M. (2018), ‘Mission-oriented innovation policies: challenges and opportunities’, Industrial and Corporate Change, 27 (5), pp. 803–15. Molas-Gallart, J., A. Boni, S. Giachi and J. Schot (2021), ‘A formative approach to the evaluation of Transformative Innovation Policies’, Research Evaluation, 30 (4), pp. 431–42. Owen, R., P. Macnaghten and J. Stilgoe (2012), ‘Responsible research and innovation: from science in society to science for society, with society’, Science and Public Policy, 39 (6), pp. 751–60. Penna, C. C. R., J. Schot, D. Velasco and J. Molas-Gallart (2021), ‘Transformative mission-oriented policies: a case study of Vinnova and a new design and implementation framework’, 12th International Sustainability Transitions Conference, Karlsruhe, 5–8 October. Rip, A. and R. Kemp (1998), ‘Technological change’, in S. Rayner and E. L. Malone (eds), Human Choice and Climate Change: Vol. II, Columbus, OH: Battelle Press, pp. 327–99. Rogge, K. S., B. Pfluger and F. W. Geels (2020), ‘Transformative policy mixes in socio-technical scenarios: the case of the low-carbon transition of the German electricity system (2010–2050)’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 151, 119259. Schot, J. and W. E. Steinmueller (2018), ‘Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change’, Research Policy, 47 (9), pp. 1554–67. Steward, F. (2012), ‘Transformative innovation policy to meet the challenge of climate change: sociotechnical networks aligned with consumption and end-use as new transition arenas for a low-carbon society or green economy’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24 (4), pp. 331–43. Stilgoe, J., R. Owen and P. Macnaghten (2013), ‘Developing a framework for responsible innovation’, Research Policy, 42 (9), pp. 1568–80. Stirling, A. (2009), ‘Direction, distribution and diversity! Pluralising progress in innovation, sustainability and development’, Brighton: STEPS Centre, University of Sussex. Weber, K. M. and H. Rohracher (2012), ‘Legitimizing research, technology and innovation policies for transformative change: combining insights from innovation systems and multi-level perspective in a comprehensive “failures” framework’, Research Policy, 41 (6), pp. 1037–47.

Caetano C. R. Penna, Carla Alvial-Palavicino, Bipashyee Ghosh and Johan Schot

PART IX RESOURCES AND MEASUREMENT

74. Impact bonds: beyond the hype? Overview

Introduction: the foundational elements of impact bonds

In the decade since the world’s first impact bond was launched in the United Kingdom, the practical adoption and academic discussion surrounding this innovative funding model has evolved considerably. This much hyped and misnamed funding model (they are not bonds in a conventional sense as repayment to investors is contingent on successful achievement of outcomes) (Arena et al. 2016) has been adapted and adopted in over 30 countries.1 Impact bonds are now being used to tackle a range of pernicious social issues from unemployment and poor education outcomes to mental health, poverty reduction and environmental protection. Conceptually, impact bonds align with several aspects of social innovation research since they spur new social practices, created from new constellations of ‘collective, intentional, and goal-oriented actions aimed at prompting social change through the reconfiguration of how social goals are accomplished’ (Cajaiba-Santana 2014, p. 44; van der Have and Rubalcaba 2016). Early academic coverage of impact bonds – summarized as polemical ‘narratives of caution’ (Fraser et al. 2018) – has been partially superseded by more empirical contributions, including formal evaluations (see, for example, Ecorys 2019; Griffiths et al. 2016; Millner and Meyer 2021). Whilst significant progress has been made in terms of the availability and quality of data on impact bonds, greater transparency and sharing of data, insights and learning across geographies, policy areas and disciplines is required to fully understand the potential for and implications of impact bonds. This short entry is structured across three sections: it gives an overview of the fundamentals of the impact bond model; it summarizes key promises attached to the tool and outlines some of the critiques and misconceptions; and concludes by considering future avenues for experimentation and investigation.

Impact bonds offer a departure from more conventional ways of funding social programmes and public services, such as grants or fee-for-activity contracts (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION AND PUBLIC POLICY). Whilst there is no single, universally agreed upon definition of impact bonds, they are best understood as a cross-sector partnership that brings organizations together in the pursuit of measurable social outcomes (Carter et al. 2018). Typically, impact bonds (including social impact bonds, known as ‘SIBs’ and development impact bonds or ‘DIBs’) are defined as contractual arrangements that have two key characteristics: ● Payment for social or environmental outcomes achieved (an outcomes contract) ● Up-front repayable finance provided by a third party, the repayment of which is (at least partially) conditional on achieving specified outcomes (see Carter 2020 for discussion). Impact bonds bring together three key partners: an outcome payer, a service provider and an investor. In practice, there may be multiple organizations that make up each of these partners, as explained below. The flexibility of outcomes-contracts arises by minimizing service prescription, thereby enabling service innovation and (re)design whilst holding organizations to account for the achievement of outcomes. For example, an impact bond that aims to reduce unemployment may make payment contingent on the number of people who found and sustained a job rather than – as under more conventional funding models – paying service providers for inputs or activities like hiring trainers or delivering training workshops.

A note on terminology

The terms used to describe these outcome-focused cross-sector partnerships vary widely. ‘Impact bonds’ is the most widely used term in the United Kingdom, although terms such as ‘outcomes-based partnerships’ and ‘social outcomes contracts’ are increasingly also used. Elsewhere in the world these approaches are referred to as ‘pay-for-success’ (the United States) and ‘social benefit bonds’ (Australia). In Europe,

427

428  Encyclopedia of social innovation

Source: Based on Carter et al. (2018); GAO (2015); Painter et al. (2018).

Figure 74.1

Impact bonds as partnerships: partners and responsibilities

these models are most often referred to as ‘social outcomes contracts’. While in practice the design of these projects can vary widely, all are underpinned by a payment by results mechanism – the practice of paying providers (or investors) for delivering services based wholly or partly on the results that are achieved. The outcome payer The outcome payer is usually a public sector organization or government department that pays for the desired outcomes if these are achieved. Outcome payers identify the unmet needs for a particular population and express a willingness to pay for specific social outcomes for that population. In high-income countries these are often government departments who are responsible for the specific social issue being tackled (e.g. a department for education or employment). In low- and middle-income countries outcome payers may still be government departments but may also involve multilateral organizations or donors. Often the outcome payer will work with other project partners to define and agree the desired outcomes and levels of performance and will determine how much it is willing to pay for the set outcomes. Multiple public agencies or departments may decide to pool their funding together and jointly pay for outcomes, particularly when the specific Eleanor Carter and Andreea Anastasiu

problem they are seeking to address falls under the responsibility of more than one public sector authority (see Savell et al. 2022 for a discussion of outcome funds). The service provider The service provider in an impact bond is typically a social enterprise or charitable non-profit organization and is responsible for the delivery of a programme of support for the intended population. Sometimes multiple provider organizations may be funded to work together towards the achievement of social outcomes, particularly when people experience multiple and complex needs that cannot be addressed by a single organization alone. Investors Investors in an impact bond provide the up-front capital that is required for the launch and implementation of a service or programme, before any outcome payments are made. Repayment to investors is based (wholly or partly) on whether the desired outcomes are achieved. This protects the service provider from (all or part of) the financial risk. Investors in impact bonds are usually (although not always) socially motivated investors, who seek social impact in addition to financial returns. Social investors can be individuals, institutional investors, dedicated social investment funds and philan-

Impact bonds: beyond the hype?  429

thropic foundations, who invest through their endowment. Other partners Other partners may also be involved in the development of an impact bond, such as technical experts or consultants, often referred to as ‘intermediaries’. The intermediary function may encompass at least four quite different roles: consultants who help outcome payers develop a business case and procure an outcomes-based service; a social investment fund manager who manages the project on behalf of the investors; an independent evaluator or performance management expert who works alongside providers to bring an independent source of information and scrutiny regarding the achievement of outcomes; a special purpose vehicle who brings together other parties in a contractual relationship and holds the contract directly with the outcome payer (INDIGO, n.d.a. and right-hand side of Figure 74.1).

What is the purpose of impact bonds and how do these partnerships work in practice?

The initial proponents of impact bonds optimistically described the model as a ‘win-win-win’ arrangement where socially motivated investors can achieve social and financial returns while service providers receive the necessary funds to scale-up existing work, and government purchasers only pay for successful programming (Fraser et al. 2018). However, evidence surrounding the model is partial (Carter et al. 2018). Practical challenges often centre on the high transaction costs and concern that development and management costs may be disproportionate to the benefits being generated (although there is very little concrete data available on impact bond costs and benefits compared to alternative financing mechanisms (Gustafsson-Wright and Osborne 2020). Concerned scholars suggest that the focus on narrow contracted outcome measures could lead to the neglect of systemic issues (Barajas et al. 2014). Others argue that the impact bond model allows private investors to profit from vulnerable populations in need of support, by allowing investors to shape policy and turn service users into potential sources of revenue (Warner 2013).

One of the challenges of evaluating and critically appraising the tool is the ‘strategic ambiguity’ and the varied application and justifications attached to the experimentation with impact bonds in different national contexts over time (Tan et al. 2021). Commentators describe myths or common claims associated with the impact bond model (Gustafsson-Wright et al. 2015). Perhaps the stickiest but most elusive of these is the argument that successful outcomes should be paid for through the ‘cashable savings’ associated with the reduced demand for acute services derived from the success of the impact bond project. There is now a general acknowledgement that projects that produce real, cashable savings are uncommon in developed countries and even scarcer in developing countries (GPRBA 2019). There is a high degree of variation in terms of the specific contractual arrangements across impact bond projects. In practice, the shape of these arrangements between the key partners will depend on a range of factors, including the nature of the social problem that is being addressed and the ecosystem of organizations responsible for addressing the challenge; the capacity of the outcome payer to lead the development process and actively manage the contract; the type of relationship between the investor and the provider; the extent of risk-sharing within the contract; statutory provisions and legal constraints; and requirements linked to the specific funding framework within which a project may be developed. In part, the varied promises of impact bonds can be understood as stemming from the varied stakeholder perspectives. Much like a kaleidoscope, depending on each stakeholder’s perspective, impact bonds are either: For government: a commissioning tool and potential vehicle for public service reform, i.e. an opportunity to ‘achieve more with less’ or improve effectiveness, to achieve innovation, collaboration or prevention as summarized in Carter et al. (2018); (b) For funders: an accountability tool to ensure programmes achieve intended long-term outcomes; (c) For investors: a way to align social and financial returns and offer a credible (a)

Eleanor Carter and Andreea Anastasiu

430  Encyclopedia of social innovation

route to demonstrating impact or pursuing an impact investment strategy; (d) For social sector delivery organizations: a multi-year funding model bringing predictable but flexible funding, the opportunity to scale up interventions and develop an evidence-base; (e) For people participating in services funded through an impact bond: the promise is that social programmes are more attuned to their support needs, are personalized and secure meaningful involvement through co-production of outcomes. The evidence regarding the degree to which impact bonds deliver against these many and varied promises is limited and inconclusive (Fraser et al. 2018; Lagarde et al. 2013; Millner and Meyer 2021). Comparing alternative funding and accountability mechanisms (that is, to ask whether impact bonds are more efficient or effective than more conventional funding modes such as grants) poses an ongoing evaluation challenge. In particular, impact bond project evaluations often fail to disentangle the contribution of front-line interventions from the novel contracting arrangements (Carter et al. 2018) due to the lack of meaningful counterfactuals (Lazzarini et al. 2021) and fall short in explaining how outcomes are generated (FitzGerald et al. 2020). Thus, there are still questions around the ‘inner workings’ of impact bonds, particularly whether and how this model may foster innovation (Olson et al. 2022). As such, while impact bonds offer a promising tool for achieving better social outcomes, there is no consensus around the benefits of this model. Academic commentators have insisted that impact bonds are ‘under-theorized’ and that ‘unless we are clear what it is SIBs are designed to achieve, other than in general terms, it is not straightforward to assess whether they have achieved their potential and, if not, how we might progress’ (Albertson et al. 2020, p. 2). This ambiguity is particularly apparent in light of the promises of innovation that are affiliated with the impact bond model. Innovation in impact bonds could take several forms: ‘SIBs could be understood as an innovative form of financing social services and/ or as encouraging innovative interventions to address social issues and/or as motivating Eleanor Carter and Andreea Anastasiu

interactions between stakeholders which may spark synergies and efficiencies’ (Moore, Westley and Nicholls 2012 in Albertson et al. 2020, p. 4, emphasis added). Considering these distinct spaces of innovation, in the domain of intervention innovation research, some have pointed to the paradox of ‘evidence-based flexibility’ suggesting that rather than pioneering untested interventions, the requirements to re-pay investors may instead promote specific interventions for which a positive evidence base already exists, limiting the potential for programme learning, stifling innovation and increasing pressure on provider staff (Fraser et al. 2020). In the space of stakeholder interactions, the lens of New Public Governance has been used to explore inter-organizational relationships, relational capital and co-production that may shift the focus of services away from narrow understandings of performance towards value co-created in relationships between services and the people who use them (Albertson et al. 2020; Osborne 2018). There may be considerable asymmetries in power, dependence, interdependence and accountability logics experienced by the constellation of stakeholders in impact bonds (Millner and Meyer 2021) which may bring tension or the keys to innovation. Albertson et al., (2020) have suggested that impact bonds may accord with the concept of open innovation with its focus on distributed innovation processes where knowledge flows across organizational boundaries and with open innovation 2.0 with a focus on co-creation of shared value across diverse actors. Olson et al. (2022) offer social innovation theory as an appropriate framework to analyse impact bonds by highlighting the potential for actors, from a variety of sectors, to affect social change. In scaling social services and systemic change, scholars have suggested that the outcome measurement at the heart of impact bonds narrows both the conception of the social problem and the measures of impact (Tan et al. 2021; Tse and Warner 2020). Contrastingly, there are suggestions that when public value is grounded in expanding social rights, impact bonds may galvanize support for structural change (Tse and Warner 2018). Other scholars indicate that impact bonds may accelerate the rate of social innovation and there are some instances where impact bonds have been linked to shifts along

Impact bonds: beyond the hype?  431

the co-produce-pilot-scale-diffuse spectrum (Painter et al. 2018).

Where next? Avenues for future experimentation and investigation

Research and evaluation work is running to catch up with the emergent practice of impact bond development. Whilst practitioners continue to experiment with the model – by introducing this approach to tackle new challenges and adapt the design of existing impact bonds – the research literature is fragmented and partial (an ongoing systematic review seeks to tackle this; see Picker et al. 2021). Practitioner-facing reports (such as GPRBA 2019) suggest that it may be helpful to conceive impact bonds as a mechanism capable of operating at multiple levels or layers. At the ‘intervention’ level the approach may incubate data-led performance management and catalyse an adaptive learning mindset to iteratively improve the quality and effectiveness of services. At the ‘system’ level an impact bond may galvanize a network of organizations from the not-for-profit, private and public sectors to coordinate their respective contributions in order to deliver results effectively and sustainably. Future research and datasets – such as the International Network for Data on Impact and Government Outcomes (INDIGO n.d.b) – will work to identify evidence to assess whether the hype is matched by experience. Eleanor Carter and Andreea Anastasiu

Note

1. See the Government Outcomes Lab-supported International Network for Data on Impact and Government Outcomes (INDIGO) for the latest data on impact bonds around the world: https://​ golab​.bsg​.ox​.ac​.uk/​knowledge​-bank/​indigo/​impact​ -bond​-dataset​-v2/​.

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Albertson, K., C. Fox, C. O’Leary and G. Painter (2020), ‘Towards a theoretical framework for social impact bonds’, Nonprofit Policy Forum, 11 (2), 20190056. Arena, M., I. Bengo, M. Calderini and V. Chiodo (2016), ‘Social impact bonds: blockbuster or

flash in a pan?’, International Journal of Public Administration, 39 (12), pp. 927–39. Barajas, A., L. Barajas, K. Burt, H. Harper, P. Johnson, E. Larsen, J. Licona, C. Nije, W. Parker, K. Reid, L. Sturevant, M. Tokunaga, Q. Vien and C. Yeh (2014), Social Impact Bonds: A New Tool for Social Financing, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014), ‘Social innovation: moving the field forward. A conceptual framework’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82, pp. 42–51. Carter, E. (2020), ‘Debate: would a social impact bond by any other name smell as sweet? Stretching the model and why it might matter’, Public Money & Management, 40 (3), pp. 183–5. Carter, E., C. FitzGerald, R. Dixon, C. Economy, T. Hameed and M. Airoldi (2018), ‘Building the tools for public services to secure better outcomes: collaboration, Prevention’, Innovation, Government Outcomes Lab, Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, accessed 29 June 2022 at https://​golab​.bsg​.ox​.ac​.uk/​ documents/​176/​BSG​-GOLab​-EvidenceReport​ .pdf. Ecorys (2019), Independent Evaluation of the UK Department for International Development’s Development Impact Bonds (DIBs) Pilot Programme – Full Report, Department for International Development, accessed 29 June 2022 at https://​golab​.bsg​.ox​.ac​.uk/​documents/​ Independent​_Evaluation​_of​_DIBs​_Pilot​ _Programme​_Full​_Report​.pdf. FitzGerald, C., A. Fraser and J. Kimmitt (2020), ‘Tackling the big questions in social impact bond research through comparative approaches’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 22 (2), pp. 85–99. Fraser, A., S. Tan, A. Boaz and N. Mays (2020), ‘Backing what works? Social Impact Bonds and evidence-informed policy and practice’, Public Money & Management, 40 (3), pp. 195–204. Fraser, A., S. Tan, M. Lagarde and N. Mays (2018), ‘Narratives of promise, narratives of caution: a review of the literature on social impact bonds’, Social Policy & Administration, 52 (1), pp. 4–28. GAO (2015), Collaboration among Federal Agencies Would Be Helpful as Governments Explore New Financing Mechanisms (GAO-15–646), GAO Highlights, United States Government Accountability Office, September 2015, accessed 29 June 2022 at https://​www​ .gao​.gov/​assets/​gao​-15–646​.pdf. GPRBA (2019), Impact Bonds: Considerations for Investment Returns and Pricing of Outcomes, Global Partnership for Results-Based Approaches, World Bank, accessed 29 June 2022 at https://​www​.gprba​.org/​sites/​gprba/​

Eleanor Carter and Andreea Anastasiu

432  Encyclopedia of social innovation files/​publication/​downloads/​2019–06/​Impact​ %20Bonds​%20and​%20Considerations​%20for​ %20Investment​-6–25–2019​_0​.pdf. Griffiths, R., A. Thomas and A. Pemberton (2016), Qualitative Evaluation of the DWP Innovation Fund: Final Report (Research Report No 922), Department for Work and Pensions, accessed 29 June 2022 at https://​assets​.publishing​.service​ .gov​.uk/​government/​uploads/​system/​uploads/​ attachment​_data/​file/​535032/​rr922​-qualitative​ -evaluation​-of​-the​-dwp​-innovation​-fund​-final​ -report​.pdf. Gustafsson-Wright, E., S. Gardiner and V. Putcha (2015), The Potential and Limitations of Impact Bonds: Lessons from the First Five Years of Experience Worldwide (1820800325), Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, www​ accessed 29 June 2022 at https://​ .brookings​.edu/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2016/​07/​ impact​-bondsweb​.pdf. Gustafsson-Wright, E. and S. Osborne (2020), Do the Benefits Outweigh the Costs of Impact Bonds?, Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, accessed 29 June 2022 at https://​ www​.brookings​.edu/​wp​-content/​uploads/​2020/​ 09/​Do​-the​-benefits​-outweigh​-the​-costs​-of​ -impact​-bonds​-FINAL​.pdf. INDIGO [International Network for Data on Impact and Government Outcomes] (n.d.a), INDIGO Impact Bond Insights—January 2022, The Government Outcomes Lab, University of Oxford, Blavatnik School of Government. INDIGO [International Network for Data on Impact and Government Outcomes] (n.d.b), ‘INDIGO Data standard version 3.1.1’, accessed at: https://​indigo​-data​-standard​.readthedocs​ .io/​en/​stable/​data​-dictionary/​project​.html​ #intermediary​-services. Lagarde, M., M. Wright, J. Nossiter and N. Mays (2013), Challenges of Payment-for-Performance in Health Care and Other Public Services – Design, Implementation and Evaluation, London: Policy Innovation Research Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, accessed 29 June 2022 at https://​ piru​.ac​.uk/​assets/​files/​Challenges​%20of​ %20payment​%20for​%20performance​%20in​ %20healthcare​%20and​%20other​%20public​ %20services​%20final​.pdf. Lazzarini, S. G., S. Cabral, S. Firpo and T. Teodorovicz (2021), ‘Counterfactual assessment methods and outcome-based contracts: a formal model approach’, Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 10972. Millner, R. and M. Meyer (2021), ‘Collaborative governance in Social Impact Bonds: aligning interests within divergent accountabilities?’, Public Management Review, 0 (0), pp. 1–23,

Eleanor Carter and Andreea Anastasiu

https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​14719037​.2021​ .2000253. Olson, H., G. Painter, K. Albertson, C. Fox and C. O’Leary (2022), ‘Are social impact bonds an innovation in finance or do they help finance social innovation?’, Journal of Social Policy, pp.  1–25, https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1017/​S0047279422000356. Osborne, S. P. (2018), ‘From public service-dominant logic to public service logic: are public service organizations capable of co-production and value co-creation?’, Public Management Review, 20 (2), pp. 225–31. Painter, G., K. Albertson, C. Fox and C. O’Leary (2018), ‘Social impact bonds: more than one approach’, 28 December, Stanford Social Innovation Review, accessed 29 June 2022 at https://​ssir​.org/​articles/​entry/​social​_impact​ _bonds​_more​_than​_one​_approach. Picker, V., E. Carter, M. Airoldi, J. Ronicle, R. Wooldridge, J. Llewellyn, L. Monk, S. Stone, M. Gibson, F. Rosenbach and T. Hameed (2021), ‘Social outcomes contracting (SOC) in social programmes and public services: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol’, Social Science Protocols, 4, pp. 1–21. Savell, L., E. Carter, M. Airoldi, C. FitzGerald, S. Tan, J. Outes Velarde and J. R. Macdonald (2022), Understanding Outcomes Funds: A Guide for Practitioners, Governments and Donors, Government Outcomes Lab, Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, accessed 20 July 2022 at https://​ golab​.bsg​.ox​.ac​.uk/​knowledge​-bank/​ resources/​understanding​-outcomes​-funds​-a​ -guide​-for​-practitioners​-governments​-and​ -donors/​. Tan, S., A. Fraser, N. McHugh and M. E. Warner (2021), ‘Widening perspectives on social impact bonds’, Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 24 (1), pp. 1–10. Tse, A. E. and M. E. Warner (2018), ‘The razor’s edge: social impact bonds and the financialization of early childhood services’, Journal of Urban Affairs, 42 (6), pp. 816–32. Tse, A. E. and M. E. Warner (2020), ‘A policy outcomes comparison: does SIB market discipline narrow social rights?’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 22 (2), pp. 134–52. van der Have, R. P. and L. Rubalcaba (2016), ‘Social innovation research: an emerging area of innovation studies?’, Research Policy, 45 (9), pp. 1923–35. Warner, M. E. (2013), ‘Private finance for public goods: social impact bonds’, Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 16 (4), pp. 303–19.

75. Social impact measurement Introduction

Social Impact Measurement (SIM) is the attempt to empirically analyse for a given intervention what changes for the target group/beneficiaries, the target area and the wider societal context of both a given action produces. Why is social impact so important and how did this concept gain prominence in different contexts? The prevailing position in economics up to now is that the usefulness of products and services reflects in their performance on markets. As long as a company realizes profits it is supposed to provide goods or services that are valued by customers and therefore useful for society. Consequences for society and the environment were seen as mere externalities and neglected. In the philanthropic or non-profit sector, we see a different approach. Here the ability to attract resources either monetary, in kind or in time of volunteers might be seen as a substitute for success in markets. But, strictly speaking, success shows in the positive effects of actions on individuals and/ or society. Nevertheless, non-profits heavily depend on donations by private or public funders. For a long time, the motivation of private donors was mostly seen in the so-called warm glow of giving, and indeed many of them were not really interested in effects of their contributions. On the other side, public agencies concentrated on the correct allocation of budgets and were not so keen to think about results (Nicholls 2009). This has changed with mainly two trends. (1) As a result of new public management and under growing budgetary constraints public funders were increasingly interested to know precisely what the budgets spent changed in people’s life (Weisbrod 1998). For new forms of financing social services – like Social Impact Bonds (→ IMPACT BONDS: BEYOND THE HYPE?) – impact measurement is a must (Edmiston and Nicholls 2018). (2) A new generation of donors – be they called philanthro-capitalists, social investors or effective givers – was transferring mind frames and methods from the utilitarianism of the business world into philanthropic engagement. In addition, they were not content with

mitigating individual needs with donations. Rather, they intended to resolve problems in society once and for all (Anheier 2009, pp. 323–5). (3) In economics, practitioners and scholars realize that success on markets is not the last word on the creation of value. Even the seemingly sacrosanct indicator of the wealth and well-being of a nation, the GDP, lost its nimbus (Fioramonti 2013). Instead alternative indicators of well-being are developed and propagated and the performance of corporations is not only measured in return on investments but investors, governments and the general public want to know what their contribution is to transformation towards sustainability (OECD 2019). In social innovation it is even more important to learn about the effects of the proposed new method, process or product. Here a clear distinction has to be made between Social Innovation Measurement (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION MEASUREMENT) as a standardized observation of the social innovation processes in different countries and the measurement of social impacts of social innovations. The two endeavours are closely connected but differ like classic innovation research and technology assessment. Social innovations are commonly understood as innovations where at least part of the surplus value generated accrues to society (Deiglmeier et al. 2008). It is evident that success on markets cannot be the last word in the case of social innovation as it is in business innovation. The effect it has on society is decisive. Independent of the implicit and really tricky question ‘how can we define what is good for society’ there is the more mundane problem, what effects has a new intervention, service or product really on the primary target group, their communities and society at large? In this entry we will concentrate on the latter, the question of how to define and assess social impact. We leave open the normative aspect of social value.

Short overview on the development of social impact measurement

The development of social impact measurement is not the first attempt to discover and analyse the effects of projects and organizations. Earlier attempts are refined methodologies of evaluation that may be found for example in developmental aid (Weiss 1972). In evidence-based medicine and public

433

434  Encyclopedia of social innovation

health advanced methodologies exist like quasi-experimental methods, randomized control trials (RCT) and a growing use of big data, with RCTs constituting the ‘gold standard’ for proof of concepts. But they are quite demanding and expensive (Then et al. 2018). And there are voices that warn not to overestimate RCTs (Deaton and Cartwright 2018). Another strong influence comes from the growing movement of sustainability. Life cycle analysis of products with a holistic view or the analysis of value chains in business share common traits with social impact measurement. The most general being that non-monetary impacts on society are not to be neglected as mere externalities but have to be part of the balance. This is the core idea at the heart of concepts like triple bottom line or blended value that stem from accounting practices and are direct ancestors to social return on investment (SROI), one of the most prominent methods of social impact measurement (Kehl et al. 2019). All these concepts are heavily influenced by practice and not academia-driven. In general social impact measurement is a topic foremost in the community of practitioners (Ebrahim and Rangan 2014). Social businesses/social enterprises and their donors, organizations active in developmental aid and others started to develop ideas how to transcend the more focused activities of accounting and evaluation and go for a wider perspective (Nicholls et al. 2019). But up to now there are no generally accepted standards or procedures for impact measurement. Instead, most funding bodies and non-profit organizations develop their own bespoke methods for impact measurement. Thus, we see a multiplicity of approaches, tools and databases. Besides attempts to develop a more generic but universal approach to impact measurement, a general consensus grows that social impact measurement should be guided by shared principles and some basic measurements (OECD 2021). A standardized approach would have certain advantages. (1) Results could be compared and aggregated, (2) it would be easier to train professionals to do the impact analyses and (3) organization leaders, funders and the general public could understand the reports and their results with less effort. But a standard methodology would neglect all the differences in types of action, societal

contexts and idiosyncrasies of problems and target groups. In the non-profit world this would have dear consequences as organizations are very diverse in their goals and structures, in what they do and whom they serve. On the other side, this means each and every organization has to develop a bespoke method for impact measurement. Nevertheless, there are common grounds for the different ways of impact measurement. Most important, all of them are based on a certain idea how impact is to be achieved. This is shown in a very abstract way by the so-called IOOI (inputs–outputs–outcomes– impacts) scheme or logic model.

The IOOI scheme as a general blueprint of social impact measurement

Going back to the early 1970s we find the basic IOOI scheme introduced by Carol Weiss (1972). It gives us the core of an impact model that can be used as a general blueprint of social impact measurement. The IOOI may be used to develop, design or depict a project or an intervention but at the same time works as a valuable basic model for a method to assess social impact. It is rather simple and forces one to reflect on the causal connections of inputs–outputs– outcomes–impacts. This is the core of what is called a Logic Model and the very similar concept of Theory of Change, the latter being normally more sophisticated and not only stating what is expected to happen but in addition giving reasons why it is expected. The IOOI starts with the inputs (I), understood as all resources that are needed for action. In the action itself the inputs are used to produce certain outputs (O), the latter being mostly countable things or events. More basic forms of evaluation stop here and only register whether the actions have properly performed as planned and the promised outputs are shown. One could argue that with outputs the actors’ control of the intervention comes to an end. But the goal of actions normally does not stop with outputs. Outputs are just means to induce a change for the target group or beneficiaries. The goal of health education is to improve the health of people, not to produce leaflets and give talks. The first sign of an effect of our action in health education would be a change in the behaviour

Gorgi Krlev, Georg Mildenberger and Volker Then

Social impact measurement  435

of people. They eat better food and more regularly and may start some physical training. After a while their health status will improve leading to enhanced well-being. But here the similarities of approaches stop.

Impact as attributable outcomes vs impact as systemic change

The original versions of the IOOI scheme or logic model see impact as long-term changes that occur after some time or as changes on the systemic level. Therefore, social impact seems to be the last link of a causal chain. While outcomes occur mostly at the target group, long term impacts are regarded as effects beyond, for example, the larger society. But there is another perspective towards impact. The starting point is very similar. Outcomes are seen as observable changes in the target area/population of an intervention. But that changes occur does not mean that the invention caused it. Rather, one has to analyse the outcomes and identify those parts that may be plausibly attributed to the action. Only those attributable chances could be properly called impact of a measure, activity or intervention in general. For example the GECES sub-group on Impact Measurement defines Impact as ‘the reflection of social outcomes as measurements, both long-term and short-term, adjusted for the effects achieved by others (alternative attribution), for effects that would have happened anyway (deadweight), for negative consequences (displacement), and for effects declining over time (drop-off)’ (GECES 2014, p. 12). The perspective understanding impact as long-term/systemic change argues that attribution in this strict sense is not possible and therefore the impact as part of outcome approach futile. Up to now it is open which approach will become mainstream or whether both perspectives will coexist.

Typology of impact measurements by meta-characteristics

Following developments of accounting, Nicholls et al. (2019) discern three ideal types of impact measurements following debates in accounting. Those mainly differ

in their epistemological status. (1) The positivist approach sees impact measurement as the true representation of the events that follow an intervention. Methods for impact measurement are supposed to follow scientific methods and standards. (2) Critical theory methods concentrate on the aspect of power. The focus of impact measurement is prone to be determined by the most powerful party, most often the donors. To give a more holistic view those methods try to include the point of view of all relevant stakeholders. (3) Interpretative methods finally concentrate on the participation of relevant stakeholder or beneficiary groups from the beginning of the measurement. Impact measurement is co-produced with stakeholders and beneficiaries and strongly relies on their views. The process of impact measurement travels with the intervention itself and thus bears many traits of formative evaluation. This typology is to be understood as describing ideal types. Many methods for social impact measurement combine aspects of all three types. From the first type they take ideas for data collection and generation. From the second type they take the reflected decision on relevant stakeholder groups and to include their points of view. From the third type they learn to allow for participation of stakeholders and beneficiaries not only in the measurement itself but from the beginning, when basic design decisions are taken. Such an impact measurement will be based on a design that satisfies the informational needs of donors, staff and beneficiaries. The decisions whose experience and what data are relevant to learn about outcomes and/or impacts of actions are taken in a consensual way. Wherever feasible data will be collected with scientific rigour. In combination, the different types can avoid traps on the way of impact measurement. (1) It is easy to concentrate on aspects that are easily measured or to produce a lot of detailed data with high costs that make the process time-consuming, expensive and the resulting report hard to understand. (2) Goals of interventions can be blindfolds and make us oversee outcomes that were not to be expected. A broad participation of stakeholders helps to avoid this. (3) Participation is very important, but we must not overly build on perceptions of the people directly connected to an action, neither donors nor activists nor beneficiaries. It is important

Gorgi Krlev, Georg Mildenberger and Volker Then

436  Encyclopedia of social innovation

to include their interpretations of the action and outcomes, but the bigger picture must not be neglected. Contributions of others, general developments and the danger to displace problems to others must be considered.

Scope of social impact measurement, level of analysis, and time

There are some very important decisions to be made in designing a social impact measurement project. (1) Who exactly are the relevant stakeholders to be considered in the social impact measurement? In general, there will be more stakeholder groups than the target group. Families, neighbourhoods, eventually whole communities will be influenced by the intervention and possible changes. In the end, the decision whom to include and whom not necessarily always will be somewhat arbitrary, which is why they should be taken by means of intersubjective participatory dialogue. Resulting choices should be made explicit. (2) What is the level of analysis? Is the focus on outcomes at the individuals, at the communities and/or organizations or at the level of society? Especially in social innovation the idea of transformational aspects of social innovations and long-term systemic change asks for the societal level, the idea of rearrangement of (power) relations at least for the meso level. Organizations themselves might be more interested in the micro level, the changes in agency and/or well-being of individuals (Jacobi et al. 2019). And finally, (3) what timeframe should the analysis be based on? Changes may be prominent for a short time but wear off soon; trust and changes in relations may vanish or others might adapt their strategies and thus counteract outcomes. Those effects will be lost and the impact overestimated if our timeframe is too short. But if it is too long it will be harder to identify impacts. Other influences will become stronger and thus continuing change might be falsely attributed to the intervention. Especially in SROI type methods returns might be overestimated (Then et al. 2018).

Perspectives

It is too early to decide whether measuring the impact of social interventions in general and especially in social innovation

is feasible or not. Many authors see a possibility in differentiating different levels of impact and therefore impact measurement (Nicholls et al. 2019). On the macro level of society one can measure in a quantitative way general changes in living conditions of individuals, their values and so on, but it is very hard to connect observed changes to individual activities of change agents/social innovators (individuals or organizations). On the level of organizations there is a good chance to use methods like process tracing to analyse observed changes and identify key actors (Krlev et al. 2018, p. 68). And on the micro level, approaches like measurement of well-being or changes in human capabilities are apt to observe the difference a given social innovation makes to people (Jacobi et al. 2019). It stays complicated to pick out the relevant populations without biases and find a control group that has not been touched by the social innovation. The very fact that a multiplicity of approaches towards impact measurement (and with less rigorous quantitative ambitions: impact analysis) have emerged (for a comparative overview, see Then et al. 2018, pp. 13–19) seems to document that this is a methodological field requiring further research efforts at distinguishing different approaches, working towards their relative assessment, standardization and drawing conclusions for interdisciplinary theoretical advancement. A methodology to measure the social impacts of interventions and especially social innovations is much needed. It is necessary for organizational learning and for the legitimacy of resource allocation. It is a useful tool for donors and impact investors to make educated decisions where to place their funds. And it is needed by policymakers to base their strategic decisions on the best evidence available. Finally, some evidence is needed to legitimize interventions and keep them on the agenda. Therefore, practitioners and academics should not give up working on sound methodologies for social impact measurement. Policymakers should support them by funding research in methodologies, elaborated pilots, and the further development of databases for standard indicators used in

Gorgi Krlev, Georg Mildenberger and Volker Then

Social impact measurement  437

social impact measurement (Mildenberger et al. 2020). Gorgi Krlev, Georg Mildenberger and Volker Then

References

Entries marked in bold are further reading material. Anheier, H. K. (2009), Nonprofit Organizations: Theory, Management, Policy (reprint), Abingdon: Routledge. Deaton, A. and N. Cartwright (2018), ‘Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials’, Social Science & Medicine, 210, pp. 2–21, https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1016/​j​.socscimed​.2017​.12​.005. Deiglmeier, K., D. T. Miller and J. A. Phills, Jr (2008), ‘Rediscovering social innovation’, Fall, Stanford Social Innovation Review, accessed 24 June 2022 at https://​ ssir​.org/​articles/​entry/​rediscovering​_social​ _innovation. https://​doi​.org/​10​.48558/​GBJY​ -GJ47. Ebrahim, A. and V. K. Rangan (2014), ‘What Impact? A framework for measuring the scale and scope of social performance’, California Management Review, 56 (3), pp.  118–41, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1525/​cmr​ .2014​.56​.3​.118. Edmiston, D. and A. Nicholls (2018), ‘Social impact bonds: the role of private capital in outcome-based commissioning’, Journal of Social Policy, 47 (1), pp. 57–76, https://​doi​ .org/​10​.1017/​S0047279417000125. Fioramonti, L. (2013), Gross Domestic Problem: The Politics Behind the World’s Most Powerful Number, London: Zed Books/Bloomsbury. GECES (2014), Proposed Approaches to Social Impact Measurement in European Commission Legislation and in Practice Relating to EuSEFs and the EaSI, European Commission DG Employment, Luxembourg: European Union. Jacobi, N. v., E. Chiappero-Martinetti, R. Ziegler, M. van der Linden and C. van Beers (2019), ‘Social innovation and agency’, in A. Nicholls and R. Ziegler (eds), Creating Economic Space for Social Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 245–67. Kehl, K., G. Krlev, V. Then and G. Mildenberger (2019), ‘Adapting the measuring rod for social returns in advanced welfare states: a critique of SROI’, in A. Lindgreen, C. Vallaster, S. Yousafzai and B. Hirsch (eds), Measuring and

Controlling Sustainability: Spanning Theory and Practice, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 71–88. Krlev, G., H. K. Anheier and G. Mildenberger (2018), ‘Methods: identifying and analysing the social innovation streams’, in H. K. Anheier, G. Krlev, and G. Mildenberger (eds), Social Innovation: Comparative Perspectives, Routledge Studies in Social Enterprise & Social Innovation, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 49–76. Mildenberger, G., G. Schimpf and J. Streicher (2020), ‘Social innovation assessment? Reflections on the impacts of social innovation on society. Outcomes of a systematic literature review’, European Public & Social Innovation Review, 5 (2), pp.  1–13, https://​doi​.org/​10​ .31637/​epsir​.20–2​.1. Nicholls, A. (2009), ‘Capturing the performance of the socially entrepreneurial organization: an organizational legitimacy approach’, in J. Robinson, J. Mair and K. Hockerts (eds), International Perspectives on Social Entrepreneurship, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 27–64. Nicholls, A., N. v. Jacobi, E. Chiappero-Martinetti and G. Mildenberger (2019), ‘The impact of social innovation’, in A. Nicholls and R. Ziegler (eds), Creating Economic Space for Social Innovation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 389–416. OECD (2019), Social Impact Investment 2019: The Impact Imperative for Sustainable Development, OECD Publishing, https://​ doi​ .org/​10​.1787/​9789264311299​-en. OECD (2021), ‘Social impact measurement for the social and solidarity economy’, OECD Local Economic and Employment Development Working Papers, accessed 24 June 2022 at https://​ www​.oecd​-ilibrary​.org/​docserver/​ d20a57ac​-en​.pdf​?expires​=​1656065818​&​ id​=​id​&​accname​=​guest​&​checksum​=​71​ 5D7FD1B894274E195BBBB254EEC8BD. Then, V., C. Schober, O. Rauscher and K. Kehl (2018), Social Return on Investment Analysis: Measuring the Impact of Social Investment (1st edition 2017), Palgrave Studies in Impact Finance, Cham: Springer International. Weisbrod, B. A. (1998), ‘The nonprofit mission and its financing: growing links between nonprofits and the rest of the economy’, in B. A. Weisbrod (ed.), To Profit or not to Profit: The Commercial Transformation of the Nonprofit Sector, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–24. Weiss, C. H. (1972), Evaluation Research: Methods for Assessing Program Effectiveness, Prentice-Hall Methods of Social Science Series, Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Gorgi Krlev, Georg Mildenberger and Volker Then

76. Social innovation measurement Framing social innovation measurement

Measuring social innovation is an important issue directly related to transformative societal change in response to the grand societal challenges. In the interdisciplinary research community on social innovation, a pivotal open question is how to grasp the complex process dynamics of their emergence and scaling. A uniformly accepted process model has not yet been established in the research on social innovations. However, a measuring approach enabling comparative analysis is essential. We are experiencing a shift in research on innovation, policies, and different, mostly separated research strands such as sustainability transitions, social entrepreneurship, or regional innovation systems. Thus, insights based on a comparative methodology can provide a value-added in different research strands, enhancing our understanding of the complex dynamics of the emergence and scaling of social innovation and their spatial shaping. Exacerbated by the normative turn in research and innovation policies from fixing market, state, and transformational failure to addressing missions, social impacts and sustainable transformation, social innovation

Figure 76.1

has entered policy agendas at all governance levels. However, despite the progress made in systemic social innovation research, these advances have neither coalesced around a common definition nor a set of established indicators to measure social innovation (Krelv and Mildenberger 2020; Terstriep et al. 2021).1 Especially against the background of mission orientation and its directionality, the availability of a solid evidence basis on social innovations is becoming increasingly important. Hence, identifying meaningful and reliable indicators and related measurement approaches is a pending task in social innovation research (Mihci 2020; Portales 2019). The Web of Science database, for example, enlists 2,047 articles for the topic ‘social innovati*’ for the period 2002 to 2021 and only 214 on social innovation and measurement/indicators.2 As shown in Figure 76.1, there has been a steep rise in publications on social innovation since the 2016s. In contrast, publications on measurement and indicators increased at a slower pace and to a lesser extent. Besides being underexplored, it is also evident that social innovation measurement remains a somewhat fragmented research field, with publications found in various disciplines such as business economics, environmental sciences/ecology, sociology and social sciences, and public administration,

Evolution of social innovation measurement literature

438

Social innovation measurement  439

science and technology and other fields (Terstriep et al. 2021). Such diversity can be attributed to the interdisciplinary nature of the research field but also results from the fact that social innovation measurement is in its infancy. Social innovation measurement differs significantly from classical innovation measurement in that it cannot draw on decades of continuous development of indicators. The fourth edition of the Oslo Manual (OECD/Eurostat 2018) is a step forward as it provides a more general definition of innovation and explicitely mentions social innovation. Nevertheless, its focus remains on innovation activities in the private sector, mainly ignoring traditional social economy businesses and new types of social enterprises. In addition, the social as a core dimension of social innovation is often neglected or reduced to measurable factors such as income or employment rates. Hence, core aspects such as values and preferences, decision-making mechanisms, power relations, social discourses, and different actors’ roles and functions remain unnoticed. These gaps are closely related to the long-standing focus on measuring novelties through science and technology-based indicators (STI), considered as main determinants for competitiveness and economic growth (Smith 2009). However, the exclusive focus on quantitative analyses or aggregated data in traditional measurement approaches risks overlooking transformative change processes (Krlev et al. 2020). In light of social innovation and its potential as a game changer addressing societal challenges, an open question in interdisciplinary research is how these forms of innovation induce gradual changes leading to institutional sustainable, transformative change at the system level in later times (Strambach and Pflitsch 2020). The conditions and the linkages between local, regional and sectoral levels are not fully explored and may impede unfolding social innovations’ full potential. Hence, social innovation actors need to obtain early information on relevant needs, pertinent actors, potential solutions, and social innovation capacities. Measurement of social innovation is thus considered a tool for informed, evidence-based decision-making, while its measurement poses several challenges. Focusing on foresight, input, output, outcome, and framework conditions, social

innovation measurement complements Social Impact Measurement (→ SOCIAL IMPACT MEASUREMENT) which centres on long-term effects. Against this background, the remainder of the entry is structured as follows: the next section emphasizes the specifics to be considered in social innovation measurement, followed by an exemplification of earlier approaches to measuring social innovation. In response to the call to advance understanding of the interactions between micro, meso, macro, and early indicators, the second last section introduces the IndiSI framework model as a new integrated measurement approach. The concluding section sets out future directions of research.

What to consider when measuring social innovation?

Social innovations relating to new forms of interaction, cooperation, governance, and knowledge generation assemble manifold actors with distinct motivations, logics of action, and power relations. They are by nature cross-sectoral and interdisciplinary, often emerge in niches, and are marked by hybrid operating models (Terstriep et al. 2021). In addition, social innovation is best described as a complex process including feedback loops, change of strategies, and multifaceted actions, where process dynamics depend on the societal domain (economy, civil society, politics) and the context in which they are anchored. Recent studies indicate that how actors work together is a driving force for social innovation (Agostini et al. 2019). Furthermore, organizations’ governance structures and the broader ecosystem play a vital role in social innovation processes (Domanski et al. 2019; Marconatto et al. 2020). Also, tacit symbolic knowledge that is difficult to measure – as opposed to analytical-technical knowledge that can be measured in patents or R&D indicators – plays a decisive role in generating and implementing social innovations (Strambach 2017). As this form of knowledge is strongly distance sensitive, social innovation is highly context-specific. In light of these specifics, scholars and practitioners should consider that effective social innovations require simultaneous action at several interlocking levels, ranging

Judith Terstriep, Gorgi Krlev, Georg Mildenberger, Simone Strambach, Jan-Frederik Thurmann and Laura-Fee Wloka

440  Encyclopedia of social innovation

from forming actor-centred partnerships to reconfiguring existing institutions and shaping social discourses (Krlev and Lund 2020; Pel et al. 2020). Second, due to social innovations’ local embeddedness, it is to be expected that variations in the framework conditions and outcomes of social innovations are more likely to be found in local/regional (eco‑)systems rather than at the national level. Sustainable transitions research also provided significant evidence of the multiplicity of transformation pathways at these spatial levels (Strambach and Pflitsch 2020). Third, social innovations are shaped by soft factors such as common understandings, behaviours, values, norms and attitudes towards innovation that are difficult to measure. Fourth, social innovations can encompass technological ones or differ from them, for instance, in terms of motivation. Accordingly, we define social innovation ‘as a value-oriented and social needs-based transformation of social practices and capabilities, which often grow in a regionally embedded way and are promoted by a variety of actors across sectors that possess different traits and competencies’ (Terstriep et al. 2021, p. 265). Thus, for measuring social innovations, indicator sets are needed that, on the one hand, include aspects that are also relevant for economic-technological innovations, encompassing the organizational management of social innovation practices. On the other hand, indicators commonly used to measure social well-being and progress are required, as are broader social indicators to capture attitudes and societal capacities for action. In addition, it is vital to provide a methodological framework and indicators for tracking societal debates and discourses. Mainly since perceived social needs are the starting point of social innovation processes, these needs are socially constructed and shaped in discourses to gain legitimacy. Finally, accounting for the systemic nature of social innovation requires linking the different levels of measurement and considering their interactions to capture a more comprehensive picture of social innovation. However, it is essential to bear in mind, that indicators are means of simplification, reducing complex real-world phenomena to a potentially high but limited number of factors. Forasmuch it is necessary to select, define, and structure indicator sets systematically and purposefully.

What do we know about measuring social innovation?

Next to the above-outlined complexities, a further reason for the lack of knowledge on indicators is that previous efforts to measure social innovation were mainly limited to individual projects where the systematization of results was omitted. Being of experimental nature, often, these studies followed a bottom-up approach with unique research designs that cannot or have not been replicated. Also, the diversity of research objectives and measurement approaches offers limited opportunities for integration. From a methodological perspective, social innovation studies can be roughly divided into four groups: (1) qualitative studies heavily relying on historical and contemporary case studies, (2) exploratory mappings of social innovation to capture framework conditions (e.g. institutional, political, financial), (3) studies in search for indicators to measure resources, capacities, and capabilities necessary for social innovation, and (4) studies on the impact of social innovation at different scale (e.g. single initiative, policy field, region). In due consideration of this entry’s objective, in the following, we focus on group 3 to compare measurement levels, the object of analysis and proposed metrics. The approaches listed in Table 76.1 are by no means exhaustive but are illustrative examples. Four of the seven approaches in Table 76.1 measure social innovation at the macro level of nation states, focusing on framework conditions and social innovation capacities (Bund et al. 2015; EIU 2016; Krlev et al. 2014; Rocha et al. 2021). Utilizing aggregated indicators, the national levels choice reflects the societal dimension of social innovation and allows for comparative analysis. The advantage of these approaches is that they draw on data collected through established, well-tested items and survey methodologies. However, meaningful cross-country comparison places high demands on data availability and reliability. In their explorative study, Rocha et al. (2021) for example, define, amongst others, the following criteria for potential indicators to be integrated into the European Innovation Scoreboard: indicators that refer to more than one period in time, indicators that are non-opinion survey data, indicators that cover a large set of countries, indicators that have a clear, measurable characteristic.

Judith Terstriep, Gorgi Krlev, Georg Mildenberger, Simone Strambach, Jan-Frederik Thurmann and Laura-Fee Wloka

Social innovation measurement  441 Table 76.1

Excerpt of social innovation measurement approaches

Author(s)

Measurement level

Krlev, Bund &

National (macro) level Framework

Mildenberger (2014)

Object of analysis conditions, entrepreneurial activities,

Proposed metrics ● Framework conditions: resources, incentives, capabilities, opportunities ● Entrepreneurial activities: investments, start-up activities and death rates of firms, collaboration and networks

organizational output ● Field-specific output and outcome: health, education, and societal outcome

working, housing, social capital and networks, political participation, environment

Bund, Gerhard,

National (macro) level Social innovation

Hoelscher &

capacities of spatial

Mildenberger (2015)

units

● Social need (e.g. share of migrants, unemployment rate) ● Financial capacity: core fiscal depts per capita, social expenditures by local authorities, philanthropic funds, private spending ● Personal resources: knowledge assets (highly qualified persons by place of work and place of residence) ● Political anchoring/support: organizational anchoring in local authorities (staffing, decision-making authority), the political environment for SI (social initiatives initiated/ coordinated by the local authority, format and degree of citizens’ participation)

EIU (2016)

(Inter‑)National

SI capacity (Social

● Policy and institutional framework (weight: 44.44%):

(macro) level

Innovation Index)

national policy for SI, SI research and impact, legal framework for social enterprises, effectiveness of policy implementation, rule of law ● Financing (weight: 22.22%): availability of government funding for SI, ease of getting credit, total public social expenditure ● Entrepreneurship (weight: 15%): risk-taking mindset, citizen’s attitude towards entrepreneurship, ease of starting a business, development of clusters ● Society (weight: 18.33%): culture of volunteerism, political participation, civil society engagement, trust in society, press freedom

Unceta, Luna, Castro

Regional (meso) and

SI regime composed ● Regional vulnerability: social, institutional, economic,

& Wintjes (2019)

SI dynamics (micro)

of context and

level

dynamics of SI

environmental ● SI dynamics: components (actors, resources, institutions), objectives (social, economic, institutional, environmental), principles (efficiency, governance) and impact (organizational, regional) ● Welfare system

Scharpe & Wunsch

Organizational

Social enterprises

(2020)

(micro) level

(German Social

● Basic data: enterprise location, age and development stage, sector, legal status, innovative capacity, customers,

Enterprise Monitor)

cooperation, value chain, value proposition, fields of activity, scaling, financial situation ● Social entrepreneurs: characteristics, employees and volunteers, governance structure ● Framework conditions: policy support, challenges, ecosystem

Judith Terstriep, Gorgi Krlev, Georg Mildenberger, Simone Strambach, Jan-Frederik Thurmann and Laura-Fee Wloka

442  Encyclopedia of social innovation Author(s)

Measurement level

Object of analysis

Proposed metrics

Krasnopolskaya &

Organizational

Non-governmental

● Demographic characteristics: legal form, field of activity

Korneeva (2020)

(micro) level

organizations

(sphere), government funding, financial well-being, collaboration, interactions with external actors, involvement of volunteers, number of sources of funding ● Innovativeness: self-assessment on innovative solutions (product, service, model or practice) introduced in the past two years

Rocha et al. (2021)

European (macro)

Nations (contextual

level

factors)

● Challenges and capacities: People at risk of poverty, culture of volunteerism ● Support infrastructures: presence of socially focused business support ● Research infrastructure: research on social innovation (publications, patents) ● Businesses aiming to solve social problems ● Total public expenditure on social benefits

Source: Adapted from Terstriep et al. (2021, p. 266ff.).

Despite its advantages, a significant drawback of macro-level measurement approaches is that the innovation process itself remains a black box. The two micro-level approaches measure social innovations at the level of organizations. Quantitative surveys capture the socially innovative activities of pre-selected sub-groups of social innovators. Krasnopolskaya and Korneeva (2020) measure non-governmental organizations’ social innovativeness, whereas Scharpe and Wunsch (2020) focus on social entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial ecosystem they are embedded in. Both approaches provide insights into social innovation processes by capturing, for example, collaborations and interactions with external partners. Notwithstanding the usefulness of the two approaches that deliver relevant evidence for informed decision-making, they represent only part of social innovators. In addition, it is to be acknowledged that the selectivity of organizations considered in these measurement approaches is reinforced by the hybridity of social innovation business models, which often results in the establishment of more than one organization. What is lacking is a measurement approach that accounts for the breadth of actors involved in social innovation. The measurement approach suggested by Unceta et al. (2019) strives to capture the regional social innovation ‘regime’ by including indicators to grasp regional social vulnerability, social innovation dynamics and the broader welfare system. Based on the

concept of vulnerability (social, economic, environmental, institutional), the approach builds upon the interrelations between socioeconomic contexts of social innovation (meso-level) and organizational (micro-level) dynamics. As such, it can be understood as an attempt to shed light on the interactions between the distinct measurement levels. In addition to the measurement approaches described above, supranational organizations are also increasingly engaging in measuring social innovations. The OECD Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs, Regions and Cities (CFE),3 for example, recently published a paper on measuring local ecosystems for social innovation (OECD 2021). The measurement approach foresees collecting data in the three pillars ‘framework conditions’, ‘policy implementation measures’, and ‘progress dynamics monitoring’ (ibid., p. 26ff.). Pillar one strives to grasp the local ecosystem surrounding social innovation by measuring the capacity to diffuse social innovations. It centres on the relationships among the actors in the local ecosystem and their cooperation capability. Respective indicators relate to the local culture and behaviours (e.g. civic engagement, trust in government, life satisfaction), existing laws and regulations, institutional framework conditions, community of social innovation actors, and resources available. Pillar two is directed towards measuring the efficiency of policy measures and strategies. Policy measures to be examined comprise, on the one hand, those that are directed towards creating a market for social

Judith Terstriep, Gorgi Krlev, Georg Mildenberger, Simone Strambach, Jan-Frederik Thurmann and Laura-Fee Wloka

Social innovation measurement  443

innovations (demand-side measures) utilizing indicators such as public procurement, tax incentives and awards. On the other hand, policy measures to improve the quality and quantity of social innovation (supply-side measures) captured by skills development, finance, and collaboration support are viewed as crucial. Finally, monitoring changes in social needs is at the heart of pillar three. It includes meaningful indicators to monitor local progress against set objectives and needs. In summary, while all measurement approaches have certain advantages and disadvantages connected to the research question, they have in common the ambition to advance our understanding of social innovation as an essential phenomenon in the innovation landscape. In response to the call to advance understanding the interactions

Figure 76.2

between macro, meso and micro level and early indicators, the IndiSI framework model is introduced in the following.

Towards a holistic measurement approach

Departing from the above review, we propose a holistic approach to assess the multifaceted phenomenon of social innovation. We use the IndiSI framework model to exemplify such an approach.4 Taking a systems perspective, it extends previous conceptualizations by connecting three measurement levels relating to organizations, regional contexts, and resonance in online discourses (Figure 76.2). Located at the top of Figure 76.2, organizations of many kinds drive social innovation (see above). At the same time, it is unclear how they strategize, manage and

IndiSI Framework Model

Judith Terstriep, Gorgi Krlev, Georg Mildenberger, Simone Strambach, Jan-Frederik Thurmann and Laura-Fee Wloka

444  Encyclopedia of social innovation

diffuse social innovations and what the conditions enabling them are. Hence, explicitly measuring organizations’ social innovation activities is essential. Based on the assumption that social innovations transcend existing sectoral boundaries and can be found in welfare organizations, private companies, associations, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and other not-for-profit organizations, a broad definition of the organization is adopted. Doing so allows uncovering social innovations across different legal forms in economic and social organizations. More so than economic-technological innovation, embeddedness in the regional context or ecosystem is a core trait and condition for successful organizational social innovation (marked by solid double-headed arrows in Figure 76.2). Social entrepreneurs, for example, engage in innovation activities to address regional necessities based on personal experiences. To measure the capacity for creating social innovation, it is thus vital to assess whether citizens perceive a need to act, come up with ways to act, and have the capacity to act. These capacities or capabilities, located at the regional level, capture the awareness, intention and ability to act on social problems and are closely interlinked (see solid double-headed arrows of the central layer in Figure 76.2). All three capacities are mirrored by or legitimized in social exchange and discourse, an essential part of the social innovation process. Mirroring as a passive process is marked by dotted, legitimation as an active process by solid double-headed arrows. Whether in person or digital, discourses comprise the resonance of social needs, may indicate the emergence of new solutions, or capture actor mobilization. Dotted lines stand for the interconnectedness of the three measurement levels. Hence, this integrated measurement model focuses, first, on organizational innovativeness (micro-level), that is, the capacity of an organization to engage in creative experimentation, apply novel approaches, and generate new knowledge and solutions. It is about assessing the extent to which organizations implement new solutions which contribute to achieving the sustainable development goals, underlying processes, rationales and governance structures through an organization survey. Related indicators include, for example, the number of new solutions, the geographic scope, innovation cooperation,

social anchoring, revenue model, barriers in the development process, value orientation and others (for a complete list of indicators at all measurement levels, see Terstriep et al. 2021). Second, the framework model centres on the regional innovation capacity (meso/ macro level) to assess the influence of regional frameworks on social innovation and explores which factors contribute primarily to the emergence of social innovation. Data collection is designed much like a standard population survey but with the specificity that it combines items from innovation surveys such as attitudes towards risk on the one hand and social or value surveys addressing citizens on the other. Distinct from other studies, such as the EIU (2016) mentioned in Table 76.1, it considers softer factors of population attitudes or capabilities instead of focusing solely on hard factors (e.g. infrastructure support). Indicators reflecting the dimension ‘awareness’ comprise, for example, attitudes on social inequalities, trust in people and well-being. ‘Intention’ as the second dimension is measured by indicators such as the inclination to get active (risk-taking, helping others, creativity) and pursue social activities. The third dimension of ‘ability’ includes indicators like knowledge (feeling able to understand politics and current affairs), tolerance, belonging, and responsibility. Early indicators and resonance (meso/ macro level) build the third focal area within the IndiSI framework model. It serves as a foresight method to assess the discourse and trending potential of early-stage arguments about social needs, potential solutions and engaged actors for social innovation. Social media analysis is applied to collect data as it is increasingly recognized as an ‘enabler’ and ‘driver’ of social innovation processes. The concept of resonance approaches social innovation from a process-oriented perspective, where the focus is on the emergence and institutionalization of new social practices. By analysing data from social media discourses linked to social challenges, it becomes possible to identify communication patterns about perceived social needs and relate them to the dimensions of resonance (awareness, legitimacy, action). The multimodal character of online communication allows the application of qualitative and quantitative methods to analyse social media discourses, such as topical and actor-network analysis and spatial

Judith Terstriep, Gorgi Krlev, Georg Mildenberger, Simone Strambach, Jan-Frederik Thurmann and Laura-Fee Wloka

Social innovation measurement  445

analysis. The added value of a resonance analysis is that the non-institutionalized process dynamics can be explored in greater depth. In addition, it addresses the lack of established foresight methods.

Where next? Future perspectives of research

This entry indicates that social innovation measurement is in an early development stage. At the same time, it is apparent that moving towards an integrated approach for social innovation measurement is urgently needed as the organizational, regional and resonance levels provide very different but complementary insights. Furthermore, it conveys further insights into the actors driving social innovation and the wider conditions and dynamics that shape the emergence of new social practices. From the findings of testing the IndiSI framework model, it is possible to draw the following main conclusions. Firstly, the proposed model seeks to provide structure to social innovation measurement by distinguishing between organizational, regional and resonance indicators and considering their interactions. Therefore, it can be a valuable tool for the interdisciplinary scientific community on social innovation research by providing new insights into the interconnected process dynamics. Moreover, in the light of the paradigm shift in the understanding of innovation and policymaking, it has the potential to inform and support stakeholders engaged in social innovation and sustainable transformation. Secondly, the methods applied for data collection and the applied sampling approaches indicate the scalability of the measurement approach. They represent an attempt to provide a more comprehensive picture of social innovation. Applying the measurement framework in different geographies of the world will help solidify a unique repertoire of indicators respectively survey questions. Supranational organizations such as the OECD or Eurostat can be important partners to fuel this process. Thirdly, early indicators in discourse, more generally and social media more particularly, help fill blind spots in understanding and gauging social innovation. It allows grasping, for example, initiatives of grassroot innovators, which would be hard or impossible

to approach otherwise as they might not have an online presence of their own or are unlikely to participate in surveys. Moreover, it provides an essential data basis for agile policy action. Finally, it supports politicians in anticipating societal challenges and needs early and finding collective responses through the targeted support of social innovations. However, the advancement of methodological tool chests in the domain (e.g. web crawling, topic modelling) is necessary. Finally, the initial application of the framework model and the ongoing surveys should not remain one-off activities but should help to consolidate social innovation measurement. For this to happen, two scenarios are conceivable: the first scenario envisages integrating selected indicators of the measurement of organizations’ social innovativeness and regional innovation capacity into existing surveys (e.g. the European Community Innovation Survey or the European Innovation Scoreboard). That, however, would mean neglecting a large part of the phenomenon of social innovation. The second scenario foresees the establishment of an independent survey of social innovations and enables a comprehensive consideration of the specifics of social innovations. In addition, the measurement instrument could be broadly programmed to consider the various innovation actors across legal forms and fields of activity and their relation to the Sustainable Development Goals, which could also be mapped. A regular panel survey, for example, opens up the possibility of identifying new phenomena and actors at an early stage. The added value of an independent survey can be seen above all in the fact that in interaction with the two other measurement levels of the IndiSI framework model, changes on the demand side (needs, trends) could be anticipated at an early stage through the resonance analysis and the determination of regional innovation capacities and translated into a timely adjustment of funding measures and investment projects. This appears to be of particular importance due to the complexity of social innovation processes, the high dynamics of change, and the lack of a classification of social innovations to date. Judith Terstriep, Gorgi Krlev, Georg Mildenberger, Simone Strambach, Jan-Frederik Thurmann and Laura-Fee Wloka

Judith Terstriep, Gorgi Krlev, Georg Mildenberger, Simone Strambach, Jan-Frederik Thurmann and Laura-Fee Wloka

446  Encyclopedia of social innovation

Notes

in European news media’, VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 31 (5), pp. 949–65, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​s11266–020–00224–7. Krlev, G. and G. Mildenberger (2020), ‘Social innovation: what it is, why it matters and how it can be studied’, in H. K. Anheier and E. Toepler (eds), The Routledge Companion to Nonprofit Management, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 467–81. Krlev, G., G. Mildenberger and H. K. Anheier (2020), ‘Innovation and societal transformation: what changes when the “social” comes in?’, International Review of Applied References Economics, 34 (5), pp. 529–40, https://​doi​.org/​ 10​.1080/​02692171​.2020​.1820247. Entries marked in bold are further reading Marconatto, D., M. Pacheco Fernandes Dias, D. material. Wegner and C. Bitencourt (2020), ‘The governance of solidarity economy organizations Agostini, M. R., C. C. Bitencourt and L. M. and their impact on community: a configuVieira (2019), ‘Social innovation in Mexican rational approach’, International Review of coffee production: filling “institutional voids”’, Applied Economics, 34 (5), pp. 626–49, https://​ International Review of Applied Economics, doi​.org/​10​.1080/​02692171​.2019​.1707786. 34 (5), pp.  607–25, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​ Mihci, H. (2020), ‘Is measuring social innova02692171​.2019​.1638351. tion a mission impossible?’, Innovation: The Bund, E., U. Gerhard, M. Hoelscher and G. European Journal of Social Science Research, Mildenberger (2015), ‘A methodological 33 (3), pp. 337–67, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​ framework for measuring social innovation’, 13511610​.2019​.1705149. Historical Social Research, 40 (3), pp. 48–78, OECD (2021), ‘Building local ecosystems for https://​doi​.org/​10​.12759/​hsr​.40​.2015​.3​.48–78. social innovation: a methodological frameDomanski, D., J. Howaldt and C. Kaletka (2019), work’, OECD Local Employment and ‘A comprehensive concept of social innovation Economic Development (LEED) Papers, and its implications for the local context – on 2021/06, Paris: OECD, https://​doi​.org/​10​ the growing importance of social innovation .1787/​bef867cd​-en. ecosystems and infrastructures’, European Planning Studies, 28 (3), pp. 454–74, https://​ OECD/Eurostat (2018), Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and doi​.org/​10​.1080/​09654313​.2019​.1639397. Using Data on Innovation, 4th edition, The EIU (2016), ‘Old problems, new solutions: Measurement of Scientific, Technological measuring the capacity for social innovaand Innovation Activities, Paris/Luxembourg: tion across the worldʼ, London: Economist OECD Publishing/Eurostat, https://​doi​.org/​10​ Intelligence Unit, accessed 3 August 2022 at .1787/​9789264304604​-en. https://​eiuperspectives​.economist​.com/​sites/​ Pel, B., J. Wittmayer, J. Dorland and M. Søgaard default/​files/​Social​_Innovation​_Index​.pdf​?​ Jørgensen (2020), ‘Unpacking the social inno_ga​=​2​.115658886​.1096562415​.1​604236429–​ vation ecosystem: an empirically grounded 1879363194​.1604236429. typology of empowering network constellaGault, F. (2020), Measuring Innovation tions’, Innovation: The European Journal of Everywhere: The Challenge of Better Policy, Social Science Research, 33 (3), pp. 311–36, Learning, Evaluation and Monitoring, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​13511610​.2019​ Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. .1705147. Krasnopolskaya, I. and I. Korneeva (2020), ‘Social innovation measurement: a room for Portales, L. (2019), ‘Social impact in social innovations: definition, design, and evaluation’, in quantitative metrics’, International Review L. Portales (ed.), Social Innovation and Social of Applied Economics, 34 (5), pp. 567–87, Entrepreneurship, Basingstoke, Palgrave https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​02692171​.2020​ Macmillan, pp. 161–176. .1776686. Krlev, G., E. Bund and G. Mildenberger (2014), Rocha, F., H. Magalhäes, D. Thompson, R. De Maruca, J. Paquette and M. Barbero ‘Measuring what matters: indicators of (2021), European Innovation Scoreboard. social innovativeness on the national level’, Exploratory Report “How to Measure Information Systems Management, 31 (3), Social Innovation”, European Commission, pp.  200–224, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​10580530​ accessed 3 August 2022 at https://​ec​ .2014​.923265. .europa​.eu/​docsroom/​documents/​45665/​ Krlev, G. and A. B. Lund (2020), ‘Social innovation ignored: framing nonprofit activities 1.

For an overview on the development of classical innovation measurement and new approaches, see Gault (2020). 2. For the search on the topic of social innovation measurement and indicators the following query was used: ‘(“social innovati*” AND measure*) OR (“social innovati*” AND indicator*)’. 3. The OECD CFE is part of the Local Employment and Economic Development (LEED) Programme. 4. The framework model was developed in the context of the IndiSI project funded by the German Ministry of Research and Education.

Judith Terstriep, Gorgi Krlev, Georg Mildenberger, Simone Strambach, Jan-Frederik Thurmann and Laura-Fee Wloka

Social innovation measurement  447 attachments/​1/​translations/​en/​renditions/​ Strambach, S. and G. Pflitsch (2020), ‘Transition native. topology: capturing institutional dynamics in Scharpe, K. and M. Wunsch (2020), Deutscher regional development paths to sustainability’, Social Entrepreneurship Monitor, Social Research Policy, 49 (7), 104006, https://​ doi​ Entrepreneuship Netzwerk Deutschland e.V. .org/​10​.1016/​j​.respol​.2020​.104006. (SEND), accessed 3 August 2022 at https://​ Terstriep, J., G. Krlev, G. Mildenberger, S. www​.send​-ev​.de/​uploads/​DSEM2019​.pdf. Strambach, J.-F. Thurmann and L.-F. Wloka Smith, K. (2009), ‘Measuring innovationʼ, (2021), ‘Measuring social innovation’, in J. in J. Fragerberg, D. Mowery and R. Nelson Howaldt, C. Kaletka and A. Schröder (eds), (eds),Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford: A Research Agenda for Social Innovation, Oxford University Press, pp. 148–177, https://​ Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, doi​.org/​10​.1093/​oxfordhb/​9780199286805​.003​ pp.  https://​doi​.org/​10​.4337/​ 263–86, .0006. 9781789909357​.00024. Strambach, S. (2017), ‘Combining knowledge Unceta, A., A. Luna, J. Castro and R. Wintjes bases in transnational sustainability innova(2019), ‘Social innovation regime: an intetion: microdynamics and institutional change’, grated approach to measure social innovation’, Economic Geography, 93 (5), pp. 500–526, European Planning Studies, 28 (5), pp. 906–24, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​00130095​.2017​ https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​09654313​.2019​ .1366268. .1578338.

Judith Terstriep, Gorgi Krlev, Georg Mildenberger, Simone Strambach, Jan-Frederik Thurmann and Laura-Fee Wloka

77. Sustainable finance as a social innovation Introduction

A general definition of sustainable finance is finance that supports sectors and activities that contribute to sustainable development (Migliorelli 2021). The definition of sustainable development we use in this entry is the Brundtland definition. It describes sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Brundtland 1987). To achieve sustainable development, social, environmental and economic factors have to be considered the triple bottom line (→ SOCIAL INNOVATION RESEARCH AND PRACTICE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT) (Vanclay 2004). This entry will describe different fields of sustainable finance, such as social banking, impact investing, green and social impact bonds (→ IMPACT BONDS: BEYOND THE HYPE?), microfinance, socially responsible investment, and divestment. All these fields have in common that they take a sustainability perspective in addition to exclusively focusing on maximizing the risk-adjusted return. However, they can be distinguished concerning the financial approach used to conduct sustainable finance, such as lending and investing. We will start by describing the history and different types of sustainable finance. Then we will explain the significance of finance and sustainable finance. Finally, we will discuss key findings of sustainable finance from a social innovation perspective with a particular focus on the ability of social finance to scale (Moore et al. 2015).

The history and types of sustainable finance

Sustainable finance already started in the sixteenth century. Italian banks financed local businesses based on religious ethics and because they wanted to support communities to develop their economies (Milano 2011). These banks have seen themselves as mediators between those who had financial capital and those who needed funding to create important businesses for communities. This

traditional task of banks being mediators and risk managers is still valid for many banks, although many are no longer dependent on clients’ savings. The nineteenth century saw the rise of credit unions and co-operatives. They addressed the financial needs of entrepreneurs and farmers (Weber and Feltmate 2016). Most of them worked on a cooperative basis. This approach makes savers and lenders members of the cooperative. Consequently, they participated in the credit union’s success and were a part of democratic decision processes. Other credit union models in which the credit union is owned publicly, for instance, by municipalities, regions, states, or countries, exist as well. Also, in this model, the credit unions work for the public good. Usually, parts of the net revenue will flow to the political body that oversees the credit union. At the end of the 1960s ethical banks, also called social banks, were founded. These banks aim to finance clients that contribute to sustainable development positively. Usually, they also excluded clients that might have a negative impact on sustainable development (Weber and Remer 2011). Also, conventional banks started their journey to more sustainable business models. Since the 1980s, they have conducted internal environmental management to reduce their resource use (Bouma et al. 1999) and implemented sustainable credit risk models that address material environmental risks of their – mainly commercial – borrowers. Since the 1990s, sustainability opportunities in finance have been growing. These opportunities are related to lending, investment and asset management. They can be classified into social and green banking, green and social lending, socially responsible investment, including asset management, and sustainable stock indices. Starting in the 2000s, climate finance arose with the awareness of climate risks. This includes project finance, lending, and green bond issuances. In the meantime, US$ 270 billion of green bonds are issued annually, and some financial regulators have implemented green finance policies or are on their way to doing so (Alguindigue Ruiz and Weber 2021; Weber 2017, 2018; Weber and Chowdury 2020). A second main component of sustainable finance since the 2000s is impact investment, defined as investments that address real

448

Sustainable finance as a social innovation  449

world changes to provide financing to solve social challenges and to mitigate ecological degradation, consequently financing the transformation to sustainable development (Busch et al. 2021). Impact finance grew significantly to an amount of US$ 715 billion in 2020 though the unclear definitions of impact finance make it hard to have exact estimates. According to Busch et al. (2021), we need to distinguish whether impact investments are aligned to impact or whether they generate a positive societal impact. Impact investment will only be a real social innovation if it focuses on the latter. The newest developments in the field are fossil fuel divestment and the integration of environmental, social and governance (ESG) criteria by financial supervisors and institutional investors (Hunt and Weber 2019). Since it became obvious that not all fossil fuel resources can be burned to stay inside the two degrees Celsius increase in global warming, some investors and environmental non-governmental organizations focus of the fossil fuel sector and divest from the industry. A prominent case is the Norwegian Government Pension Fund, one of the biggest pension funds in the world (Clark and Monk 2010; Dell’Atti et al. 2021). However, the impact of divestment is still discussed controversially (Hunt and Weber 2019; Langley et al. 2021; Linnenluecke et al. 2015; Mikkelson 2020; Plantinga and Scholtens, 2021; Ritchie and Dowlatabadi 2014, 2015). Some authors claim that divestment will create societal change by addressing the fossil fuel supply side. Others are sceptical that financial markets will be able to make this change.

The significance of sustainable finance

Finance is one of the main drivers of our economy. However, it is also a primary driver for sustainable or unsustainable development. Currently, the amount of assets managed by the financial sector is more than three times higher than the global GDP. Lending and investments are necessary for businesses to be successful. Finally, achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) needs about $5 to $7 trillion annually (Weber 2021). On the other hand, the 60 largest banks have collectively financed $3.8 trillion

in fossil fuel companies between 2016 and 2020 and thus contributed to climate change. Though impact investing, social banking, microfinance, and socially responsible investment are growing significantly, they are still a niche in the global financial markets. Hence, sustainable finance might be a social innovation that channels more funds into sustainable development. Moore et al. (2012) describe sustainable and social finance as the main driver for social innovations and social entrepreneurship. Because conventional finance often does not have the appetite for financing relatively risky social entrepreneurs that might not create the highest financial returns, social banks, impact investors, and other social financiers might step in. One example is VanCity, a Vancouver-based credit union that describes its lending portfolio as an impact portfolio with loans exclusively to projects that address environmental and social issues (Geobey et al. 2012). Hence, the connection between sustainable finance and social innovation is twofold. First, sustainable finance is a social innovation in itself. Since social innovation can be defined as a complex process of introducing new products, processes or programs that profoundly change the social system in which the innovation occurs (Westley et al. 2014), sustainable financial products, such as microfinance, impact finance, and socially responsible investment can be defined as a social innovation. The second connection is that sustainable finance can finance social innovation. Even conventional financial products, such as loans can be used to finance social innovation, including social enterprises (Weber and Feltmate 2016).

Key findings: sustainable finance as a social innovation?

This section analyses different parts of sustainable finance with regard to their ability to scale up, scale out, and scale deep, according to Moore et al. (2015). We will start with socially responsible investment – also called ESG finance – and then discuss microfinance, social banking, impact investing, and divestment. One of the success stories of sustainable finance is the scaling up and scaling out (Moore et al. 2015) of ESG investment. To Olaf Weber

450  Encyclopedia of social innovation

date, ESG investment is a part of several supervisors’ performance indicators, and it has been integrated into some regulations and policy guidelines, such as the Strategy for Financing the Transition to a Sustainable Economy (European Commission 2021). Hence, it was able to scale up, meaning to have an impact on laws and policies. It also scaled out because it impacted many financial players and supervisors. To date, many institutional and private investors, as well as banks, use ESG criteria in their investment decisions. Whether ESG changed the culture values and beliefs of the financial system through scaling deep might be discussed controversially. In the end, profit maximization is still the main driver of the financial industry. Microfinance, impact, investment and social banking can be summarized as types of sustainable finance that address specific societal and environmental issues. The Global Alliance for Banking on Values is the main association for social banks.1 In 2021, the associate had 67 members and US$ 200 billion of assets under management. With Geobey et al. (2012) we argue that social banking has the potential for becoming a social innovation. However, it is unclear whether it has been able to scale up and scale out since there are no specific policies and regulations related to social banking, and the total assets under management are still very small (Weber 2011, 2014). The same is true for impact investing, which is growing significantly but is still a niche financial product (Weber 2016). Social banking and impact finance might be able to scale deep because it changes the culture and thinking about finance and money, at least at their employees and clients. What about microfinance? At least since Muhammad Yunus was awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize for founding Grameen bank, microfinance became prominent, and some authors describe the development from microcredit to microfinance as a social innovation (Ashta et al. 2014). Globally, however, the portfolio of microfinance institutions is about US$124 billion, and the global amount is expected to be above US$500 billion in 2025. Hence, it can be compared with the assets under management of the members of the Global Alliance for Banking on Values. However, for certain parts of society, including women, microfinance is the only noninformal way to access finance (Weber and Olaf Weber

Ahmad 2014). Hence, microfinance might have been able to scale out because it affected many clients and motivated some conventional financial institutions to implement microfinance programmes. However, it has not been able to scale up. For instance, collateral and credit history are still the main conditions to be granted a loan. On the other side, microfinance changed the culture of development finance into a more entrepreneurial direction that influenced many international development financiers including governments (scaling deep).

Critical reflection and outlook

Sustainable finance might be seen as a success story. The amount of assets and loans managed under a sustainability and ESG umbrella is impressive compared to other social innovations. The global sustainable investment report states that sustainable investment has grown US$35.3 trillion globally (Global Sustainable Investment Alliance 2021). However, there might be two main issues that can be discussed about the impact of sustainable finance. The first issue is the very broad definitions. The Global Sustainable Investment Alliance, for instance, defines sustainable finance as ‘an investment approach that considers environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors in portfolio selection and management’ (Global Sustainable Investment Alliance 2021, p. 7). The relatively weak approach of ESG integration is by far the highest amount in sustainable investment compared to impact investment and sustainability-themed investing. This definition does not focus on a sustainability impact but rather uses sustainability criteria to manage financial risks. The second issue is the total amount of sustainable finance compared to all financial assets. Sustainable investment represents about a third of total global investments. While this ratio might justify the assumption that sustainable finance has scaled out, the high amount of ESG investment might contradict this assumption. Further research might be needed to analyse the ability of the different subgroups of social finance to scale and measure the impact of sustainable finance on sustainable development, for instance, on achieving the SDGs and how sustainable finance enables

Sustainable finance as a social innovation  451

social entrepreneurship as a significant part of social innovation. Olaf Weber

32 (1), pp.  41–61, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​ 1086026618773985. Langley, P., G. Bridge, H. Bulkeley and B. van Veelen (2021), ‘Decarbonizing capital: investment, divestment and the qualification of carbon assets’, Economy and Society, 50 (4), pp. 1–23. References Linnenluecke, M. K., C. Meath, S. Rekker, B. Entries marked in bold are further reading K. Sidhu and T. Smith (2015), ‘Divestment material. from fossil fuel companies: confluence between policy and strategic viewpoints’, Australian Alguindigue Ruiz, P. I. and O. Weber (2021), ‘The Journal of Management, 40 (3), pp. 478–87, impact of financial sector sustainability guidehttps://​doi​.org/​10​.1177/​0312896215569794. lines and regulations on the financial stability Migliorelli, M. (2021), ‘What do we mean by of South American banks’, ACRN Journal of sustainable finance? Assessing existing frameFinance and Risk Perspectives, 10, pp. 111–27. works and policy risks’, Sustainability, 13 (2), Ashta, A., M. Couchoro and A. S. M. Musa (2014), p.  975, https://​www​.mdpi​.com/​2071–1050/​13/​ ‘Dialectic evolution through the social innova2/​975. tion process: from microcredit to microfinance’, Mikkelson, G. M. (2020), ‘Divestment and Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 3 democracy at a Canadian university’, Journal (1), p.  4, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1186/​2192–5372–3​ of the Council for Research on Religion, 2 (1), -4. pp. 1–16. Bouma, J. J., M. H. A. Jeucken and L. Klinkers Milano, R. (2011), ‘Social banking: a brief (eds) (1999), Sustainable Banking: The history’, in O. Weber and S. Remer (eds), Greening of Finance, Greenleaf. Social Banks and the Future of Sustainable Brundtland, G. H. (1987), Our Common Future, Finance, Routledge, pp. 15–47. Oxford University Press. Moore, M.-L., D. Riddell and D. Vocisano (2015), Busch, T., P. Bruce-Clark, J. Derwall, R. Eccles, ‘Scaling out, scaling up, scaling deep: stratT. Hebb, A. Hoepner, C. Klein, P. Krueger, F. egies of non-profits in advancing systemic Paetzold, B. Scholtens and O. Weber (2021), social innovation’, The Journal of Corporate ‘Impact investments: a call for (re)orientawww​ .jstor​ Citizenship, 58, pp. 67–84, http://​ tion’, SN Business & Economics, 1 (2), p. 33, .org/​stable/​jcorpciti​.58​.67. https://​doi​.org/​10​.1007/​s43546–020–00033–6. Moore, M.-L., F. R. Westley and A. Nicholls Clark, G. L. and A. Monk (2010), ‘The Norwegian (2012), ‘The social finance and social innovagovernment pension fund: ethics over effition nexus’, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, ciency’, Rotman International Journal of 3 (2), pp.  115–32, https://​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​ Pension Management, 3 (1), pp. 14–19, https://​ 19420676​.2012​.725824. doi​.org/​10​.3138/​rijpm​.3​.1​.14. Plantinga, A. and B. Scholtens (2021), ‘The finanDell’Atti, S., V. Fanelli and F. Miglietta (2021), cial impact of fossil fuel divestment’, Climate ‘Norwegian pension fund’s portfolio: what Policy, 21 (1), pp. 107–19, https://​doi​.org/​10​ happens to the companies divested for envi.1080/​14693062​.2020​.1806020. ronmental concerns?’, in M. La Torre (ed.), Ritchie, J. and H. Dowlatabadi (2014), Contemporary Issues in Sustainable Finance: ‘Understanding the shadow impacts of Financial Products and Financial Institutions, investment and divestment decisions: adaptPalgrave Macmillan, pp. 191–220. ing economic input–output models to calcuEuropean Commission (2021), Strategy for late biophysical factors of financial returns’, Financing the Transition to a Sustainable Ecological Economics, 106, pp. 132–40, https://​ Economy, accessed 27 May 2022 at https://​ doi​.org/​http://​dx​.doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.ecolecon​ eur​-lex​.europa​.eu/​resource​.html​?uri​=​cellar:​ .2014​.07​.005. 9f5e7e95​-df06–11eb​-895a​-01aa75ed71a1​.0001​ Ritchie, J. and H. Dowlatabadi (2015), ‘Divest .02/​DOC​_1​&​format​=​PDF. from the carbon bubble? Reviewing the impliGeobey, S., F. R. Westley and O. Weber (2012), cations and limitations of fossil fuel divest‘Enabling social innovation through develment for institutional investors’, Review of opmental social finance’, Journal of Social Economics and Finance, 5, pp. 59–80. Entrepreneurship, 3 (2), pp. 151–65, https://​ Vanclay, F. (2004), ‘The triple bottom line doi​.org/​10​.1080/​19420676​.2012​.726006. and impact assessment: how do TBL, EIA, Global Sustainable Investment Alliance (2021), SIA, SEA and EMS relate to each other?’, 2020 Global Sustainable Investment Review, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy & Global Sustainable Investment Alliance. Management, 6 (3), pp. 265–88. Hunt, C. and O. Weber (2019), ‘Fossil fuel divest- Weber, O. (2011), ‘The future of social banking’, ment strategies: financial and carbon related in O. Weber and S. Remer (eds), Social Banks consequences’, Organization & Environment,

Olaf Weber

452  Encyclopedia of social innovation and the Future of Sustainable Finance, Routledge, pp. 196–211. Weber, O. (2014), ‘Social banking: concept, definitions and practice’, Global Social Policy, 14 (2), pp. 265–7, https://​d oi​. org/​1 0​ .1177/​1 468018114539864. Weber, O. (2016), ‘Impact investing’, in O. M. Lehner (ed.), Routledge Handbook on Social and Sustainable Finance, Routledge, pp. 85–101. Weber, O. (2017), ‘Corporate sustainability and financial performance of Chinese banks’, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 8 (3), pp. 358–85, https://​d oi​. org/​1 0​. 1108/​S AMPJ​ -09–2016–0066. Weber, O. (2018), ‘Financial sector sustainability regulations and guidelines’, in D. C. Poff and A. C. Michalos (eds), Encyclopedia of Business and Professional Ethics, Springer International, pp. 1–5, https://​d oi​ .org/​1 0​. 1007/​9 78–3​- 319–23514–1​_ 40–1. Weber, O. (2021), ‘The banking sector and the SDGs: interconnections and future directions’, in O. M. Lehner (ed.), A Research

Olaf Weber

Agenda for Social Finance, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 175–98. Weber, O. and A. Ahmad (2014), ‘Empowerment through microfinance: the relation between loan cycle and level of empowerment’, World Development, 62, pp.  75–87, https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1016/​j​.worlddev​.2014​.05​.012. Weber, O. and R. K. Chowdury (2020), ‘Corporate sustainability in Bangladeshi banks: proactive or reactive ethical behavior?’ Sustainability, 12 (19), https://​www​.mdpi​.com/​2071–1050/​12/​ 19/​7999. Weber, O. and B. Feltmate (2016), Sustainable Banking: Managing the Social and Environmental Impact of Financial Institutions, University of Toronto Press. Weber, O. and S. Remer (2011), ‘Social banking – introduction’, in O. Weber and S. Remer (eds), Social Banks and the Future of Sustainable Finance, Routledge, pp. 1–14. Westley, F., N. Antadze, D. J. Riddell, K. Robinson and S. Geobey (2014), ‘Five configurations for scaling up social innovation: case examples of nonprofit organizations from Canada’, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50 (3), 234–60, https://​doi​.org/​10​ .1177/​0021886314532945.

Index #WirVsVirus  68, 69 7th Framework Programme (FP7)  391 academic institutionalisation of social innovation  378, 379 Accelerator Lab Network  193 Accenture Development Partnership (ADP)  320 Accessible Election Challenge  69 Aconchego Housing Program  31 actionist-interventionist approach  377 Active Ageing approaches  302, 303 Actor-Network-Theory (ANT)  5, 160 ‘adaptive culture’  376 adequate governance framework  403 Advanced Digital and Professional Training (ADaPT) program  218, 219 advance diversity and inclusion  216 advance gender equality, diversity, and inclusion  217, 218, 219 model of change  216 social innovation as model of change  217 Afro-descendant movement  200 ageing societies  301, 303 as asset for social innovation  303 as global issue  303, 304 as systemic change  301, 302 driven social innovation solutions  302, 303 social innovations in  304 workforce 301 AI-enabled innovation for predictive and personalized social services  80 Anthropocene 290 ‘anthropological detour’  325 anti-Black racism  219 anticipatory governance  403 appropriate theory  123 Arbowet Decree  331 Aristotle 50 authoritarianism 179 autonomy 144 Banco do Brasil foundation  97 Barclays Social Innovation Facility  319 Barrier Reef  182 Base of the Pyramid (BOP)  267, 269, 360 Business at the ... (BBoP)  356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 361 battery electric drives  237 Bertha Centre for Social Innovation & Entrepreneurship 243

Big Society Capital  415, 417 Bismarckian welfare system 296 Black Lives Matter  200 blockchain applications  79 ‘bottom-linked’ governance  135, 171 ‘bottom of the pyramid’ concept  283 bottom-up innovative approaches  392 social innovation  283 Brazilian Participatory Budget  202 broad based investments  308 budgetary constraints  3 bureaucracy models 166 bureaucratization 63 Bureau of European Policy Advisers (BEPA)  3, 4, 38, 389, 393 business cycles (Schumpeter)  61 innovations  89, 90, 91 leadership 294 models 341 capitalism  57, 61, 344 ‘Caresses’ project  244 child labour  329, 330 Child Trust Fund  19 citizen involvement 186 participation 202 science 365 as activism  367 as social innovation in science  366 definition  365, 366 civic integration networks  299 civil mobilizations 201 organizations 283 society  4, 186 society-state dialectics  135 classic diffusion research  126 economic theory  62, 347 innovation measurement  439 sociological theories  12 workfare programs  297 climate and environmental crisis nexus  286 finance 448

453

454  Encyclopedia of social innovation co-creation in social innovation 107 benefits of  108 changing pace of action  109 credibility and value of public perspectives and inputs  109, 110 definitions of  107, 108 legitimacy, representation and diversity  110 one size does not fit all  108, 109 redistribution of power  108 research on  108 substitute for democracy  110 Collaborare è Bologna  119 collaborative governance 170 housing program  268 Innovation Space (CIS)  151 intermediary organisations  152 polycentric governance mechanisms  183 spaces for social innovation  149, 151 as organisational form  150 purpose of creating novelty in practices  150 role of intermediation for innovation  151, 152 social and political dimension of problems  150, 151 social innovation labs, hubs and centres  150 collective civil actions  203 entrepreneurial process  354 entrepreneurship 174 identification 198 intelligence principles  193 investment schemes  390 learning 177 resource management  336 colonialism 96 commercial entrepreneurship  349 Common Pool Institution  337 commons 335 as correction mechanism  335, 336 as pars pro toto  336, 337 as part of interdisciplinary study  338 community -driven social innovation  129 energy 227 initiatives  27, 187 projects 130 movements 201 participation 258 in education  222 participatory management  96 transformation processes  315 complementary innovations  258 complex adaptive systems (CAS)  50, 51, 52 complexity thinking  216 consumer health movement  155 law policy  183

contestation  73, 74, 75, 76 and collaboration  75 continual  73, 74, 76 continuous monitoring and (formative) evaluation  421, 422 controversial transformation processes  385 conventional banks 448 evaluation approaches  383 fashion industry  234 finance 449 financial institutions  450 financial products  449 public policies  401 science  366, 367 scientific research  367 welfare policy 298 provision 297 cooperatives  312, 313, 314, 315 economy  312, 313, 314, 315 cooperativism  312, 314 corporate business models  183 philanthropy 320 social innovation (CSI)  317, 318, 321 new methods for  319, 320 new players in  320, 321 new sources for  318, 319 social innovation lab  191 social intrapreneur  320 social responsibility (CSR)  314, 317 counterhegemonic ethos  137 coupled systems  24, 25 creating shared value (CSV)  352 creative destruction  31, 41, 57, 61, 62, 64, 83, 91 credit union models  448 CRISES network  135 critical discursive approaches  348 economic geography  76 emancipatory approach  213 infrastructure 237 theory methods  435 cross-sector collaboration (CSC)  154, 155, 156, 157 defining 154 crowdfunding platforms  391 cultural bias 64 diversity 130 lags 31 curiosity-driven basic research  384 Danone Ecosystem Fund  320 decarbonization 176 decision-making actors 7 problems 4 process  110, 165, 315, 329

Index  455 Declaration of Research Assessment (DORA)  372 DEEDS project  284 deepening democracy (DD)  186, 187, 189 civil society  186 co-governance  186, 187 contribution of social innovation to  187, 188, 189 outside the state  187 quality of deliberation  187 degree of anonymity  366 degree of institutionalisation  378 degrowth  323, 324, 325, 326 and social innovation  326 project  324, 325 de-institutionalisation  125, 126 democratic decision processes  448 deficit 107 democratisation  179, 248 direct democracy  404 experimentation  112, 115 as research approach in social innovation studies  113, 114, 115 definition and importance to social innovation studies  112, 113 society 237 design for all approach  233 for social innovation  118, 119, 120, 251 challenge for  118 role of  120, 121 for social innovation and sustainability (DESIS)  266, 267 methods movement  118 -oriented approach  266 theory 118 destructive-disruptive moment  31 developed countries  323 diffusion theory  123 in focus of social innovation research  123, 124 institutionalisation and de-institutionalisation  125, 126 -oriented instruments  409 perspectives from practice theories  124, 125 theory of social change  124 digital citizen humanities projects  366 desktop tools  248 digitization 81 ethics 244 fabrication technologies  249 digitalisation  81, 193 -enabled tools  81 resources 79 social innovation  77, 80, 81, 244, 251, 389, 416 AI-enabled innovation for predictive and personalized social services  80 contributions to  79 new frontiers in  243, 244

reference framework  79, 80 towards reference framework  77, 78, 79 technologies 251 tools 79 transformation 244 directionality and mission orientation  408 failures 407 disruptive innovations 2 maintenance 31 justice 291 diversity  205, 217, 228, 229, 439 diverse economies  26, 137 institutional realms  358 networks 205 do-it-yourself culture  138 Dortmund-Brussels Position Paper on Workplace Innovation 306 durable collective resource management  335 Dutch Flexible Working Act (FWA)  331 Dutch Research Institute for Transitions (DRIFT) 38 dynamic social reality  32 eclectic pluralism  131 ecological degradation 326 disaster 324 eco-neighborhoods  79, 80 sanitation systems  97 economic and gender equality nexus  286 and management theory  7 arrangements 181 democratization  340, 341 development 340 economisation 212 globalisation 201 pluralism 326 policy 395 prosperity 237 recession 323 -technical innovations  379 -technological innovations  440, 444 theories 347 thinkers 392 economy and society, relationship between  340 dominant 340 ecosocialism 326 ecosystemic building approach  360 elements 161 learning 162 ecosystems 348 resilience 26 services 100 of social innovation  159, 160, 161, 162

456  Encyclopedia of social innovation education  221, 223, 224 conceptualizing  222, 223 dimensions of   221 level of innovation  221, 222 type of  222 egalitarian participation 340 welfare culture  296 Ellen MacArthur Foundation  232 embedded model of social economy innovation 343 Emergence and diffusion of social innovation through practice fields  13 empirical-positivist approach  213 employee volunteerism  317 employment 328 challenges of  328, 329, 330 mainstream policies for  328 new technologies to  331, 332 opportunities for boosting urban-rural dialogue and integration  331 potential of digital skills for  330 telework/workplace innovation  330, 331 Employment and Social Developments in Europe 329 empowerment  24, 144, 145, 286 defined 143 six dimensions of  143, 144 enabling fortune  356 energy justice movement  187, 188, 189 energy market 227 production 58 system transformation  227, 228, 229 broadening understanding of social innovation   228 diversity of social innovation  228, 229 transition  24, 25, 27, 57, 59 models 5 sustainable 56 enterprise-wide social innovation  320 Entity, performance, and role(s) of actors  13, 14 entrepreneurial ecosystem 442 entrepreneurship  64, 250, 313 ecosystems 160 theories 347 function  61, 63 impetus 344 model of social economy innovation  343, 344 entry level job market  218 environmental deterioration 282 environmental social and governance (ESG) 450 criteria 449

finance 449 investment  449, 450 movements 200 law 183 protections 181 sustainability  102, 283, 356 EpidemiXs 244 Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects (ELSA)  401 EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation  401, 403 EU funding programmes  390, 392 EU policy 32, 33, 34, 389, 390, 391, 392, 393 EU Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI)  329 EU public procurement rules  390 EU social economy action plan 2021  390, 392 Eurofound 308 European Framework Agreement on Telework  331 Framework programme for Research and Innovation 402 Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency (EISMEA)  329 innovation policy  38 Innovation Scoreboard  440 Network of Living Labs (ENoLL)  191 organizations 306 Pillar of Social Rights  329, 331 policies 393 research programmes  389, 391 research project  347 School of Social Innovation (ESSI)  332, 379 Social Catalyst Grant  391 Social Entrepreneurship Funds (EuSEF)  390 Social Fund Plus (ESF+) regulation  392 social innovation  33 Social Pillar of Social Rights  332 Structural and Investment Funds  393 Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF)  389 sustainable energy cooperatives  188 Venture Capital Funds (EuVECA)  390 Workplace Innovation Network (EUWIN)  306, 309 evidence-based flexibility 430 medicine 433 policy making  411 evolutionary economics  37, 89 exnovation  56, 57, 59 and innovation in change processes, interdependent role of  57 and sustainability  58 as independent mode of social change  57, 58 in comprehensive conception of economy  58, 59 research field and key findings  57

Index  457 experimental approaches 408, 409 experiment-oriented approach  411 policy engagements (EPE)  396, 421 Social Innovation and Dissemination (ESID) 192 Social Innovation Units (ESI)  192 spaces 240 process 409 ‘expertocracy’ 385 externalities of knowledge production  395 ‘Family by Family’ imaginative programme  415 fashion industry  232, 233 Fashion Revolution  233 opportunities for future research  234, 235 research areas of social innovation in  232, 233 Fifth Element  306, 307 finalities 137, 138 financial crisis social innovation  296 industry 450 markets 449 food sovereignty movement  188, 189 formal education system  221, 222, 224 formative evaluation framework  422 fossil fuel 449 foundations and social innovations  164, 167 as institutions  164, 165 as natural innovators  165, 166 strategies  166, 167 Foundations for Evidence-Based Policy Making Act 416 Fourth Industrial Revolution  218 Framework Agreement on telework  331 freedom of speech  365 free innovation  193, 250, 251 free market  336 free self-mobility in space  237 French Public Bank of Investment  415 frugal innovations  360 Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)  171 fundamental democratic values  272 technical innovations  4 uncertainty 7 FutureLab 192 gender as transversal aggravating factor  330 issues  360, 361 Germany energy system  57 peace movement  57 Raiffeisen Bank  336 Global Alliance for Banking on Values (GABV) 450 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM)  348 global finance crisis 91 markets  397, 449

globalisation 282 global labbing movement  191 Global Sustainable Investment Alliance  450 good governance nexus  286 governance of social innovation  169, 170, 171 cross-sector governance  155 Grameen Bank  317 Grand Societal Challenges  402, 406, 410 grassroots community organisations  199 initiatives  222, 344 empowerment of  177 innovations  46, 137, 186, 187, 189, 199, 227 for transformative social change  129, 130, 132 learnings from grassroots  131 plural, creative and inclusive social innovation  131, 132 power, politics and collective action in 130 social inequality and diversities for  130, 131 transformations 189 Great Barrier Reef  181 green and digital transformation  392 green finance policies  448 ground-breaking projects  378 guerrilla urbanism methods  240 health 242 ageing 302 and social care  244 Care Inspection Unit  80 Covid  244, 245 education 434 equity 242 new frontiers in digital social innovation  243, 244 systemic and place-based approaches  242, 243 trends in  242 Helsinki Design Lab  192 heterogeneous 2, 189 higher education institutions  221 high-income countries  428 holistic measurement approach  443, 444, 445 homophobic discrimination  170 Horizon 2020  402 Horizon Europe programme  87, 389, 392, 393, 401, 403 human -centered company policies  307 nature 325 resources management  307 -thing relations  4 wellbeing 233 hybrid innovations 92 hybridization 135 social organisations  189 image classification platforms  366 imagined futures-perspective  7 and problem of social innovation  8 social innovation and promissory legitimacy  8, 9

458  Encyclopedia of social innovation impact bonds  427 avenues for future experimentation and investigation 431 foundational elements of  427 note on terminology  427, 428, 429 purpose of  429, 430, 431 Impact Capital network  319 impact finance  449, 450 inadequate interventions  92 inclusive business  357, 359 Economy Partnership  417 value chains  358 ‘incomplete institutions’  164 incomplete institutions  167 incremental socio-technical solution approach 380 incubators/accelerators 319 indicator-based policy making  411 indigenous fishing community  96 groups 199 peoples 199 research 319 IndiSI framework model  439, 443, 444, 445 individual freedoms  237 individualism 371 industrial research and development (R&D)  83 revolution 36 welfare’ 297 Industry 5.0  309, 393 ineffective welfare systems  297 informal education  222 information asymmetries 407 communications technology (ICT) sector  218, 273 infrastructural failures  407 InnoCentive 68 innovation challenges and contests  318 ecosystems  5, 151, 159, 160, 177, 193, 315 management 273 policy  86, 395, 396, 397, 398, 408, 411, 421 and research pro-innovation bias of  31 instruments 409 programs 408 social 31 process theory  52 research community  xxvi for transformation  396 societies 3 studies (IS)  89, 92 defining and measuring success  91, 92 new generation of  84, 85 principal purpose of innovation  89, 90 sources and types of knowledge  90, 91 subject and level of change  90

systems  160, 174, 395, 420 approaching social  176, 177 approach, theoretical foundations of  174, 175 varieties of innovation systems  175, 176 theory  3, 4 Union initiative  414 welfare paradigm  406 innovative financial tools  390 foundations 166 funding model  427 market-based ventures  356 public procurement  373 social enterprises  344 social services  297 urban policy-making  80 welfare services  296 institutional ‘anchorage’ 138 approaches 347 bricolage 137 constraints 341 design 138 entrepreneurship  134, 135, 136, 156 failures 407 hybridization  135, 138 imagination  26, 136, 138 incentives 174 innovation  202, 224 institutionalisation  125, 126, 134, 195 conceptualizations of institutions  136, 137 dynamics  135, 136 dynamics and conceptualizations  134, 135 finalities  137, 138 of social innovation  160, 379 power inequalities  137 theories 125 isomorphism 135 pluralism 326 regulations 222 -theoretical impulse  126 theory  125, 126, 139 voids  136, 138 work 126 Institution for Collective action (ICA)  335, 336, 337 Instructables 249 insufficient formal institutions  407 Integrated Area Development approach 278 model 278 intellectual property rights  409 intelligent policy coordination  410 interactive learning  177 interdisciplinary conferences 347 research community  438 scientific community  445 intergenerational inequality 302

Index  459 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 56 intermediary-centred social networks  207 intermediary function  429 intermediary organisations  152 intermediary public spaces  343 internal solidarity mechanisms  315 international organizations  221 International Association for the Study of the Commons 336 International Finance Corporation (IFC)  357 International Handbook on Social Innovation 39 international institutions  357, 359 International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation  378 International Journal of the Commons  336 International Labour Organisation (International Labour Organisation (ILO)  329 International Network for Data on Impact and Government Outcomes (INDIGO)  431 international social scientific spatial research  261 interorganisational networks  151, 430 intersectional identities 218 intersectionality  348, 349 inter-sectoral learning  234 interstitial political strategy  325 intervention innovation research  430 intraorganisational processes  152 IOOI scheme  434, 435 iterative prototyping  120 Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)  192 Japan innovation system  175 long term care system  304 joint problematisation approach  377 joint resource management  335 Juncker Commission  389 knowledge-based interaction 175 interventions 383 learning economy  174 social innovations  374 knowledge technologies  4 labour exploitation  234 labour markets  328, 329, 330, 390 laissez faire approach  298 Landless Workers’ Movement  200 Latin culture  341 La Vía Campesina  188, 189 law and social innovation  179, 180 law and social change  180, 181 prefigurative legality  181, 182, 183 transformative private law  183

leadership 417 leap innovations  2 learner behaviour  222 learning processes in educational organizations 223 legal liberalism  180 LEGO 319 liberalism 179 capitalist 325 democracies 323 -democratic tradition  186 individualism 180 liberalisation 336 reform litigation  180 representative democracy  186 rights revolution  179 ‘limited profitability’  344 linear economic model  232 linguistic communication  241 Localized Spaces of Collaborative Innovation (LSCI) 193 Logic Model  434 Loi Economie sociale et solidaire 415 Long Term Care Insurance  303 low-carbon energy initiatives (LLCEIs)  25 low-income sectors  356, 358 role of  356, 358 Lund Declaration 402 ‘Madrid Central’  239 Maker Movement  248 makers, making, maker laboratories  248, 249, 250 social innovation in and through  250, 251 marginalisation 257 marginalised communities  254, 256 market economy  314, 356 failures  402, 408, 420 imperfections 336 innovations 402 -led social innovation  283 mechanisms 359 -orientated system  290 market-based approaches 357 initiative 359 management 183 solutions 165 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) model 4 Massive Open Online Courses  417 ‘material culture’  376 M East Ward Transformation Project  257 MedRec 244 microfinance  283, 450 mission-oriented innovation policy (MIP)  396, 408, 410, 420, 421, 424

460  Encyclopedia of social innovation mobility basic problems of  237 experimental spaces  240 parking space management  239, 240 political framework conditions  238 restriction of speeds  239 restrictions on access and transit  238, 239 road pricing  239 social innovations in existing legal framework  237, 238 tactical urbanism  240 modernity capitalist civilization  325 Modern Age  211 modernizing 222 theory approach  37 sociotechnology 307 movement-centrism 27 multi-actor perspective (MaP) on social innovation  141, 142 multiannual financial framework  390 multi-level perspective (MLP)  37, 38, 125, 422 multi-level process, systemic innovation as  421 multiple public agencies or departments  428 multi-scalar embeddedness  344 multi-stakeholder networks  344 mutual aid groups  245 M Ward communities  257 National Competence Centres for Social Innovation 391 National Innovation Fund  410 national innovation systems  63, 175 national policy  414 National Science Foundation (NSF)  382 natural ecosystems  159, 160 natural evolutionary process  199 natural innovators  165, 166 neighbourhood-oriented centres  19, 20 neoclassical cost-benefit analysis  411 production function theory  64 neoliberalism  96, 180, 181, 183, 184, 344 ideology 349 policies  8, 170, 323 neo-Schumpeterian 64, 83 network failures 407 intermediaries 207 New Deals for Communities initiatives  107 new financing models  393 New Industrial Strategy 2020  393 New Public Governance  430 New Public Management  135 new social impact enterprises  341 new social movement  197 new technological system  90 NextGen Cup Challenge  69 Next Generation EU  390, 393

next generation innovation policy basic requirements for  397, 398 purpose and structure  395 resilience and technology sovereignty  396, 397 traditional innovation policy  395 transformations and missions  395, 396 NHS England Healthy New Towns  243 niche financial product  450 -regime interaction process  25 non-governmental organizations (NGOs)  165, 442 non-institutionalized process dynamics  445 non-legislative actions  403 non-profit organizations (NPOs)  177, 341 sectors 191 not-for-profit NGOs  233 not-for-profit social enterprise  233 non-specialized actors  79 non-statutory social enterprise  341 normative -entrepreneurial approach  380 innovation policy  396 -ontological approach  213 Norwegian Government Pension Fund  449 Observatory of Social Innovation of Florianopolis (OBISF) 115 occidental knowledge 96 technologies 96 Occupy movement  307 one-size-fits-all approach  282 one size does not fit all  108, 109 onion model  161 ontological freedom 114 politics 5 open-access resources  336 Open Design  249 OpenIDEO  68, 69, 70 open innovation 70, 71 #WirVsVirus 69 challenges 70 emergence of  67, 68 networks 192 OpenIDEO 69 process 71 platforms 318 Open Innovation Agenda of the European Commission 2 oppressive institutions  18 optimism  180, 181 organizational ambidexterity 360 education 223 innovativeness 444 institutionalism 177 knowledge 95 specific 175

Index  461 learning 436 resistance 19 social innovation  444 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)  357 Oslo Manual  439 Our Town programme  243 outcome payer  428 outcomes-based service  429 over-institutionalized settings  138 PANI  foundation 131 paradoxical tension  26 parking space management  239, 240 participatory action research (PAR)  213 budgeting  135, 138, 202 coordination and governance  421 democracy 202 design method 119 tools 120 governance  188, 257 micro-planning exercise  257 paternalistic provision schemes  297 Path to the Digital Decade initiative 2021  393 Patrimonio Hoy program  317 ‘pay-for-success’ 427 peer-to-peer collaboration  268 The Pelebox Smart Locker  243 people-centered 258 -driven innovation  257 development (PCD)  255, 256, 258, 259 initiatives 258 Social Innovation (PCSI)  255, 256, 257, 258, 259 performance measurement system  404 peripheral capitalist economy  97 personal protection equipment (PPE)  244 pessimism  180, 181, 183 hypothesis 180 philanthropic financing 344 intermediaries 343 organizations 164 pilot programs  299 place-based approach  242, 243 place-based cross-sector partnerships  155 Planned Lifetime Advocacy Network (PLAN) 156 Polanyian dialectics  135 polemical ‘narratives of caution’  427 policy coordination failures  407 generic concept  134, 416 instruments, development and coordination of  409, 410 interventions, rationale for  407, 408

political activism  325, 367 and normative culture  165 economic movements  9 leadership  410, 417 liberalism 180 theory 143 ‘politics of expectations’  7 politics of social innovation  75 polycentric governance  181 positivism 377 post-colonial trajectories  180 post-political focus  385 post secondary education (PSE)  218 poverty and marginalisation  253, 254, 255 People-Centered Social Innovation (PCSI)  255, 256, 257 social innovation in  253 poverty-hunger eradication  286 power in social innovation  144, 145 power contestations for questioning  142, 143 practice-theoretical impulse  126 practice theories  124, 125 practitioner-facing reports  431 Precautionary Principle  2 predictive and personalized social services, AI-enabled innovation for  80 prefigurative law  182 prefigurative legality  181, 182, 183 prefigurative legal strategies  182 ‘Privacy by Design’  403 private ownership rights  182 privatization 336 proactive societal management  213 problematic medical practices  56 problem solving process  353 problem-solving strategy  170 procedural justice  291 professionalisation 212 programmatic social innovation  131 progressive movements  198 progressive social reform connotation  376 pro-innovation bias  31 pro-market strategies  418 promissory legitimacy  8 property law  182 Protestantism Thesis  62 psychological empowerment  144, 145 public -civic alliances  189, 296 engagement 396 governance  155, 402 health  242, 434 library system  119 participation 202 perspectives and inputs, credibility and value of  109, 110

462  Encyclopedia of social innovation -private partnerships 315 regulation 183 procurement rules  390 Public Employment Services (PES) Network 330 sector innovation  416 value creation processes  121 policy 414 arrival and re-emergence of social innovation 414 capacity 417 centres and hubs  415 common challenges  417 digital social innovation  416 diversity across countries  414 evidence 416 false starts and political winds  417 fields 360 gap and the climate  417, 418 investment and finance  415 law 415 leadership 417 paradigm 8 public sector innovation  416 science and research and development  415, 416 sectoral initiatives  416 quadruple helix  162 approach 278 model 277 theory 278 quantitative surveys  442 quasi-fictional quality  7 quasi-public goods  407 racism 200 radical democracy  314 rampant inequality  312 randomized control trials (RCT)  434 rational decision-making  7 rational expectations  7 ‘Real Utopias’ Project  73 reciprocal interdependency  154 reflective emancipatory approach  380 reflexive research approaches  383 reflexivity failures  407, 421 regeneration of common goods (RCG)  119 regime change  23 regional development  39, 40 economic development  278 innovation capacity  444, 445 innovation systems  175 social innovation ‘regime’  442 reimagined trajectory  349 relatedness 144 relational innovation theory  4 ontology 24

spectrum 154 systems thinking approach  52 relative decoupling  324 renewable energy  8, 24, 323 repairing 222 RepRap 249 representative democracy  186 REScoop  23, 28, 188 Research and Innovation Oriented Towards Social Inclusion 373 research funding organisations  382 resilience and technology sovereignty  396, 397 -oriented thinking  396 social innovation and  39 theory 52 socio-ecological systems  26 resistance to social innovation  18, 20, 21 forms of  19, 20 resource dependence  156 Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI)  420, 421, 424, 425 and its contemporary significance  401, 402 four institutional changes of  402, 403 politicization of  404 retributive justice  291 reverse innovations  360 revolutionary reforms  325 rewriting judgements projects  182 risks and gains for the state, balance between  410, 411 Rochdale principles  336 Rockefeller Foundation  68, 164 routinization 57 rule of law  365 rural actor constellations  262, 263 rural areas  262, 263, 264 challenges in  261 definition and examples of  262 heterogeneity and challenges of  261 phases of social innovation processes  263 places for novel solutions  261, 262 social entrepreneurs as specialists in creating novel solutions  263 socially innovative initiatives in rural actor constellations  262, 263 communities 262 exodus 261 poverty 20 Schumpeterian analysis of entrepreneurship  57 creative destruction  183 entrepreneurship following  62, 63 from actor to (open) system  63, 64 innovation research  174 institutionalization of entrepreneurial function 63 Theory of Economic Development  62, 83 theory of innovation  61

Index  463 science and research and development  415, 416 and Society research funding programmes  401 and technology-based indicators (STI)  439 and technology policies  407 and technology studies (STS)  84 technology and innovation (STI) policy  91, 420 scientific research and development (R&D)  420 ‘second class’ citizens  201 second-order learning (reflexivity) and experimentation 421 sectoral initiatives  416 SEiSMiC Gender Action Plan and Toolkit  330 self-determination  144, 273 Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA) 131 self-managed collectives  325 self-referential sub-systems  177 senior entrepreneurship  303 separating 222 services, social innovation in  266, 269 design processes  268, 269 interpersonal encounters  266, 267 orientation and outputs  268 research and practices  269 service and design networks  267, 268 social problems, social changes and services 269 teleological mistakes  269 uberization 269 shared cultural values  174, 317 sharing economy movement  283 sharing fortune  356 SI-DRIVE Project 11, 13, 15, 216, 284 Singapore Development Bank  320 Single Market Act I  389, 393 Act II  392 Sinnergiak 378 Slow Food  23, 28 ‘Small Scaled Multifunctional Self Governance’ (SSMFSG) system  303 social action 7 and economic value  358, 359 and political dimension of problems  150, 151 and solidarity economy  313, 340 as a goal  78 as a means  78 banking 450 banks 448 benefit bonds  427 business  357, 358 businesses/social enterprises  434 Business Initiative  389 business models  352 capital  205, 320 capital theory  278 Challenges Platform  391

change  36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 58, 73, 86, 124, 125, 176, 269, 343 dynamics of  125 grassroots innovation for transformative. see grassroots independent mode of  57, 58 law and  179, 180, 181, 183, 184 cohesion  31, 174, 296, 297, 298 governing welfare innovation that foster  298, 299 constitution of expectations  7 Construction of Technology  18 -democratic reformist vision  326 -ecological transformation studies  26 economy  312, 313, 314, 315, 340, 342 actors 393 and social innovation  342 distinctive characteristics  340, 341 ecosystem 392 exchange events  391 field  341, 342 innovation embedded model of  343 entrepreneurial model of  343, 344 organizations  340, 344 embeddedness  160, 205 engineering 192 enterprise sector  156 entrepreneurial ecosystems 156 processes 46 intervention model  344 partners 320 entrepreneurs 263 entrepreneurship  11, 19, 45, 46, 123, 136, 138, 156, 176, 177, 206, 221, 291, 292, 317, 320, 346, 347, 348, 349, 353, 357, 360, 376, 378, 379, 390, 392, 393 beyond Anglo-American perspectives  348 ecosystems 348 intersectionality  348, 349 reimagined trajectory  349 research  38, 39 theoretical perspectives  347, 348 environments 160 exclusion  155, 296, 371 exnovation  56, 59 finance  46, 449, 450 groups 186 imbalances 4 impact assessment  353, 354 Impact Bonds  411 impact measurement (SIM)  433 attributable outcomes vs. systemic change 435 by meta-characteristics, typology of  435, 436 development of  433, 434

464  Encyclopedia of social innovation IOOI scheme as general blueprint of  434, 435 level of analysis and time  436 perspectives  436, 437 inclusion 370 and role of knowledge  370, 371 movement 131 individualism 312 inequalities 272 and diversities  130, 131 attitudes on  444 inequality 292 innovation 73 and promissory legitimacy  8, 9 approaches 283 as repair  31, 32, 33 business models  442 dynamics 15 ecosystems  75, 76, 159, 160, 161, 162, 167 emancipatory 96 eXchange (SIX)  33 Fund 415 in energy (SIE)  227, 228, 229 initiatives  8, 13, 15, 137, 170 initiatives and processes  39 institutionalisation of  134 Lab Guide  194 labs  xxvii, 194, 320 conceptual delimitation of  191, 192 roots of  192, 193, 194 Life-Cycle 38 Matrix 391 measurement  433, 439, 440, 442, 443, 445 framing  438, 439 holistic measurement approach  443, 444, 445 partnerships 320 policy 31 process  14, 16 projects 320 research  xxvi, xxvii, xxviii, 28, 45, 46, 58, 59, 427 new generation of  86, 87 social practice theories for  11 scholarship  51, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139 side-effects of  5 sociology of  8 solutions 329 theory  12, 430 typologies 187 initiatives 45 innovator 37 institutions 214 integration xxv inventions 123 investment funds  317, 415 Investment Package  414 movements  xxvii, 27, 56, 155, 197, 202, 203,

291, 293, 314, 340 collective actions  197, 198 contribution of Latin American perspective  198, 199 distinction between social innovation and 200 elements of social innovation and  202 examples of  200 new wave of  200, 201, 202 participatory budgeting  202 series of innovations  199, 200 Movements in Times of Austerity: bringing capitalism back into protest analysis (Della Porta)  197 justice  165, 289, 291, 292 agenda, transformative potential of  293 conversation between social innovation and  290, 291, 292 engagement with social movements  293 in social innovation scholarship, embedding 293 power formation in social innovation  293, 294 reflections and provocations  293 learning  15, 45, 149 needs vs sustainability criteria  103, 104 networks  205, 206, 207, 208 evolution of  207 network intermediaries  207 role of  205 sources of connections  206, 207 strong, weak and diverse ties  205, 206 use of  206 order 31, 32, 33, 34 outcomes contracts  428 policy failure  18 practices  124, 125, 126 conflictual reconfigurations of  125 material flows and  3 materialization of  3 reconfiguration of  40, 41 theories central concepts for  12 entity, performance, and role(s) of actors  13, 14 organization of practices  12, 13 potential of  11, 12 relations between practices  14, 15, 16 problem solving  151 problems, social changes and services  269 procurement 393 profitability 343 protection systems  390 psychology 143 purpose enterprises  341 reform 37 return 392

Index  465 Return on Investment (SROI)  434 sciences  376, 377, 378 academic institutionalisation of social innovation  378, 379 engagement 379 scholarship 379 theory 241 sector delivery organisations  430 service 430 innovation 274 organizations  165, 274 solidarity 175 Solidarity Economy  26 -tech entrepreneurs  393 theory 40 transformation processes  xxvi, 37, 38, 39, 124, 125 transformations 200 Unit Plan  192 value 352 and social innovation  354 as impact assessment and evaluation  353, 354 as organizational processes  352, 353 creation 392 in marketing and social psychology  354 welfare regimes  177 well-being  232, 278, 411 work  272, 273, 274 Socially Inclusive Businesses (SIB)  356, 357, 358 centrality and scale  359 challenges and barriers of implementation  360 definition and evolution of  356, 357 gender issues  360, 361 geographic focus  358 levels, scope and type of innovation  359, 360 organisations, institutional forms, hybridity challenges, and role of low-income sectors 358 social and economic value  358, 359 socially innovative approach  303 societal beneficiality 33 disruption 18 functional areas  37 functions 396 innovation processes  3 transformation  37, 38, 41, 134, 136, 138 Société Coopérative D’intéret Collectif 415 Society for General Systems Research  50 society social inclusion of migrants  299 socio-cultural innovations 200 selective process  64 socio-ecological innovation 131 system resilience  26 transformation processes  315 transformation research  26, 27

socio-economic development 131 inequalities 323 societal crisis  135 system 326 transformation approach  27 socio-environmental problems  420 socio-institutional landscape  23 sociological pragmatism  113 sociological theory  211 of institutions  126 socio-political innovations  403 sociotechnology 307 socio-technical change  2, 3, 4 constellations 5 imaginaries 3 innovations  2, 4, 46, 421 innovators 25 landscape 25 reconfiguration 96 regime 25 ‘regime’ changes  25 system 420 approach 380 changes 25 transformation 5 transition approach  27 solidarity-based community  104 solidarity economy  312, 313, 340 initiatives 313 solidary technoscience  97 solutionism 417 solution orientation  382, 384 Som Energia  187, 188 Spanish energy model  188 standard institutional design  186 Stanford Social Innovation Review  378 state-driven organization  337 state-economy-civil society relations  26 state intervention programmes  395 state investment banks  410 state public sphere  199 Statute for a European Cooperative Society  390 STEAM  331, 332 Steering Research and Innovation for the Global Goals (STRINGS) project  418 STOP AIDS programme  213 Strategic Action Fields (SAF)  73, 74, 75, 76 ‘strategic ambiguity’  429 strategic philanthropy  341 structural inequalities 197 inequities  216, 258 theory 126 sui generi ecosystems 344 summative evaluation approaches  422 supranational communities  397 supra-national governance regimes  338 supranational organizations  445

466  Encyclopedia of social innovation surplus distribution  341 sustainability 58 criteria, social needs vs  103, 104 transitions  25, 103, 228 literature 152 research, social innovation in  25, 26 studies 25 sustainable behaviour changes  187 sustainable business models  448 sustainable consumption patterns  xxv Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)  100, 219, 285, 286, 289, 329, 349, 406, 408, 445, 449 dimensions of  283, 284 from modernisation to sustainability  282 prioritizes social and governance issues  284, 285 social innovation as means of delivering  282, 283 sustainable development model  312 energy transition  56 finance  448, 449, 450, 451 as social innovation  449, 450 history and types of  448, 449 significance of  449 Food Laboratory  321 innovation 100 field of practice f102, 103 negotiating social needs vs 103, 104 reflexive governance of  103 social innovation and  100, 101, 102 investment 450 Transition Research Network (STRN)  103 sustainable transitions research  440 systemic -based approach  242, 243 change  23, 36, 430 change, attributable outcomes vs.  435 exclusion 258 social innovation research  438 innovations  37, 125 systems-change approach  243 systems thinking  50, 51, 52 and its limitations   52 approach  51, 52 theory of emergence  50 tacit symbolic knowledge  439 tactical urbanism  240 Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS)  257 technical-economic innovation  376 techno-economic paradigm  175 technological breakthroughs 330 innovation  83, 90, 93, 406 empirical studies of  8 new generation of innovation studies  84, 85

new generation of social innovation research  86, 87 practical problems  85, 86 technology-centric innovation research  83, 84 innovation systems  176 knowledge 407 transformation in education  221 technology -centric innovation research  83, 84 development processes  4 -enabled innovation processes  68 tecnologia social  95, 97 telework/workplace innovation  330, 331 territorial development 277 field outlook and opportunities for future research  279, 280 social innovation and  278, 279 soft factors and civil society in  277, 278 traditional approach to  277 development studies  137 economic growth  277 economic performance  277 markets 277 theory of change  422, 434 cultural lags  32 emergence 50 innovation 61 philanthropic failure  164 professionalization 272 social change  36, 37, 124 social identitarianism  197 traditional commercial approach  314 corporate innovation  319 decision making processes  107 diffusion research  124 entrepreneurship 160 evaluative forms of ethics  401 innovation agencies 417 policy  395, 396 practices 120 quality criteria  385 social economy businesses  439 traffic science  240 transdisciplinary process 145 research projects  149 translation 145 transferability and scalability  160 transformational failures  407, 420 transformative change  41 transformative innovation policy  396 Transformative Innovation Policy Consortium (TIPC)  422, 425

Index  467 transformative innovation policy (TIP)  420, 421, 422, 424, 425 challenge-oriented and directionality  421 continuous monitoring and (formative) evaluation  421, 422 participatory coordination and governance  421 second-order learning (reflexivity) and experimentation 421 systemic innovation as multi-level process  421 transformative mission-oriented innovation policies 424 transformative outcomes (TOs)  422 transformative policy experiments  422 transformative private law  180, 183, 184 transformative research defining  382, 383, 384, 385 procedures 384 Transformative Science  385 transformative science paradigm  379 Transformative Social Innovation Theory (TRANSIT)  24, 267 transformative social innovation (TSI)  15, 24, 27, 52, 100, 102, 135, 137, 141, 179, 268 transformative societal change  438 transformative technological innovations  402 transforming 222 transintentionality 214 transition-oriented innovation policy  409 transitions management theory  52 TRANSIT project see Transformative Social Innovation Theory (TRANSIT) transnational knowledge 303 legal infrastructure  181 transportation policy  237 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)  393, 329 uberization 269 unified practice theory  12 United Nations Agenda 2030  349 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED)  282 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)  256, 282 university research, role of engrained routines in research policy formulations  373, 374 lessons from Covid-19 pandemic  374 policy 373 sites contributing to social innovation  370

social inclusion and role of knowledge  370, 371 trends and possible counter-trends  371, 372, 373 UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 282 urban bureaucracies  57 urban labor markets  336 urban-rural dialogue and integration  331 urban social environments  278 urban social movements  197 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics  328 user-driven innovation  319 utopianism 182 value-based consumption 319 integration 103 value-driven innovation  403 value-free science  367 VanCity 449 Vancouver-based disability organisation  156 venture funding  319 venture philanthropy approach  166 vocational education and training (VET)  222, 223 warm glow of giving  433 Waterloo Institute for Social Innovation and Resilience 39 water management  58 Web of Science database  438 welfare administrations 298 bureaucracies 298 innovation, for social cohesion  296 Mix model  141 services and entitlements  297 state regulation  38 system 298 well-funded initiatives  414 Western-based conventional technologies  95 western liberal democracies  397 wicked sustainability problems  107, 384 ‘win-win-win’ arrangement  429 Women Entrepreneurship Knowledge Hub (WEKH) 218 women’s empowerment  330 Working Hours Act  331 work integrated learning (WIL) program  218 workplace innovation (WPI)  306, 307, 308, 309, 329 youth unemployment and child labour  329, 330