Learning about Social Entrepreneurship and Management in Times of Social Transformation (Ethical Economy, 66) 3031477073, 9783031477072

Citation preview

Ethical Economy. Studies in Economic Ethics and Philosophy

Luise Li Langergaard Katia Dupret Jennifer Eschweiler   Editors

Learning about Social Entrepreneurship and Management in Times of Social Transformation

Ethical Economy Studies in Economic Ethics and Philosophy Volume 66

Series Editors Alexander Brink, Chair of Business Ethics, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany Jacob Dahl Rendtorff, Department of Social Sciences and Business, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark Editorial Board Members John Boatright, Loyola University, Chicago, IL, USA George Brenkert, Business Ethics Institute, Maguire Hall 209B, Georgetown University, Georgetown, Washington, DC, USA Allan K. K. Chan, Lee Shau Kee School of Business & Administration, The Open University of Hong Kong, Homantin, Hong Kong Christopher Cowton, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK Richard T. de George, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA Jon Elster, Columbia University, New York, USA Amitai Etzioni, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA Ingo Pies, Lehrstuhl für Wirtschaftsethik, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany Michaela Haase, Marketing, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany Carlos Hoevel, Facultad de Ciencias Economicas, Universidad Catolica Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina Yuichi Shionoya, Hitotsubashi University, Kunitachi, Tokyo, Japan Philippe Van Parijs, Chaire Hoover d’Ethique Economique, Universite Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium Gedeon J. Rossouw, Hadefields Office Park, Ethics Institute of Africa, Hatfield, Pretoria, South Africa Josef Wieland, LEIZ, Zeppelin Universität, Friedrichshafen, Baden-Württemberg,  Germany

Ethical Economy describes the theory of the ethical preconditions of the economy and of business as well as the theory of the ethical foundations of economic systems. It analyzes the impact of rules, virtues, and goods or values on economic action and management. Ethical Economy understands ethics as a means to increase trust and to reduce transaction costs. It forms a foundational theory for business ethics and business culture. The Series Ethical Economy. Studies in Economic Ethics and Philosophy is devoted to the investigation of interdisciplinary issues concerning economics, management, ethics, and philosophy. These issues fall in the categories of economic ethics, business ethics, management theory, economic culture, and economic philosophy, the latter including the epistemology and ontology of economics. Economic culture comprises cultural and hermeneutic studies of the economy. One goal of the series is to extend the discussion of the philosophical, ethical, and cultural foundations of economics and economic systems. The series is intended to serve as an international forum for scholarly publications, such as monographs, conference proceedings, and collections of essays. Primary emphasis is placed on originality, clarity, and interdisciplinary synthesis of elements from economics, management theory, ethics, and philosophy. The book series has been accepted into SCOPUS (March 2019) and will be visible on the Scopus website within a few months.

Luise Li Langergaard  •  Katia Dupret Jennifer Eschweiler Editors

Learning about Social Entrepreneurship and Management in Times of Social Transformation

Editors Luise Li Langergaard Department of People and Technology Roskilde University Roskilde, Denmark

Katia Dupret Department of People and Technology Roskilde University Roskilde, Denmark

Jennifer Eschweiler Department of People and Technology Roskilde University Roskilde, Denmark

ISSN 2211-2707     ISSN 2211-2723 (electronic) Ethical Economy ISBN 978-3-031-47707-2    ISBN 978-3-031-47708-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47708-9 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Paper in this product is recyclable.

Contents

1

Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 Jennifer Eschweiler and Katia Dupret

2

The Solutions to the Future Are Problem-­Oriented: The Intersection Between Social Entrepreneurship, Sustainable Skills, and Problem-Oriented Project Learning��������������   19 Christine Revsbech

3

The Role of the Social Entrepreneur When Designing for Social Sustainability��������������������������������������������������������������������������   33 Katia Dupret

4

Participation in Social Innovation Processes: A Case Study of Roskilde University Impact Hub��������������������������������������������������������   49 Katia Dupret, Mikkel Munksgaard, and Anne Vorre Hansen

5

Social Entrepreneurship and the Governance Context of Areas of Limited Statehood����������������������������������������������������������������   67 Sameer Azizi

6

 Socially Responsible Innovation Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Entrepreneurship. Towards Holistic Integration of Stakeholder Management, Ethics, and Sustainable Development Goals������������������������������������������������������   79 Jacob Dahl Rendtorff

7

Leadership of Social Entrepreneurship in a Multi-Stakeholder Context: A Specific Domain or Specific Contextualities of Leadership Theories?��������������������������������������������������������������������������   95 Margit Neisig

v

vi

Contents

8

How Is Social Innovation Emerging in the Danish Humanitarian Sector? ����������������������������������������������������������������������������  111 Mette Apollo Rasmussen and Lars Fuglsang

9

Evaluating Social Impact������������������������������������������������������������������������  127 Roger Spear

10 Arts-Based  Creativity and Culture in Social Entrepreneurship ��������  143 Linda Lundgaard Andersen and Kai Roland Green 11 Do  We Need Utopia for a Theory of Social Innovation as Social Change?������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  159 Jennifer Eschweiler and Luise Li Langergaard Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  171

Contributors

Linda  Lundgaard  Andersen  Department of People and Technology, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark Sameer Azizi  Department of Social Sciences and Business, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark Katia  Dupret  Department of People and Technology, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark Jennifer Eschweiler  Department of People and Technology, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark Lars Fuglsang  Department of Social Sciences and Business, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark Kai Roland Green  Department of Digital Design and Information Studies, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark Anne Vorre Hansen  Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark Luise Li Langergaard  Department of People and Technology, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark Mikkel Munksgaard  Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark Margit Neisig  Department of Social Sciences and Business, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark Mette Apollo Rasmussen  Department of Social Sciences and Business, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark Jacob  Dahl  Rendtorff  Department of Social Sciences and Business, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark Christine Revsbech  Department of People and Technology, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark Roger Spear  Roskilde University & Open University, Roskilde, Denmark vii

Chapter 1

Introduction Jennifer Eschweiler and Katia Dupret

Abstract  Social entrepreneurship (SE) and social innovation (SI) are relatively new responses in the repertoire of social actors as they try to react, adapt or counteract, shaped by contexts. The research approach underlying this book attempts to advance understandings of SE’s and SI’s potentials to foster social change towards more sustainability, social justice and inclusion in different contexts. The introduction offers a short conceptual review of social entrepreneurship and social innovation, and reasons in favour of community-led and democratic oriented approaches to SE and SI, as well as for critical engagement with the phenomenon in teaching and higher education. After making the case for societally engaged and responsible research we point to a variety of five tensions underlying SE/SI research, illustrated by the chapters if this book: (1). Bridging critical engagement and output focused technical solutions in university SE and SI education; (2). Participation as normative ideal and practical challenge; (3). Business for social justice, sustainability, democracy and citizenship? (4). Efficiency and impact evaluation for better or for worse? (5). Combining social sciences and arts and humanities to develop research-­ based knowledge and practices for more sustainability of all living beings. These tensions are understood as important opportunities of reflection. The introduction finished with an overview how each chapter offers research-based perspectives and conceptual advancements that critically reflect on various aspects of the SE and SI research field today. Keywords  Social entrepreneurship · Social innovation · Entrepreneurship education · Reflexive learning · Responsible research Social and ecological challenges trigger responses from civil society, citizens, public and private sector in most parts of the world. Social entrepreneurship (SE) and J. Eschweiler (*) · K. Dupret (*) Department of People and Technology, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. L. Langergaard et al. (eds.), Learning about Social Entrepreneurship and Management in Times of Social Transformation, Ethical Economy 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47708-9_1

1

2

J. Eschweiler and K. Dupret

social innovation (SI) are representations of relatively new responses in the repertoire of social actors as they try to react, adapt or counteract, shaped by contexts. Researchers as well as policy makers, civil society and businesses have taken SE and SI as new phenomena to study, conceptualise and make visible as responses to a variety of challenges. Roskilde University in Denmark has been one of the first universities in Europe to develop two Master Programmes in Social Entrepreneurship and Management, and researchers affiliated with the programmes are active contributors to SE and SI discourses in research and practice. Our research approach is to try to advance understandings of SE’s and SI’s potentials to foster social change towards more sustainability, social justice and inclusion in different contexts, aware that the epistemological origins lie in Western democracies with more or less developed welfare states. As even Northern European societies have moved away from large public sectors, concerns of social justice, inclusion and the responsibility for both social and ecological sustainability are increasingly handed over to actors from civil society and third sector or social economy (depending on national context) on the one hand, and private companies who moved into traditional welfare areas on the other. Business and management practices have become tools to solve social problems, paving the way for new public management, impact investment and the hailing of innovation, triggering new hybrid practices and the development of a new research field, namely social entrepreneurship and social innovation, in which various disciplines have since argued and collaborated about definitions, interpretations and recommendations, supported by policy makers. Social entrepreneurship as well as social innovation are conceptually rooted in at least two different traditions. The ‘Anglo-American’ business school tradition focusses on social entrepreneurship as a driver of innovation and the question of social value creation through organisational means. Social innovation is presented as the pursuit of solutions to economic, ecological and societal problems and associated with technology, organisation, market and ends oriented strategies (e.g., Chesbrough et al., 2008; Leadbeater, 2007). This stream has been criticised for representing a market-oriented and neoliberal take on problem-solving, focusing on doing more with less, rather than questioning the underlying structures and mechanisms creating social problems (e.g., Oosterlynck et al., 2020; Fougere et al., 2017, Moulaert & MacCallum, 2019). The critique of this tradition is that it relies on an organisational approach to dealing with social and economic issues, which implies a blind spot to the wider systemic factors, political dynamics and power structures, and how they contribute to inequality and marginalisation. Further, market-oriented approaches to social innovation tend to overlook non-market-based solutions, such as public and collective action, which can play crucial roles in addressing social challenges. Thus, a market driven approach to social innovation sees SE and SI more as compensation for negative consequences than as tools for actual social change to deal with the root causes of societal and ecological problems. The critique towards the market driven approach to SE also resides in differences in fundamental values and ideologies in reasoning what processes are required to create social change and which sectors should be involved. The market approach is

1 Introduction

3

considered to have several flaws here, first of all the priority of profit over societal needs inherent to markets and trading (e.g Coad et al., 2022; Jessop et al., 2013) – even though we see increasingly social enterprises with legal forms in the for-profit sector (e.g. European Commission, 2020). A second critique points to the risk of commodification of social issues in the market-driven approach (Roy & Grant, 2020), where social problems are seen as opportunities for profit rather than as complex societal challenges that require comprehensive solutions. Third, and related to the second point, market-driven approaches tend to prioritize quick returns on investment and short-term gains, which can hinder efforts to address long-term and systemic social issues (Sinclair et al., 2021). Fourth, some social problems may not be adequately addressed by market mechanisms due to market failures. For instance, issues like climate change, poverty, and healthcare for the most vulnerable may not be effectively resolved solely through profit-driven models. Fifth, when SE and SI are primarily market-driven, there may be limited accountability and transparency in addressing social problems (Nicholls, 2009). Private entities may prioritize financial gains over the well-being of communities. Sixth, at times market-driven approaches may side line democratic decision-making and community involvement. Decisions may be made by private entities or investors, leading to a lack of inclusivity and participation in shaping solutions. In response to these criticisms, the contributors of this book argue for a more balanced and democratic oriented approach to SE and SI, where collaborative and community-led efforts are in focus. They emphasize the importance of considering social, environmental, and economic aspects while ensuring inclusivity, sustainability, and the promotion of the public good, thus drawing on the multi-disciplinary ‘Euro-Canadian’ tradition, sometimes called the democratic stream of SE and SI research. This tradition draws on urban planning, sociology and other social science disciplines. It sees the origins of SE in social movements, civil society and the third sector, and underlines features such as democratic governance, mutual aid, empowerment and democratically driven social change (Defourny, 2001; Laville & Salmon, 2015; Hulgård et al., 2019). Focus is not only on alleviating the consequences of social exclusion or environmental destruction, but also on challenging the forces that lead to exclusion both within and beyond their territorial reach (Moulaert & MacCallum, 2019, 1). Arguably, SE and SI are fields that have emerged from a paradox, reflected e.g. in the different streams of social innovation, which share a focus on social and societal problem solving. It is therefore important to dissect through research what SE and SI can and cannot do, aware of context and in relation to other social dynamics. It is equally important to share such insights with practitioners and students alike, linking research and teaching to questions of societal engagement and sustainability. Despite the popularity of the concepts and gradual expansion of SE and SI research and education across the globe, we must continue challenging and testing them if we are to make an engaged contribution as researchers. Do we see spill-over effects of SE principles into other sectors concerning governance, leadership or organisational mission? How to organise participatory governance, and is it a realistic organising principle? How to ensure participation throughout social innovation

4

J. Eschweiler and K. Dupret

processes and beyond? How relevant are democratic principles in non-democratic contexts? Is SE a heart-felt approach or a mere necessity to adapt to public sector shrinking? How equipped are SE and SI to address sustainability concerns? With market solutions entering the social realm came the demand for impact assessment, what can be relevant indicators and tools? Finally, what is the role of research-based university education in SE and SI today, as it coexists with programmes more focussed on CSR, sustainability or transition studies? What can we learn from Roskilde University and others who are trying to be critical and problem-oriented in both research and teaching? Informed by underlying core principles such as empowerment and participation, sustainability and care for nature, people and communities, this book offers nuanced social science-based perspectives on theoretical debates and contributions from SE and SI as a research and educational field at an organizational and societal level. It illustrates potentials of solutions and social and societal impact based on case studies and critical analyses of methods from the field. The book also focusses on teaching SE and SI and how Roskilde University’s pedagogical model is oriented towards fostering problem and need oriented critical thinking and engagement skills. It thus addresses students in social enterprise, social entrepreneurship and social innovation and related fields, as well as researchers and teachers old and new to the subject matter. The book furthermore points out the relevance of societally engaged research and education. As we take global concerns like climate change, territorial unrest, inequality, fragmentation and lack of inclusion or democratic participation seriously and carry out research and teaching on such challenges, we show our own motivation to contribute to social change, demonstrate our longing for solidarity in society and manifest interest in fundamental rethinking of our society and its living beings (Bellacasa, 2017). We do so by further developing the field, critically investigating SE and SI as tools to claim relevance to increase knowledge, skills and competences that are relevant for the careful engagement with these matters of concern. As such, we critically engage with social entrepreneurship and social innovation as twenty-­ first century tools and how research and higher education engage in problemsolving. We do so as researchers, teachers and supervisors at Roskilde University in Denmark, a reform university anchored in critical research and problem-oriented research that has roots in democratising movements of the 1960s (Andersen & Heilesen, 2015). The research we engage in is reflected in two Master Programmes in Social Entrepreneurship and Management. Organised inter-disciplinarily between two departments, the programmes were created inspired by classic entrepreneurship teaching as well as by critical experimental learning and reform pedagogy, linking to Roskilde University’s tradition of action research, while integrating forms of collaborative learning and new practices such as innovation labs (Andersen & Hulgård, 2014). They combine theories and perspectives of broader social science with perspectives of management and organisation, critically indicating the tensions that underly SE/SI research and practice. The two programs differ slightly in approach and content as one is a Master programme for full time students who have finished

1 Introduction

5

their bachelor degree from various fields, while the other is a part-time open university programme for professionals who wish to qualify competences directly applicable to their current or wished for work. They are both symptomatic of and a possible remedy for societal challenges, and we must carefully regard the role of the university in this context. At Roskilde University, researchers – and as such the contributors to this book – focus on critical thinking, empowerment, plurality of knowledge, global citizenship, and various forms of inclusive and participatory research. Roskilde University’s history and research tradition are reflected in its critical, problem-oriented and group-work based pedagogical approach. Similarly, SE and SI refer to practices that combine different logics and resources, that educate, change behavior, socialites, and conditions of lifes, and that contribute to the creation of more sustainability. Integrating sustainability with the work of social entrepreneurship and social change acknowledges these interconnections and helps us develop more effective and coordinated solutions. Needs arise that can best be addressed collectively, with universities as stakeholders in this process. Researchers from the field of social entrepreneurship, social innovation and affiliated fields have a repertoire of engaging and reflective methodologies that can be used to anticipate the empowerment of target groups, that invite critical thinking and societal engagement (Dupret et al., 2022). The researchers generate new problem definitions, tools that become part of solutions and new social relations. In this light research and higher education contribute to the functioning of democracies and innovation and help countries to address crises on a global scale. This ambition comes with its own challenges and should be critically reflected within the research field.

1.1 Responsible Research and (Social) Innovation as Part of the Reflexive Ecosystem This book offers contributions that reflect on social entrepreneurship and social innovation research as tools and competence sets for researchers and practitioners, as well as for students who are the next generation of researchers and practitioners. It starts with reflections on the university, pedagogical model and design of SE education. These reflections draw a direct line between Roskilde University and the Master programmes to citizen engagement, civil society, policy makers or business in addressing social and ecological challenges. The direct line also illustrates how scientifically generated knowledge can have practical use. Societal engagement occurs through cross-sectorial collaboration in qualitative and participatory research and teaching methodologies, bringing in a notion of responsibility. Building on social design, participatory and involving learning approaches the collaboration with external stakeholders in the co-construction of matters of care and concern can create spheres of free and critical thinking and practical problem-solving, but also create dilemmas on both the conceptual and practical level (Dupret et al., 2023).

6

J. Eschweiler and K. Dupret

Conceptualizing responsibility in research is not new. Gianni, Reber and Pearson (2019) challenge the traditional top-down research and innovation tradition and suggest that we should co-construct the future. In this way, responsible practices are no longer relegated to political processes alone, but invite a broad array of societal stakeholders and citizens to engage with questions of knowledge and how to apply and contest it in their own practices (Fisher & Rip, 2013). On the policy level the European Commission describes Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) as a ‘comprehensive approach of proceeding in research and innovation in ways that allow all stakeholders that are involved in the processes of research and innovation at an early stage (A) to obtain relevant knowledge on the consequences of the outcomes of their actions and on the range of options open to them and (B) to effectively evaluate both outcomes and options in terms of societal needs and moral values and (C) to use these considerations (under A and B) as functional requirements for design and development of new research, products and services’ (European Commission, 2020:3). This makes responsiveness to challenges, reflexivity about methods, inclusion in process development, and critical anticipation of the consequences of research core dimensions of responsible research and innovation. Responsibility in research and innovation is understood as proactive and positive (see Jonas, 1984; Grinbaum & Groves, 2013), reflected in some of the concepts and methodologies used in the field of social entrepreneurship and of social innovation research. Key focus areas are stakeholder engagement, gender equality, ethics, open access, governance and science education. Aiming to nurture responsibility makes the university an important actor in the ecosystem of social change processes. Research and teaching SE and SI with their historical use of empowering methodologies and critical thinking at Roskilde University is a case of responsible and engaged scholarship. Reflexivity does not mean necessarily finding one solution towards sustainability or social change defined by teachers or researchers. Rather, it is engaging in a process of revisiting own norms and values, and it not least helps identify how the research and interventions one creates impact target groups, society and earth. It enables us to engage in counter arguments and actions. It is also not free of tensions, as reflexivity invites collective thinking and dialogue in relation to important matters of concern. The contributions of this book are assembled in five of such tensions that are exemplary of scholarly discussions and themes that students engage with in the programs. However, it is not exhaustive for the entire field of social entrepreneurship and social innovation. These tensions are described in the following. They structure the sections of the book.

1.2 Tensions Underlying the SE/SI Research Field as Structuring Elements As mentioned above, there are underlying tensions in research and society that have made SE and SI relevant.

1 Introduction

7

1.2.1 Tension 1: SE and SI Education as a Form of Critical Engagement Versus Entrepreneurship Education? Considering multiple and interlinked complex challenges that affect the well-being of people and all living beings around the globe today and in the future, there are mounting calls for universities to be more engaged in finding and testing solutions. SE and SI researchers are thus actors in the challenge to balance technological innovation with concerns of social sustainability and social innovation, navigating normative and practical demands. This context coins the first tension. While calls for critical engagement are echoed by researchers and university lecturers, they risk remaining abstract and difficult to apply. At the same time, calls to produce more output-oriented research and teach more practical skills risks being non-engaging and disempowering when applied in practice. The challenge is to bridge critical engagement – including with our own assessment indicators in the university – with output focused technical solutions in university SE and SI education. This requires developing pedagogical methods and perspectives that foster democratic, empowering and inclusive processes as a central sustainability dimension. At the same time the sustainability challenges of our time and future call for skill sets that enable action, impact-oriented interventions and design. Roskilde University with its roots in reform movements of the 1960s is exemplary of forms of education dedicated to pedagogical principles as well as problem-­ oriented and critical research approach, which are inspired by the ideas of democracy, interdisciplinarity, collaboration and critical questioning of one’s own motivations and methods. It has acknowledged practice and action-based research traditions and works extensively in both teaching and research with external stakeholders, keeping an eye on the needs and problems of the present and the future. Roskilde University’s two Master Programmes in Social Entrepreneurship focus on addressing global challenges through a sustainability and democratic approach to social innovation. They are thus mindful of this legacy and seek to combine theoretical and practical skill development while keeping in mind how the legacy affects thinking and learning. But have we found a blueprint for critical education and research, or have we developed a template to instrumentalise university teaching? As indicated earlier, social entrepreneurship has emerged as a research field and social phenomenon that responds to a crisis of public welfare, to the pitfalls of new public administration and to concerns of instrumentalization of people’s lives caused by market dominance. The competition of concepts  – democratic vs. organisational streams (Moulaert & McCallum, 2019) or process vs. outcome focus, the risk of mission drift in hybrid organisations are all symptoms of the ambiguous origins of the field. At the same time, entrepreneurship education has become a cross-disciplinary focus to attend to and to strengthen sustainability in the broadest sense of the word. This tension boils down to questions like how universities can be responsibly engaged through research and teaching? How to avoid sustainability skills to become solely technical outputs without the substantial involvement of affected

8

J. Eschweiler and K. Dupret

stakeholders and considerations of democracy and ethics? How to qualify students as critical agents that can engage with societal challenges? The chapter in this section addresses such questions in different ways: Christine Revsbech: The Solutions to the Future are Problem-Oriented: The intersection between social entrepreneurship, sustainable skills, and problem-­ oriented project learning This chapter dives deeper into the sustainable skillset offered by Roskilde University’s problem-oriented project learning (PPL) approach. It ventures into a review of sustainable education and skills development in an EU understanding, and with reference to the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), followed by a brief analysis of how this is developed through the combination PPL and social entrepreneurship education. In the light of new global expectations to educate in entrepreneurial tools and mindsets, Revsbech argues that sustainable entrepreneurship, SE and PPL constitute a skills development framework which largely invites “education for sustainable development and global citizenship”. The chapter points out sustainability intersections in education and connects them to social entrepreneurship education at Roskilde University, thus clarifying the sustainability skillsets of SEM graduates.

1.2.2 Tension 2: Participation as Normative Conceptual Ideal and Practical Challenge Participatory governance is a central aspect of our understanding of SE and SI, rooted in third sector and solidarity economy traditions in the academic field (Laville & Salmon, 2015). However, choosing participants and collaborating on equal terms can be a challenge in research and in practice. This is the case in relation to academic logics and structures, for example due to traditional institutional structures, merit systems and work conditions, that at times make it difficult or demotivating for researchers to conduct inclusive and time-consuming participatory processes (Dupret et al., 2022). In practical SE and SI contexts, the maintenance of diverse types of stakeholder interests can be a tedious exercise balancing influence, power, profit orientation and public interest. This links to questions of ethics (in relation to process, stakeholder motivations and researchers’ and teachers’ working conditions) in terms of what matters and what we should care about when developing methods for processes of social change, designs and teaching cases. It also raises ethical concerns of legitimacy and inclusion (e.g., of the plurality of knowledge and the integrity of participants). If we (researchers/students/practitioners) are to address societal challenges, we need institutional support, contextual concepts and a broader societal understanding that also engages with the question of how to and if to embed stakeholders with difficult or problematic requests and ethics (Bellacasa, 2017).

1 Introduction

9

We are calling for societally engaged research, but do we have the institutional support? Do we have the theoretical and methodological concepts to welcome and include all participants in empirical research, in conceptualisations and analytical frameworks? What are ethical and relational concerns in case of ethical divergences? The chapters in this section bring together tensions of participation at different levels: • In practical solution-finding processes, how to include multiple voices, including those typically marginalised, which requires a change in mindset of the social entrepreneur that designs for greater sustainability. • In collaborative innovation infrastructures, where institutional representatives and external stakeholders have different stakes in the process, leading to invested and symbolic participants that impact the innovation process and outcomes. • In analytical terms, the SE and SI research field is dominated by Western conceptualisations of context, looking at SE and SI in relation to democratic institutions and to the public sector. In the absence of a functioning state, however, context can be populated by entirely different institutions and actors, not always sharing normative characteristics of social change agents rooted in civil society. There is a lack of conceptual frameworks that can account for ‘alternative participants’. Katia Dupret: The role of the social entrepreneur when designing for social sustainability Starting from an argument of social entrepreneurs explicitly striving to take future generations into consideration, this chapter discusses methodological and conceptual social design principles that can be related to the strengthening of social sustainability. The chapter argues for the importance of encountering a pluriverse of knowledges and interrelational vulnerability when designing for social sustainability. It offers a teaching case where students engage with external stakeholders to collaborate around solving mutually defined social sustainability problems and presents an analysis of how embodied learning and ethics of the designer affect power dynamics and participation outcomes in the design process. In relation to learning and competence development in social entrepreneurship programmes the chapter concludes that embodied learning, awareness of ethics and pluriverse of knowledges are important dimensions when designing for greater social sustainability. Combining design, academic concepts and a mutual embodied learning space through the engagement of plural knowledge creates a triangular approach to teaching, focusing on learning processes that require an embodied reflection process. It also appears as a highly effective way of interacting with knowledge holders to potentially increase sustainable changes. Katia Dupret, Mikkel Munksgaard and Anne Vorre Hansen: Participation in social innovation processes: a case study of Roskilde University Impact Hub This chapter seeks to investigate the role and character of democratic participation in social innovation (SI) processes. It builds empirically on a collaborative design process of an Impact hub conducted between a social enterprise, Roskilde University researchers and students during 2019. It draws on concepts of

10

J. Eschweiler and K. Dupret

participation from a political critical perspective and social innovation (SI) from a democratic empowering perspective. The study finds a significant degree of variety in the intensity and characteristics of participation in the investigated SI process, which most likely influences the project’s potential to facilitate social innovation. One critical barrier concerned the enactment of symbolic or ‘performative’ features of participation leading to ambiguity in project development. The learning takeaways from this chapter are that participation in SI processes can be symbolic and not necessarily wanted from an institutional point of view. This can blur or disconnects with the main intentions of impact. Also, innovation processes do not take place in ‘empty’ or neutral organisations, but are embedded in internal political, strategic, and managerial agendas. Social innovation processes are tedious. They require negotiation and openness to ensure high level of influence and sustainable social change. Sameer Azizi: Social Entrepreneurship and the governance context of Areas of Limited Statehood The chapter departs from a critique of current state-centric views on ‘context’ in the SE literature to then enrich research debates on SE in the developing world with perspectives on governance in Areas of Limited Statehood (ALS). Azizi argues that state-centric contextual factors like third sector, welfare systems and regulation do not reflect the realities in many developing countries and calls for a reconceptualization of ‘context’ in relation to the developing world. The governance in Areas of Limited Statehood literature offers a theoretical lens on who governs and more importantly how and why certain governance constellations condition social good providers such as SEs. It implies an acknowledgment of various types of non-state actors including informal and unconventional actors and their role in shaping the nature, driver, and impact of SEs throughout the developing world. Understanding these divergences gives the possibility to study the proactive and reactive inside-out strategies for gaining legitimacy, enabling co-creation and creating impact in societies. ALS thus offers promising future avenues for studying the context in which SEs operate across areas of limited statehood, offering an important contextualisation in relation to SE’ in ‘developing countries’ that is often not accounted for in research and teaching developed in the context of Western welfare states. This is an important learning point, as it gives students an understanding of the particularities of the socio-political contexts for SEs beyond Western contexts.

1.2.3 Tension 3: Business for Social Justice, Sustainability, Democracy and Citizenship? Considering civil society and third sector as the origins of SE we see that business and management tools and logics such as scaling and replication, social accounting, impact measurement and leadership debates have entered the realm of social justice, democracy, citizenship, and sustainability. Non-profit, private and public actors in

1 Introduction

11

common good services compete for reduced public spending on welfare, bringing considerations of efficiency and efficacy to a sphere previously unconcerned with economic thinking (Andersen et al., 2022), producing new types of hybrid social enterprises. But how do third sector characteristics like participatory governance, solidarity and focus on empowerment, active citizenship, sustainability and care feed into the private sector? How do new hybrid organisations and hybrid legal forms try to combine both worlds with new democratic and collaborative leadership and governance models (Dupret & Eschweiler, 2022) or situate social responsibility or sustainability concerns at the core of for-profit businesses (Ajmal et al., 2018). At Roskilde University’s social entrepreneurship programmes we observe an intense fascination with ‘social business’ models, particularly among students who come from business studies, but also among philosophers and social scientists. The concepts developed in SE leadership and governance research can potentially be mainstreamed into for-profit practices. The concern is that they may also reinforce the marketization of empowerment, social justice and sustainability, by leaving out those elements which may not easily become marketized, e.g., community building, solidarity, or ecology without market potentials. At least, marketization cannot stand without taxation, public funding, and regulation. There are two chapters addressing this tension. The first provide a new concept of socially responsible innovation in the private sector, inspired by CSR and social entrepreneurship theories that can provide new legitimacy for businesses that like to consider themselves sustainable. The other chapter analyses the emergences of shared semantic themes in the SE and general leadership literature. Jacob Dahl Rendtorff: Socially Responsible Innovation between CSR and social entrepreneurship. The case of the sustainable development goals (SDGs) Facing the challenges of climate change, environmental degradation and the need for sustainable development, society and business need a new and more responsible form for business innovation and entrepreneurship. Confronted with such a search for new forms of management, the theoretical scope of this chapter is to present a new concept of socially responsible innovation that combines corporate social responsibility and social entrepreneurship. It investigates the relation between socially responsible innovation and other concepts like business ethics, good corporate citizenship, and sustainable development goals (SDGs). The aim is to develop a concept of innovation, social entrepreneurship and management that considers socially responsible innovation from the point of view of ethics and sustainable development goals. Rendtorff proposes socially responsible innovation as a holistic management concept that brings together comprehensive stakeholder integration management, ethics, and sustainable development goals in a value-based vision of the requirements for social innovation in business and management. A key learning point in this chapter is the conceptualization of socially responsible innovation, integrating environmental innovation and orientation towards implementation of sustainable development goals as essential for social innovation, management, and entrepreneurship, which counters tendencies in fragmenting approaches to sustainability.

12

J. Eschweiler and K. Dupret

Margit Neisig: Leadership of social entrepreneurship in a multi-stakeholder context: A specific domain or specific contextualities of leadership theories? This chapter accounts for the shift in general leadership theories during the twenty-first century compared to leadership theories in the twentieth century, and it compares twenty-first century leadership theories to the themes identified as relevant to managing social entrepreneurship and social enterprises. The aim is to investigate a potential convergence of theoretical dialogues. Based on social systems theory the chapter discusses the importance of a shared “leadership language”. Neisig argues that such shared semantic reservoirs allow diverse types of social systems to select across polycentric (multistakeholder) networks, such as social, for-profit, non-profit and public enterprises/organizations with various affinities for functional systems. This, she argues, enhances the chances for a wider systemic transition process towards sustainability through rearrangements of structural couplings among social systems. Therefore, both SE and the broader management community of students, practitioners and researchers need to learn and develop leadership theories, underpinning semantic reservoirs such as leadership ideas, concepts, tools, methods, measurements, reporting etc., as well as leadership skills that are rich enough to be adaptable to specific contexts and to allow communication across multistakeholder networks needed for a systemic, just, sustainable or perhaps regenerative change process. The key learning point of this chapter is that cross-­ fertilization is needed for systemic change.

1.2.4 Tension 4: Efficiency and Impact Evaluation as New Rulers in the Non-profit Sector, for Better or for Worse? Much of society and the economy experience the growing influence of systems of evaluation, impact measurement, and target-setting (Luke et al., 2013). This trend happens across diverse contexts: public services, corporate governance, and environmental management. This form of control or governance is driven partly by the need to meet increasing demands for transparency and accountability in the context of deregulation in the private sector and as we transition from traditional forms of bureaucratic control towards new forms of public governance, related to privatization and ‘enterprisation’ of public services in procurement markets (Sinclair et al., 2021). The SE field, and both the non-profit and for-profit entities with it, faces dilemmas of engaging with rationalistic market-based systems of evaluation to demonstrate its worth or pushing beyond efficiency regimes towards more pluralistic systems of evaluation to demonstrate social value. At the same time social entrepreneurship and social innovation can help resist external systems of (economistic) measurement and target-setting, whilst enhancing organisational learning and innovation capabilities. There is a call for measuring social value, and the field of SE tries to find ways that respectfully address that. The first chapter in this section investigates the impact

1 Introduction

13

of the innovation push in the Danish Humanitarian NGO sector and how it adapts by negotiating its own sense-making, translating innovation questions related to resources into social innovation questions related to social value. The other chapter is a critical analysis of the prominent social impact assessment tool Social Return on Investment (SROI) that tries to monetize social value. Mette Apollo Rasmussen and Lars Fuglsang: How is social innovation emerging in the Danish humanitarian sector? Humanitarian innovation has been pushed as a governance strategy for collaboration among private businesses and NGOs about humanitarian aid. The innovation push sets a new scene for collaboration about humanitarian aid across NGOs and businesses. Building on neo-institutional theory and the construct of strategic reflexivity from the innovation literature, the chapter investigates how central actors of the humanitarian sector in Denmark rely on the intertwined processes of strategy-­ making and reflexivity as a way to make sense of the push for innovation and how processes of innovation emerge. Rasmussen and Fuglsang map out such processes as social value creating practices that occur close to their institutional contexts where actors have to learn new ways of engaging and interacting based on relations of trust. They point out the danger that business language will replace the critical approaches, autonomy and value-creating practices of humanitarian NGOs. The chapter challenges notions of innovation as a solution to humanitarian problems due to lack of clarity in how to define innovation in this particular context. It concludes that governments must embrace contextual value-based micro-activities of organizations to develop profound strategies for innovation and collaboration within the humanitarian sector. Roger Spear: Evaluating Social Impact This chapter addresses a central issue in the emergence of social entrepreneurship, and the restructuring of welfare systems – evaluation methods for assessing the extent to which socially entrepreneurial initiatives meet social needs and create sustainable social change. Do we let “1000 flowers bloom” and trust that social entrepreneurs will not succumb to popular solutions, but emphasise the worthwhile, as governance systems shift away from the state to the market? Or can evaluation methodologies provide an alternative system of governance which allows the relative merits of different entrepreneurial initiatives to be critically examined? Social return on investment (SROI) has emerged as a prominent method for that task; but this chapter attempts to go beyond SROI through a critical analysis that reveals many of the issues that need to be addressed if evaluation methodologies are to play an important role in informing the direction of social change. The chapter compares SROI with cost benefit analysis (CBA) and explores the lessons that apply to SROI. It goes onto examine ethical critiques, leading to more pluralist perspectives. Finally, it concludes with a summary of the critique, and some proposals for adapting, complementing or replacing SROI as an assessment method. In the context of a growing emphasis on audit, measurement, and target-setting, this critical review attempts to enhance the capabilities of anyone concerned to learn how to better negotiate the governance challenges of evaluating social impact.

14

J. Eschweiler and K. Dupret

1.2.5 Tension 5: Social Scientific SE and SI Concepts for Social Change – or Do We Need the Arts and Humanities? This tension addresses how we may imagine developing research-based knowledge and practices for more sustainability of all living beings. On the one hand, scientific methods and knowledge are called upon to understand and conceptualize phenomena that can become drivers for solutions, social change and sustainable transition (e.g. Stilgoe & Guston, 2016). The different streams in SE and SI conceptualisation and discourse are the result of that, influenced by different disciplinary traditions, which in the context of Roskilde University’s Master programmes converge into a cross-disciplinary curriculum. Particularly social science approaches to SE and SI study multi-level contexts or SE models, using empirical or normative approaches (Moulaert & MacCallum, 2019). While empowerment and participation are important dimensions in social science-based approaches, there is a lack of scientific engagement with variables like creativity or everyday-life perspectives of people and citizens and how they link to social change and transformation. The two chapters in this section illustrate the relevance of opening up the SE and SI research field further. The increasing concern for sustainability and peaceful transition makes both scholars and civil society look towards the humanities, arts and cultural dimensions. These are so far not wholeheartedly embraced by either social science nor business approach to SE and SI, but they do have the license to actively imagine what new societies and transformations might look like. Both chapters in this section propose new dimensions in SE and SI research and teaching that branch into the arts and humanities when it comes to linking the field to social change: what we can learn from arts and culture organisations when we want to talk about SEs producing societal value and the role of utopian hopes and dreams in SI process as the disregarded engine of change efforts. Linda Lundgaard Andersen and Kai Roland Green: Arts-based creativity and culture in social entrepreneurship This chapter explores how arts-based creativity and culture has moved further to the centre of the social entrepreneurship (SE) field. Through a patchwork of international examples Andersen and Green ask how arts-based social entrepreneurship reconfigures the relationship between creative and social value. Various cases are used to demonstrate three different ‘depths’ to the blending for these value forms: through the promotion of worker conditions and protections in new ventures (micro-­ entrepreneurship), the fusion of different social service models across sectors (hybridity), and the revivifying of community spaces and places (transformation). The analysis includes cases such as the DIY (Do It Yourself) movements of Portugal and Brazil as processes of micro-entrepreneurship; INSP, a Danish civil society organization based on principles of the social economy; and the UK-based Bromley by Bow as a community centre with socially entrepreneurial character. The concluding discussion considers how arts perspectives can aid the culturally aware SE

1 Introduction

15

scholar to diversify their units of interest and analysis and makes the case for a nuanced attention to practices of redistribution, recognition and social justice promoted by such arts-based ventures in the SE field. Jennifer Eschweiler and Luise Li Langergaard: Do we need utopia for a theory of social innovation as social change? This chapter introduces social innovation (SI) as a concept of social change. After a review of conceptual work of recent years that situates SI in a democratic tradition of systemic change, particularly Transformative Social Innovation theory, the chapter explores the relevance of utopia as an additional element of a theory of social innovation as social change. Eschweiler and Langergaard argue that utopia as a concept is central to a theory of SI as social change for several reasons: First, multi-level system approaches try to provide analytical tools to measure the impact of SI efforts over time. They do not elaborate enough on the role of initial motivations, worldviews and hopes of social actors who decide to engage in SI processes, inspired by ideas of alternatives, do not consider how system-level interactions feed back into SI initiatives, how they alter social change ideas and the consequences of that. Also, continuous engagement of SI actors can be seen, even in the face of adversities inherent to systems or discourses they seek to alter. What keeps them going might be the utopian spark, the striving towards another, a better future, which requires adaptations of the course of imagining, of partnerships, alliances and strategies, maybe the utopian idea or ideal itself, but which also keeps them spiralling forwards.

1.3 Concluding Remarks The different tensions pointed out in the field of social entrepreneurship and social innovation are reflected in societal trends and developments: SE is both a symptom as much as a proposed, envisioned and enacted solution, distilled as ideas, concepts, ways of organising and practical action for a more sustainable present and future. Tensions offer important opportunities of reflection, which is a task for research and higher education as much as for other societal actors. It is the opinion of the authors of this book that engaging with societal concerns and developing thorough interdisciplinary, critical and problem-oriented theoretical and practical approaches is at the core of universities’ responsibility and purpose of higher education today. This implies a pedagogical approach that ensures openness towards reflexivity together with students in discussing what and who we aim to mobilize. Now we have described social entrepreneurship and social innovation as twenty-­ first century tools and how research and higher education engage in problem-­ solving. In the following we describe the structure of the book and how each chapter offers research-based perspectives and conceptual advancements that critically reflect on various aspects of the SE and SI research field today. We believe that they are of interest to readers from research and practice. As our research informs

16

J. Eschweiler and K. Dupret

teaching in the two Master programmes at Roskilde University, we also believe that they are of value to students. In relation to the question of how the university contributes to societal problem-solving, students are our most important multipliers, ambassadors and future change makers. Since much of the research is inspired by practice and partly exercised in collaboration with practitioners from different societal contexts, we might be able to diffuse some of our findings as new tools or competences. More specifically, we see the following learning trajectories based on the contributions of this book: 1. SE and SI research and education as a form of critical engagement With current matters of concern on a global scale, the chapter in this section invites researchers and teachers to continuously review and adapt course content. SE and SI is a dynamic field, and it shares many concerns with neighbouring fields, e.g., sustainability, transition, social movement studies, etc. Our teaching should be up to date whilst being open to critically reflect on conceptual limitations and blind spots. Integrating neighbouring research fields’ perspectives in our curricula enhances our students’ professional skills. 2. Participation as normative conceptual ideal and practical challenge Chapters in this section illustrate that participatory approaches in SE and SI practice and conceptualisations are of general ethical concern but expectations need to be adapted to context. Participatory practice of social entrepreneurs and social innovators can take inspiration from design studies in their social change interventions. It also needs good management of process and expectations to balance the dilemmas of symbolic and real participation and hence impact. Researchers should keep theorizing to capture tensions around stakeholder participation, particularly for researchers in the democratic stream. 3. Business for social justice, sustainability, democracy and citizenship? There used to be a conceptual blind spot by ignoring the economic dimension in our understanding of democracy and civil society. Through the emergence of SE it has emerged on the conceptual stage, but now we struggle how to integrate both in such a way that it can inform more sustainable practice. The chapters in this section show that we need more exchanges and maybe even interdisciplinarity between research fields that address sustainability in different ways. This path can help us as researchers and practitioners to qualify insights about ­sustainability for greater societal impact. The danger is that empowerment, inclusion, or involvement of civil society become empty signifiers in SE discourse. 4. Efficiency and impact evaluation as new rulers in the non-profit sector, for better or for worse? There is a danger that business practices and values undermine the empowering intent of civil society, as they shape organisations and initiatives through logics of funding, new discourses of innovation or the demand for impact measurement – hence the sector should be able to be an equal partner in the debate by developing own discourses and instruments that are aligned with sectorial logics, while being open to move ahead, through critical reflection and engagement with

1 Introduction

17

calls for innovation or evaluation. Both chapters are examples of learning – by doing in the NGO sector and by providing tools to enable impact evaluation that is in line with the ethical demands of civil society’s practices and concerns. 5. Social scientific SE and SI concepts for social change – or do we need the arts and humanities? How can we as researchers become more daring by venturing into other disciplines? The SE and SI field has ventured into epistemologies of the South and sought inspiration through indigenous movements in the global south. While this is an important development in the field we do not need to venture so far. The learning trajectory from the chapters in this section takes us to creativity and imaginaries all around us. It is an invitation to the social scientists in the field to borrow perspectives and methods from the arts and humanities to better capture the role of radical and visionary thinking in concerns of social change and sustainable transition. It is a call upon all of us to free our minds in this collective process. This book has been a joint effort of researchers and teachers from the two study programmes in Social Entrepreneurship and Management at Roskilde University, discussing together important tendencies within the applied theories and not least in the world of today that the students are engaged with. Contributions have been discussed and developed further through joint seminars and feedback sessions in line with the pedagogical approach of Roskilde University. We hope it will spark inspiration to reflect about, engage with, and design solutions for social change and sustainability matters of concern in new ways.

References Ajmal, K. M., Hussain, M., & Helo, P. (2018). Conceptualizing and incorporating social sustainability in the business world. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 25(4), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2017.1408714 Andersen, A. S., & Heilesen, S. B. (2015). The Roskilde model: Problem-oriented learning and project work. Springer. Andersen, L. L., & Hulgård, L. (2014). Social innovation and collaborative learning: MA programmes, capacity building and continued education in social entrepreneurship and social innovation. Andersen, L. L., Hulgård, L., & Laville, J. L. (2022). The social and solidarity economy: Roots and horizons. In L. L. Langergaard (Ed.), New economies for sustainability. Ethical economy (Vol. 59). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­81743-­5_5 Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (Eds.). (2008). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press. Coad, A., Nightingale, P., Stilgoe, J., & Vezzani, A. (Eds.). (2022). The dark side of innovation (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003259084 de La Bellacasa, M. P. (2017). Matters of care: Speculative ethics in more than human worlds. University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctt1mmfspt. Defourny, J. (2001). Introduction: From third sector to social enterprise. In The emergence of social enterprise (pp. 13–40). Routledge.

18

J. Eschweiler and K. Dupret

Dupret, K., & Eschweiler, J. (2022). How do participatory governance and reciprocity impact working conditions in the SSE organizations? An emotion work analysis. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2021.2020884 Dupret, K., Eschweiler, J., Umantseva, A., & Hyldkrog, R. (2022). Mapping innovation and societal engagement – Responsible research through a care ethics perspective Del.3.3. RE:ERUA project. Horizon 2020. grant agreement No 101035808. Dupret, K., Umantseva, A., Lazoroska, D., & Eschweiler, J. (2023). Research collaboration for societal engagement and social innovation: Guidelines and reflections for best practices. Roskilde University. European Commission. (2020). Social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe. Comparative synthesis report. Authors: Carlo Borzaga, Giulia Galera, Barbara Franchini, Stefania Chiomento, Rocío Nogales and Chiara Carini. Publications Office of the European Union. https://europa.eu/!Qq64ny Fisher, E., & Rip, A. (2013). Responsible innovation: Multi-level dynamics and soft intervention practices. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.). Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 165–183). Wiley. Fougère, M., Segercrantz, B., & Seeck, H. (2017). A critical reading of the European Union’s social innovation policy discourse: (Re)legitimizing neoliberalism. Organization, 24(6), 819–843. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508416685171 Gianni, R., Pearson, J., & Reber, B. (2019). Responsible research and innovation. Routledge. Grinbaum, A., & Groves, C. (2013). What is “responsible” about responsible innovation? Understanding the ethical issues. In Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 119–142). Hulgård, L., Banerjee, S., & Carney, S. (2019). People-centered social innovation: An emerging paradigm with global potential. In L.  Hulgård, S.  Banerjee, & S.  C. Steven (Eds.), People-­ centered social innovation (pp. 1–16). Routledge. Jessop, B., Moulaert, F., Hulgård, L., & Hamdouch, A. (2013). Social innovation research: A new stage in innovation analysis? In The international handbook on social innovation (pp. 110–130). Jonas, H. (1984). The imperative of responsibility – In search of an ethics for the technological age. University of Chicago Press. Laville, J.-L., & Salmon, A. (2015). Rethinking the relationship between governance and democracy: The theoretical framework of the solidarity economy. In Civil society, the third sector and social enterprise (pp. 145–162). Routledge. Leadbeater, C. (2007). Social enterprise and social innovation: Strategies for the next ten years: A social enterprise think piece for the Office of the Third Sector, Cabinet Office, Office of the Third Sector. Luke, B., Barraket, J., & Eversole, R. (2013). Measurement as legitimacy versus legitimacy of measures: Performance evaluation of social enterprise. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 10(3/4), 234–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRAM-­08-­2012-­0034 Moulaert, F., & MacCallum, D. (2019). Advanced introduction to social innovation. Edward Elgar. Nicholls, A. (2009). We do good things, don’t we?’: “Blended value accounting” in social entrepreneurship. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(6), 755–769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. aos.2009.04.008 Oosterlynck, S., Novy, A., & Kazepov, Y. (2020). Local social innovation to combat poverty and exclusion: A critical appraisal. Policy Press. Roy, M.  J., & Grant, S. (2020). The contemporary relevance of Karl Polanyi to critical social enterprise scholarship. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 11(2), 177–193. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/19420676.2019.1621363 Sinclair, S., McHugh, N., & Roy, M. J. (2021). Social innovation, financialisation and commodification: A critique of social impact bonds. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 24(1), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/17487870.2019.1571415 Stilgoe, J., & Guston, D. (2016). Responsible research and innovation. MIT Press.

Chapter 2

The Solutions to the Future Are Problem-­Oriented: The Intersection Between Social Entrepreneurship, Sustainable Skills, and Problem-Oriented Project Learning Christine Revsbech Abstract  When teaching social entrepreneurship at Roskilde University, Denmark, we are, like everyone else, met with questions of the quality of teaching and how we are didactically applying the awareness and responsibility of supporting a sustainable future through education. Within those reflections, the International Master’s education in Social Entrepreneurship and Management (SEM hereafter) is situated in a unique position, as the conditions for living up to a sustainable content and form within the program are per se geared towards some of the official qualifications and qualities required for the generations to come, to live up to a sustainable skillset, which will be discussed here. This chapter ventures into a review of sustainable education and skills development. Sustainable skills and sustainable skills development are understood as something which sustainable and sustainability education seek to facilitate through learning processes. In this context, these skills can be understood as skills, competences, and behaviors which underpin a better future, economically, environmentally, and socially, according to the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The review of skills is followed by a brief analysis of how these are prone to be developed through the combination of Problem-oriented Problem Learning (PPL) and the academic context of a social entrepreneurship master’s education. The overall intention is to make clear that entrepreneurial skills, sustainable skills, and PPL overlap and point towards the same aim in terms of skills development for the learners involved; keeping not only similarities but also differences in mind. Discussing the operationalization of these learning aims contributes to bringing co-existing and somewhat similar learning ideologies closer to a learning practice understanding. Besides this chapter being exemplary, in terms of sustainability intersections in education, it serves a clarifica-

C. Revsbech (*) Department of People and Technology, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. L. Langergaard et al. (eds.), Learning about Social Entrepreneurship and Management in Times of Social Transformation, Ethical Economy 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47708-9_2

19

20

C. Revsbech

tion of the professional profile and thus argues for employability for SEM graduates, to outsiders as well as insiders of the program and at the university. The chapter is concept exploring and considers the intersection between sustainable entrepreneurship and PPL by reviewing relevant understandings of ­sustainability through education vis-à-vis entrepreneurial skills, leaning through the concept “transformative learning”‘s definitions of identity development and learning as an ongoing process between individuality and sociality (Illeris, 2014). In the light of new global expectations to educations in general of being sustainable through entrepreneurial tools and mindsets, as well as “quality education” (SDG #4), hereunder “education for sustainable development and global citizenship” (SDG #4.7) (Project Everyone, 2022), the chapter shows how sustainable entrepreneurship, including the social, and PPL constitute a skills development framework which in itself largely invites “education for sustainable development and global citizenship” (ibid.). Keywords  21st century skills · Problem-oriented Project Learning (PPL) · Entrepreneurial skills · Entrepreneurship education · Sustainable entrepreneurship

2.1  Learning is at the Heart of Sustainable Entrepreneurship Learning is at the heart of social change. In the sense that the tradition of educational theory and literature has much to offer in the context of innovative and creative processes, entrepreneurship, innovation, bottom-up engagement, and social change for sustainable solutions, in terms of exploring new approaches, developing skills, and passing on new knowledge and awareness for changed every-day behavior. Traditional social learning theory accounts for vast reflections not only on individual change of perception, skills, and ultimately behavior in a, but fundamentally also in interaction with their environment, leaving theories of social change with an opportunity for qualified insight into the micro-processes of change, traditionally theorized in pragmatic interactional contexts and exemplary learning settings (Bandura, 1993; Illeris, 2014; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Piaget, 1959; Revsbech, 2015). Within this pool of knowledge, the term transformative learning is an example of how educational theory has coined the individual-social dynamics as well as the individual psychological adaptation processes accommodating change on both levels: “The concept of transformative learning comprises all learning which implies changes in the identity of the learner.” (Illeris, 2014:577). Illeris, in his reflections on transformative learning, moves on to describing the psycho-social dimensions of identity emphasizing how this concept combines individuality and sociality (Illeris, 2014) and how identity is constantly formed, negotiated and renegotiated through social interaction and individual internalization and reflexivity. These points can be ontologically understood in a classical social constructivist manner (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Yet applying transformative learning emphasizes the term reflexivity, as originally stated by Anthony Giddens, which explores how societal circumstances of late modern times, including rapid societal change and individual liberation, are seen as identity challenging, as:

2  The Solutions to the Future Are Problem-Oriented: The Intersection Between Social…

21

(…) we must constantly keep up with these developments and adjust or change our self-­ perceptions in relation to our environment, local as well as global. In this way, the identity has more than ever before become the core of life – and it makes sense to see TL [transformative learning] as the processes by which we deal with the constant possibility, urge and necessity to change and transform elements of our identities. The psycho-social identity has become the central connection between the individual and the social, and it is constantly challenged. TL is an important way of dealing with this. (Illeris, 2014: 579)

This perspective invites exploring how entrepreneurial action for sustainability, and overall improvement of society, helps spotting relevant learning trajectories and signs of change happening, both within the facilitators as well as within participating actors engaged in these activities, as a response to modern times’ calls for change through well-reflected and entrepreneurial action. The educational theoretical fundamental insights mentioned should be kept in mind when reading through this chapter, where individual and social change are closely interlinked, and where insights into transformative microprocess or learning may point towards a didactic of how to best facilitate the furthering of certain skills – in this context, the sustainable entrepreneurial skills. Closing in on sustainable entrepreneurial skills as accommodating the challenges of current times, these skills are specifically sought after for meeting global challenges and increasing complexity of knowledge, compared to earlier societal conditions and thus educational traditions (Bacigalupo et  al., 2016). Over the past 10–15 years, social, business, and educational researchers have been scrutinizing entrepreneurship education, leaving good knowledge also constituting perspectives on this phenomenon such as the innovative and value creation potential, didactics and methodologies furthering skillful decision making, assessments, and project management, as well as clarifying entrepreneurial skills as such (Moberg, 2014; Rasmussen et al., 2015). It is this chapter’s intention to enhance the close connections between what is articulated as ‘entrepreneurial skills’ and the understandings of ‘sustainable change’. And also, how ‘the social’ in 2022 can no longer be viewed as a sub-­category to the entrepreneurial in the current times of emphasizing ‘sustainable entrepreneurship’. In the attempt to carry out sustainable entrepreneurship ‘the social’ is an integrated and fundamental element. The chapter can thus be read as a sustainability didactics concept-clarifying contribution to the field of entrepreneurship education, empirically leaning on a Master’s program example where entrepreneurship education is methodologically carried out in the context of PPL. To elaborate how these connections are identified in educational practice, I elaborate on three angles: The entrepreneurial angle to education; the understanding and integration of the social as part of sustainable thinking; and lastly, I visualize and discuss for improvement the intersection between what is commonly defined as “21st century skills”, entrepreneurial skills, and PPL. I point out that, as a consequence of the above-mentioned rapidness of change and knowledge development, which call for individual-societal transformation and constant learning, the solutions of the future are problem-oriented. Working

22

C. Revsbech

Fig. 2.1  The intersection of sustainable entrepreneurial education

critically and problem-oriented for sustainable aims is gaining ground in pedagogical understandings of skills development under current global and societal conditions (Moberg & Holse, 2022). This is not least because change, from an entrepreneurial point of view, calls for skillful identification of opportunity, qualifying and assessing of ideas, cross-sector collaboration, planning, and skillful implementation of innovative initiatives. The combination of entrepreneurship education and sustainability is particularly potent in that sense, due to combining the practical aim towards furthering innovative skills as well as awareness and ability for qualified and sustainable implementation of ideas and pragmatic solutions. Furthermore, in the context of PPL, the skills mentioned, do not only fall within a sustainable and action-oriented mindset, they are also strengthened by the pedagogical tradition of PPL which invites taking departure in real problems with a critical and solution oriented mindset, while working with others, and through interdisciplinary collaborative networks (also understood as a form of social capital (e.g. Putnam, 2002)) with informants and organizations which are already operating in general society (Andersen & Heilesen, 2015; Olsen & Pedersen, 2008; Revsbech & Fæster, 2015) (Fig. 2.1).

2.2 Entrepreneurship is Central to Sustainability There are various understandings of what entrepreneurship education is supposed to lead to, whether it is technical and material ideas and solutions, e.g. engineering and mechanical innovations, developing a sustainable business in a business- and profit-­ oriented sense, or whether there is an innate focus on balancing financial and social aims (Hannon, 2005; Hulgård, 2007; Mawson, 2008; Shane & Eckhardt, 2003; Thrane et  al., 2016). Within a social entrepreneurial mindset, profit and market

2  The Solutions to the Future Are Problem-Oriented: The Intersection Between Social…

23

economy is kept in mind as a precondition for operating sustainably in a world, where the market economy is a vast and often dominant reality. Classic and recent social thinkers, relevant to social entrepreneurship, have elaborated on the social scientific understandings of ‘economy’ and ‘value’ as e.g. the trinity between reciprocity, redistribution, and the market economy (known as substantivistic economy), a conscious awareness of what social interactional economic behavior is (Eriksen, 1998; Polanyi, 1968; Revsbech, 2015). This perception of ‘value’ underpins the social entrepreneur’s way of understanding social value creation as inherently sustainable, as it is not only profit-oriented but also keeps in mind what could be seen as representing social and ecological aspects, namely: solidarity economy, understood as community sharing and exchange (Laville, 2007), trading and recycling (Graeber, 2001; Revsbech, 2015), ecological life connections (Egemose, 2020), and social innovation. In these understandings, social networks and social capital, as a type of consciousness and behavior, are of at least as much value as and intertwined with financial capital and viewed as a universal part of human economic action. The entrepreneurial and social entrepreneurial mindset is underpinned by PPL, emphasizing a focus on interactionally developing knowledge and critically investigating something you do not know, taking its point of departure in real problems for change (Olsen & Pedersen, 2008): Observations in society that makes one critically wonder or experiences of being puzzled by a certain interest area relevant to the line of study and in a societally relevant, exemplary, manner (Roskilde University, 2022). Carrying an entrepreneurial mindset with at least one eye always on the abovementioned sociological understandings of value, value creation, and change is therefore always the optimal aim of sustainable entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship education in Denmark is seen across the entire educational system (Moberg, 2014; Rasmussen et al., 2015), and carried out either as independent entrepreneurship courses, or as entrepreneurially focused elements integrated into a subject core curriculum (Moberg & Holse, 2022). At its core, the education as sustainable entrepreneur is, as mentioned, always about value creation in a substantivistic economic sense (Polanyi, 1968), be it building and engineering, planning, designing, organizing, innovating, and carrying out projects within all its complexity. The critique that social innovation solutions are difficult to implement (Nielsen & Nielsen, 2015) is duly met by the entrepreneur who not only comes up with new solutions to problems but also manages to assess and make action plans taking resources at hand into consideration, social, financial, material, virtual (Jensen, 2020). This involves managing logistics, organizing resources, budgeting of finances, coordination of involved suppliers and stakeholders, assessing geographics of urban or rural settings, as well as social integration, function, and needs and mobilization in local contexts (Jensen & Langergaard, 2020). It is mainly the managing within complexity and capability to carry through with an idea and managing projects which are the traits of the entrepreneur, be it within business or social enterprise (Shane & Eckhardt, 2003). When it comes to the social entrepreneur, it is argued, that they “(..) do not follow conventional ways of working. Their view of the world begins with people, passion, experience, and story – not policy, statistics and theory” (Mawson, 2008: 2). Yet whether oriented towards change, profit, social value, or making a difference, the entrepreneur inherently works innovatively

24

C. Revsbech

between opportunity and risk (Shane & Eckhardt, 2003) with what is at hand (Sarasvathy, 2001). Entrepreneurship education thus seeks to develop skills within the learner which can lead to more competently contributing to both societal as well as product value development, innovative solutions and inventions which meet needs on a larger and smaller scale. In terms of competencies these are independent thinking, innovatively creating, risk daring, opportunity spotting and exploiting, self-efficacy as well as motivational, managerial, and collaborative leadership competencies (Rasmussen et al., 2015). In general, entrepreneurship education integrated into core curricula, has been defined as: Content, methods and activities that support the development of motivation, competence and experience that make it possible to implement, manage and participate in value-added processes. (Rasmussen et al., 2015: 7)

Discussing entrepreneurship education in Denmark, the literature distinguishes between content and aim. In terms of content and methodologies there is a variety of didactical interpretations of what entrepreneurship education is supposed to involve. A good conceptual approach can be found with Blenker et al. (2011), who suggest that entrepreneurship education can be understood through reflecting on whether the teaching is for, through, or about entrepreneurship (Blenker et al., 2011; Hannon, 2005). University teaching would mainly be placed somewhere between about and for entrepreneurship. When it comes to the question of whether PPL in academia could provide the activities that also invite a didactical through, it can be questioned how much of the value, created in the students’ semester projects, in the form of e.g. useful analyses and solution ideas, are eventually passed on to relevant settings or case organizations or settings (Revsbech & Fæster, 2015). Nonetheless, students do acquire project management, the problem-oriented, the critical, the solution thinking, and the collaborative skills (with externals as well as colleagues) through PPL and are also content-wise offered academic knowledge and tools to assess, quality assure, and discuss social entrepreneurial initiatives and organizations, in the beforementioned sociological value understanding. So, in terms of aim, there seems to be broad consensus: Social entrepreneurship education seeks to create and innovate social and economic, cultural, and environmental value, in terms of products as well as procedures, in the field of the market as well as the reciprocal or redistributional (Hulgård, 2007; Laville, 2010; Revsbech, 2015) (Fig. 2.2).

2.3 ‘Social’: Project- and Problem-Oriented Sustainable Entrepreneurship The focus on global sustainability has invited entrepreneurship and therefore also social entrepreneurship to consider how social entrepreneurs, with their skillset and competences, can be regarded as a particular resource when it comes to sustainable entrepreneurship, and how social entrepreneurship can thus potentially play a part

2  The Solutions to the Future Are Problem-Oriented: The Intersection Between Social…

25

Fig. 2.2  The four entrepreneurial dimensions embedded in the core curricula of educational institutions. (Source: Rasmussen et al. (2015: 12))

in the overall global sustainability agenda (Jensen & Langergaard, 2020; Moberg & Holse, 2022). Inspired by the UN SDGs, new conceptualizations of sustainability and sustainable  value, like for example “The Donut Model” (Raworth, 2017), depicts sustainability as embedded or integrated relationships between environmental sustainability, social sustainability, and economic sustainability. The point in this chapter is not whether people, planet, and profit (or “the three P’s”) should be visualized as embedded or integrated (Jensen & Langergaard, 2020), but rather that classical sociology regarding holistic understandings of economy, as exemplified above (p.  4  +  5), and emphasizing human behavior as economic or un-economic (Eriksen, 1998), have regained relevance in trying to understand these global calls for sustainable behavior, innovations, and actions. This has meant, that understanding sustainable entrepreneurship in general now naturally entails not just a business and profit understandings of entrepreneurship but always includes the social and the environmental aspects. It has also concluded the understanding that the three are closely intertwined and interconnected when assessing sustainable entrepreneurial initiatives and skills development (Bacigalupo et  al., 2016; Bianchi et  al., 2022; Jensen & Langergaard, 2020; Moberg & Holse, 2022). In a critical theoretical and PPL context, one central topic, also relevant to sustainable entrepreneurial skills, is skillfully and democratically organizing and managing community mobilization and democratic participation (Langergaard, 2020), this of course in balance with environmental awareness and financial nous in order to navigate social entrepreneurially sustainable, as stressed above. At RUC, action research, a democratically involving type of mode 2 research, born out of critical academic traditions, have long suffered from implementation difficulties as mentioned (Nielsen & Nielsen, 2015). With the ambition to teach the academic students tools through the university’s critical and mode 2 research traditions, qualifying the

26

C. Revsbech

ongoing PPL projects and investigations during entrepreneurial skills development, highlighting the value-adding part (Rasmussen et  al., 2015; Revsbech & Fæster, 2015), may suffer from the same problems of actual value implementation. Nonetheless, the Roskilde Model by nature clearly cultivates several of the listed twenty-first century skills (Stauffer, 2022), and several of the encouraged skills for sustainable entrepreneurial futures, with regards to the role of the entrepreneur, as part of that ambition. To visualize this point, below is Table 2.1 listing sustainable entrepreneurial skills in comparison with the Roskilde Model and current frameworks for sustainable futures and education. This serves to visualize, emphasize, and discuss the general point regarding the intersection between social entrepreneurship, sustainable education, and problem-oriented project learning1. When reading through the criteria for the various models of sustainable behavior, entrepreneurial skills, and problem-oriented project learning, there are the similarities that all emphasize: Critical thinking, creativity, collaboration, communication, information literacy, flexibility, leadership, initiative, productivity, social skills (Stauffer, 2022). Next, we see how PPL and sustainable entrepreneurship has many traits in common, comparing columns 2, 3 and 4. These are: Taking initiative, planning and management, coping with ambiguity, uncertainty, and risk; working with others, learning through experience, self-awareness and self-efficacy, financial and economic literacy, motivation and perseverance, creation, vision, future thinking, value thinking, strategic thinking, interpersonal competence, interactional problem solving, intrapersonal competence which can arguably be directly facilitated through: project work, problem orientation, participant control, and group work (PPL). Moberg and Holse (2022) conclude that entrepreneurship educators see sustainability as an integrated or added dimension in the entrepreneurial educational aim and thus what can be observed is a sensemaking didactical and educational practice when it comes to interpreting what can be understood as sustainability competences (Moberg & Holse, 2022). This means that in educational practice, entrepreneurial didactics, skill and mindset is most often applied situationally in general. At SEM these concepts are integrated more consciously and directly by introducing theories and knowledge concerning sustainability as well as the history of entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship. What is interesting in a RUC setting is how the large intersection between skills for the future and sustainable entrepreneurial skills, in a three P’s value understanding, legitimizes and potentially further inspires SEM to strengthen its consciousness as a master’s program educating graduates for highly sustainable entrepreneurial action.

 Note that elaborations of Green Competences (Bianchi et al., 2022) have been left out for simplification. This does not generally omit the need for the human-ecological awareness and impact and green knowledge in order to act sustainably, as also the sustainability understanding of this chapter, leaning on “the three P’s”, denotes. 1

2  The Solutions to the Future Are Problem-Oriented: The Intersection Between Social…

27

Table 2.1  PPL and sustainable entrepreneurial skills comparison

Twenty-First century skills (Stauffer, 2022) are roughly understood as the 12 overall skills below Critical thinking

EntreComp taxonomy (Bacigalupo et al., 2016) roughly consists of 15 competences (in bold) organized into the 3 areas (in italics) below Into action

Wiek et al. (as presented in Moberg & Holse, 2022) Systemic thinking

Future thinking

 Taking initiative Creativity

 Planning and management

Collaboration Communication Information literacy Media literacy Technology literacy Flexibility Leadership Initiative Productivity Social skills

 Coping with ambiguity, uncertainty, and risk  Working with others  Learning through experience Resources  Self-awareness and self efficacy  Motivation and perseverance  Mobilizing resources  Financial and economic literacy  Mobilizing others Ideas and opportunities  Spotting opportunity  Creation  Vision  Valuing ideas  Ethical and sustainable thinking

Value thinking Strategic thinking Interpersonal competence Interactional problem solving Implementation competence (intrapersonal competence)

PPL (Roskilde University, 2022) roughly consists of the following 7 principles Project work Problem orientation Interdisciplinarity Participant control Exemplarity Group work International insight and vision

28

C. Revsbech

2.4 The Literate Sustainable Entrepreneur and Qualified Problem-Orientation In Table 2.1 the attentive reader will have noticed how some of the bullets are underlined. The underlined unmatched bullets are: Computational thinking (twenty-first century skills); mobilizing resources, mobilizing others, spotting opportunity, valuing ideas (EntreComp); systemic thinking, implementation competence (Wiek et al.); interdisciplinarity, exemplarity, international insight and vision (PPL). When addressing sustainable entrepreneurship education, we immediately turn our attention towards the future. The few, yet interesting, unmatched bullets let us know the differences in the various understandings of what skills the future calls for, in a sustainable entrepreneurial sense and in a critical academic sense for sustainable change. This shows us how we might improve and further qualify both the common understanding of sustainable skills as well as social entrepreneurship education. At RUC we might consider how to better implement the general call for computational (column 1) as well as systemic (column 3) thinking. The former being a fair point given that social studies at RUC largely emphasizes the practical, the hands on, the democratic and participatory, and the physical interactional. The latter, regarding systemic thinking, being a fair point given that the critical academic tradition has affected the academic habits in a direction more geared towards minorities, vulnerable groups, and social inclusion, which is though also on the agenda of the SDGs #4.7 (Project Everyone, 2022). In order to improve systemtic thinking overall, acknowledging individual processes within systems and organizational forms might advantageously be better adopted, with due diligence and in line with the interest points drawn from transformative learning theory (p.  2). The unmatched bullets under EntreComp (mobilizing resources, mobilizing others, spotting opportunity, valuing ideas) can generally be coupled with Wiek et al. points when they stress implementation competence. This is in line with known critique of entrepreneurial education at RUC, pointing to the lack of concrete value adding outcomes of students’ PPL reports, as well as student involving action research (Nielsen & Nielsen, 2015; Revsbech & Fæster, 2015), which is a strong tradition at RUC. Nonetheless, entrepreneurial educational literature does offer numerous tools for and perspectives on qualified sustainable implementation (e.g. Blenker et al., 2011; Sarasvathy, 2001; Tanggaard, 2008), yet at this point these do not all include sustainable, hereunder social and green, considerations. Prioritizing between for, through, or about entrepreneurship (as mentioned on page 6) (Blenker et al., 2011) might also be a question of living up to a master’s level of educational knowledge and skills acquisition emphasizing skills over meta-reflection and assessment over concrete tools application (Rasmussen et al., 2015). On a strategic level though, RUC has a tradition of working for value adding community activities through students joining collaborations within their semester projects with for example municipalities interested in exchanging knowledge and expertise, also in the areas of social change, directly linked to reality. At an educational program-level there is still potential for improvement in the matter of giving

2  The Solutions to the Future Are Problem-Oriented: The Intersection Between Social…

29

the students better chances of acting as societal value adding entity. Maintaining or enhancing invitations to students to participate in external collaborative development and mode research projects with social change and sustainable entrepreneurship on the agenda could be kept in mind. When it comes to academia versus the common understanding of sustainability and sustainable entrepreneurship, the PPL model might mutually inspire. Here, it is interesting how interdisciplinarity, exemplarity, and international insight and vision are less or not present in the other columns. In a practice towards sustainable futures and entrepreneurial mindsets, general society could take inspiration from how working problem-oriented projects for 50 years in a critical and Danish tradition have shown, that these three principles, qualifies working problem- and project oriented as well as innovatively and entrepreneurially for more sustainable futures. Through strengthening a general application of these three PPL principles, joining forces for action across trades and traditions as well as understanding our societal contribution as exemplary, nationally as well as internationally, could potentially lead to an even more qualified understanding of sustainable value-adding skills and action. Learning Points 1. The chapter is exemplary, in terms of sustainability qualifying intersections in university education 2. Through discussing and elaborating understandings of ‘sustainability skills’, the chapter demonstrates how PPL and SEM at RUC to a large extend didactically operationalize the overall political aim of creating sustainable awareness and practice through and within education. 3. It also serves a clarification of the professional profile and thus argues for employability through sustainability skillsets for SEM graduates, to outsiders as well as insiders of the program and at the university.

References Andersen, A. S., & Heilesen, S. B. (2015). The Roskilde model: Problem oriented learning and project work. Springer International Publishing. Bacigalupo, M., Punie, P. K. Y., & Van den Brande, G. (2016). EntreComp: The entrepreneurship competence framework. https://doi.org/10.2791/593884. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Pshychologist, 29(2), 117. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Penguin. Bianchi, G., Pisiotis, U., & Cabrera Giraldez, M. (2022). GreenComp: The European sustainability competence framework. https://doi.org/10.2760/13286. Blenker, P., Korsgaard, S., Neergaard, H., & Thrane, C. (2011). The questions we care about: Paradigms and progression in entrepreneurship education. Industry & Higher Education, 25(6), 417–427. Egemose, J. (2020). Den økologiske bæredygtigheds sociale fundering  – Perspektiver på menneskelige levesteder. In K. Dupret & L. L. Langergaard (Eds.), Social Bæredygtighed – begreb, felt, kritik. Frydenlund Academic.

30

C. Revsbech

Eriksen, T.  H. (1998). Små steder  – Store spørgsmål: innføring i sosialantropologi. Universitetsforlaget. Graeber, D. (2001). Toward an anthropological theory of value: The false coin of our own dreams. Palgrave. Hannon, P. D. (2005). Philosophies of enterprise and entrepreneurship education and challenges for higher education in the UK. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 6, 105–114. Hulgård, L. (2007). Sociale Entreprenører – En kritisk indføring. Hans Reitzels Forlag. Illeris, K. (2014). Transformative learning re-defined: As changes in elements of the identity. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 33(5), 573–586. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260137 0.2014.917128 Jensen, C. R. (2020). Social bæredygtighed og social forandring – Stabil og mobil med JUMP. In K. Dupret & L. L. Langergaard (Eds.), Social Bæredygtighed – Begreb, felt, kritik. Frydenlund Academic. Jensen, C. R., & Langergaard, L. L. (2020). The returning butterflies: Social entrepreneurs and sustainability in eco-tourism. Research and Change, 3(2), 6–26. https://doi.org/10.23865/ fof.v3.2404 Langergaard, L. L. (2020). Den sociale dimension af social bæredygtighed: Tre forståelser af det sociale. In K. Dupret & L. L. Langergaard (Eds.), Social Bæredygtighed – Begreb, felt, kritik. Frydenlund Academic. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning – Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. Laville, J.-L. (2007). L’economie solidaire: Une perspective internationale. Hachette Littérature. Laville, J.-L. (2010). Plural economy. In K. Hart, J.-L. Laville, & A. D. Cattani (Eds.), The human economy (pp. 77–83). Polity Press. Mawson, A. (2008). The social entrepreneur – Making communities work. Atlantic Books. Moberg, K. (2014). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education  – From ABC to PhD. Copenhagen Business School. Moberg, K., & Holse, E. K. (2022). Bæredygtigt Entreprenørskab: En undersøgelse af hvordan begrebet forstås og implementeres på danske universiteter. Odense, Danmark. Retrieved from https://ffefonden.dk/viden/vidensbank/baeredygtigt-­entreprenorskab-­en-­undersogelse-­af-­ hvordan-­begrebet-­forstas-­og-­implementeres-­pa-­danske-­universiteter/ Nielsen, B. S., & Nielsen, K. A. (2015). Critical utopian action research: The potentials of action research in democratization of society. In E.  Gunnarson, H.  P. Hansen, B.  S. Nielsen, & N. Sriskandarajah (Eds.), Commons, sustainability, democratization: Action research and the basic renewal of society. Routledge. Olsen, P.  B., & Pedersen, K. (2008). Problem-oriented project work: A workbook (Vol. 3rd). Roskilde University Press. Piaget, J. (1959). Ligevægtsbegrebets rolle i psykologien. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Tekster om Læring (Vol. 1st, p. 26). RUC: Roskilde Universitets Forlag. Polanyi, K. (1968). Anthropology and economic theory. In M. H. Fried (Ed.), Readings in anthropology (Vol. 2, pp. 215–238). Thomas Y. Crowell Company. Project Everyone. (2022). No Title. Retrieved October 4, 2022, from www.globalgoals.org Putnam, R. D. (2002). Democracies in flux: The evolution of social capital in contemporary society. Oxford University Press. Rasmussen, A., Moberg, K., & Revsbech, C. (2015). A taxonomy of entrepreneurship education: Perspectives on goals, teaching and evaluation (1st ed.). Fonden for Entreprenørskab. Raworth, K. (2017). Doughnut economics: Seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. Random House Business Books. Revsbech, C. (2015). Learning as social exchange in city year London: Action towards an image of greatness. Roskilde University.

2  The Solutions to the Future Are Problem-Oriented: The Intersection Between Social…

31

Revsbech, C., & Fæster, M. (2015). På sporet af entreprenørskab i uddannelserne på RUC. SPOR – Et Tidsskrift for Universitetspædagogik, 4. Retrieved from http://rossy.ruc.dk/ojs/index.php/ spor/article/view/4723 Roskilde University. (2022). Problem-oriented project learning. Retrieved October 6, 2022, from https://ruc.dk/en/problemoriented-­project-­learning-­pedagogical-­model-­roskilde-­university Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243. Shane, S., & Eckhardt, J. (2003). The indivdual-opportunity nexus. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), Handbook of entrepreneurship research: An interdisciplinary survey and introduction (p. 161). Springer. Stauffer, B. (2022). What are 21st century skills? Tanggaard, L. (2008). Kreativitet skal Læres: Når talent bliver til innovation. Aalborg Universitetsforlag. Thrane, C., Blenker, P., Korsgaard, S., & Neergaard, H. (2016). The promise of entrepreneurship education: Reconceptualizing the individual-opportunity nexus as a ­conceptual framework. International Small Business Journal, 37(7), 905–924. https://doi. org/10.1177/0266242616638422

Chapter 3

The Role of the Social Entrepreneur When Designing for Social Sustainability Katia Dupret

Abstract This chapter discusses methodological and conceptual social design principles that can be related to the strengthening of social sustainability, in particular in the context of social entrepreneurship that strives to take future generations in consideration. Social design focusses on needs, social and democratic participation, and access to goods and services by the widest possible range of users. While some approaches to sustainable development focus on macro-level changes, social design is concerned with individuals’ or groups’ quality of life. This chapter argues for the importance of encounter with a pluriverse of knowledge and interrelational vulnerability when designing for social sustainability. The teaching case study presented stems from the professional social entrepreneurship masters programme at Roskilde University, where students engage with external stakeholders to collaborate in solving a mutually defined social sustainability problem. The chapter presents an analysis of how the embodied learning and ethics of the designer affects power dynamics and participation outcomes in the design process. Thus, it gives insights into how the role of the social entrepreneur is to be encountered as interactional and embodied. It underlines the importance of thinking about the designer as a participant in learning throughout the social change process. The chapter furthermore reflects on how social designers’ awareness and use of embodied learning may carry new views on impact, and gives suggestions for tangible design principles for social sustainability. Keywords  Designer role · Embodied ethics · Psychology of design · User-­ centered design · Participatory design · Design for sustainability

K. Dupret (*) Department of People and Technology, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. L. Langergaard et al. (eds.), Learning about Social Entrepreneurship and Management in Times of Social Transformation, Ethical Economy 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47708-9_3

33

34

K. Dupret

3.1 Introduction Design thinking can be defined as “solution-focused” thinking that materialises into concrete concepts or products. In addition, it involves working with solutions for fundamental long-term problems. It therefore adds to analytical and critical thinking as well as problem-solving. Increasingly, design becomes a tool to address sustainability challenges. Especially since the Rio Declaration in 1992,1 scholars and policymakers have focused on its advantages and contribution to better quality of life in society. Hence, sustainable and social design have become more relevant than conventional design. Potentially, social entrepreneurs can be designers of sustainability when they aim to address challenges with a democratic empowerment approach (Mouleart et al., 2013) and focus on generating sustainability impacts by adding socio-ethical value, e.g., through system-shaping solutions that enhance availability, accessibility and acceptability (Ranabahu, 2020). Design principles can be used in social entrepreneurship that pursues social change through the development or adaptation of tools that can accommodate needs in complex and paradoxical social systems (Chen et al., 2016). Some design approaches solely focus on structural system change and forget that the fundamental premise of sustainability depends on social relations (Vavik & Keitsch, 2010). Overall, social and participatory design approaches are particularly suited to take stakeholder perspectives and everyday life experiences into account (Dupret & Chimirri, 2018), as they focus on life quality from a bottom­up approach (Vavik & Keitsch, 2010). However, even though the focus on design impact on behavior and social relations is not new, there still seems to be a tendency to approach social changes through design as a neutral process. The central argument of this chapter is that the role of the social entrepreneur, who designs for social sustainability and change, will be distributed and challenged when attending to a pluriverse of knowledge and letting herself getting affected through interrelations with other stakeholders. The following research question is therefore formulated: How does the role of the social entrepreneur change when engaging with multiple sources of knowledge (pluriverse) and engaging with stakeholders as co-designers (effect of interrelatedness)? The research question is explored through the case of university teaching using social design principles to strengthen sustainability. The teaching case is analysed through the concepts of social and sustainable design, multiple sources of knowledge (pluriverse) and embodied ethics. The concepts are presented first and the case details afterwards.

 The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, was a short document produced at the 1992 UN “Conference on Environment and Development” (UNCED). The Rio Declaration consisted of 27 principles intended to guide countries in future sustainable development. It was signed by over 175 countries. Subsequent meetings were held to assess the progress made in implementing the principles of the document. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_CONF.151_26_Vol.I_Declaration.pdf 1

3  The Role of the Social Entrepreneur When Designing for Social Sustainability

35

3.2 Sustainability Through Design Already in the 1960’s design researchers gained interest in sustainability. Design can be defined as a broad and multifaceted term that encompasses the process of creating solutions that meet specific needs or objectives. It is a deliberate and purposeful activity that involves planning, conceptualizing, and executing ideas to achieve a desired outcome. Design can apply to various fields, including product design, graphic design, industrial design, user experience design, architectural design, and more. In essence, design is about problem-solving and innovation. However, designing for sustainability has received very little public interest in comparison to the predominant design models that revolve around innovation and productivity within pre-dominantly industry and economic challenges (Cooper, 2019). Sustainable design approaches and traditional design differ in their focus, principles, and goals. There are key differences between the two. Sustainable design places a significant emphasis on minimizing the negative impact on the environment throughout a product’s or a service life cycle. Traditional design focusses on aesthetics and functionality, and does not prioritize sustainability considerations. Also, sustainable design takes a holistic approach, considering the entire life cycle of a product or project, from raw material extraction to disposal or recycling and often also the sideeffects of the design and its behavioral dimensions. This requires assessment of the environmental, social, and economic impacts at each stage. In traditional design, there may be a life cycle analysis, however, it still focuses on the functional and aesthetic dimensions of the product or service. Next, sustainable design seeks to maximize resource efficiency by using renewable materials, reducing waste, and employing energy-efficient technologies and processes and involving stakeholders in doing the same. In traditional design, resource efficiency may not be a primary concern, leading to potential waste and overconsumption of resources. Most importantly, sustainable design often integrates social and cultural aspects, considering the well-being of communities and respect for their local cultures and practices. This is not a focus in traditional design. While the Rio Declaration policy work ‘Designing for Sustainability’ gained increased public awareness, focus was on a macro-systemic perspective (Vavik & Keitsch, 2010), using a design approach that moves beyond technical and product-­ centric solutions towards large-scale system level changes to contribute to sustainable development transitions (Cooper, 2019 in Escobar-Tello et al., 2021:3). Solely focusing on large-scale systems, however, may silence situated and culturally embedded human needs and life quality. Eventhough already designers in the 1960s considered social relations and participation (Sanoff, 2022), this was still primarily approached from an end-product and predetermined perspective. It was not before the 1990’s that theoretical concepts from the social sciences, like power and justice influenced the design domain and pushed for the notion that people should be at the center of the design through participation (Cooper, 2019), generally suggesting that users should be treated as experts of their own life circumstances and play important roles in design (Fischer et al., 2021), paving the way for design approaches such as social, universal and

36

K. Dupret

participatory design, that to different degrees focus on social sustainable change through social justice, democratic participation and inclusion. They tend to take a bottom up approach, applying a series of concrete social design actions that explicitly embed key values in the entire process (Dupret et al., 2016), arguing that design is an ethical process (Dindler et al., 2022: 461; Dupret & Chimirri, 2018). Social design focusses on tackling human challenges, placing social issues as the priority. Social design methodologies usually aim at social change and address life quality and public good. Value, impact and dissemination is formulated along those lines, rather than in profitability measures. They also acknowledge that the design process is not a neutral one, and that social entrepreneurs and other designers engage in design processes with their own values, ideologies and world views (Escobar-Tello et al., 2021). In summary, sustainable and social design approaches differ significantly from traditional design by incorporating environmental, economic and not least social considerations throughout the entire life cycle of a product, service or concept development, with a focus on increasing life quality and public good from a sustainability perspective. Sustainable design and more specifically social design approaches accentuate using methods that involve stakeholders in radical ways to ensure long term resilience, social dissemination and impact.

3.3 Sustainability in Relation to Social Behaviour, Pluriverse While the Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs) seek to promote sustainable development through economic growth, critics suggest to integrate the three pillars of sustainability environmental protection and regeneration; social protection and development; economic regeneration and development (e.g., Hvid, 2010). Thus, social sustainability is concerned with social relations, both understood in their own right and as intertwined with the environment and the economy (Dupret & Langergaard, 2020). Theoretically, it is linked to concepts such as social justice, social capital, engaged governance, the promotion of social value, human dignity, recognition or social integration (for a review see Boström, 2012: 4–5). Also, Agyeman and Evans (2004) drew a conceptual link between the different sustainabilities with the term ‘just sustainability’, underlining the fact that it is social behavior that must change in order to promote both well-being and the planet. Sustainability hence requires a paradigm shift in ethics (Jamieson, 1992). Social behavior is embedded in cultural practices. Thus, in order to attend to justice or life quality from a bottom-up approach, design for sustainability should therefore be characterized by pluralism: As Lehtonen (2004) notes, “Different geographical and temporal scales as well as situational contexts require their own frameworks, which do not necessarily provide a coherent picture, but a mosaic of partly contradicting views of reality.” The various approaches reflect the need for “framing” or “constructing” social sustainability” (Davidson, 2009  in Böström, 2012: 5). It is a strength because it invites communication between diverse actors and perspectives. It envisions plural forms of being and becoming, underlining the

3  The Role of the Social Entrepreneur When Designing for Social Sustainability

37

importance of pluriverse in sustainability (Escobar-Tello et al., 2021): getting everybody included, drawing on a plurality of knowledges, including vulnerabilities as embodied knowledge. These principles imply design principles that: 1. release embodied knowledge about sustainability, and 2. create mutual understanding and learning. A design process (for sustainability) that takes into account a pluriverse of knowledges can be seen as a dialogue between experts (knowledge holders), making implicit knowledge explicit through co-creation and joint reflection that can subsequently facilitate negotiations of power relations. In this way inter-relational aspects create dynamic design processes, ideally helping people to become emotionally and cognitively aware of what sustainability requires from them, while they also experience empowerment through inclusive, meaningful, and transdisciplinary ways of working together (Irwin, 2015). These social and not least empowering dynamics are important to avoid “that design is a political anthropocentric project, ontologically implicated in the making of unsustainable futures” (Fry 2011 in Escobar-Tello et al., 2021: 3).

3.4 Embodied Ethics Ethics are at the core of the design process when designing for sustainability that encompasses life quality, which includes equal access to resources and possibilities, inclusion, or care for all. Which problems social entrepreneurs choose to solve, why and who they include or exclude as beneficiaries, not only displays choice preferences but also more fundamentally value positions in relation to the aim of a specific initiative of change. Social entrepreneurs confront value conflicts: they must decide which value to prioritize and how to make an acceptable trade-off between two equally valued goods, for instance between safety and sustainability, which are both intrinsically ethical questions (van den Hoven et al., 2015). Despite the recognition that ethics is integral to design in many ways, design ethics remains “massively underdeveloped and even in its crudest forms remains marginal within design education” (Fry, 2009: 3). We can no longer ignore ethics as a central part of any design process (Chan, 2018) and at the same time we realize the complexity of ethical questions and dilemmas in social and environmental design processes. The interconnectedness between problems and ethics can produce ambiguity. Ethical dilemmas are relevant in terms of what (sustainability) problem the design is to solve. Embodied ethics overall refers to the idea that the foundation of our ethical relationships to one another is our embodied interconnection and the mutual, corporeal vulnerability that arises from this (Butler, 2015; Tyler, 2019). Simply put, it is ethics on a micro level, the way we live, our embodied ontology means that we encounter ourselves and others through the medium of our bodies, and because of this, we are intercorporeally dependent upon each other; we are ‘intertwined’ (Merleau-Ponty, 1968). According to the French phenomenologist Maurice Merleau-Ponty, embodiment refers to the fundamental experience of being

38

K. Dupret

a living, sensing, and active body in the world. His philosophical perspective explores the inseparable relationship between the body and perception, emphasizing that our understanding of the world is inherently shaped by our bodily experiences, calling it embodied cognition. Through our senses, movements and bodily experiences, we gain direct access to the environment, forming a pre-reflective and intuitive understanding of our surroundings. Merleau-Ponty thus rejects the traditional dualism that separates mind and body. Merleau-Ponty’s concept of embodiment has profound implications for our understanding of perception, consciousness, and self-awareness, and not least ethical dilemmas as embodied concerns. It challenges the traditional view of an independent, objective observer and underscores the embodied nature of human existence, emphasizing the interconnectedness between the self and the world. The basic presupposition that we are embodily connected constitutes the philosophical and political basis of the American post-structuralist Judith Butler’s relational ethics. She emphasizes that “it is not from pervasive love for humanity or a pure desire for peace that we strive to live together. We live together because we have no choice” (2015: 122). As such interconnectedness it is not simply a moral obligation, it is an ontological compulsion (ibid). This approach also requires reciprocity as an existential premise. Interconnected practices constitute ‘political ethics’ as they are locally embedded and negotiated. Even though for Butler our interconnectedness and mutual dependency means that we are all vulnerable, this does not mean that we (and all beings) are all equal. In a hierarchically organized society, some beings are clearly more vulnerable than others and some are given voices and others are not (ibid). This perspective raises responsibility for designers and the design process, as despite our ontologically compulsed inter-dependency, the materialities of our social, political, and economic circumstances mean that we are not all equally or homogenously so (Butler & Athanasiou, 2013). This requires engagement by the designer to foster mutual understanding among stakeholders involved in the design process. It implies the need to facilitate a pluriverse of knowledges and to formulate complex ethical questions that also challenge own perspectives and dismantle the priviledges of one’s own position. This can prevent design outcomes based on stereotypes and allows mutual learning among all stakeholders, including the facilitators, providing an opportunity for bottom-up and social change. In summary, critical readings on designing for sustainability, an embodied ethics approach and working on a micro-level including pluriverse of knowledges is the theoretical framework for designing for social sustainability.

3.5 The Case of Social Design in Teaching Social design is used as a teaching tool at RUC’s professional Social Entrepreneurship Masters programme (called Master in Social Sustainability since 2023) to make the use of theory of social change, inclusion and democratic participation explicit in the

3  The Role of the Social Entrepreneur When Designing for Social Sustainability

39

development of social sustainability solutions for various stakeholder groups. Social sustainability is linked to perceived quality of life of individuals and public good in the long run. Social design is also used to enhance cognitive reflexivity and the embodied engagement of students with limitations and potentials of different knowledge perspectives, in order to practice engagement with a pluriverse of knowledges and to increase embodied learning. Each semester, students in the Danish professional Masters programme in Social Sustainability work on a sustainability concern that is selected in collaboration with an external stakeholder. The case selected for this chapter was a social design task to increase inclusive accessibility at Northern Europe’s biggest non-profit music festival, Roskilde Festival. The festival took place for the first time in 1971 and has more than 130.000 visitors every year. It is organized as an association which donates all profits to humanitarian, non-profit and cultural work for the benefit of children and young people in particular. It has eight music stages, many other artistic events, sustainability talks etc. The Festival highlights a different theme of concern each year. In the years of the workshop the themes of concern had to do with inclusion and accessability for all.

3.6 Who Are the Participants? The participants in the design process were professional master students, university teachers and external stakeholders affiliated to Roskilde Festival, as well as users with physical or cognitive accessibility challenges. The design process was part of the semester theme focusing on cross-sectoral partnerships in the spring semesters 2021 and 2022. The 2021 social design exercise had to be carried out online due to Covid-19 restrictions, while the second group participated in the process at the university together with festival guests and staff. A vast majority of students came with a background in the Danish social sector, working with vulnerable and/or marginalized groups, like elderly, handicapped, or marginalised young people. Quite a few of them had experience working with volunteers, both in civil and public services, and in the cultural and humanitarian sector.

3.7 Description of the Process The design process is built up around four phases (and workshops). Phase one: Mutual exploration of the problem to be addressed and designed for (Understand). In phase one students mostly formulate ideas related to their own experience and context. Phase two: Exploration of values and ethical considerations through inclusion of the target group and relevant stakeholders (Re-define and Include). In phase two students interview the target group. Communication with stakeholders becomes a relational process where students gain new perspectives and opportunities with

40

K. Dupret

direct reference to their engagement with the stakeholders. Students and stakeholders together examine suggested social problems and scrutinize the validity of their assumptions (Dupret & Chimirri, 2018). Phase three: Ethical (embodied) concerns and solution ideation (Ideate). In the third phase a creativity process using different ideation techniques supports students in engaging with new perspectives that challenge their own embodied life experiences. It varies how this is done, but especially experiential learning through field trips and hands-on activities presented and explained by stakeholders are classic examples. Visiting the festival site, seeing how it implements accessability allows students to engage with concepts and ideas in a tangible and sensory-rich manner. The physical dimension of moving from the classroom to the site of design helps integrate the theoretical cognitive processes with the bodily experiences. Different ways of experiencing the problem are explored on the basis of the visits, exchanges with the external stakeholders and ideation exercises, before being critically assessed through the lens of ethics and values. Phase four: Mutual learning and change (Present). The selection of ideas for solutions and interventions addressing the design challenge has changed compared to the ideas presented in phase 1, based on the learning process of the students/ designers. In phase 4 students prepare a presentation of their solution for the challenge, reflecting on the embodied learning through the work process and interactions with stakeholders. The design process is inspired by the double diamond model originally created by the British Design Council, adapted through the use of research with a strong focus on pluriverse of knowledges, embodied ethics and participatory methodologies. The double diamond process helps to illustrate the design process and qualifies social sustainability theory further through value sensitive (Friedman & Hendry, 2019) and participatory social design (Dupret & Chimirri, 2018). Each social design workshop lasted 90 min and was facilitated by two teachers. Both groups of students went through each stage  – in January (Understand), February (Define and Include), April (Ideate), and May (Present). They experienced the confrontation of their own values and assumptions through the inclusion of stakeholders in the different phases of the process, thus designing more intentionally for the enhancement of globally relevant human values (Stückelberger, 2014) such as freedom, justice, sustainability, and participation.

3.8 Analysis The following analysis is structured around the four different phases and how they afftect the role of the designer through the lenses of pluriverse of knowledge, embodied learning and ethics. It shows how designers who make themselves vulnerable (Cipolla, 2018) manage to facilitate plural values that foster mutual understanding among stakeholders involved in the design process. Both groups of students went through the same process of design. However, the shifting designer roles, the

3  The Role of the Social Entrepreneur When Designing for Social Sustainability

41

acknowledgement of plural knowledge and the embodied learning differ between them.

3.9 Understanding and Defining the Problem The focus of this phase in the analysis is how the Master students assume the role of the designers. Roskilde Festival (RF) representatives (one employed and two volunteers) formulated both design challenges. In 2021 RF presented a preconceived design idea to increase inclusion, the “Sun flower band” for people with invisible handicaps. RF argued that the flower band would ensure visibility and hence more acceptance and inclusion by the surroundings. Both student groups challenged this conception of the impact of the flower band. They argued it would be stereotyping and marginalize people with invisible handicaps and even saw it as disempowering provocation. At this stage in the design teaching process, this reaction can be attributed to their theoretical readings and own embodied life experiences. Discarding the idea of the “sunflower band”, students assumed the the role as designers. In the 2022 workshop RF did not present a preconceived design idea but rather an open challenge based on clear value statements of inclusion and accessability. RF had changed its position from thinking of itself as the core solution holder to mutual learners, offering a more inclusive co-design process. The open challenge invited students to reflect on theoretical concepts of participation, inclusion and social innovation, in direct relation to questioning what to design for and why. The invitation to co-design gave more room for interpretation and negotiation of problem definitions. The ‘why’ was given more space than the ‘what’ and gave students the room to explore the values behind the perceived social problem of inclusion and accessability. Through case presentations and talks of embodied experience this group of students made their own understanding of values explicit as they compared them to those presented by RF stakeholders. All participants subsequently entered a dialogue addressing their own stereotypes about vulnerability. Students were surprised that different cognitive challenges did not necessarily result in avoiding participation in cultural events like a big music festival, leading them to adjust their ideas of design solutions. In this first phase both student groups created personas which represented their imagined target group. Personas are fictional characters that represent different users, in this case festival guests with a visible or invisible disability. During persona creation the students were asked to reflect on the values of their selected target group and engaged with the theory of functional diversity thinking (Toboso, 2011), which offers a norm-critical approach to diversity. It argues that everyone has the ability and right to life quality, independent of their functional abilities. This approach makes ethical values in the social design process explicit. The personas exercise had the purpose to help the students to engage with user’s needs, experiences, behaviors and goals, to be able to take these into account when designing. By

42

K. Dupret

describing the needs of a fictional personas, students can mirror themselves in the personas but also engage with the stereotypes that can then be confronted in dialogue with peers and external stakeholders without marginalizing or talking down to concrete persons. It potentially increases their sense of interconnectedness and may be a way to (re-)define which universal values (Stückelberger, 2014) must be represented in the design outcome. However, the first group of students was not challenged on their stereotypical thinking in the persona creation exercise. They reproduced existing knowledge, and it seemed that the critical theoretical readings about embodied ethics, pluriverse of knowledge and functional diversity were not translated into the design process at this stage. Several students in that group compared the personas created with generic target groups from their professional lives but struggled imagining the persona with invisible and visible disabilities. This made it difficult to create empathy. The difference between the two groups was that the second group was more explicitly invited to challenge RF’s preconceived assumptions about accessability and inclusion and the students from group one did not challenge the ‘why’ or the pluriverse of knowledge and went directly to the idea-generation in the design process. Eventhough the engagement with the defined problem and the development of the personas were kept exploratory through critical analysis in both groups, the first group was given an outlet for downloading their ideas giving the pretense that they were the sole designers of the solutions. None of these ideas were represented in the final product. Subsequently, group two were told explicitly not to develop design solutions but to stay in the explorative engagement phase with stakeholders. Thus the second social design process more clearly underpinned that students were co-­ designers, set out to learn from others. This and small adjustments to the process affected the students’ thinking and learning process.

3.10 (Define and Include) Ethics and Values In 2022, all students interviewed representatives from three of the target groups identified in the previous workshop. The previous year different designer groups (3–5 students) could only interview one representative on top of the persona exercise. For the 2022 cohort there was a clear shift in their thinking regarding the challenges of the target groups. There was clear dialogical engagement of knowledge and embodied experience between the stakeholders, transforming them into codesigners. One student reflected on the difficulty of not going directly to idea generation, but without including the perspectives and life experiences and knowledges of the target group, change through design can be more limited. When invited to engage in pluriverse of knowledges and embodied learning in the problem identification phase, the sustainability of the developed solution may be both more empowering and inclusive. One of the challenges conducting social design processes is the logistics in inviting and ensuring participation of all target groups and stakeholders. This can be a

3  The Role of the Social Entrepreneur When Designing for Social Sustainability

43

real challenge as last minute changes occur. Therefore, one group had to interview their target group during workshop three, because the interviewees had forgotten to come before. Learning to adapt to these challenges is important for both teachers and students of social design. Adjusting to logistical challenges and the need for students to apply more of their theoretical readings qualifies their design processes. Teachers introduced concepts of different levels of democratic participation (Carpentier, 2011) and organized a reflection with group two on concepts of participation in design processes. More precisely, a reflection how to integrate theoretical knowledge about power relations, participation and inclusion into interviews and dialogic design methods, positioning stakeholders as active knowledge holders rather than knowledge transferers. This changed the student-stakeholder relations and roles, distributing design authority to their interviewees. The interview situations and dialogues brought pluriverse knowledge and an increased understanding of mutuality and interconnectedness into play. In workshop three, focus continued to be making different experiences and values of the target group explicit, inviting them to engage as co-designers together with the students in an interative explorative process. Student group two interviewed one representative from the target group in two rounds. The interview was held in plenum where each student could ask two questions: one focusing on extracting knowledge from the stakeholder on their perspectives and life experiences and a second on universal values. Then students were asked to suggest relevant solutions based on specific values of inclusion and accessability. The second round of questions also created space for the stakeholders to present their own ideas for a design solution. This was done to make the distribution of designer authority explicit and for students to experience how power relations can shift. The second group of students demonstrated a higher degree of sense of embodied ethics relating to concepts of participation than group one. They would refer to feelings of marginalization in their own lives and express understanding of the target group with visible and invisible disabilities. For both groups there was a clear shift in expressions of empathy towards the target group. The knowledge created was not just theoretical knowledge. It was also emotional embodied knowledge which was used in their development of design solutions.

3.11 Ethical (Embodied) Concerns and Solution Ideation (Ideate) The purpose of the ideation phase in the social design process was to let the students create ideas, but at the same time maintain an academic reflection of how these ideas radiated particular values of inclusion and social sustainability from a pluriverse perspective. Both groups used ideation techniques where the possible solutions are seen from (in this case) 6 different angles. For example, the students were asked to think of invisible solutions where cognitive challenges are not visible to other guests

44

K. Dupret

at the music festival, leaving the users of the social design to choose for him/herself whether to share the disability with others, or visible solutions making others more aware and subsequently able to help out but also potentially take distance from the person in need etc. The students drew upon the analyses of the interviews, field visits and the stakeholders and were invited to encounter their own embodied experiences with inclusion and exclusion processes to increase their reflections of how ethical concerns could be made explicit in the social design solutions they developed.

3.12 Mutual Learning and Change (Presentation) Designing for social sustainability can be a tedious process. It takes time, trust and readiness for cultural changes. Using social design in teaching of social entrepreneurs is one way to explore change processes respectful of pluriverse of knowledge, through the inclusion and empowerment of stakeholders as co-designers. In phase 4 the students to prepared presentations of solutions or initiatives with the aim to strengthen inclusion and accessability at the festival. The ideas presented here were dramatically different from first proposals in phase 1. Students explicitly expressed how the work and interactions with stakeholders had changed not only their own perspectives in relation to the design task and process, but also on a more human existential level. Despite their professional backgrounds in social work, social administration etc. most of them reported that they had been affected by pluriverse challenges and the process, and that it was an important take away for their working lives. They also felt inspired to continue designing interventions with ethics and values as a guiding tool, as they concluded that focussing on values and shifts in the designer’s role in ethical design processes could create more alignment with stakeholders and end-users. The stakeholders themselves were invited to reflect with the students and teachers on the developed social design outputs. Their positive and nuanced feedback suggested that social sustainability of solutions increases with the applied process.

3.13 Discussion This chapter draws on social design principles that help to understand the changing role of the social entrepreneur changes when they engage with multiple sources of knowledge (pluriverse), making stakeholders co-designers (effect of interrelatedness). Designing for social sustainability necessitates an (embodied) learning process that is central to reaching the design aim, which can be further disseminated by stakeholders who have participated in the design process. What contributed to embodied learning in the teaching cases was a combination of theoretical concepts, active reflection and emotional engagement with own practice and different perspectives and experiences of stakeholders. Through these principles, social

3  The Role of the Social Entrepreneur When Designing for Social Sustainability

45

entrepreneurship students practice designing processes for greater social sustainability. Approaching designing for sustainability in this way suggests that participation is empowering in so far as it allows embodied learning as well as the materialization of the product or concept. This means that the design potentials of social change are emotionally and ethically embodied and internalized not only in the product but also and maybe more importantly in the self-awareness of the design participants.

3.14 Conclusion Different stakeholders involved in designing for sustainability provide important knowledge. How can social entrepreneurs as designers draw on this plurality that is not only goal-oriented but promotes life quality through embodied engagement and ethics as key elements of sustainability? The designer is a facilitator of knowledge sharing and creativity stimulation but also a project manager who secures the output of the process, but shifting from one role of non-authority to authority creates participatory ethical dilemmas. In design studies there is a long history of discussion of the role and responsibility of the designer, but only recently has design accepted responsibility for its direct impact on the world, including social structures (Escobar, 2017, Maze 2019  in Escobar-Tello et al., 2021). Designers can support communities in innovative ways to improve their lives and environment (Escobar-Tello et al., 2021: 3). Thus designing with focus on quality of interactions alongside more inclusive, meaningful, and transdisciplinary ways adds greater social value and frames design within holistic sustainability considerations (Irwin, 2015). As a consequence, the role of the designer is not discrete and stable throughout the design process (Taffe, 2015), but is affected by both relations and design process, during which stakeholders shift responsibilities and roles of who is knowledgable and has direct embodied experience. This challenges conventional ideas of power in design processes, but potentially also increases dispersed ownership and engagement with the developed solutions. Embracing diversity of knowledges with fluid designer roles can be done by first creating spaces of mutuality”in which diverse participants can explore and rehearse potential futures together and develop directions”(Smith & Iversen, 2018: 10), then by co-developing practices and conceptions of the desired change, producing outputs that can be scaled at community level. Also, to consider lived multiplicities leaves us with the ambition of envisioning plural forms of being and becoming in the design process, underlining the importance of pluriverse in sustainability (Escobar-Tello et al., 2021). Bringing up ethical aspects throughout the design process brings out vulnerability as a resource and inclusive participation as a prerequisite of social sustainable change (Dupret et al., 2016; Dupret & Chimirri, 2018). This requires personal willingness for mutual learning rather than merely engaging in dialogue between stakeholders.

46

K. Dupret

In relation to learning and competence development in social entrepreneurship programmes, embodied learning, awareness of ethics and pluriverse of knowledges are important dimensions when designing for social sustainability. This is in concurrence with central aspects of an empowerment and democratic approach to social innovation, as it adds central principles of inclusion and collective participation and perspectives of knowledges to qualify processes of social innovation in a sustainability direction. Design principles are valuable and new in a social entrepreneurship approach. They can help to qualify and translate theoretical concepts and collaboration with external stakeholders through iterative processes and materialize into concepts and prototypes infused by different knowledge perspectives, allowing participants to understand and engage with the problem addressed. Creating a mutual embodied learning space and an inviting students to sense interconnectedness prepares for effective interaction in real life settings with knowledge holders and for a potential increase in sustainable changes. Working with design methods in education also adds tactile aspects to the representation of knowledges and ideas. The materialization of design prototypes translates academic knowledge into spaces of negotiation with partners, where the suggested prototypes can be challenged and qualified by participants for the purpose of enhancing life quality for all, rather than merely being a space of critical or analytical thinking. Using social design in teaching challenges student perspectives of “who is the designer” and subsequently their understanding of themselves as social entrepreneurs leading in and facilitating social sustainability. The designer is a facilitator of knowledge sharing and creativity stimulation but also a project manager who secures an output of the process. However, these shifting roles from non-­ authority to authority create participatory dilemmas that need to be addressed. What are the potentials of using a social design approach with a specific focus on embodied ethics and mutual learning in creating social sustainability? All dimensions of sustainability are embedded in social relations. Encountering peoples’ different perspectives on the change needed is therefore of central importance. People carry values with them into policy and system change negotiations. Embodied ethics are thus not only a matter of vulnerability and interconnectedness on a micro-­ political level, but also on a system level. Teaching social entrepreneurs about design for social sustainability through an embodied ethics and mutual learning approach therefore seems a valid tool for structural and system changes. Acknowledgements  The social design process that this chapter is drawing upon has been developed with good colleagues Jennifer Eschweiler and Christina Dahl Jensen. They have also given inspiratory and valuable input to earlier drafts of this chapter.

3  The Role of the Social Entrepreneur When Designing for Social Sustainability

47

References Agyeman, J. and Evans, B. (2004). Just sustainability: the emerging discourse of environmental justice in Britain?. Geographical Journal, 170, 155–164. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.0016-­7398.2004.00117.x Boström, M. (2012). A missing pillar? Challenges in theorizing and practicing social sustainability: introduction to the special issue. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 8(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2012.11908080 Butler, J. (2015). Notes toward a performative theory of assembly. Harvard University Press. Butler, J., & Athanasiou, A. (2013). Dispossession. Polity. Carpentier, N. (2011). The concept of participation: If they have access and interact, do they really participate? Communication Management Quarterly, 21, 13–36. Chan, J. K. H. (2018). Design ethics: Reflecting on the ethical dimensions of technology, sustainability, and responsibility in the Anthropocene. Design Studies, 54, 184–200. Chen, D. S., Cheng, L. L., Hummels, C. C. M., & Koskinen, I. (2016). Social design: An introduction. International Journal of Design, 10(1), 1–5. Cipolla, C. (2018). Designing for vulnerability: Interpersonal relations and design. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 4(1), 111–122. Cooper, R. (2019). Design research – Its 50-year transformation. Design Studies, 65, 6–17. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.10.002 Dindler, C., Krogh, P. G., Tikaer, K., Norregard, P. (2022). Engagements and Articulations of Ethics in Design Practice. International Journal of Design, 16(2), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.57698/ v16i2.04 Dupret, K., & Chimirri, N. (2018). Teaching ethical-participatory social design. Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift, 13(24), 20–36. Dupret, K., & Langergaard, L. L. (2020). Social bæredygtighed: Indledning. In L. L. Langergaard, & K.  Dupret (red.), Social Bæredygtighed: Begreb, Felt og Kritik (s. 11–27). Frydenlund Academic. Menneskelig udvikling, deltagelse og social forandring. Dupret, K., Lildal-Granås, T., & Pries-Heje, L. (2016). Etik på spil. In P. Hagedorn-Rasmussen, J.  Pries-Heje, K.  Bødker, S.  Elsborg, & J.  Scheuer (Eds.), Robust organisationsforandring: Design og implementering i orkanens øje (pp. 203–218). Samfundslitteratur. Escobar, A. (2017). Response: Design for/by [and from] the ‘global south. Design Philosophy Papers, 15(1), 39–49. Escobar-Tello, M.  C., Ruette-Orihuela, K., Gough, K.  V., Fayad-Sierra, J.  A., & Velez-Torres, I. (2021). Decolonising design in peacebuilding contexts. Design Studies, 73. Fischer, B., Östlund, B., & Peine, A. (2021). Design multiple: How different configurations of participation matter in design practice. Design Studies, 74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. destud.2021.101016 Friedman, B., & Hendry, D. (2019). Value sensitive design – Shaping technology with moral imagination. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7585.001.0001 Hvid, H. (2010). Susrainable rhythms: When society meets nature. In K. A. Nietsen, B. Elling, M. Figuerao, & E. Jelsøe (red.). A new agenda for sustainability (pp. 15–30). Ashgate. Irwin, T. (2015). Transition design: A proposal for a new area of design practice, study, and research. Design and Culture, 7, 229–246. Jamieson, D. (1992). Ethics, public policy, and global warming. Science, Technology, Human Values, 17, 139–153. Lehtonen, M. (2004). The environmental–social interface of sustainable development: capabilities, social capital, institutions. Ecological Economics, 49(2), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2004.03.019 Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968). The visible and the invisible (Lingis, A.  Trans.). Northwestern University Press.

48

K. Dupret

Mouleart, F., Mehmood, A., Hamdouch, A., & MacCallum, D. (Eds.). (2013). The international handbook of social innovation  – Collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research. Edward Elgar. Ranabahu, N. (2020). “Wicked” solutions for “wicked” problems: Responsible innovations in social enterprises for sustainable development. Journal of Management & Organization, 26(6), 995–1013. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.20 Sanoff, H. (2022). Participatory Design. DEPARCH Journal of Design Planning and Aesthetics Research, 1(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.55755/DepArch.2022.8 Smith, R. C., & Iversen, O. S. (2018). Participatory design for sustainable social change. Design Studies, 59, 9–36. Stückelberger, C. (2014). Innovation ethics for value-based innovation. In J. C. B. Morais de, & C. Stückelberger, (Eds.), Innovation Ethics, Globethics. net. Cph 6, (pp. 63-80) Taffe, S. (2015). The hybrid designer/end-user: Revealing paradoxes in co-design. Design Studies, 40, 39–59. Toboso, M. (2011). Rethinking disability in Amartya Sen’s approach: ICT and equality of opportunity. Ethics and Information Technology, 13, 107–118. Tyler, M. (2019). Reassembling difference? Rethinking inclusion through/as embodied ethics. Human Relations, 72(1), 48–68. van den Hoven, J. et  al., (eds). (2015). Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design Sources, Theory, Values and Application Domains. 1st ed., Springer Netherlands, https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­94-­007-­6970-­0 Vavik, T., & Keitsch, M. M. (2010). Exploring relationships between universal design and social sustainable development: Some methodological aspects to the debate on the sciences of sustainability. Sustainable Development, 18, 295–305. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.480

Chapter 4

Participation in Social Innovation Processes: A Case Study of Roskilde University Impact Hub Katia Dupret, Mikkel Munksgaard, and Anne Vorre Hansen Abstract  This study seeks to investigate the role and character of democratic participation in social innovation (SI) processes. The study builds empirically on a collaborative design process of an Impact hub conducted between a social enterprise, Roskilde University researchers and students during 2019. It draws on concepts of participation (Carpentier, 2011, Javnost, 2016) from a political critical perspective and social innovation (SI) (Moulaert and MacCallum, 2019) from a democratic empowering perspective. The study finds a significant degree of variety in the intensity and characteristics of participation in the investigated SI process, most likely influencing the project’s potential to facilitate social innovation. One critical barrier concerned the enactment of different more or less visible and active ways of participation leading to ambiguity in project development. Keywords  Social innovation · Social entrepreneurs · Social design · Participation · Democratic decision-making

4.1 Introduction The notion of social innovation (SI) has become of increasing interest to scholars and practitioners as an approach to address complex contemporary societal problems. An essential feature of SI processes lies in the aspects of collaboration and co-creation among stakeholders (Kobro et al., 2018) as well as the guiding principles of strong social missions (Zeyen & Beckmann, 2019). Investigating aspects of participation in SI processes therefore concerns an important research agenda, as K. Dupret (*) Department of People and Technology, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] M. Munksgaard Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark A. V. Hansen Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. L. Langergaard et al. (eds.), Learning about Social Entrepreneurship and Management in Times of Social Transformation, Ethical Economy 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47708-9_4

49

50

K. Dupret et al.

insights might highlight how and why SI processes essentially work – and how they might lead to better outcomes. This chapter seeks to investigate the configuration and role of democratic participation in social innovation processes. It rests on a case study that follows the creation of a cross-sectoral impact hub for social entrepreneurship. The researchers have both investigated and participated in the innovation project, leveraging unique process insights. The study has been guided by the following research question: How does democratic participation influence social innovation processes? The structure of the chapter is as follows: First, the methodology is presented with a description of the investigated case. Second, the concepts of democratic participation and social innovation are discussed, and an analytical framework is presented. Thereafter, the findings of the study are presented, followed by a discussion of the practical and theoretical implications of the research.

4.2 Methodology The research design rests on a single case study (Yin, 2014) of an innovation project regarding the development of an impact hub for social entrepreneurship at Roskilde University, Denmark. The purpose of the case study was to build understandings of how to engage in the processes of participation in social innovation processes, thus also adding to theorizing further on participation within the field of social innovation. The project was based on the logic of social design thinking (Docherty, 2017; Dupret & Chimirri, 2018). Researchers engaged both as analysts and facilitators in the research process. Also, there was a specific focus on embedding local stakeholders in the process to construct situated knowledge and support the design of change processes.

4.2.1 Case Description The purpose of the innovation project was to develop a platform for social entrepreneurship, in collaboration with educational institutions, public organizations, civil society, and private firms. It was founded on the basis that many social innovation projects lack radical organisational involvement and governance, and that there is a substantial need to develop theoretical and methodological frameworks making such approaches more accessible (Dupret & Eschweiler, 2022). Thus, the hub was meant to be a space where researchers, students, business partners, public and civil society stakeholders could collaborate to develop solutions and concepts in work life and projects with social impact or innovation as a goal. The project was initiated and initially formulated by the director of a social enterprise consultancy and the head researcher from Roskilde University. It was funded by the municipality of Roskilde and EU project funds for promotion of trade and was carried out during 2019. The subsequent consortium consisted of two researchers from the local

4  Participation in Social Innovation Processes: A Case Study of Roskilde University…

51

university, two owner-managers from a minor design firm and three consultants and owners from a social enterprise consultancy, the triple helix network in the region (Corolab) that were the administrative responsible unit for the project followed the initiation and processual development of the project as well as the advisory board consisting of managers from public and private organisations with interest in sustainability and social innovation partnerships.1 Initially the founders of the project had brainstormed on the idea of how to establish more opportunities for university students to engage around socially innovative projects with external stakeholders. Simply put, the two founders aimed at the creation of more collaboration where science, students’ problem-based learning approach, and social entrepreneurship actors could join forces. Also, the ambition to create a platform focusing on explicit socially innovative projects, from an empowering and participatory perspective was closely related to the strong research environment and expertise in social innovation at the university.

4.2.2 Data Collection The investigated project consisted of three phases: (1) an explorative phase, (2) a development phase and an (3) implementation phase. Interviews, documents, and workshops constituted the empirical data. The research process was driven by an iterative approach to data analysis and social design in which researchers have interacted dynamically between empirical insights, collective reflections, and mutual learning where the output was to become a concrete co-created design concept (Dupret & Chimirri, 2018). Below is an overview of the data collected and analysed in each phase (Table 4.1). 4.2.2.1 Exploration Phase Insights from the explorative phase were based on interviews, workshops, and document analysis. The purpose was to explore existing knowledge to construct a qualified outset for further development. The phase also served to involve actors of relevance to the final concept of an impact hub. Data collected in the explorative phase have been subject to a thematic analysis (Silverman, 2011). Initially, the project group shared perspectives to facilitate the development of the conceptualizations. Especially the involvement of concepts related to participation and social design was initiated. Following this, the group

 Triple-helix collaborations refers to partnerships between universities, industry and government (public sector) with the aim of fostering economic and social development. The framework was first theorized by Henry Etzkowitz and Loet Leydesdorff in the 1995 in “The Triple Helix, University-Industry-Government Relations: A laboratory for Knowledge-Based Economic Development”. 1

52

K. Dupret et al.

Table 4.1  Overview of data collection and analysis in the research process 1. Exploration phase 12 in-depth interviews with representatives from social enterprises and public actors. 6 in-depth interviews with representatives from existing Hubs and environments for social entrepreneurs. 9 in-depth interviews with researchers and students. 2 group interviews with business networks in Zealand. 3 workshops with researchers from different research environments. A business development workshop with representatives from 15 social enterprises. Document studies of reports on Impact Hubs across sectors in Denmark.

2. Development phase 1 workshop with 35 international students from Master in Social Entrepreneurship. 1 workshop with seven researchers from the Centre of Social Entrepreneurship.

3. Implementation Development and presentation of two future scenarios for impact entrepreneurship at Roskilde University.

A two-day Hackathon with 12 participants consisting of researchers, alumni, students, and external actors.

Introduction to debate among key stakeholders, herein advisory board, researchers, and the rectorate.

On-going and follow-up work in established working groups based on the Hackathon.

Presentations at various business cluster meetings in the region.

identified interrelations between themes and discussed critical elements of the desired conceptual framework. 4.2.2.2 Development Phase The design and formation of the development phase built on analytical insights from the explorative phase. The phase centralized on building a generic concept in collaboration with involved stakeholders. Thus, a development workshop with international students, a workshop with key researchers in the field of social entrepreneurship, and a two-day hackathon with diverse actors were held. The events were aimed at facilitating and utilizing collective insights to build a meaningful foundation for the innovation hub. The researcher workshop especially provided input into the purpose and the institutional obstacles and concerns of the impact hub development. For example, questioning the possibility of measuring ‘social value’ within the framework of university merits. The Hackathon built on open innovation principles (Beck et  al., 2022) and participants worked closely to develop early prototypes and concepts regarding the subject.

4  Participation in Social Innovation Processes: A Case Study of Roskilde University…

53

4.2.2.3 Implementation Phase Several working groups were established to continue the work and implementation of the initial concepts developed during the 2 days. Developed prototype concepts were presented and discussed between the top management at the university, the potential business partners, researchers, and students. The nature of involvement and participation of the various stakeholders changed the foci and the concepts, which were carried on after the project period ended.

4.3 Conceptual Framework: Participation in Social Innovation Processes The conceptual framework in this study rests on a participatory approach to social innovation processes that engages in dimensions of power in decision-making processes as well as social change (Carpentier, 2016).

4.3.1 Social Innovation Central to the SI-concept is that it often revolves around addressing unsolved or inadequately met social problems in society, which governments and markets have been unable to manage (Mulgan, 2006; Altuna et al., 2015). Authors such as Nicholls and Murdock (2012) argue that this impact may concern varying levels in society. Following this notion, Barinaga (2012) proposes three degrees of social change; system maintenance, system expansion, and system transformation. Thus, the concept of SI deliberately orients towards achieving positive social change, which is in strong opposition to traditional concepts of innovation centralising on value-­creation for traditional market stakeholders  – and which essentially sees broader social value-creation as a by-product of such processes (Chesbrough, 2017). This added social dimension of the SI concept makes it essentially more diverse than traditional Schumpeterian notions of innovation (Nicholls & Murdock, 2012). Consequently, the SI-concept remains significantly ambiguous and contested today (Chueri & Araujo, 2018). The contested characteristics of the SI concept are visible in the literature, which often articulates different fashions: a strong or weak tradition (Ayob et al., 2016), as a technocratic school or democratic school (Montgomery, 2016), or as a ‘practical’ stream and ‘critical’ stream, respectively (Moulaert & MacCullum, 2019). The main distinction of the different approaches to social innovation is linked to the way social innovation is positioned in the present political-economic order. Where the practical stream is situated in mainstream entrepreneurship and business theories resting on a market ideology of ‘what works’, the critical stream is rooted in a social

54

K. Dupret et al.

movement tradition focusing on emancipation and solidarity - and how social innovation might spur counter hegemonic development and reconfiguring democratic governance (Moulaert & MacCullum, 2019). Still, the two streams are not to be seen as binary oppositions, but rather as a spectrum of nuanced discussions of what the contribution of social innovation might be. Across research streams there is a shared understanding of social innovation as addressing social problems. As initially stated, this chapter follows the democratic tradition in defining SI, focusing not solely on outcome, but also on the innovation processes itself. Focusing on the processes in SI it becomes central to scrutinize participation. Participation research is often divided into a sociological and political (studies) approach (Carpentier, 2016). The sociological approach defines participation as ways to take part in particular social processes. A very broad definition of participation including many (if not all) types of human interaction, in combination with interactions with texts and technologies. Power is not excluded from this approach but remains one of the many secondary concepts to support it (Carpentier, 2016). Simply put, the sociological approach defines participation as ‘taking part’ while the political approach defines participation as ‘equalising power relations’ (Carpentier, 2016). For stakeholders and beneficiaries to get access to power and resources in social innovation processes it is needed to consider what participation from a democratic perspective is. Hence in line with the SI affiliation this chapter is positioned within the political approach. With inspiration from Avelino (2021) that particularly address power in relation to SI, we are diving into the micro-processes of participation in relation to social change. Power conceptualizations are contested extensively (ibid). But relevant to democratic participation in relation to SI the following academic contestations are of relevance; power ‘to’ vs power ‘over’ and centred vs. diffused power. How participation can be accommodated and not least how influence and struggle for reaching some form of consensus of what to change across manifold perspectives from a diffused bottom-up approach can be conceptualised (Dupret & Chimirri, 2018). Democratic participation is the involvement in processes where one is gaining influence to do something rather than gaining the power to exercise power over others (Avelino, 2021).

4.3.2 Maximalist and Minimalist Participation Democratic participation has many layers. Simply put, participation can be understood as access to information and as interaction in a minimalist sense, and as reconfiguring the framing and content of both process and output in a maximalist sense (Carpentier, 2011). Minimalist participation means that stakeholders have access to and can interact with finished developed technological devices, media content or people and organisations producing both outputs and content. It is minimalist participation since it is mostly representatives of citizens and stakeholders who act on behalf of others in the process of developing products and content. In this version of participation, the everyday implicated citizen of the social innovation is not actively

4  Participation in Social Innovation Processes: A Case Study of Roskilde University…

55

involved in decision-making processes around the becoming of the change. A minimalist practice of participation “neglects the possibility that stakeholders as ‘participants’ could be more actively involved in not only engaging in, but also in co-framing political decision-making processes and thereby actively taking part in democratic responsibility.” (Dupret & Chimirri, 2018: 23) At the other end of the participation spectrum, we find maximalist participation. Democratic participation presupposes that what is to be decided upon is in principle negotiable through the participation of its stakeholders. However, “[t]he balance between people’s inclusion in the implicit and explicit decision-making processes within these fields, and their exclusion through the delegation of power (again, implicit or explicit), is central to discussions on participation in all fields.” (Carpentier, 2011: 170). With a maximalist definition of participation this is exactly what is at the core. Maximalist participation implies renegotiation of agency, as power in this perspective is still a key element in defining participation. This means that stakeholders are co-deciding on all phases of the design process at both a micro level e.g., content and people’s personal possibility of engagement, and at a macro level, e.g., institutional policy.

4.3.3 Social Design Within Social design research it is essentially argued that user participation should both be supported from a morale perspective as well as from a pragmatic perspective, in the sense that is increases the likelihood of intended outcomes (Simonsen & Robertson, 2013). In this take of social design, a special focus is drawn to the values that are attached to the participation of the stakeholders. To make salient how agency is affected and negotiated in relation to value-based questions, we draw upon the feminist notion of situated ethics (Piper & Simons, 2011), which implies that all stakeholders (including designers/project owners) engage in iterative renegotiations questioning how the process may affect participation and value-based concerns along the way. So, in this respect a value-based approach is dimensions of responsibility measures of inclusion and related to especially related to stakeholders’ access to resources and influence in the social innovation process. When we design social innovation, value-based questions about what employees, citizens, managers, customers, consumers can, must and should not do, and about what is good and bad become important to include in the process (Dupret et al., 2016). Key questions are: what values are inherent in the kind of change we aim for? What kind of values (and interests) do stakeholders bring forward? These are questions that are also important to address to enhance maximalist participation in social innovation processes and outputs  – especially bearing in mind that social innovation aims at transforming social relations. Our theoretical positioning within the democratic critical stream implies a distinct focus on democratic decision-making and value-based concerns. Moreover,

56

K. Dupret et al.

throughout the development of the social impact hub concept the creation of reflective spaces in various experimental formats was applied. Not only different opinions about values were negotiated, but the diversity in abilities and resources was considered (Toboso, 2011).

4.4 Findings: Social Innovation Processes and the Role of Democratic Participation in Roskilde University Impact Hub The investigated project consisted of three phases: (1) an explorative phase, (2) a development phase and (3) an implementation phase. The analysis explores how participation is played out at different levels and with different stakeholders in the different phases. An overview of the development of the project and how it relates to participation at different levels is seen in the model below (Table 4.2).

4.4.1 Exploration The exploration phase of the project contained three activities: the project initiation, research and gathering of existing knowledge and an internal workshop among project partners. As described initially, the partnership and governance of the development of the project was from the outset based on the ideal of joint ownership and herein delegated power relative to both process and outcome. Also, it was perceived of importance to ensure a team of diverse competences i.e., experiences with participatory methodologies, stakeholder management, conventional and social entrepreneurship background, social scientists, design processes, to ensure different inputs and increase the potentiality of challenging predefined ideas. To ensure a qualified outset for the innovation process three analyses were conducted to gather information concerning central areas of the project. The following analyses were conducted: (1) a mapping of existing impact hubs and entrepreneurial environments in Denmark, (2) an analysis of organizational needs for social enterprises and local authorities engaged in the field and (3) an internal analysis of existing practices regarding social entrepreneurship among research and students at RUC. The purpose of mapping existing impact hubs and entrepreneurial environments in Denmark was to activate learnings from other similar projects and to facilitate a more nuanced development process. There was a specific focus on gathering insights on how organizations had dealt with social innovation processes through different participative and democratic approaches. The analysis of existing impact hubs was based on interviews with six different impact hubs in Copenhagen: KU SUND, Room of Idea, Greencubator, DTU Skylab, Student & Innovation House and Foreningen Maker. The interviews were supported with documents from the impact

4  Participation in Social Innovation Processes: A Case Study of Roskilde University…

57

Table 4.2  Overview of project process and analytical findings Exploration Project initiation Negotiations about premises of collaboration. Focus on funding, problem definition and collective interests.

Data collection Qualitative and quantitative data collection about project needs. Previous experience with relevant stakeholders also utilized.

Development Internal validation Idea generation and process-­ description.

External validation Roadmapping of process in collaboration with relevant stakeholders. Facilitative approach was used to involve participants.

Conceptual development Adjustment of conceptual prototype. External stakeholders are invited to redefine and add ideas. Working groups with external participants are established Project Project Project owners: owners: owner: Maximalist Low degree of Maximalist participation maximalist participation participation External External External stakeholders: stakeholders: stakeholders: Maximalist Maximalist Maximalist participation participation participation

Project owners: Maximalist participation

Project owners: Maximalist participation

External stakeholders: Not involved

External stakeholders: Some degree of participation Host Host Host organisation: organisation: organisation: Minimal Not involved Not involved participation

Host organisation: Minimal participation

Host organization: Some degree of participation

Implementation Implementation of prototypes Final concept description and ideas of dissemination presented to the host organisation. Proof of concept strategy of dissemination.

Project owner: Distributed maximalist participation External stakeholders: Some degree of involvement Host organisation: Minimalist participation

hubs regarding their strategies and key activities. The analysis revealed a range of strategies for governing impact hubs through participate approaches. It also showed that there was a general lack of hubs where a diverse set of actors (private, public, students and researchers) work collaboratively to develop new concepts and products. The analysis of social enterprises and public actors in the region was based on conversations with central stakeholders in the region and with municipality representatives. It showed structural challenges related to a lack of support infrastructures, resulting in hard conditions for social enterprises to become economically viable. Moreover, the collaborative efforts between the municipality and the social enterprises were experienced as limited by knowledge shortage and reciprocal stereotypical views among social enterprises and public staff. Nevertheless, the analysis also revealed beneficial possibilities of increased collaboration between private companies and social enterprises. Currently, relatively few private companies use

58

K. Dupret et al.

social enterprises as sub-contractors. Due to the increased focus on SDGs and sustainability in general collaboration around impact hubs involving partnerships with students bears a potential. The analysis of the approach to social entrepreneurship in the host university revealed great conceptual variation and that it is a relatively new theme both in teaching and research. Only few respondents expressed an in-depth understanding of what social entrepreneurship is, although the term seemed to have positive connotations to most. Even so, it became clear that numerous researchers at the university work with an explicit purpose to create sustainable societal change and impact, but this is referred to in different ways and without a joint collaborative platform. Also, the shared understanding and experience was that students at the university possess relevant competencies in relation to social entrepreneurship: experience with project management and collective work processes, the ability to handle criticism, an informed critical sense, curiosity, and creativity. One could argue that the potential for maximalist participation was present, but not realized. Thus, while both researchers and students where actively engaged in subjects related to both entrepreneurship and social entrepreneurship, there was no systematic platform for organizing and coordinating such efforts. Also, conventional entrepreneurship is more explicitly institutionalised. A key analytical insight is that the institutional infrastructure is on the one hand oriented towards conventional entrepreneurship that does not explicitly facilitate empowerment processes and maximalist democratic partnerships. On the other hand, the analysis revealed that a lot of researchers conduct impact-oriented activities both in their teaching and research. This sparked the notion that there was a potential in such existing activities which could be further sparked through a bottom-up approach. The different insights from the analyses were presented internally and shared with relevant research groups, also to both qualify conceptual definitions and get input to the development process and content of the project. The interaction with researchers especially helped clarifying concepts but also gave insights into reluctances and organisational obstacles in the ambitions of founding an Impact hub where staff would feel included. In that way the democratic participation was explicit with these particular actors already at the explorative phase of the project as they influenced the development of it with their input and concerns. The owners of the project experienced a high degree of participation in the exploration phase which was seen through shared definitions of goals, methodology and outputs, and an ambition to develop a shared ownership of the concept. The host organisation was initially invited into the process and showed support of the idea. In addition, it recommended the external funding of the project with the acceptance of being the host organisation. Its juridical department provided consultancy for the establishment of the partnership between the host organisation and the external social enterprise. However, the host organisation was not involved in the definition, nor the scope or the concrete activities of the project. Thus, this represented a much lower degree of participation. External stakeholders (e.g., social enterprises in the region and other impact hubs in Denmark) where involved in the exploratory phase through knowledge sharing,

4  Participation in Social Innovation Processes: A Case Study of Roskilde University…

59

and to some degree an exchange of views and adjustments of concepts and existing understanding of the topic discussed. The interviews created an occasion to present the project, and the respondents were consulted as they possessed vital information and experience relative to understanding the current positions and perceptions of social entrepreneurship. From a social innovation perspective, giving respondents a voice early in the exploratory phase increased their opportunity to influence and participate in the creation of the prototypes of the concept. Even though they did not necessarily participate in the subsequent design phases of the project. The exploratory phase had some substantial implications for the project’s direction since the project owners decided to take a more radical approach to democratic participation than initially chosen. To comply with the commitment that existed at the grassroot levels in the host organisation the participatory aspects of the design process was strengthened, to ensure that the subsequent development phase could depart from inputs from the exploratory analyses and input and detach itself more from pre-existing project ideas.

4.4.2 Development The development phase of the project consisted of activities that involved students, researchers, advisory board, and project owners. Activities centralized iteratively around idea-generation and concept development. Different types of negotiations took place, indicating that participation in some sense became an “object of struggle” and oscillated between minimalist and maximalist formats (Carpentier, 2016). A two-day hackathon for researchers, students, practitioners, and alumni inside and outside the university was held. A total number of 12 participants consisting of researchers, alumni, students, and some external actors (local entrepreneurs and NGO’s) participated. The task was to develop concepts, which addressed the following overall guiding question: How to create an environment for impact entrepreneurship and sustainable work lives at RUC? The hackathon built on insights from a workshop with 35 students from the master programme in Social Entrepreneurship and Management and a workshop with seven researchers from Roskilde University’s Centre for Social Entrepreneurship. Both workshops provided inputs concerning the overall framing and content of the hackathon. The latter workshop especially had the purpose to ensure strategic buy-in from managerial layers of the host organization. The first day of the Hackathon consisted of a four-hour facilitated innovation workshop at RUC. Initially, the background of the project was presented along with key findings from the exploration phase and previous workshops. Subsequently, participants were urged to brainstorm on ideas for the central question posed. These ideas where then collectively qualified in groups and presented in plenum. Following this, more time was given to finetune the solutions. At the end of the day three initial concepts were presented: (1) terminology building and cultural change, (2) the impact entrepreneurship platform and (3) Roskilde University as Denmark’s Impact

60

K. Dupret et al.

Hub. Participants interested in further developing these ideas were invited to participate in the second day at the hackathon. The purpose of the second day was to further qualify and enhance the ideas built initially. Participants included both project partners, students at RUC, and external stakeholders – all participated on equal terms. Ultimately, four project ideas were produced at the end of the day, building on the previous work and further developed in the implementation phase. Each project idea had a working group and a person responsible for coordinating efforts ahead. At least one representative from the innovation project was existent in each group to ensure a connection with the overall project. Following these activities, a meeting was organized with the advisory board of the project. The advisory board consisted of actors representing Roskilde Municipality, strategic funds, social enterprises, and non-profit organisations. The meeting was used to validate project ideas and consider implementational aspects. Following this meeting, it was decided to focus more on the case competition, while making the other three ideas a part of more internal processes at the host university. In this development phase, the dimension of democratic participation can be characterized within both maximalist minimalist terms. While maximalist degree of participation was practiced during the hackathon and in the established work groups. Even if the framing of the hackathon was set in its outset, the outputs were entirely co-creative. Aspects of informing and consulting with the advisory board had stronger characteristic of minimalist participation. The two workshops and the hackathon process consisted of a varied group of people and perspectives – which was explicitly articulated as a resource and as a fruitful outset for collective idea-development. In addition, the work groups had full autonomy in terms of developing the ideas, which also became essential for the following process. As such the participation in the development phase can from a democratic participation approach be regarded as an object of struggle, and that “different ideological projects (and their proponents) defend different participatory intensities” (Carpentier, 2016). As the design process was facilitated in a way that delegated decision-making power and influence it ensured a maximalist version of participation through an equilibrium between all participators (also protecting the less privileged). More minimalist versions of participation would tend to protect the power positions of privileged (elite) actors (e.g., the project owners or the host organisation), to the detriment of non-privileged (non-elite) actors (e.g., the students), without totally excluding the latter.

4.4.3 Implementation The implementation phase was divided into two tracks. While the working groups continued to develop their ideas, the project owners initiated another track concerned with transforming the design process itself into prototypes for social innovation. The four prototypes were:

4  Participation in Social Innovation Processes: A Case Study of Roskilde University…

61

1. Social Innovation Case Competition (key words: public sector/social enterprise challenge, a co-creation process relative to both problem identification and solution pitch). It is a concept for a case competition where university students can develop innovative solutions to societal issues, anchored in the public or the non-­profit sector. 2. Speed-Matching (key words: companies/organisations within the social entrepreneurship field and students are collaborating on bringing resources, interests, and competences together. The aim of the matchmaking was therefore dual: to support concrete collaboration and to raise awareness of each other’s competences within the field of social entrepreneurship. 3. The change maker’s guide to the Impact Galaxy (key words: creating a dictionary containing key concepts regarding impact entrepreneurship and social change). The dictionary targeted actors both in and around the project activities. 4. Future scenarios of Impact Entrepreneurship at Roskilde University. By the end of the project the prototypes had reached a tool form  – which were handed over to the project team as descriptive one-pagers. Additionally, the project ideas were imbedded into a business plan for turning them into tangible services. The overall strategy was presented as a future scenario to university management and external stakeholders. Scenarios are fictitious descriptions that can be used to imagine what a future service, product or process might look like. The scenarios were intended to (1) strengthen the university’s efforts for impact entrepreneurship, (2) establish a common language for impact entrepreneurship, and (3) create a foundation for future initiatives around the subject. Both scenarios were sent to the rectorate of the university and was part of the final reporting to the funding partners. In this implementation phase, the collaboration within the project team can mainly be characterised within maximalist terms. As the shared responsibility and ownership continued and was supplemented by joint decision-making power and ownership to the final conceptual framework. Legal guidance was utilized to coordinate ownership for project ideas among stakeholders. The fact that the social consultancy explored further sales opportunities without the rest of the project group, can be justified through the funding conditions, as it was requested for them to do so to promote local businesses in the region. At the same time the implementation of the concept within the host organisation faced some difficulties.

4.4.4 Project Outcomes The outputs of the project lead to very different types of impact which highlighted the general uncertainty and complexity of such innovation process. All the prototypes were adopted and further developed, in some form, afterwards. The dictionary for social entrepreneurs was used as a critical reflexive learning tool in the social entrepreneurship master programmes at the university. The match making concept inspired the development of an interactive element on the Social Enterprise website.

62

K. Dupret et al.

And the social innovation case competition was further developed through collaboration with an external partner called Venture Cup Denmark, which is the largest organizer of such educational activities in Denmark. However, the university continued collaborating with Venture Cup DK with a more general focus, without the working group. The social innovation perspective is thus not explicitly included. The quality of the prototypes was positively influenced by the engagement of student knowledge in the innovation process. But this process also facilitated an opportunity for them to engage and develop competences of analysis, involvement and democratic participation together with social enterprises and researchers. Hence, the participative approach adopted in the project potentially supported the development of practice-based insights among the students as well. After developing the prototypes, the normative ideal of a high degree of democratic participation, was difficult to sustain within the different participating organizations. As the project was formulated jointly, the ownership of the conceptual output was searched to be equally owned as well. That however, turned out to be juridically a difficult task. According to the social change matrix of Barinaga (2012) social innovation also requires institutional and not least legal support, which even with a conceptual outcome seem to be a prerequisite of long term or even systemic change.

4.5 Discussion Even though the objective of the established collaboration in the development of the Impact hub was quite well-defined and tangible –the notion of a ‘hub’ quickly turned out not to refer to a specific place, but rather to the creation of a needed and non-existing infrastructure of impact and social entrepreneurship, especially focusing on qualifying the collaborative and social impact related content of the concept. As the development of the concept took shape, it also became clear that the organizational set-up alongside the ideas of what constitute social entrepreneurship in its democratic and participatory tradition were immature among the implied stakeholders, which resulted in a lot of negotiations. This on the other hand strengthened the explicit qualifications of the bottom-up participatory and social design principles in the process. From the participatory and social design processes we have learned that changes do indeed also depend on microprocesses, where different stakeholders and their interests, competences and resources are made rather explicit in the creation process, but when in opposition to each other not necessarily solved. The power relations are potentially made explicit so that power to change or oppose it and the diffusion of power into network relations rather than a centralization of power can be attended (Avelino, 2021). When opposing aspects are influencing the co-creation process how does it affect the potential of systemic changes? Or can we think of systemic change as diffused, and network based? One answer could maybe be that involved stakeholders gain the competences to maintain a network-like conceptual structure of participation, where the prerequisite of collaboration is based on mutual

4  Participation in Social Innovation Processes: A Case Study of Roskilde University…

63

reflection and matters of care (de la Bellacasa, 2017), without having to institutionalise formats that are predefined in its outputs. This is also adding to the stream in social innovation research that argues for increased empowerment and reflexivity among stakeholders. By inviting in competence building and participatory learning processes, both project owners and participants remain open to adjust and experiment with collaborative approaches and ways of understanding impact and sustainability in the governance and conceptual framework. That is potentially challenging both existing power structures and not least to transform social relations. Even though the Impact Hub did not provide a specific space, it facilitated a democratic participation process and was an initial development of a concept underscoring the process to change power structures.

4.6 Learning Takeaways • Microprocesses of democratic participation are important to investigate to be able to account for different power relations in social innovation processes. Competences that students of social entrepreneurship develop through participating in the social impact hub activities. • When applying social innovation in its democratic and empowering positioning social entrepreneurs get aware that participation can be symbolic and not necessarily wanted. • Initiators of social innovation processes get organizational analytical competences in that they can scrutinize how the symbolic participation can have both empty and functional purposes. And subsequently address (with management or other stakeholders), that this often blurs or disconnects with the main intentions of impact of the social innovation processes. • An understanding for all implied that innovation processes do not take place in ‘empty’ or neutral organisations, but rather in a place where a lot of power struggles that are not necessarily transparent are taking place; internal political discussions, strategic goals, competing projects. Even with ongoing participation and apparent support. • Social innovation processes require tedious competences, i.e., a lot of negotiation skills and openness if to ensure maximalist participation and sustainable social change.

4.7 Conclusion This chapter aimed to understand how democratic participation influence SI processes through an empirically founded theoretical discussion. First, the study found that the involved stakeholders, as well as the level and timing of their participation, strongly influenced the nature of the SI process. A slightly different composition of

64

K. Dupret et al.

these elements (for example a stronger inclusion of managerial layers early) could potentially have produced significantly different outcomes. The study also indicates that the nature of participation becomes somewhat ambiguous and changeable when it is embedded in SI processes. The unpredictability of SI processes can influence the relationship between stakeholders as they might be prone to adopt new agendas and behaviours along the way. Last, the findings also resonates with traditional innovation literature concerning the critical role of recipient-readiness as a critical determinant for diffusion. Thus, notions of trust and collaboration becomes essential when assessing the potential of SI processes to diffuse further. The analysis also confirms literature pointing to the importance of establishing ownership of ideas from the earliest stages of innovation processes – as a lack of organizational embeddedness may lead to internal resistance. As displayed the theory base drawn upon to different degrees permeates the methods and insights created and developed throughout the ‘Impact Hub’ project. This leads us to finetuning the conceptualization of social innovation in practice, focusing on maximalizing participation and empowerment. We argue that such a finetuning can act as reference model for doing social innovation. The utilization of the developed conceptual framework thus provides an opportunity to reflect upon how participation shapes SI processes. Acknowledgement The Impact Hub project has been developed in collaboration with Konsulenthuset for Socialøkonomi Trine Velling and Marco d’Arena, and the social designers Maks Bragt and Patricia Galmez with whom we have conducted the analyses and developed the concepts an facilitated the workshops with the stakeholders.

References Altuna, N., Contri, A. M., Dell Era, C., Frattini, F., & Maccarrone, P. (2015). Managing social innovation in for-profit organizations: The case of Intesa Sanpaolo. European Journal of Innovation Management, 18(2), 258–280. 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), 425–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/2158379X.2021.1875307 Ayob, N., Teasdale, S., & Fagan, K. (2016). How social innovation ‘came to be’: Tracing the evolution of a contested concept. Journal of Social Policy, 45(4), 635–653. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S004727941600009X Barinaga, E. (2012). Overcoming inertia: The social question in social entrepreneurship. In D. Horth (Ed.), Handbook on organisational entrepreneurship (pp. 242–256). Edward Elgar Publishing, chapter 14. Beck, S., et al. (2022). The open innovation in science research field: A collaborative conceptualisation approach. Industry and Innovation, 29(2), 136–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/1366271 6.2020.1792274 Carpentier, N. (2011). The concept of participation: If they have access and interact, do they really participate? Communication Management Quarterly, 21, 13–36.

4  Participation in Social Innovation Processes: A Case Study of Roskilde University…

65

Carpentier, N. (2016). Beyond the ladder of participation: An analytical toolkit for the critical analysis of participatory media processes. Javnost – The Public, 23(1), 70–88. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13183222.2016.1149760 Chesbrough, H. (2017). The future of open innovation. Research-Technology Management, 60(1), 35–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2017.1255054 Chueri, L., & Araujo, R. (2018). How social innovation projects are managed? Answers from a literature review. European Public & Social Innovation Review, 3(2), 23–38. de La Bellacasa, M. P. (2017). Matters of care: Speculative ethics in more than human worlds (Vol. 41). University of Minnesota Press. Docherty, C. (2017). Perspectives on design thinking for social innovation. The Design Journal, 20(6), 719–724. Dupret, K., & Chimirri, N. (2018). Teaching ethical participatory codesign. Dansk universitetspædagogisk tidsskrift, 13(24), 20–36. Dupret, K., & Eschweiler, J. (2022). How do participatory governance and reciprocity impact working conditions in the SSE organizations? An emotion work analysis. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2021.2020884 Dupret, K., Lildal-Granås, T., & Pries-Heje, L. (2016). Etik på spil. In Robust organisationsforandring: Design og implementering i orkanens øje (pp. 203–218). Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The triple helix – University-industry-government relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development. SSRN 24800. Kobro, L., Andersen, L. L., Hygum Espersen, H., Kristensen, K., Skar, C., & Iversen, H. (2018). Let’s do it together! Handbook for local collaborative social innovation. Høgskolen i Sørøst-­ Norge/Senter for sosialt entreprenørskap og samskapende sosial innovasjon. Montgomery, T. (2016). Are social innovation paradigms incommensurable? VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27, 1979–2000. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11266-016-9688-1 Moulaert, F., & MacCullum, D. (2019). Advanced introduction to social innovation. Elgar Advanced Introductions. Mulgan, G. (2006). The process of social innovation. Innovations. Spring, 145–162. Nicholls, A., & Murdock, A. (2012). “the nature of social innovation.” social innovation: Blurring boundaries to reconfigure markets. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2012, 1–30. Piper, Heather and Simons, Helen (2011). Ethical issues in generating public knowledge. In: Theory and methods in social research, 2nd ed. Sage Publications. ISBN 9781849200141. Silverman, D. (2011). Interpreting qualitative data -a guide to the principles of qualitative research (5th ed.). Simonsen, & Robertson. (Eds.). (2013). Routledge international handbook of participatory design. Routledge. Toboso, M. (2011). Rethinking disability in Amartya Sen’s approach: ICT and equality of opportunity. Ethics and Information Technology, 13(2011), 107–118. Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research design and methods (5th ed.). Sage. Zeyen, A., & Beckmann, M. (2019). What is social entrepreneurship (not)? In A.  Zeyen & M. Beckmann (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship and business ethics – Understanding the contribution and normative ambivalence of purpose-driven venturing (pp. 15–35). Routledge.

Chapter 5

Social Entrepreneurship and the Governance Context of Areas of Limited Statehood Sameer Azizi

Abstract  The chapter addresses the need for conceptualising the socio-political context for Social Entrepreneurship in relation to neglected contexts within ‘developing countries’. The dominant understanding of context in the Social Entrepreneurship debates draws on insights on industrialised or emerging economy contexts to explain the contextual conditions for the emergence and development of the hybrid mission of Social Enterprises. However, such contextual factors do not reflect the realities in many developing countries and calls for a reconceptualization of context that incorporates amalgam of formal state actors and informal non-state actors. The literature on governance in Areas of Limited Statehood offers a novel and promising theoretical lens for conceptualising the complex configuration of diverse actors and their related governance systems beyond the state-centric understanding of context. A multi-level ALS governance framework is offered for scholars and students of the Social Entrepreneurship field that implies an acknowledgment of various types of formal as well as informal and even unconventional non-state actors, and how and why their socio-political governance influences the hybrid nature, driver, and impact of SEs throughout the developing world. The chapter argues that the governance lens advances the current debates on context within SE literature and offers promising future avenues for studying the context in which SEs operate across Areas of Limited Statehood. Keywords  Areas of Limited Statehood · Governance · Developing countries · Socio-political context · Informality · Multilevel analysis

S. Azizi (*) Department of Social Sciences and Business, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. L. Langergaard et al. (eds.), Learning about Social Entrepreneurship and Management in Times of Social Transformation, Ethical Economy 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47708-9_5

67

68

S. Azizi

5.1 Introduction Social entrepreneurship (SE) has emerged as a new research field in the past decades where SEs are perceived as a pivotal actors in relation to challenging poverty across developing countries (Alvarez et al., 2015; Bloom, 2009; Ghauri et al., 2014; Tobias et al., 2013), women empowerment (Datta & Gailey, 2012), enabling social transformation (Alvord et al., 2004), inclusive growth (Ansari et al., 2012; Azmat et al., 2015), and not least bringing about institutional change (Nicholls, 2008; Nicholls, 2010; Battilana et al., 2009). Recent reviews indicate that the SE field is characterised by a diversity of scholarly disciplines (Saebi et al., 2019) that draws on entrepreneurship, sociology, economics, anthropology, ethics (Weerawardena & Mort, 2006) resulting in various definitional and conceptual challenges (Choi & Majumdar, 2014; Dacin et al., 2011, Santos, 2012), and methodological challenges of the field (Stevens et al., 2015). The entrepreneurship and the organisational level of analysis dominates the literature and differentiates between SEs that seek to address local problems vis-à-vis institutional changes (Zahra et  al., 2009). Scholars have argued that SEs per se cannot ‘solve’ complex social challenges (Sud et al., 2009) and call for the need to understand SEs in relation to existing social institutions, rules, and norms within a particular contextual setting to bring about social change (Waddock & Steckler, 2016). In other words, the complex amalgam of formal regulatory/political state authorities (e.g., strong property rights) on the one hand, and the informal actors (i.e., norms and collective actions) shape the blended mission of the SEs and enable/limit their access to resources (Desa, 2010; Zhao & Lounsbury, 2016; Estrin et  al., 2013; Pathak & Muralidharan, 2016). Regional studies by the “International Comparative Social Enterprise Models” (ICSEM) have attempted to provide a more nuanced understanding of SEs in Global South by focusing on specifically on Asia and Latin America. The regional focus on Asia has studied industrialised countries including Japan, China, South Korea, and India along with emerging economic powers such as Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia, and finally least-developed countries such as Philippines, Vietnam and Cambodia (Bidet & Defourny, 2019, p. 5). SEs in Asia tend to address poverty alleviation as the dominant social challenge whereas SEs in the Western societies aim for a variety of societal goals including sustainable development, organic and local food, energy transition, the circular economy, etc. (Bidet & Defourny, 2019, p. 359). SEs in Asia, however, face a diversity of institutional contexts for the ‘non-profit sector’ driven by strong social business models for work integration driven by Non-­ Profit Organisations (NPO), whereas social cooperatives are less evident due to the legacy communist in the region. In contrast, the ICSEM studies on Latin America underlines the discourse on ‘solidarity economy’ as an alternative to the capitalist economic system (Gaiger et al., 2019, p. 12) in which cooperatives appear to be the dominant organisational structure (Gaiger et  al., 2019, p.  296). The cooperatives aim to foster local development in terms of employment, empowerment, community development and ecological projects driven by relatively small locally driven

5  Social Entrepreneurship and the Governance Context of Areas of Limited Statehood

69

entities embedded in governance structures that includes workers and the local community as key members. In contrast to the Asian trends, SEs in Latin America are less dependent on the public authorities and indicates limited state support across Latin American countries (Gaiger et  al., 2019, 306). Hence, the studies strongly indicate that emergence and development of SEs across the world are highly conditioned by both the stage of industrialisation (formalization of the economy and dependency on higher value-added activities), and the role of the state and its redistributive policies as well as the socio-cultural factors that have triggered the emergence of ‘non-profit sector’ in Asia or ‘solidarity economy’ across Latin American countries. However, the regional comparisons have mainly focused on industrialised countries and emerging economies within the regions, and thereby neglecting a large group of nations (e.g., countries ranking lowest in the UN Human Development Index). Furthermore, it is important to highlight that the country-level analysis neglects the issues that emerge at the sub-national level of analysis, where state authorities with can be limited or even absent in terms of provision of public goods (e.g., basic provision of health, security, and education). This chapter offers an alternative conceptualization of such socio-political context at national and/or sub-national level by drawing on the political science literature on governance in ‘areas of limited statehood’ (hereafter ALS). This attempt is aligned with a recent conceptualization of context in the SE literature that distinguishes between the temporal, spatial, tradition, human life cycle, gender, religiosity or spirituality, field of work, sphere of action, disciplinary, and finally stakeholder contexts for SEs (Chandra & Kerlin, 2021). The chapter relates mainly to the ‘stakeholder context’ that has shed light on a set of stakeholders/actors (i.e., organizations or founders of SEs, investors, beneficiaries, consumers, intermediaries, and formal policy makers) (ibid). However, the chapter argues that a range of pivotal informal and unconventional stakeholders/actors that are equally – if not – more important in ALS, have been neglected in the existing debates. This insight enables a conceptualisation of the institutional configurations in ALS beyond Eurocentric logics on what constitutes ‘society’ and ‘stakeholders’ (Kerlin, 2010), and further advances the conceptualisation of the ambiguous notion of ‘context’ within the SE literature (Chandra & Kerlin, 2021).

5.2 Towards an ALS Governance Analytical Framework for SE The chapter seeks to respond to the call for contextualization in the SE literature by drawing on the debate on governance in ALS to conceptualise the external context in regions of the world where state capacity is severely constrained to govern effectively. SE scholars typically refer to such contexts using umbrella terms like ‘developing countries’, ‘emerging economies’ or ‘transition economies’ (Saebi et  al., 2019; Chandra & Kerlin, 2021). However, such typologies have limited analytical

70

S. Azizi

depth and relevance for conceptualizing the contextual conditions under which SEs operate. In fact, the ALS proponents argue that the ALS governance approach is equally valid to understand and conceptualize governance in industrialized contexts (Börzel et al., 2018). The analytical dissection between ‘statehood’ and ‘governance’ is the central tenet of the ALS governance debate. The Weberian definition of statehood as ‘… an institutionalised authority structure with the ability to steer hierarchically (Herrschaftsverband) and to legitimately control the means of violence’ (Börzel & Risse, 2010, p. 118), builds on a) the hierarchical institutional structure of nation states with the capacity to set and enforce rules (i.e., law-making and law enforcement), and b) the claims to control the monopoly of the use of force (i.e., basic security) to conceptualise ‘statehood’. In other words, national governments can be limited in exercising the two fundamental components of statehood in specific areas, but ALS contexts does neither imply the complete absence of governance or ‘ungoverned spaces’, as areas in which the state is weak or absent are neither ungoverned nor ungovernable (cf. Börzel & Risse, 2021). These conditions are evident predominantly in war-affected or post-conflict nation states (e.g., Iraq or Somalia) or in areas within almost any country, where the formal state is limited in enforcing law through hierarchical steering and/or offer basic security – at least temporarily. Instead, ‘governance’ matters and is defined as “institutionalized modes of social coordination to produce and implement collectively binding rules, and/or to provide collective goods” (Börzel et al., 2018: 7). Governance implies that various forms and shapes of social coordination driven by state and non-state as well as formal or informal institutions, rules, customs, and norms emerge and evolve over time in contexts of limited statehood. Statehood and governance are therefore interrelated and interdependent concepts as degrees of governance range from governance by government (i.e., consolidated statehood) as typically seen in Denmark or other Scandinavian countries; to governance with government (i.e. public and private partnerships) as seen in across Southern European and Asian contexts; and finally to the extreme incidents of governance without government, which refers to the complete rulemaking and self-regulation by non-state actors in contexts where the state is unwilling or unable to govern. The latter refers not only to conflict-affected countries such as Iraq and Syria but also includes sub-national areas within countries such as townships in South Africa, favellas in Brazil and insurgence-controlled areas in Somalia, Nigeria and even across the Balkan region in Europe. The ALS literature highlights that consolidated states are rather the exception than the rule for state governance implying that majority of countries  – if not all  – have areas of limited statehood to some extent, where non-state actors are key governance actors. The chapter underlines the promising conceptualisation of external context through the analytical lens of the ALS governance approach for SE debates, as the emphasis on ‘governance’ with/without ‘government’ enables a move beyond state-­ centric logics and assumptions. Comparatives studies have pointed out that the institutional configurations that within which SEs emerge and develop have had different historical trajectories resulting in different discourses such as the third sector as seen in Europe; the Non-profit sector in Asia (Bidet & Defourny, 2019); and finally,

5  Social Entrepreneurship and the Governance Context of Areas of Limited Statehood

71

the solidarity economy sector in Latin America (Gaiger et al., 2019). Existing studies are biased by such generic and regional archetypes of institutional configurations, as it is commonly assumed that SEs seek to fill ‘institutional voids’ left by the state institutions (Nicholls, 2008; Zahra et al., 2008) through various types of innovative engagements driven by the dual mission to create profit and social and/or environmental impact in society (Zahra et  al., 2008; Mair & Schoen, 2007). However, national contexts across developing – and even in industrialised – countries have for historical reasons never been solely driven by the state-led hierarchical authority that is presumed in the mainstream SE literature. Although SEs across developing countries also seek to provide public goods, the dynamics of governance in such contexts differ tremendously from the realities of industrialised economies and countries that fall under the ‘emerging market’ category. The ALS governance perspective stresses the specification of ‘areas’ on the one hand, and the diversity of ‘actors’ on the other, as two key distinct dimensions of conceptualising context beyond a generic industrialised and emerging economies viewpoint. Both dimensions shed light on the important specificities of context that have severe implications for the emergence and development of SEs.

5.2.1 Areas The ALS governance literature addresses ‘areas’ in four different dimensions (Risse, 2011, p. 5). Firstly, a territorial space within a country such as a sub-national area in which the SE operates to offer solutions for the territorial-specific needs of the population. This is seen in relation studies on SEs in Brazilian ‘favelas’ (Davis, 2016); when terrorist groups enact as social entrepreneurs (Abdukadirov, 2010); or the Insurgent-controlled areas in Afghanistan before the takeover of the Taliban in 2021 (Azizi, 2022). Secondly, areas can be understood as a sector or policy area, which SEs traditionally have addressed by providing health, sanitation, education services. Thirdly, areas can be related to a particular segment of the population that are structurally or culturally excluded from certain rights or public goods that are in principle expected to be delivered by the state. This dimension of ‘area’ relates to marginalized groups in societies that SEs seek to support and empower as seen with studies on SEs supporting rural women as the victims of the armed conflict in Colombian (Naranjo-Valencia et al., 2022; Ciruela-Lorenzo et al., 2020). Finally, a temporal dimension that relates to time-specific events such as natural or human-­ caused disasters that fundamentally challenge the ability of the state to govern. SEs have in many cases emerged due such natural or human-caused disasters to either support or substitute the national state institutions incapability and/or willingness to react accordingly as seen in Philippines after the super-typhoon Haiyan struck (Chandra & Paras, 2021). These ‘areas’ therefore provide incentives for alternative modes of governance that necessitate the involvement of non-state actors to various degrees, depending on the capacity and/or willingness of the state on the subject matter. Moreover, these

72

S. Azizi

areas result in socio-economic challenges that trigger SEs to solve or at least relate to societal needs and problems when identifying their social missions. However, the four dimensions of ‘areas’ also offer an important insight that ALS governance is not at all reserved to the global South, as nation states everywhere have been unable to govern all facets of their territory at times calling for non-state actors to play various roles in rulemaking and the provision of public goods. While limited statehood appears to be mostly present in the global South, examples also abound in Europe and North America, conventionally assumed to be the regions of the world with more consolidated statehood.

5.2.2 Diversity of Non-State Actors and Governance Systems The proposed ALS governance approach in this chapter sheds light on the various modes of governance that (co-) exist within a national state (Börzel & Hamann, 2013) and offers fertile grounds for conceptualising a national setting with multiple and opposing actors that may have developed parallel governance systems to the state institutions within a national context (Börzel & Risse, 2010). The multiplicity of non-state actors can enact as ‘functional equivalents’ for the state’s shadow of hierarchy (Börzel & Risse, 2016, 2021) by providing security or other type of collective goods and alternative regulatory frameworks. Non-state actors in the ALS governance literature include not only the conventional stakeholders to SEs such as NGOs, national and international donors, human rights, and other types of social movements, but also unconventional non-state actors as specified below. Anyhow, the diversity of non-state actors and the acknowledgement of their roles as governance actors may have important implications for emergence and development of SEs within and across developing countries. SEs do not operate in a vacuum of governance if the state is limited but are instead embedded in relations with other non-state actors that function as governance actors within the specific context. Who these governance actors are and how they influence the emergence and development of SEs over time is a matter of informed empirical analysis of the complexity of governance systems and the specific actors (cf. Börzel & Risse, 2021). The ALS governance framework stresses a multi-level understanding of actors at a) the global, b) national; and c) sub-national levels that influence the emergence and development of SEs in the era of globalization. In the following, some basic elements of such multi-level analysis of governance in ALS are unfolded. First, the international level consists of non-state actors such as foreign governments, donors, international development agents and INGOs have important implications on how SEs emerge and develop over time. Studies have highlighted the important role of intermediaries such as incubators, accelerators, and crowd-funding platforms (Langley et al., 2020; Rey-Martí et al., 2019); and investors (Agrawal & Hockerts, 2019; Lall et al., 2020) for the emergence and development of SEs across developing countries Relatedly, the nature and mission of SEs are in many countries derived from definitions and ‘best practices’ from EU-member states (Kerlin, 2010). It is

5  Social Entrepreneurship and the Governance Context of Areas of Limited Statehood

73

therefore interesting to analyse how the international level of governance influences the emergence and development of SEs in a specific context. Second, at the national level formal institutions matter both in terms of the functions they enact but also in terms of the ‘institution voids’ (Nicholls, 2008; Zahra et  al., 2008) embedded in the state governance system. SE studies suggest that social needs are not attractive for the general private sector (Corner & Ho, 2010), but these assumed government failures are important triggers for the emergence of SEs (McMullen, 2011). Hence, national contexts with scarce resources to address a diverse set of social problems results in high demand for SEs (Dacin et al., 2011; Zahra et al., 2009). In similar veins, the lack of state support for social programs attracts individuals to become social entrepreneurs (Stephan et al., 2015). Most of such studies draws on institutional theory to suggest that the nature, emergence, and development of SEs is highly conditioned  – if not determined  – by institutional configurations of the context (Welter et al., 2015). Such studies, however, focus on the nation-state level and thereby the formal types of actors, neglecting the diversity of actors that operate at the sub-national level of analysis. Finally, the chapter stresses on the sub-national actors and governance systems as the third contextual level of analysis that is neglected in the dominant SE debates. This level of analysis includes both formal actors but more importantly also informal actors and governance systems that may enable/constrain the emergence and development of SEs across and within developing countries (Börzel et  al., 2012, p. 14). This typically refers to areas-specific communities driven by customary laws and traditional clan-leadership. Sub-national governance systems may in other instances also involve violent non-state actors (e.g., rebel groups, war lords, criminal networks) that have developed “aliocracy” (i.e., providing security) or even “rebelocracy” (i.e., full-scale substitution of the ‘formal’ state authority’s functions as both rule-maker and security provider) (see Arjona, 2015, 2016). Recently, the concept of Peace Social Enterprises has emerged in the SE debates and directs attention towards governance in post-conflict contexts around the world (Sottini & Ciambotti, 2020). The study advocates for SEs as intermediaries between conflicting populations at the sub-national level to include and legitimize marginalized groups as new actors in the socio-economic governance of such territorial and/or segmental areas of limited statehood. Ideally, the socio-economic need for development triggers the emergence of SEs and enables SEs to become governance actors through provision of public goods in specific contexts. This governance role may compliment or even substitute national government services depending on the conditions of the areas of limited statehood. However, the multi-level ALS governance approach underlines the diverse interests from the actors at the different levels that may not only result in alignment of interests, but also contradictions, dilemmas, and paradoxes for SEs. Moreover, applying the proposed multi-level framework to understand the socio-political context in which SEs operate also implies a very complex ethical discussion about the role of SEs in society. In other words, how SEs make strategic decisions to maintain legitimate towards multiple actors become pivotal for becoming and remaining as a legitimate SE in such contexts. But such engagements require close relations to

74

S. Azizi

controversial actors such as criminal actors in Favelas and townships or violent insurgency groups and/or political groups listed as terrorist groups in (post-)conflict contexts (Abdukadirov, 2010). These issues raise important ethical concerns about the role of SEs in engaging or even legitimizing such actors. Will international donors provide financial and non-material support to SEs that somehow collaborate closely with the controversial governance actors at the sub-national level to provide sectoral services (e.g., health, education, or security in a specific community)? Or vice versa: What if a SE is considered illegitimate by unconventional actors that operate as governance actors in ALS and thereby restrict and prevent the SE to gain access to a marginalized community due its dependency on international donor funding?

5.3 Conclusion The chapter seeks to conceptualise the external socio-political context in which SEs operate across developing nations by problematizing the claims and assumptions about context derived from the studies on industrialised and/or emerging economies at national level of analysis that dominates the SE debates. It proposes an analytical shift from state-centrism to area-specific ‘governance’ approach led by a multi-level conceptualisation of context. The multi-level ALS governance framework described in the chapter includes on the one hand a conceptualisation of ‘spaces’ in which the national state is limited or even absent. On the other hand, the framework dissects actors into the global, national, and sub-national levels to enable a nuanced understanding of the contextual conditions that enable/constrain the hybrid nature, driver, and impact of SEs. While the empirical focus of the chapter has been on neglected national and/or sub-national contexts in global South, it is important to stress that most industrialised countries have areas where state authorities lack the ability or willingness to enforce law and/or provide public goods – at least temporarily. The binary dissection of the “developed” vs “developing” countries implies normative assumptions and claims driven by Eurocentric views on state governance that is empirically flawed and conceptually vague when studying SEs at a global level. The chapter calls for empirical-informed future studies that applies the multi-­ level ALS governance framework to study whether and how SEs engage with diversity of actors and their related governance systems (i.e., setting and enforcing rules or providing public goods), and how such relations have implications on the hybrid nature, driver, and impact of SEs. The proposed multi-level approach in the chapter offers novel conceptualisation of non-state actors and an analytical framework for studying the diversity of contexts in global South. The ALS governance framework offers a framework for engaging in a multi-level analysis that directs attention to the particularities of the socio-political contexts for SEs beyond a generic analysis offered in the mainstream SE literature. Instead, scholars and students within the SE field will gain a nuanced understanding of formal and informal non-state actors and

5  Social Entrepreneurship and the Governance Context of Areas of Limited Statehood

75

their roles and interests towards SEs. This type of studies can enable identification of the proactive and reactive strategies that SEs employ to gaining and maintain legitimacy, enabling co-creation and creating impact in societies. Finally, it is worth noting the proposed multi-level framework also sheds light on otherwise neglected ethical aspects of SEs – in particularly when SEs engage with controversial formal and informal non-state actors in ALS. Hence, the multi-level nature of the socio-political contexts facing SEs calls on further application of critical studies that shed light on the material and immaterial dimensions of power, relations and actors embedded in the collaboration, co-­ creation, and entrepreneurial processes that SEs undertake under such contextual settings. Such critical studies not only address the conceptual and empirically relevant questions about who governs, how and to what effect, but can also shed light on the various modalities, techniques, and practices of governance in sub-national, national, and international settings, all of which that may enrich future multi-level ALS governance studies of SEs. Learning Points This chapter points out that the hybrid nature of SEs and the related SE processes and impact of SE are highly context specific. In current research and teaching there is a lack of understanding the particularities of the socio-political contexts for SEs beyond the Euro- and state-centric conceptualisations. The presented multi-level framework offers fertile ground for SE students and scholars to critical reflect on: • Areas of limited statehood as the socio-economic foundation for social entrepreneurship: the chapter offers several conceptualisations of ‘areas’ in which the national state is limited. Such ‘areas’ broaden our understanding of the conditions under which they are founded and act upon. Hence, what kind of societal challenges are SEs addressing within each type of ‘areas’ of limited statehood? And how are SEs innovating to create impact in such societies? • Nature and interests of multiple actors across governance levels: The chapter stress on the amalgam configuration of the formal and informal non-state actors that SEs face within and across the global, national and subnational governance levels. This realization calls for revision of how to identify key actors that are affecting the SE beyond the Eurocentric assumptions and claims about the national state. What interests do they have in enabling co-creation and innovation led by SEs, and what roles do they play in fulfilling the dual mission of SEs remain as important empirical questions. • Legitimacy, impact and ethics of Social Entrepreneurs: The two previous points also implies a revised understanding of what legitimacy means when SEs face contradictory demands and expectations. In similar veins, the desire to create impact in societies comes with a cost when collaborating with informal and unconventional actors, as such setting will result in compound ethical dilemmas. Therefore: how do SEs operating in ALS understand and analyse legitimacy and legitimate actors? And what the ethical considerations and consequences of such decisions on the impact created in society?

76

S. Azizi

References Abdukadirov, S. (2010). Terrorism: The dark side of social entrepreneurship. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 33(7), 603–617. Agrawal, A., & Hockerts, K. (2019). Impact investing strategy: Managing conflicts between impact investor and investee social enterprise. Sustainability, 11(15), 4117. Alvarez, S., Barney, J., & Newman, A. (2015). The poverty problem and the industrialization solution. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 32, 23–37. Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40, 260–282. Ansari, S., Munir, K., & Gregg, T. (2012). Impact at the “bottom of the pyramid”: The role of social capital in capability development and community empowerment. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 813–842. Arjona, A. (2015). Civilian resistance to rebel governance. In A. Arjona, N. Kasfir, & Z. Mampilly (Eds.), Rebel governance in civil war (pp. 180–202). Cambridge University Press. Arjona, A. (2016). Rebelocracy. Social order in the Colombian civil war. Cambridge University Press. Azizi, S. (2022). A national governance approach to the political nature and role of business: Case study of the mobile telecommunications industry in Afghanistan. Journal Business Ethics, 177, 843–860. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-­022-­05101-­5 Azmat, F., Ferdous, A. S., & Couchman, P. (2015). Understanding the dynamics between social entrepreneurship and inclusive growth in subsistence marketplaces. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 34, 252–271. Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 65–107. Bidet, E., & Defourny, J. (Eds.). (2019). Social enterprise in Asia: Theory, models and practice. Routledge. Bloom, P.  N. (2009). Overcoming consumption constraints through social entrepreneurship. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 28, 128–134. Börzel, T.  A., & Risse, T. (2010). Governance without a state: Can it work? Regulation & Governance, 4(2), 113–134. Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2016). Dysfunctional state institutions, trust, and governance in areas of limited statehood. Regulation & Governance, 10(2), 149–160. Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2021). Effective governance under anarchy: Institutions, legitimacy, and social trust in areas of limited statehood. Cambridge University Press. Börzel, T., Hamann, R., & Kranz, N. (2013). Business and climate change governance: Conclusions. In Business and climate change governance: South Africa in comparative perspective (pp. 193–211). Palgrave Macmillan UK. Börzel, T.  A., Hönke, J., & Thauer, C.  R. (2012). Does it really take the state? Business and Politics, 14(3), 1–34. Börzel, T. A., Risse, T., & Draude, A. (2018). The Oxford handbook of governance and limited statehood. Oxford University Press. Chandra, Y., & Kerlin, J.  A. (2021). Social entrepreneurship in context: Pathways for new contributions in the field. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 14(2), 135–151. Chandra, Y., & Paras, A. (2021). Social entrepreneurship in the context of disaster recovery: Organizing for public value creation. Public Management Review, 23(12), 1856–1877. Choi, N., & Majumdar, S. (2014). Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 363–376. Corner, P.  D., & Ho, M. (2010). How opportunities develop in social entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 635–659.

5  Social Entrepreneurship and the Governance Context of Areas of Limited Statehood

77

Ciruela-Lorenzo, A.  M., González-Sánchez, A., & Plaza-Angulo, J.  J. (2020). An exploratory study on social entrepreneurship, empowerment and peace process. The case of Colombian women victims of the armed conflict. Sustainability, 12(24), 10425. Dacin, M.  T., Dacin, P.  A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization Science, 22, 1203–1213. Datta, P. B., & Gailey, R. (2012). Empowering women through social entrepreneurship: Case study of a women’s cooperative in India. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 36, 569–587. Davis, S. (2016). Relocating development communication: Social entrepreneurship, international networking, and South-South cooperation in the Viva Rio NGO. International Journal of Communication, 10, 18. Desa, G. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: Snapshots of a research field in emergence. In Values and opportunities in social entrepreneurship (pp. 6–28). Palgrave Macmillan UK. Estrin, S., Mickiewicz, T., & Stephan, U. (2013). Entrepreneurship, social capital, and institutions: Social and commercial entrepreneurship across nations. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 37, 479–504. Gaiger, L. I., Nyssens, M., & Wanderley, F. (Eds.). (2019). Social enterprise in Latin America: Theory, models and practice. Routledge. Ghauri, P. N., Tasavori, M., & Zaefarian, R. (2014). Internationalisation of service firms through corporate social entrepreneurship and networking. International Marketing Review, 31, 576–600. Kerlin, J. A. (2010). A comparative analysis of the global emergence of social enterprise. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 21(2), 162–179. Lall, S.  A., Chen, L.  W., & Roberts, P.  W. (2020). Are we accelerating equity investment into impact-oriented ventures? World Development, 131, 104952. Langley, P., Lewis, S., McFarlane, C., Painter, J., & Vradis, A. (2020). Crowdfunding cities: Social entrepreneurship, speculation, and solidarity in Berlin. Geoforum, 115, 11–20. Mair, J., & Schoen, O. (2007). Successful social entrepreneurial business models in the context of developing economies: An explorative study. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 2, 54–68. McMullen, J. S. (2011). Delineating the domain of development entrepreneurship: A market–based approach to facilitating inclusive economic growth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(1), 185–215. Naranjo-Valencia, J.  C., Ocampo-Wilches, A.  C., & Trujillo-Henao, L.  F. (2022). From social entrepreneurship to social innovation: The role of social capital. Study case in Colombian rural communities victim of armed conflict. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 13(2), 244–277. Nicholls, A. (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 & Practice, 34, 611–633. Pathak, S., & Muralidharan, E. (2016). Informal institutions and their comparative influences on social and commercial entrepreneurship: The role of in-group collectivism and interpersonal trust. Journal of Small Business Management, 54, 168–188. Rey-Martí, A., Mohedano-Suanes, A., & Simó, V. (2019). Crowdfunding and social entrepreneurship: Spotlight on intermediaries. Sustainability, 11(4), 1175. Risse, T. (Ed.). (2011). Governance without a state? Policies and politics in areas of limited statehood. Columbia University Press. Saebi, T., Foss, N. J., & Linder, S. (2019). Social entrepreneurship research: Past achievements and future promises. Journal of Management, 45(1), 70–95. Santos, F. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 335–351. Sottini, A., & Ciambotti, G. (2020). Social entrepreneurship toward a sustainable peace-building (pp. 1–11). Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.

78

S. Azizi

Stephan, U., Uhlaner, L.  M., & Stride, C. (2015). Institutions and social entrepreneurship: The role of institutional voids, institutional support, and institutional configurations. Journal of International Business Studies, 46, 308–331. Stevens, R., Moray, N., & Bruneel, J. (2015). The social and economic mission of social enterprises: Dimensions, measurement, validation, and relation. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 39, 1051–1108. Sud, M., VanSandt, C., & Baugous, A. (2009). Social entrepreneurship: The role of institutions. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 201–216. Tobias, J. M., Mair, J., & Barbosa-Leiker, C. (2013). Toward a theory of transformative entrepreneuring: Poverty reduction and conflict resolution in Rwanda’s entrepreneurial coffee sector. Journal of Business Venturing, 28, 728–742. Waddock, S., & Steckler, E. (2016). Visionaries and wayfinders: Deliberate and emergent pathways to vision in social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 133, 719–734. Weerawardena, J., & Mort, G.  S. (2006). Investigating social entrepreneurship: A multidimensional model. Journal of World Business, 41, 21–35. Welter, F., Smallbone, D., & Pobol, A. (2015). Entrepreneurial activity in the informal economy: A missing piece of the entrepreneurship jigsaw puzzle. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 27(5–6), 292–306. Zahra, S. A., Rawhouser, H. N., & Bhawe, N. (2008). Globalization of social entrepreneurship opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 2, 117–131. Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes, and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 519–532. Zhao, E.  Y., & Lounsbury, M. (2016). An institutional logics approach to social entrepreneurship: Market logic, religious diversity, and resource acquisition by microfinance organizations. Journal of Business Venturing, 31, 643–662.

Chapter 6

Socially Responsible Innovation Between Corporate Social Responsibility and Social Entrepreneurship. Towards Holistic Integration of Stakeholder Management, Ethics, and Sustainable Development Goals Jacob Dahl Rendtorff Abstract  Facing the challenges of climate change, environmental degradation and the need for sustainable development, society and business need a new and more responsible form  of business innovation and entrepreneurship. Confronted with such a search for new forms of management, the theoretical scope of this conceptual article is to present a new concept of socially responsible innovation that combines corporate social responsibility and social entrepreneurship. The research question is “What is the relation between socially responsible innovation and other concepts like business ethics, good corporate citizenship, and sustainable development goals (SDGs)? The aim of the article is to develop a concept of innovation, social entrepreneurship and management that considers socially responsible innovation from the point of view of ethics and sustainable development goals. This concept of socially responsible innovation must be conceived as a holistic kind of management that contributes with a comprehensive integration of stakeholder management, ethics, and sustainable development goals in a value-based vision of the requirements for social innovation in business and management. Thus, a key take-away and learning point of the contribution of the article is the conceptualization of socially responsible innovation as closely connected to environmental innovation and orientation towards implementation of sustainable development goals as essential for social innovation, management, and entrepreneurship. Keywords  Socially responsible innovation (SRI) · Corporate social responsibility (CSR) · Social entrepreneurship (SE) · Stakeholder management · Ethics · Sustainable development goals (SDGs) · Social innovation

J. D. Rendtorff (*) Department of Social Sciences and Business, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. L. Langergaard et al. (eds.), Learning about Social Entrepreneurship and Management in Times of Social Transformation, Ethical Economy 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47708-9_6

79

80

J. D. Rendtorff

6.1 Introduction This article discusses the concept of socially responsible innovation between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and social entrepreneurship to deal with climate change and the environmental challenges of sustainable development. The problem is how to define the relation between the “social”, “environment”, “responsible” and “innovation” in socially responsible innovation and relate this to social entrepreneurship. Businesses tend see it as a development of corporate social responsibility (Bromley & Paavola, 2008; Dietz & O’Neill, 2013; Porter & Kramer, 2003, 2006, 2011). Public organizations focus on innovation for public welfare and social economics. NGOs talk about social entrepreneurship as an effort to create sustainability for non-profit organizations. Accordingly, we can ask the research question: What is the relation between socially responsible innovation and other concepts like business ethics, good corporate citizenship, and sustainable development goals (SDGs) With this research question, it is important to signal that the aim of the chapter is to provide elements for a holistic theory of social entrepreneurship and innovation. The main argument for the choice of key concepts like business ethics, corporate citizenship, and sustainable development goals (SDGs) is not that the concepts are randomly selected, but rather these concepts are constitutive of the transition to sustainable development. The idea of the chapter is that social entrepreneurship and social innovation must be linked to the sustainable development goals to be placed in the center of sustainable development. Nevertheless, corporate citizenship and business ethics also apply to social entrepreneurship and innovation in sustainable development. Together these elements constitute a more social and environmentally sustainable economy. Therefore, they are essential for developing good social entrepreneurship and innovation (Rendtorff, 2009, 2013, 2014; Scherer & Palazzo, 2007, 2008, 2011). To discuss this learning point, the chapter proposes a holistic approach to the different elements of socially responsible innovation in sustainable organizations to deal with climate change and environmental degradation (O’Higgins & Zsolnai, 2017). Thus, the article begins by presenting these challenges of sustainability as representing a need for socially responsible innovation. This opens for a proposal for rethinking socially responsible innovation between CSR and social entrepreneurship with a focus on sustainable development goals. On this basis, the article develops the idea of legitimacy of socially responsible innovation in the light of SDG leadership, organizational practice, and an ethical decision-making for sustainability. The challenge of climate change and sustainability is here very important (Rendtorff, 2019a, b). Climate change and environmental degradation are characteristic examples of how human diversity, biodiversity, and diversity in nature are at risk. Thus, it is really a fundamental challenge for sustainable development to develop new forms of socially responsible innovation to rethink our ways of organizing and managing social and environmental innovation in both public, private, and non-governmental

6  Socially Responsible Innovation Between Corporate Social Responsibility and…

81

organizations (UN World Commission, 1987; United Nations, 2015, 2018; Hildebrandt, 2016). Indeed, socially responsible innovation is not only about developing new technological tools, but rather to provide decision-makers with innovative thinking that gives them the capacity to imagine new and more sustainable economies and societies. With these challenges, we need a new vision of the economy as circular, ecological, and integrated in the eco-systems of the world (D’Alias et al., 2014; Becker, 2006; Daly & Cobb, 1994; Daly, 1999; Ingebrigtsen & Jakobsen, 2006; Nielsen, 2013, 2015; Rendtorff, 2014, 2017; Sagoff, 1988). As sustainability researcher and biologist, Katherine Richardson emphasizes, there is a fundamental need for a new interdisciplinary approach to the global environmental and climate problems. We must find new ways of organizing production and consumption that respect nature and the environment. Such a biological science can be described as an earth systems science, which is not only based on an interdisciplinary collaboration between biology, physics and chemistry and other natural sciences, but should also integrate research in the humanities and social sciences to really solve global problems of sustainability (Steffen et al., 2020). This means that solutions to the biodiversity and climate crisis also have a complex societal dimension, where we need new rules and structures to manage our relationship with nature. Here, socially responsible innovation involves creation of new mindsets and democratic forms of participation that can create more sustainable societies. Indeed, we need to combine complexity system sciences with the search for new participatory ways of organizing that implies sustainable models of organization based on a green transition towards ecological economies (Costanza, 1991; Costanza et  al., 1997, 2001; Hildebrandt, 2016; Rendtorff, 2015a, 2018). Socially responsible innovation tries to find new practical solutions that integrate different discipline to get a holistic view of the problems and challenges to make new value-creation for a better world (Rendtorff, 2023a). Despite the increasing sustainability and climate problems, politicians are still afraid of making radical interventions. Politicians in a small European country like Denmark know what the population is up to, and therefore they are often dependent on the population’s attitude, which can also prevent too radical measures in the climate area. That’s what the Danish climate law says, and this reflect that the lawmaker does not really know how to rethink the relationship between nature and society. The Danish Climate Act has not really been able to integrate climates issue into a comprehensive handling of the sustainability challenges. Agriculture, industry, and transport are problematic areas. There is silence about the necessary behavioral changes and the debate about economic growth and technological progress does not really go deep into the discussion of the green transition and the necessary lifestyle changes. In addition, the Danish population is divided between many different positions, with traditionalists and critical climate activists as extremes. At the same time, companies and business are increasingly aware of business opportunities in connection with the green transition. It is in the context that we need a new socially responsible vision of innovation in sustainable business (Bonneuil & Fressoz, 2013; Costanza, 1991; Costanza et al., 1997, 2001; Hildebrandt, 2016). In this complex situation, one can say that there is a need for well-thought-out practical

82

J. D. Rendtorff

sense and reflexivity that can be the based for socially responsible innovation. In the words of journalist at the Danish newspaper Information, Steen Nielsen, in continuation of his colleague Ejvind Larsen, you can say that “we have to mingle - there is no other way” (Nielsen, 2013, 2015). But what does this really mean? Here, it is necessary to rethink practices and challenges (Rendtorff, 2023b). Thus, society is desperately in need of a new theory and practice of socially responsible innovation.

6.1.1 Socially Responsible Innovation, Responsibility and CSR To develop such a theoretical vision of socially responsible innovation, it is necessary to take a hold in the theory of social responsibility (Garriga & Mele, 2004; Scherer et al., 2014; Pedersen, 2015). The concept of responsibility is important as the foundation of ethics in the fields of politics and economics in the modem civilization marked by globalization and technological progress. From this point of view, responsibility is a fundamental philosophical concept that has been discussed by philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre (universal existential responsibility) and Hans Jonas (the imperative of responsibility). In his book Prinzip Verantwortung. Versuch einer Ethik der technischen Zivilisation [The Imperative of Responsibility. Towards and Ethics for the Technical Civilization] (1979) Hans Jonas defends global and metaphysical conception of responsibility. He proposes the argument that the technological and scientific development implies a need for increased responsibility for preserving the globe for the future genuine existence of human beings and their environment- an absolute responsibility that due to humanity’s extreme capacity of self-destruction and destruction of the globe has become the most fundamental principle of responsibility in the history of humanity. This concept can be applied to social responsibility of business corporations in times of globalization (Rendtorff, 2011). Looking at the literature on CSR, we can argue that a holistic view of social responsibility of the corporation includes economic responsibility; juridical responsibility; ethical responsibility and philanthropic responsibility. In the contemporary debate this has developed into a manifold of different schools of CSR: The dogmatic School (profit); the triple bottom-line School; dialogue-based school (stakeholder communication); the Danish School (The inclusive labour market); the international School (human rights and the environment); the ethical school (the right thing to do!); political CSR (the political corporation) (Garriga & Mele, 2004; Rendtorff, 2009, 2011, 2020a; Scherer et al., 2014; Pedersen, 2015). In continuation of these different concepts of responsibility, it is important to go deeper into the need to develop innovative strategies for sustainability, circular economy and new ecologies in business and NGOs. This entails the problem of how it is possible to understand sustainability in the future global economy as well as the possibilities and limits of sustainable growth in relation to social innovation. How can society see sustainability in relation to today’s sustainability economy and

6  Socially Responsible Innovation Between Corporate Social Responsibility and…

83

what does it mean for the actual development and organization of social innovation in business and companies? In this connection, it may be particularly relevant to include ethics of management and theory of ethical economy to understand the critical challenges to corporate social responsibility in sustainable development. Of particular interest are the perceptions of values in companies, which are necessary to create business legitimacy of innovation for the green transition (Freeman, 1984; Bonnafous-Boucher & Rendtorff, 2016; Koslowski, 2008; Holmstrom & Kjærbeck, 2013) How can different perceptions of values-driven management and strategies for values be used to understand sustainability and green transition in companies? How do these value strategies affect the companies’ responsibility and ethics in relation to green transition and sustainability in relation to innovation in companies? It is therefore necessary to rethink organizations and business in the direction of developing new green and innovative models of organization (Rendtorff, 2009, 2013, 2014; Scherer & Palazzo, 2007, 2008, 2011). Socially responsible innovation implies rethinking CSR as a strategic challenge to develop a sustainable company. This involves formulating the company’s strategy and authentic identity in relation to the world’s overall sustainability ideals. Concretely, the question is how the company overcomes the environmental crisis, financial crisis and climate crisis with an ideal of sustainability? A holistic concept of sustainable business management is important here. This includes the economic, the social, the environmental and the climate, but also ethical economy, ethics of systems and security in relation to fair and just institutions. Globally, sustainability is also about equality - not least about respecting both political and social human rights. Therefore, socially responsible innovation combines social responsibility with environmental responsibility since the dimensions are essential elements of sustainability. Such a demand for sustainable business management can already today support various ideals of sustainable business management in legislation (Rendtorff, 2018). It is thus a requirement in the Danish Annual Accounts Act (2008) that large companies must report on their CSR activities. In Denmark, a mediation and conflict management council (whistleblowing) has been set up. This is a call for self-­ regulation, i.e., polycentric framework legislation, where companies are encouraged to self-regulate in the direction of the green transition. But also, CSR reports as stakeholder communication about sustainability, which is important for companies’ national and global responsibility. Coming from corporate social responsibility, the concept of socially responsible innovation has now achieved a strong theoretical foundation. In the innovation literature, there has been a tendency to link innovation to concepts from the CSR literature to determine the concept of corporate socially responsible innovation. This includes concepts of socially responsible innovation defined as CSR; creating shared value (CSV); corporate social performance; corporate responsiveness; corporate citizenship; corporate social entrepreneurship; corporate social impact. These concepts illustrate the importance of corporate social responsibility in socially responsible innovation. Moreover, socially responsible innovation needs to consider

84

J. D. Rendtorff

all stakeholders of the organization. Thus, an important learning point is that stakeholder management is a key to socially responsible innovation.

6.2 Socially Responsible Innovation as Stakeholder Management Stakeholder management is therefore an important element in socially responsible innovation since organizations create innovation in interaction with their different stakeholders (Freeman, 1984; Bonnafous-Boucher & Rendtorff, 2016; Koslowski, 2008; Holmstrom & Kjærbeck, 2013). In this context, we can from the perspective of stakeholder management analyze socially responsible innovation as a contribution to the creation of reflexivity and self-observation of organizations (Rendtorff & Bonnafous-Boucher, 2023). To consider all stakeholders of the organization means to be open for responsible management. Here an important dimension of socially responsible innovation is stakeholder engagement of the organization where members of the organization get closely involved with stakeholders. Maybe the concepts of stakeholder engagement or stakeholder responsibility are expressions of a political concept of socially responsible innovation that integrates corporate social responsibility and innovation in the organization. The Danish corporation Novo Nordic has proposed to reestablish its focus on political engagement for stakeholders from this point of view. Stakeholder engagement is an expression of a concept of a political and socially responsible organization that is built on key engagement for stakeholders. Thus, it is possible to argue that socially responsible innovation is essential for ethics and values of organizations. High levels of business ethics in organizational cultures are important for the coherence of interactions in the firm to build responsibility towards citizens. One important development of such an approach to business ethics that combines ethics and socially responsible innovation is the stakeholder theory by Edward R. Freeman. Indeed, stakeholder theory can be proposed as an important approach to socially responsible innovation that contributes to the development of organizational democracy, opening for democratic participation of stakeholders in innovative processes of organizations. Freeman argues that a stakeholder of an organization (by definition) is any group or individual who can influence or is influenced by the achievement of the organization’s goals. This is demonstrated by the famous definition of stakeholders of a business corporation: “A stakeholder in an organization is (by definition) any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievements of the organization’s objectives” (Freeman, 1984). Everyone and everyone, even those who do not shout out loud about their rights, in principle have a right to be heard and involved in the company’s strategic decision-­ making process if they are influenced by or influence the company’s decisions. In other words, anyone who is a victim or benefits from the activities of an

6  Socially Responsible Innovation Between Corporate Social Responsibility and…

85

organization should be considered a stakeholder. Stakeholders are defined as any group of individuals or organizations that may benefit or can be affected by and whose rights are violated or violated by the actions of the company. Against this background, Freeman has recently significantly summarized the stakeholder theory in ten basic principles, which read as follows: 1. Stakeholder interests go together over time 2. Stakeholder consists of real people with names and faces and children. People are complex 3. We need solutions to issues that satisfy multiple stakeholders simultaneously 4. We need intensive communication and dialogue with stakeholders - not just those who are friendly 5. We need to have a philosophy of voluntarism, to manage stakeholder relationships ourselves rather than third parties such as governments 6. We need to generalize the marketing approach 7. Everything that we do serves stakeholders. We never trade off the interests of one versus the other continuously over time 8. We negotiate with primary and secondary stakeholders 9. We constantly monitor and redesign processes to make them better serve our stakeholders 10. We act with purpose that fulfils our commitment to stakeholders. We act with aspiration towards fulfilling our dreams (Freeman & Velamuri, 2006).

Freeman’s ten principles clearly show how the stakeholder theory can be regarded as a network-based, communicatively oriented theory that works towards placing the company, the organization, or the institution in a societal context with the aim of promoting both the interests of the individual and the interests of the community without compromising the understanding of the company’s or the organization’s economic basis. On this basis, stakeholder theory can be applied to understand conceptualizations of responsible social innovation to ensure application for sustainable development. The idea of rethinking social entrepreneurship as socially responsible innovation is important for developing democratic organizations in the great transition towards sustainable development. This can be considered as such a combination of CSR, social innovation, and business ethics. Focus on this kind of social innovation includes application of the UN- sustainability goals for management and realization of new business models applied to the activities of the firm (Freeman, 1984; Bonnafous-Boucher & Rendtorff, 2016; Koslowski, 2008; Holmstrom & Kjærbeck, 2013). Here, the theory of socially responsible innovation would need to be accomplished with empirical case studies of stakeholder and innovation in practice. To understand the practice of such socially responsible innovation it would be necessary to perform case analysis of stakeholder management in organizations. (Flyvbjerg, 1991; Kvale & Brinkman, 2009; Rendtorff, 2015a, b). Such approaches would require qualitative critical reflection as a method to analyze performance of socially responsible innovation with its practical implications for stakeholder leadership, governance, stakeholder organization, and organizational processes of

86

J. D. Rendtorff

innovation. This would imply an interdisciplinary approach of social sciences and economics in relation to the development of empirical dynamic and ideal models of stakeholder management of socially responsible innovation (Brinkmann, 2017; Rendtorff, 2015a, b; Yin, 2010, 2011).

6.3 Socially Responsible Innovation, Ethics, and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) In such stakeholder management, it is also important to highlight the integration of different concepts of business ethics, values, and approaches to CSR in a concept of socially responsible innovation that can make sense of the whole and integrated idea of socially responsible innovation. But why is it that the move to socially responsible innovation for a more sustainable society, ecological and circular economy towards an authentic green transition does not go faster? Unfortunately, we are captured in our unsustainable life-styles and traditional cognitive frameworks. Here one cannot avoid a certain moral blindness, muteness and deafness which characterizes the present situation where responsibility is ignored. This the approach that we find in Frederick Bruce Bird’s The Muted Conscience. Moral Silence and Practice of Ethics in Business (1996). This book analyzes moral blindness in companies and organizations. Moral blindness is extended to also include moral muteness and deafness (Rendtorff, 2020b). The deaf do not listen, the blind do not see, and the dumb do not speak (Bird, 1996). The question is whether such blindness, deafness and dumbness can be demonstrated in the companies’ handling of the green transition and sustainable development. What does it take to overcome such barriers with socially responsible innovation? The barriers for innovation to haunt our work with sustainability, and we need to do the effort to move beyond the barriers to create a better future for humanity. This indeed implies the challenges of social and environmental innovation (Kemp & Nielsen, 2009). So, there is a need to get beyond the barriers to establish socially responsible innovation as the basis for a new sustainable, circular, and ecological economy based on sustainable development. Historically speaking, the UN’s concept of sustainable development is based on more than 50 years of work with sustainability. In 1972, the first environmental conference was held under the auspices of the UN. Later, the Brundtland Commission (1987) formulated a strategy for sustainability in the report Our Common Future: Sustainable development in international politics. This approach was used by John Elkington (SustainAbility) (1997) in Cannibals with Forks. The Triple Bottom Line o f21st Century Business to translate the concept of sustainable development into the companies’ practical work with the green transition. At the same time, the development from the Millennium Goals (2000) to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (2015) made it possible for companies to contribute more actively to the green transition through partnerships.

6  Socially Responsible Innovation Between Corporate Social Responsibility and…

87

This can be applied as the basis for understanding contemporary social and sustainable innovation. In this context, it is important to critically evaluate different growth concepts in the field of tension between green growth and counter-growth (Langergaard, 2022). Here, the issue of corporate global responsibility is closely related to the possibility of developing a new economy, which aims to find a company in balance, which can handle various types of stakeholder challenges (Langergaard, 2022). In this context, we find again the question of whether the UN’s visions for sustainability can be used to rethink the company’s relevant considerations based on socially responsible innovation. Concretely, the question is whether the triple bottom line is a metaphor or whether it is possible to formulate a vision of the organization’s bottom lines, which is based on consideration of the 17 global goals (UN World Commission, 1987; United Nations, 2015, 2018; Hildebrandt, 2016). This includes the question of whether it is possible to move beyond the neoclassical growth idea towards an integrated economy (interaction between nature, people, and society), following socially responsible innovation. A milestone for development of socially responsible innovation between corporate social responsibility and social entrepreneurship has since the Brundtland World Commission on the Environment’s report Our Common Future been the UN’s work to make the concept of sustainable development the basis for international politics and global development (UN World Commission, 1987; United Nations, 2015, 2018; Hildebrandt, 2016). By sustainable development is above all understood that present generations of humanity have the responsibility to leave the earth and its resources in good condition for future generations. The concept of sustainable development does not only have to focus on the future in terms of utility, but rather sustainability should be based on this fundamental responsibility to preserve the Earth for future generations. With the development of the sustainable development goals from 2015 this has become more specific and concrete. From this point of view, this new ethics of socially responsible innovation following up on the sustainable development goals is a unique event in business, society and the world community because it has managed to formulate some principles of the world’s global development that integrate social, environmental and economic issues in an overall conceptual framework. Accordingly, sustainable development, including sustainability in business, NGOs and public institutions with the development of a new SDG leadership strategy, is one of the most pertinent challenges of socially responsible innovation of our time. Following the earlier foundational definitions of sustainability, the 2030 World Agenda of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) from 2015 represent an attempt to operationalize sustainability by specifying targets and indicators for each of the 17 goals (UN, 2015). Businesses, NGOs and public institutions play an important role in this sustainable development and many companies, civil society and public organizations in Europe and the world have embraced the agenda (UN World Commission, 1987; United Nations, 2015, 2018; Hildebrandt, 2016). Moreover, the European Union regards economic transitions and ecological sustainability as basic components in the formation of new partnerships both locally

88

J. D. Rendtorff

and internationally. It highlights in this context that not only multinational companies but also small and medium- sized enterprises (SMEs), NGOs and public institutions together can help to build commitment to sustainability in Europe. Thus, we need research that highlights how to integrate SDG- leadership and governance in business practice of business ethics and CSR. In Denmark the Danish Federation of Industries together with the UNDP has tried to develop such a program for corporations and business organizations. In this context, the EU’s policy for green transition and a circular and ecological economy can act as an important reference point for the work of business with sustainability. Since the establishment of the internal market in 1992, the EU has worked purposefully with corporate responsibility and sustainability. The work with CSR was originally formulated as the companies’ voluntary contribution to society, which, by virtue of increased legitimacy, would also strengthen competitiveness (Rendtorff, 2020a). Later, CSR is defined as impact on society. And with the EU’s new due diligence rules from 2022, the connection between CSR and sustainability is pointed out in the requirements for corporate ethics and responsibility. At the same time, the EU is not only aware of the ethical responsibility, but also emphasizes the responsibility of aesthetics and creativity for the green transition. It must be the senses and the will to live that must drive the green transition. This involves a combination of art, design, and economics. The EU Commission has highlighted the vision of the European Bauhaus as a central creative and artistic vision for the green transition. Specifically, green innovation can be mentioned, for example in relation to the development of tasty organic food, trendy textile fashion, smart electric cars, the idea of rewilding, where you let nature grow into the city. It is important that the company connects to this through creative innovation. In this context, it is important to count nature as a respectable stakeholder who must be included in companies’ decisions for socially responsible innovation. Ethically, nature and animals have interests and should be respected in their independent being. Ethical principles such as autonomy, dignity, integrity, and vulnerability also play a role in nature and animals (Rendtorff, 2009). Consideration must also be given to nature’s aesthetic versus and not only to its ethical function. Here we are faced with a deep ecology versus an “anthropocentric” position, where perhaps an “anthropocentrifugal” position can function as a mediator between human beings and nature. Or perhaps we cannot avoid an “anthropocene” situation, where the dominance of the human species on earth is behind all our problems (Rendtorff, 2009). Concretely, it is therefore important to focus on developing the sustainable legitimacy of the business organization as a basis for action and economic development  (Rendtorff, 2020a). But what is sustainable legitimacy in the global green economy? Moreover, there is a close connection between sustainability, socially responsible innovation, circular and ecological economy, and organic production (D’ Alias et al., 2014; Becker, 2006; Daly & Cobb, 1994; Daly, 1999; Ingebrigtsen & Jakobsen, 2006; Nielsen, 2013, 2015; Rendtorff, 2014, 2017; Sagoff, 1988). Here

6  Socially Responsible Innovation Between Corporate Social Responsibility and…

89

we are faced with global challenges, which the companies must also help solve. It concerns, for example, feeding the whole world and especially the poor as a solution to the poverty problem, where the companies’ innovative solutions also play a role. Or the companies’ contribution to solving the climate crisis by using more climate-friendly forms of production  is important. Integration of global goals in local production is also important, and we must develop an authentic idea of sustainability in contrast to Greenwashing, where there is no deep involvement in the company’s activities in relation to sustainability. Basically, socially responsible innovation must come from within and build on the company’s internal and authentic values, which must be brought into play in the sustainable development of the organization. This means, for example, that you must do what you are passionate about, where you let your own integrity and soul be part of the company. This means that you must think of a vision that exists to change the world ethically with sustainability and CSR as goals. Sustainability in the ethical business strategy also implies respect for ecology in interaction with economy and at the same time also consideration for the social  sustainability of company and society (Cleveland et  al., 2001). Elements of such a sustainability economy include the breakthrough and development of sustainable technology; openness and transparency; ecologically efficient strategy, life cycle analyzes and long-term strategy, green accounts, based on a circular and ecological economic approach to development (Costanza, 1991; Costanza et al., 1997, 2001; Hildebrandt, 2016; Rendtorff, 2015a, 2018). The great challenge of such a strategic program is now to develop an embedded concept of socially responsible innovation in relation to social entrepreneurship in the transition towards sustainable development. As we have demonstrated research in CSR, business ethics and sustainability has been focused on the triple bottom-line of multiple concern for people, planet, and profit and on clarifying concepts of responsible business, for example political CSR, innovation-based sustainable entrepreneurship and creating shared value (CSV). Deeper understanding of embedding sustainability into business management and economics is still in development and that is why we need so much socially responsible innovation. Indeed, this research must focus on the “gap frame” of translating SDGs into embedded, institutional, and collective responsibility in sustainable value-creating business cases that apply to only to business, but also to NGOs and public institutions (Bonneuil & Fressoz, 2013; Costanza, 1991; Costanza et  al., 1997, 2001; Hildebrandt, 2016). Concretely, sustainable restructuring in companies includes focus on values and ethics in the company’s sustainability strategies. This includes CSR policies that are oriented in relation to the UN’s sustainability goals. This involves the use of stakeholder management as a practical management model in relation to nature and the environment to formulate a holistic sustainability strategy that can function as a vision of global sustainability.

90

J. D. Rendtorff

6.4 Conclusion So, what is the conclusion to the research question about what the relation is between socially responsible innovation and other concepts like business ethics, good corporate citizenship, and sustainable development goals (SDGs)? As we can see from the analysis, I have demonstrated how the relation between these concepts is a holistic and interconnected relation. The chapter can be said to have provided elements of integrative elements of a holistic theory of the relation between the different elements of the research question. The chapter has demonstrated how social entrepreneurship and innovation can be considered as an important dimension of the transition of the economy towards corporate citizenship and sustainable development based on a vision of good business ethics in an ethical economy. This shows how social sustainability and environmental sustainability are closely linked to the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Learning Points • The chapter outlines the concept of socially responsible innovation between CSR and social entrepreneurship to solve the problems of sustainable development. It also increases the focus on challenges for dealing with sustainability in business and concludes that society needs to rethink corporate social responsibility in relation to sustainable development goals in an integrated partnership between private business, public institutions, and non-governmental organizations. • It is the task of socially responsible innovation to contribute to this through rethinking the concepts of business ethics, good corporate citizenship, and sustainable development goals. • Stakeholder management emerges as an important approach to rethink sustainable development and develop new strategies for business legitimacy in sustainable development. With a holistic and ethical concept of innovation, social entrepreneurship, and management we may be able to change the direction of the planet towards a more sustainable future.

References Becker, C. (2006). “The human actor in ecological economics”: Philosophical approach and research perspectives. Ecological Economics, 60(1), 17–23. Bird, B. (1996). The muted conscience. Moral silence and the practice of ethics in business. The Free Press. Bonnafous-Boucher, M. & Rendtorff, J. D. (2016). Stakeholder theory: A model for strategic management (Springer briefs in ethics). Springer Science & Business Media B.V. Bonneuil, C., & Fressoz, J.  B. (2013). L’Evenement Anthropocene. La terre, l’histoire et nous. Le Seuil. Brinkmann, S. (2017). Philosophies of qualitative research. Oxford University Press. Bromley, D.  W., & Paavola, J. (Eds.). (2008). Economics, ethics, and environmental policy. Contested choices. Blackwell.

6  Socially Responsible Innovation Between Corporate Social Responsibility and…

91

Cleveland, C.  J., Stern, D.  I., & Costanza, R. (Eds.). (2001). The economics of nature and the nature of economics (p. 293). Edward Elgar Publishing. Costanza, R. (Ed.). (1991). Ecological economics: The science and management of sustainability (p. 525). Columbia University Press. Costanza, R., Cleveland, C., & Perrings, C. (Eds.). (1997). The development of ecological economics (p. 777). Edward Elgar. Costanza, R., Low, B., Ostrom, E., & Wilson, J. (Eds.). (2001). Institutions, ecosystems, and sustainability (p. 270). Lewis/CRC Press. D’Alias, G., Demaria, F., & Kallis, G. (2014). Degrowth. A vocabulary for a new era. Routledge. Daly, H.  E. (1999). Ecological economics and the ecology ofeconomics: Essays in criticism. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Daly, H., & Cobb, J. B., Jr. (1994). For the common good: Redirecting the economy toward community, the environment, and a sustainable future. Beacon Press. Dietz, R., & O’Neill, D. (2013). Enough is enough. Building a sustainable economy in a world of finite resources. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Flyvbjerg, B. (1991). Magt og Rationalitet. Et case-baseret studie af planlcegning, politik og modernitet 1-11. [Power and Rationality. A Case-based Study of Planning, Politics and Modernity]. Akademisk forlag. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management. A stakeholder approach. Pitman Publishing. Freeman, R. E., & Velamuri, S. R. (2006). A new approach to CSR: Company stakeholder responsibility. In A. Kakabadse & M. Morsing (Eds.), Corporate Social Responsibility (pp. 9–23). Palgrave Macmillan. Garriga, E., & Mele, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51–71. Hildebrandt, Steen (ed.) (2016). Bceredygtig global udvikling: FN’s 17 verdensmal i et dansk perspektiv, København: Jurist- og 0konomforbundets Forlag 2016. Holmstrom, S., & Kjærbeck, S. (Eds.). (2013). Legitimitet under forandring: Virksomheden i samfundet. Frederiksberg. Ingebrigtsen, S., & Jakobsen, O. (2006). Circulation economics – A turn towards sustainability. International Journal o fSocial Economics, 33(8), 580–593. Jonas, H. (1979). Prinzip Verantwortung. Versuch einer Ethik der technischen Zivilisation. Insel Verlag. Kemp, P., & Nielsen, L. (2009). Klimabevidsthedens barrierer. En rapport om bceredygtighedens etik. Klima- og Energiministeriet. Koslowski, P. (2008). Principles of ethical economy, Issues in business ethics. Springer Verlag. Kvale, S., & Brinkman, S. (2009). Inter views: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. Danish Edition: Kvale, Steinar & Brinkmann, Svend: Interview  – Det kvalitative forskningsinterview som handvcerk. København: Hans Reizels Forlag 2014/2009. Langergaard, L. L. (Ed.), (2022). New economies for sustainability: Limits and potentials for possible futures (l udg., Bind 59, s. 247–259). Springer. Springer Series ethical economy: Studies in economic ethics and philosophy Nr. 59 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­81743-­515 Nielsen, J. S. (2013). Den store omstilling. Fra systemkrise til grøn økonomi. Informations forlag. Nielsen, J. S. (2015). Pa den Anden Side. En rejse i omstillingens grcenseland. Informations forlag. O’Higgins, E., & Zsolnai, L. (Eds.). (2017). Progressive business models creating sustainable and pro-social enterprise. Palgrave Macmillan. Palgrave Studies in Sustainable Business In Association with Future Earth. Pedersen, E. R. (Ed.). (2015). Corporate social responsibility. Sage Publications. Porter, M.  E., & Kramer, M.  R. (2003). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy (Harvard Business Review on Corporate Responsibility). Harvard Business School Press. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92. Porter, M. E. & Kramer, M.R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, January/ February, 63–70.

92

J. D. Rendtorff

Rendtorff, J. D. (2009). Responsibility, ethics and legitimacy of corporations (p. 514). Copenhagen Business School Press. Rendtorff, J. D. (2011). Institutionalization of corporate ethics and social responsibility programs in firms. In K. Buhmann, L. Roseberry, & M. Morsing (Eds.), Corporate social and human rights responsibilities: Global, legal and management perspectives (pp. 244–266). Palgrave Macmillan. Rendtorff, J. D. (2013). Part 19: Philosophical issues of management and corporations. In C. Luetge (Ed.), Handbook of the philosophical foundations of business ethics (pp. 1361–1454). Springer Science+Business Media B.V. Rendtorff, J. D. (2014). French philosophy and social theory: A perspective for ethics and philosophy of management (Ethical economy) (Vol. 49). Springer Science & Business Media B.V., Springer Netherlands. Rendtorff, J. D. (2015a). Breredygtighed og virksomheders ansvar (CSR) [Sustainability and social responsibility of business]. In F. Arler, M. A. Mosgaard, & H. Riisgaard (Eds.), Breredygtighed: Vrerdier, regler og metoder (pp. 359–378). Aarhus Universitetsforlag. Rendtorff, J. D. (2015b). Case Studies, ethics, philosophy and liberal learning for the management profession. Journal of Management Education, 39(1), 36–55. Rendtorff, J.  D. (Ed.). (2017). Perspectives on philosophy of management and business ethics: Including a special section on business and human rights (p. 51). Springer, . Ethical economy. Rendtorff, J.  D. (2018). Cosmopolitan business ethics: Towards a global ethos of management (Finance, governance and sustainability: Challenges to theory and practice series). Routledge. Rendtorff, J. D. (2019a). Philosophy of management and sustainability: Rethinking business ethics and social responsibility in sustainable development. Emerald Group Publishing. Rendtorff, J. D. (2019b). Sustainable development goals and progressive business models for economic transformation. Local Economy, 34(6), 510–524. Rendtorff, J. D. (2020a). Handbook of business legitimacy. In Responsibility, ethics and society (Vol. I-II). Springer. Rendtorff, J. D. (2020b). Moral blindness in business: A social theory of evil in organizations and institutions. Palgrave Macmillan. Rendtorff, J. D. (2023a). Sustainable solutions to the global climate problem: The case of the renewable and green energy company Ørsted. In L. Zsolnai, T. Walker, & P. Shrivastava (Eds.), Value creation for a sustainable world: Innovating for ecological regeneration and human flourishing (pp. 63–80). Palgrave Macmillan. Rendtorff, J. D. (2023b). Editorial: Future directions of research in ethics and systems. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 39(2), 181–182. Rendtorff, J. D & Bonnafous-Boucher, M. (2023). Encyclopedia of Stakeholder Management, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (Elgar Encyclopedias in Business and Management series). Sagoff, M. (1988). The economy of the Earth. Cambridge University Press. Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2007). Toward a political conception of corporate responsibility: Business and society seen from a habermasian perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1096–1120. Scherer, A.  G., & Palazzo, G. (2008). Handbook of research on global corporate citizenship. Edward Elgar Publishing. Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: a review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 899–931. Scherer, A. G., Palazzo, G., & Matten, D. (2014). The business firm as a political actor: A new theory of the firm for a globalized world. Business & Society Review, 53(2), 143–156. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockstrom, J., Schellnhuber, H. J., Dube, O. P., et al. (2020). The emergence and evolution of Earth System Science. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, Nature, 1(1), 54–63.

6  Socially Responsible Innovation Between Corporate Social Responsibility and…

93

United Nations. (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations.. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication. Accessed 30/8/2018. United Nations: United Nations global compact. https://www.unglobalcompact.org/. Accessed 30/8 2018. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford University Press. Yin, R. K. (2010). Qualitative research. From start to finish. Guilford Publications. Yin, R. K. (2011). Applications of case study research: Design and methods (3rd revised ed.). Sage Publications.

Chapter 7

Leadership of Social Entrepreneurship in a Multi-Stakeholder Context: A Specific Domain or Specific Contextualities of Leadership Theories? Margit Neisig Abstract  This chapter accounts for the shift in general leadership theories during the twenty-first century compared to leadership theories in the twentieth century, and it compares twenty-first century leadership theories to the themes identified as relevant to managing social entrepreneurship and social enterprises. The aim is to investigate a potential convergence of theoretical dialogues, and to discuss how the evolving “leadership language”  may provide for a broader process of social change. This chapter is inspired by Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory, which uses the term semantic reservoir, and unfold a complex interplay of semantics and systems in social change processes (Luhmann, 1980/1993, 1981, 1989). Thus, in this chapter “leadership language” is used interchangeable with leadership semantics such as leadership ideas, concepts, tools, methods, measurements, etc. Keywords  Twenty-first century leadership theories · Managing social entrepreneurship and social enterprises · Converging semantics · Broader process of social change · Social Systems Theory · Critique and rearrangement of structural couplings

7.1 Introduction Social enterprises as phenomenon are on the rise but take on many different forms of ownerships depending on the country in which the entity exists, the legal forms available, the purpose of the enterprise etc. Often, they are referred to as hybrid organizations in the cross-roads of a variety of institutional logics. Because of the

M. Neisig (*) Department of Social Sciences and Business, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. L. Langergaard et al. (eds.), Learning about Social Entrepreneurship and Management in Times of Social Transformation, Ethical Economy 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47708-9_7

95

96

M. Neisig

variety of formats, many attempts are made to define and differentiate the field, from “for profit” businesses. This is also the case for leadership theories. However, several investigations of general leadership theories highlight a shift from the twentieth to the twenty-first century theories, while in parallel a specific domain of leadership theories regarding social enterprises and social entrepreneurship (SE) has emerged. As pointed out in the introduction to this book, a tension is seen as whether business principles have taken over the realm of social justice, sustainability, democracy, and citizenship vs. a cross-fertilization is taking place. As seen from the social systems theoretical perspective applied in this chapter, such a tension is caused by the operational closure of social systems, which causes them to neglect their environments. The critique is, that social systems include/exclude based on their idiosyncrasies, i.e., the meaning social systems create based on their own inner representation of their surroundings. This neglect causes complexity, risks, and an unsustainable development. The social systems theoretical framework (Luhmann 1980/1993, 1981, 1989, 1995, 2012, 2013) underlines the difficulties of different social systems to communicate directly, but also the possibility of structural couplings to be rearranged in a complexity/sustainability trade-off (Valentinov, 2014, 2017) in which social systems give-up some of their own complexity to become more sensitive towards the environment in striving for sustainability. Theoretically, the tensions described in the introduction of this book, may drive “irritations” of different social systems provoking an adaptation by which a semantic change (such as “leadership language”) may occur in an ongoing process. This is required to rearrange structural coupling of social systems for a more sustainable (or perhaps regenerative) development (see e.g. Neisig, 2017, 2021, 2022, 2023a, b). However, there is neither guaranties for this to occur nor for temporal issues to be resolved. As described in Neisig (2023b): By researching and illustrating semantics that ameliorate social systems ability to observe themselves “as from outside”, and to observe the way in which other systems (including non-social) observe, engaged management scholars working from a social systems approach, may engage with organizations and polycentric networks to uncover this neglect and set-up strategies for a multifunctional inclusion – also of non-social systems.

This chapter investigates, how a shared “leadership language”, i.e., a shared semantic reservoir, may be in the process of forming across the domain of general leadership theories and a specific domain of leadership theories regarding SE. This investigation also points out some of the tensions, mentioned in the introduction to this book. Ability to working with such tensions and engaging with multistakeholder networks with affinities for different functional systems, such as political, judiciary, economic, scientific, educational, media etc. may enhance the leadership competencies of students from Social Entrepreneurship and Management (SEM) to facilitate broader processes of systemic change. A literature review identifies prevalent themes and dialogues emerging from the leadership literature regarding the domain of SE as: “Hybridity of organisational forms and objectives, The individual vs. collective perspective on management in

7  Leadership of Social Entrepreneurship in a Multi-Stakeholder Context: A Specific…

97

social entrepreneurship, Participatory approach, New governance models, Resource utilisation and management as well as Social innovation management” (Arvedsen & Hotti, 2018, p. 58). However, these themes are increasingly also found in recent literature regarding general leadership theories, as elaborated in sections 7.3. Dacin et al. (2011) argue, that: …social entrepreneurs, like all entrepreneurs, face a variety of competing institutional pressures. However, the management of these pressures and the associated institutional complexity appears especially challenging in the context of social entrepreneurship, because it requires these entrepreneurs to draw from both for-profit and non-profit institutional logics, which may conflict with one another.

Since 2011, nonetheless, many “for-profit” companies have taken-up grand challenges as their mission, and are facing the same dilemmas, which need to be balanced. Examples are, the growing seaweed farming industry, which are for-profit companies also storing CO2 and rewilding the oceans, permaculture farmers running agricultural for-profit businesses while regenerating the soil and water cycle, for-profit food industry based on upscaling of waste-streams from other food produces etc. Other more traditional for-profit companies are taking on sustainability goals as part of their mission, too. Examples are Unilever, claiming to strive to make sustainable living commonplace, or the growing telecommunication industry providing mobile services in the developing world, while creating new opportunities to improve livelihoods for the worlds’ not so well-off population. All such companies act in a mixture of for-profit and nonprofit institutional logics though not defining themselves as SE companies, but doing business for profit, while also “doing good”. This rises the sustainability agenda to become more mainstream and creates blurring boundaries between leadership domains. This raises the question if leadership of SE in a multi-stakeholder context is a specific domain or a specific contextuality of general leadership theories? One could argue, that “doing good for-profit” businesses may learn from the institutional complexity SE companies find themselves in, while on the other hand Dacin et al. (2010) argue, that integrating “insights from existing theories inherent in conventional, cultural, and institutional entrepreneurship frameworks” in ways that address the unique phenomena that exist in the context of SE is of value. Furthermore, for-profit companies with social and/or sustainability goals and SE enterprises may collaborate in value chains making the multistakeholder context even more visible, but also open for mutual learning, while in need for some sort of shared leadership language. This chapter discusses how a possible convergence of the diverse domain-­ theories seems to lead to a paradigm shift of mainstream theories, while in line with Dacin et  al. (2010) questioning, whether a specific domain for leadership theory regarding SE is needed or – it may be better to perceive all leadership situations as contingent varieties of contexts; for-profit, social entrepreneurial or non-profit etc. This chapter argues for a plurality of theories relevant to greater or lesser extent to different contexts, but with so much richness and overlap, that communication across the contexts is possible.

98

M. Neisig

Below, first is accounted for the paradigm shift of the general leadership theories. Second, the themes found by Arvedsen and Hotti (2018) in the domain specific leadership theories are compared to similar themes found in general leadership theories, and finally, the chapter discusses, if it is worth dealing with a shared “leadership language” – and if yes, why? Finally, the learning points, and how this book-chapter contributes to learning, for whom and in which contexts are summed-up.

7.2 A Paradigm Shift in General Leadership Theories Several investigations of general leadership theories highlight a shift from the twentieth to the twenty-first century theories caused by the increasing complexity of the society, globalization, rebalancing of geopolitics, digitalization, scrambling for resources, ecological footprint, global warming, increasing inequality etc. By focusing on individual properties and the quality of the relation between individuals, twentieth-century leadership theories are leader-centric, and regard individuals as stable entities that enter relationships (Carroll et  al., 2019). However, since around year 2000, a new focus in leadership theories appears, understanding leadership as emergent processes of co-creation. First, the American military promoted the VUCA-framework (Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity) (U. S. Army Heritage & Education Center, 2019). Later contributions focused on distributed, shared, and emergent leadership processes (Clarke, 2018; Raelin, 2016a; Zhu et  al., 2018) in increasingly networked environments. Followership (Uhl-Bien et al., 2014) was foregrounded as opposed to the leader-centric approaches from the past century, and Uhl-Bien has since her contribution to the Leader-­ membership exchange (LMX) theory in 1995 (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995) spent almost 20-years developing and refining the complexity leadership theory (Uhl-­ Bien et al., 2007; Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2017) based on network and complexity science, and a lot of empirical work. Not far away is another strand, leadership-aspractice, which is an “umbrella” of theories regarding practices rather than individuals as the relevant unit of research, also when studying networks (Harding et al., 2017; Mitterlechner, 2019). A surge in network management and leadership theories is found, (e.g., Klijn, 2005; Edelenbos et  al., 2013) underlining the increasing network-orientation of leading, not delimited to the hierarchical or formal organizations. The organizational boundaries are blurring, warping into networks of value-adding entities, and organizations become more issue- than function-based (Crossan & Olivera, 2006). Likewise, an interest has emerged in studying various ways of organizing and organizationalities such as meta-organizations, partial organizations and even to extend the notion of organization beyond organizations (Ahrne & Brunsson, 2005; Ahrne et al., 2016; Garaudel, 2020). Lord (2008) argues that even the transformational leadership theory (Burns, 1978; Bass, 1985, 1996) does not work in circumstances with emergent and

7  Leadership of Social Entrepreneurship in a Multi-Stakeholder Context: A Specific…

99

fast-changing phenomena created by complexity as many situations deal with unknowabilities, and not simply unknown unknowns. Under such condition, transformational leaders may even mislead the followers. Stacey and Mowles (2016) are also inspired by complexity theory, but based on symbolic interactionism they conclude, that human intentions and sense-making are integral. Complexity theory entails perceiving it as a network of dynamic processes with continuous micro-interactions of gesture and response, where ideologies and intentionality are influential. Discursive social-constructivist theory (Fairhurst & Grant, 2010), sense-making theory (Weick, 1995), practice theory (Raelin, 2016b; Harding et  al., 2017) and critical management studies (e.g., Sveningsson & Alvesson, 2020, 2021) contribute to the new, less leader-centric focus for leadership theories in the 21-century. Recently, the purpose-driven leadership theories (Birkinshaw et al., 2014; Quinn & Thakor, 2018; Rey et  al., 2019), and regenerative leadership (Hardman, 2012; Hutchins & Storm, 2019) are drawing on several of the before mentioned theories and address moral or ethical issues and the possibility to solve global problems and even regenerate what previous business models have degraded. Thus, the twenty-first century general leadership theories are not only leaving behind the approach of being leader-centric, but also addressing the institutional complexity of balancing for-profit and nonprofit institutional logics conflicting with one another.

7.3 Comparing Leadership Theory Themes in SE to Twenty-­First-Century General Leadership In this section, the themes found by Arvedsen and Hotti (2018) in the domain specific SE leadership theories are compared to similar themes found in general leadership theories. As argued below the prevalent themes and dialogues emerging from the SE leadership literature have increasingly also emerged as prevalent in general leadership theory literature.

7.3.1 Hybridity of Organisational Forms and Objectives Hybridity of organizational forms and objectives is about the hybrid nature of the mission, vision, and goals of SE and the cross-sectoral nature of many social enterprises. This calls on leadership combining logics, practices, and resources from each of the three traditional sectors public, private and non-profit organizations (Doherty et al., 2014). Hybridity of organisational forms and objectives, as a theme, is increasingly also unfolded in general leadership theories such as the purpose-driven leadership theories (Birkinshaw et al., 2014; Quinn & Thakor, 2018; Rey et al., 2019) discussing

100

M. Neisig

how to balance purpose and profit, the cross-enterprise leadership theory (Crossan & Olivera, 2006) discussing blurring organizational boundaries when organizing in value networks around issues (not functions), and in leadership in a sustainability paradigm (Howieson et al., 2019). Wronka-Pośpiech (2016: 44 ff.) argues, that focusing on creating social value and solving societal problems are key differences between leading commercial and SE enterprises. However, when commercial companies pursue a business logic that profits are not the purpose of business, − but a need to stay alive, which Freeman calls the new story of business (Freeman, 2017), then profit is a consequence of solving social and environment issues. This is in direct opposition to Friedman’s (1970) famous statement, “the business of business is business”. As a critique, Roth et al. (2020) draw on established views of CSR dysfunctionalities to show from a social systems theoretical perspective, why CSR is regularly observed to be both shaped by and supportive of capitalism. They argue that to address CSR dysfunctionality, the approach must overcome (1) the artificial distinction between economy and society, (2) the capitalist bias towards economic rationalities, and (3) the overidentification of society with its political system. However, this criticism applies to both domain specific leadership theories regarding SE and general leadership theories regarding CSR, sustainability and/or stakeholder capitalism, though based on different idiosyncrasies.

7.3.2 The Individual vs. Collective Perspective on Leadership in SE Arvedsen and Hotti (2018) identify an interest in the social entrepreneur as an individual driven by social goals and inner motivation towards attaining greater good. This, however, is not different from what the theory of public service motivation finds in both the public, private and third sectors (Neisig, 2019), while maybe under-­ utilized in the public and private sectors. Andersen (2015) defines a social entrepreneur as “an anchor person and a motivator who is able to create networks and co-ownership among various actors: civil, public and private.” (Andersen, 2015, p.  50). Austin et  al. (2006 in Andersen, 2015:52) argue that social entrepreneurs, as facilitators and leaders, differ from commercial entrepreneurs. They are motivated by social value creation rather than personal or shareholder value. This needs further examination in light of public service motivation theory, purpose-driven leadership, and the new story of capitalism. All these theories find the similar motivation in commercial companies, too (Neisig, 2019). Arvedsen and Hotti (2018) highlight the limitations of individual perspectives in social entrepreneurship and advocate for a focus on collective SE. They reference Montgomery et al. (2012) who argue that collective SE, when embedded in social movements, can drive change across sectors. Montgomery et  al. view social

7  Leadership of Social Entrepreneurship in a Multi-Stakeholder Context: A Specific…

101

movements as the foundation of SE in markets, public institutions, and various sectors (Montgomery et al., 2012:376). The theme of individual versus collective leadership also appears in many general leadership theories e.g., distributed, shared and emergent leadership processes (Clarke, 2018; Raelin, 2016a; Zhu et al., 2018), followership theory (Uhl-bien et al., 2014), complexity leadership (Uhl-Bien et  al., 2007; Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2017; Varney, 2021), complex responsive processes (Stacey & Mowles, 2016), fluid leadership (Crevani, 2015, 2018) and network leadership (Klijn, 2005; Edelenbos et al., 2013; Mitterlechner, 2019). This situates SE within a broader context of social change, which seems to also drive the shift in general leadership theories highlighting the advantage of perceiving all leadership situations as contingent varieties of contexts. As an example, the for-profit business of permaculture agriculture is based on the social permaculture movement, according to Roux-Rosier et al. (2018). They identify the permaculture movement as a technical design practice, a holistic life philosophy, and an intersectional social movement. Permaculture agricultural businesses also link-up with businesses providing software-as-a-service for adoption, measurement, reporting and verification of ecosystem outcomes, such as soil carbon, and nitrogen leaching, among others. Such documentation is needed to get paid by carbon credit, biodiversity credits, etc. However, also “big food” companies such as General Mills, Cargill and others collaborate and promote permaculture and regenerative agricultural businesses providing both learning and payment programs. These examples demonstrate the connection between network leadership, social movements, and coalition-building in a collective dynamic, despite potential paradoxes. “Big food” companies can serve as the driving force behind scaling the change. SE, on the other hand, need to connect with or establish a robust social movement to facilitate the scaling of their social business model. This concept is referred to as patterning by Varney (2021).

7.3.3 Participatory Approach and Co-production Andersen (2015) defines the participatory approach of the SE as follows: “Participation and civil society are essential categories because they indicate that social entrepreneurship is not just a matter of producing social endpoints, but also of the processes and relationships that generate social values.” (Andersen, 2015:47). Arvedsen and Hotti (2018) highlight the growing popularity of the co-production concept in the field of SE (Andersen, 2015, Andersen & Espersen, 2017, Defourny & Nyssens, 2012, Mason et al., 2007, Pestoff, 2009, Osborne & Strokosch, 2016, Hansen, 2017). This trend is, however, observed not only in SE but also in other sectors, as discussed in transient organizations by Andersen (2013) and cross-enterprise leadership by Crossan and Olivera (2006). Arvedsen and Hotti (2018:39) characterize co-production:

102

M. Neisig

… as an umbrella term of collaborative actions at different levels between various actors, such as sectors, organizations, and individuals, working towards a common goal. Hence, co-production may refer to the micro-level relationship between a service provider (public, private, or social sector) and a user or beneficiary. Or co-production can be used to discuss cross-sectoral partnerships, multi-enterprise networks and other forms of collaboration. The nature of co-production is broad and adaptive to different contexts.

Defined in this broad way, co-production is not a specific characteristic for SE, but rather a raising phenomenon in a complex world with many actors needing to collaborate across sectors and industries as solutions require wide spanning competences and perspectives. Thus, network leadership (Klijn, 2005, Edelenbos et al., 2013, Mitterlechner, 2019), followership theory (Uhl-bien et al., 2014), complexity leadership (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007; Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2017; Varney, 2021), complex responsive processes (Stacey & Mowles, 2016), fluid leadership (Crevani, 2015, 2018), involvement with stakeholders (Freeman, 2017; Schwab, 2021) as well as the criticism of stakeholder capitalism (Roth et al., 2020), are all addressing a participatory approach and co-production from a variety of perspectives.

7.3.4 New Governance Models In close relation to the participatory approaches, stakeholder involvement and co-­ production, Arvedsen and Hotti (2018) identifies the theme of governance within SE drawing on democratic and participatory principles (Defourny et  al., 2014; Andersen, 2015; Hudson, 2009; Defourny, 2007 in Pestoff, 2009; Spear et al., 2009; Spear et al., 2014; Borzaga et al., 2014; Enjolras, 2014; Huybrechts et al., 2014; Wronka-Pośpiech, 2016; Mason et al., 2007). It is, however, relevant to notice, that corporate governance has evolved, not only regarding SE, but also in general. Naciti et al. (2022) state that: Corporate governance (CG) is a set of rules and organizational structures that are the basis for correct business operation, understood as compensation for the interests – sometimes divergent – of stakeholders (Du Plessis et al. (2018)).

As CG is a framework shaping decision-making and how to attain the objectives, practically every aspect of management becomes part of CG. This counts for action plans, and all sorts of internal controls such as performance measurement and management and corporate disclosure, as well as external laws. According to Naciti et al. (2022), traditionally CG primarily aimed to safeguard shareholder investments from opportunistic managers. However, in recent times, corporate governance has evolved to encompass a broader scope, involving the monitoring of corporate activities, including their impact on society and the environment. This expanded focus on corporate sustainability often arises due to stakeholder demands and needs balancing the interests of a company’s many stakeholders.

7  Leadership of Social Entrepreneurship in a Multi-Stakeholder Context: A Specific…

103

In numerous large organizations, both public and private, bureaucratic and hierarchical procedures persist. However, in post-bureaucratic organizations, the necessity for rapid change and adaptation leads to a trend of becoming transient. This results in various paradoxes described by Andersen (2013) and Neisig (2019). When organizations are becoming blurred, interconnected and issue/purpose oriented (Crossan & Olivera, 2006), governance needs to become more inclusive of all stakeholders. The cross-enterprise approach considers a network of enterprises to be dynamic and to have fluid boundaries, why leadership, knowledge, and power must be distributed. This interrelates cross-enterprise leadership with democratic governance. It involves a shift from viewing enterprises as static and hierarchical under bureaucratic control to a more dynamic, action-oriented, and community-driven approach with diverse and evolving actors and stakeholders (Crossan & Olivera, 2006).Democratic governance and community building in commercial and non-­ commercial companies including institutional design of networks, e.g., multi-­ stakeholder boards and various constructions of ownership are addressed in the network leadership literature (e.g., Klijn, 2005; Edelenbos et  al., 2013; Mitterlechner, 2019). Also, the literature on purpose-driven leadership (e.g., Birkinshaw et al., 2014; Quinn & Thakor, 2018; Rey et al., 2019), and the literature on distributed, shared, and emergent leadership processes (Clarke, 2018; Raelin, 2016a; Zhu et al., 2018) are addressing issues relevant to new, and more democratic governance models.

7.3.5 Resource Utilisation and Management Many authors emphasize that SE possess a unique and multi-faceted approach to resource mobilization, utilization, and leadership. This perspective is rooted in the human economy, which prioritizes the well-being and sustenance of human beings and all forms of life, rather than solely focusing on the capitalist market economy. From this perspective the importance of non-financial resources is underpinned (Andersen, 2015; Borzaga et  al., 2014; Doherty et  al., 2014; Dacin et  al., 2011; Austin et  al., 2006). As a specific characteristic, social entrepreneurs distinguish themselves by creatively combining and utilizing resources in the aspiration to alter social structures and address societal problems (Dacin et al., 2010 in Lortie & Cox, 2018). This DNA or self-identity is relevant for SE but needs to be more clearly distinguished from aspiration in other sectors to alter social structures and address societal problems by mobilizing resources from diverse sources. Not only SE, but also private, public, and other types of organizations are paying attention to the circular economy and circular business models, as unfolded by Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMAF et al., 2015; Neisig, 2022). An upcoming trend is the regenerative thinking going beyond the semantics of sustainability aiming at regenerating what has already been degraded, and purposely repair ecosystem

104

M. Neisig

services and obtain social justice (Hafner, 2021, Hardman, 2012, Hutchins & Storm, 2019, Roland & Landua, 2015, Sanford, 2017, Sanford & Haggard, 2020, Sustainable Brands, 2022, Wahl, 2016). Both the circular economy and the regenerative approach are very dependent on multistakeholder networks (Neisig, 2017, 2021, 2022, 2023a, b) as no single organization can close the loop in the circular economy or recreate what has been degraded. Thus, even though, they may have a for-profit perspective, they are working to mobilizing resources from diverse sources.

7.3.6 Social Innovation Management Widely agreed, the primary purpose of social innovations is to create social value and social solutions through transformation, development, or sometimes radical change to unjust structures (Arvedsen & Hotti, 2018). The theme is closely interrelated with the other themes analyzed above: hybridity, resource management and double bottom-line approaches. Fagerberg (2005) argues, that social innovation is context-dependent, dynamic, and largely affected by its environment, and the resources and constraints adhering to that environment. Therefore, it needs to be understood as a dynamic concept. Transformational Social Innovation is by Juarez et  al. (2018:318) defined as social innovation that produce changes in social relations that involve “new ways of doing, organizing, framing and/or knowing, which challenge, alter, and/or replace established (dominant) institutions in a specific socio-material context”. Further, Avelino et al. (2019:198) explain that transformational social innovation is due to “changing paradigms and mental models, political institutions, physical structures and innovative developments on the ground”. At its core, it does not just involve societal benefits at micro and macro levels, it also entails challenging and alteration of traditional hegemonic narratives and dominant discourses. As already argued, the themes covered by social innovation are also prevalent in twenty-first century general leadership theories, e.g., the problems of driving change through top-down commands addressed by the complexity leadership theory (Uhl-­ Bien et al., 2007; Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2017), theories of innovation through bricolage (Fuglsang & Sørensen, 2011) and by distributed, shared and emergent leadership (Clarke, 2018; Raelin, 2016a; Zhu et al., 2018). The need for businesses to be driving social change are prevailing in theories concerning purpose-driven (e.g., Birkinshaw et al., 2014; Quinn & Thakor, 2018; Rey et al., 2019), and regenerative leadership (Hafner, 2021; Hardman, 2012; Hutchins & Storm, 2019; Roland & Landua, 2015; Sanford, 2017; Sanford & Haggard, 2020; Sustainable Brands, 2022; Wahl, 2016). Summing-up, this chapter finds, that all the themes and dialogues prevalent in theSE leadership theories are also found in the twenty-first century general leadership theories making the boundaries of the theoretical domains increasingly blurred.

7  Leadership of Social Entrepreneurship in a Multi-Stakeholder Context: A Specific…

105

7.4 Is It Worth Dealing with a Shared “Leadership Language”: And If Yes, Why? The social systems theory (Luhmann, 1995, 2012, 2013) is a useful lens to address the question: “Is it worth dealing with a shared “leadership language” across the specific domains of SE, and general leadership theories?”. According to this theoretical approach, the social world consists of closed meaning-processing social systems, open only for communication. Luhmann distinguishes between social structure and semantics. Social structure is the form of communicative differentiation and structural coupling within the society (Luhmann 1993:9–72). Semantics consist of various vocabulary sets and groups of ideas developed historically to make communication plausible (Luhmann, 1980:19). Luhmann defines the notion of semantics as “socially available sense, that is generalized in a higher level and relatively independent of specific situations” (Luhmann 1980:19). Andersen (2011) explains this as “condensed meaning” which as a generalized form of meaning is available to many communicative operations. According to Luhmann, a complicated co-evolution takes place between societal structure and semantics. As social systems are only open to communication, semantics play an important role both in stabilizing and changing structures. Through history, the social structure and semantics have evolved and made handling of an increasing complexity possible. In the modern society this is obtained through a functional differentiation, in which the societal subsystems fulfill specific functions in the society, e.g., economy, politics, science, religion etc. As all social systems, each of these function systems are closed meaning-processing social systems open only for communication. Other types of social systems are organization systems, which have important decision-making functions and interaction systems, which play an important role in coordination. Due to the functional differentiation and the closed meaning-processes of social systems, it is a problem for the modern society to create a meaningful societal self-­ description. As the modern differentiated society has lost its ability to produce a “grand unifying narrative”, the functional differentiated structure obviously creates pathologies producing multiple crises and an unsustainable future due to the inability to reduce the risks of the complexity produced by the differentiated structure. The big question is, how the society may ameliorate its capacity for observing itself by changing structures and semantics. As all observations unavoidably have a blind spot, moving up in the order of observation, a system can now recognize, that it cannot not see, what it cannot see. Semantics may help this process if adequate semantics are available and selected by the communication. Also, higher-order, multifunctional structures are possible as e.g., polycentric networks which can develop sensitivity towards a broader spectrum of the environments. Such networks are for instance multistakeholder networks across social enterprises, commercial enterprises, public organizations with affinities toward different environments. This may increase the flexibility to the external environments because networks can act both as the individual

106

M. Neisig

organizations or collectively. However, it is not an easy task to structurally couple in such networks (Neisig, 2017, 2021, 2023a, b) – and a more sustainable rearrangement of structural couplings will need shared leadership semantic across such broad networks. A shared semantic across polycentric networks, is needed for communication concerning commitments tying the network together. For a polycentric, structural coupled network to form, the systems need shared semantics so rich that each system can communicate, select meaning and make decisions on commitments. This is a precondition for forming a collaborative system and a structural coupling. Thus, for systems to structurally couple, their communication needs to communicate, and for that, they need shared semantics. Shared semantics can be shared ideas, concepts, models, standards, measurements, reporting, but also leadership theories. This is all part of a “shared leadership language”, which consequently is important for polycentric networks (e.g., multistakeholder networks) across sectors successfully to rearrange structural couplings and strive towards a more sustainable social and environmental future (Neisig, 2017, 2021, 2022, 2023a, b). The “learning points” of this chapter are, that for a wider transition process towards sustainability at a societal level to emerge, rearrangements of structural couplings among social systems are required. As concluded, the evolving shared themes of leadership theories are contributing to creating shared semantics allowing communication to communicate across polycentric/multistakeholder networks and to rearrange structural couplings in a more sustainable way. It targets management scholars, students, and those interested in leadership theories, aiming to foster shared communication and support sustainable structural couplings of social systems at a societal scale. The point is to enhance the leadership competencies of students from SEM (and other domains) to facilitate broader social change processes with an inclusive and perhaps regenerative perspective. This requires skills to facilitation a systemic transition processes in broad multifunctional and multistakeholder networks across social enterprises, commercial enterprises, public organizations with affinities toward different environments. To do so, both scholars, students and practitioners need to learn and develop leadership theories, and “leadership language”, that are rich enough to enable communication to communicate across non-domain-specific leadership contexts.

References Ahrne, G., & Brunsson, N. (2005). Organizations and meta-organizations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 21(4), 429–449. Ahrne, G., Brunsson, N., & Seidl, D. (2016). Resurrecting organization by going beyond organizations. European Management Journal, 34(2), 93–101. Andersen, N. Å. (2011). Conceptual history and the diagnostics of the present. Management & Organizational History, 6(3), 248–267. Andersen, N. Å. (2013). Managing intensity and play at work: Transient relationship. Edward Elgar.

7  Leadership of Social Entrepreneurship in a Multi-Stakeholder Context: A Specific…

107

Andersen, L. (2015). ​Social entrepreneurship and social innovation: Human economy, governance and volunteerism revisited. Cursiv, 15, 45–64. Andersen, L., & Espersen, H. (2017). In B. Mazanti & L. G. Aner (Eds.), Styring og samarbejde i det boligsociale arbejde: om civilsamfund, partnerskaber, samskabelse og samproduktion in Boligsocialt arbejde. Hans Reitzels forlag. Arvedsen, L., & Hotti, J. (2018). An integrative review of prevalent theoretical dialogues of management within social entrepreneurship literature and research, semester project at social entrepreneurship and management. Roskilde University. Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 1–22. Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J.  M., Pel, B., Weaver, P., Dumitru, A., Haxeltine, A., & O’Riordan, T. (2019). Transformative social innovation and (dis)empowerment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 195–206. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations (Vol. 14, pp. 121–124). The Free Press. Bass, B. M. (1996). A new paradigm of leadership: An inquiry into transformational leadership. US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Birkinshaw, J., Foss, N.  J., & Lindenberg, S. (2014). Combining purpose with profits. Sloan Management Review, 55(3), 49–56. Borzaga, C., Depedri, S., & Tortia, E. (2014). Organizational variety in market economies and the emergent role of socially oriented enterprises. In J. Defourny et al. (Eds.), Social enterprise and the third sector: Changing European landscapes in a comparative perspective. Taylor & Francis. Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row. Carroll, B., Ford, J., & Taylor, S. (2019). Leadership. Contemporary critical perspectives (2nd ed.). Sage Publishing. Clarke, N. (2018). Shared leadership. In N. Clarke (Ed.), Relational leadership – Theory, practice and development (pp. 71–88). Routledge. Crevani, L. (2015). Relational leadership. In B. Carroll, J. Ford, & S. Taylor (Eds.), Leadership: Contemporary critical perspectives (pp. 223–247). SAGE Publications Limited. Crevani, L. (2018). Is there leadership in a fluid world? Exploring the ongoing production of direction in organizing. Leadership, 14(1), 83–109. Crossan, M., & Olivera, F. (2006). Cross-enterprise leadership: A new approach for the 21st century. Ivey Business Journal, 70(5), 1–6. Dacin, P., Dacin, M., & Matear, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t need a new theory and how we move forward from here. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), 37–57. Dacin, M.  T., Dacin, P.  A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization Science, 22(5), 1203–1213. Defourny J. (2007). Concepts and realities of social enterprise: A European perspective. Leuven, Belgium, conference paper. Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2012). Conceptions of social enterprise in Europe: A comparative perspective with the United States. In Social enterprises: An organizational perspective (pp. 71–90). Palgrave Macmillan UK. Defourny, J., Hulgård, L., & Pestoff, V. (2014). Introduction to the social Enterprise field. In J. Defourny, L. Hulgård, & V. Pestoff (Eds.), Social enterprise and the third sector: Changing European landscapes in a comparative perspective. Routledge. Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). ​Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 417–436. Du Plessis, J. J., Hargovan, A., & Harris, J. (2018). Principles of contemporary corporate governance. Cambridge University Press. Edelenbos, J., Van Buuren, A., & Klijn, E.-H. (2013). Connective capacities of network managers. Public Management Review, 15(1), 131–159. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMAF), SUN, McKinsey & Co. (2015). Growth within: A circular economy vision for a competitive Europe.

108

M. Neisig

Enjolras, B. (2014). The associative as governance structure. In J.  Defourny, L.  Hulgård, & V. Pestoff (Eds.), Social enterprise and the third sector: Changing European landscapes in a comparative perspective. Routledge. Fagerberg, J. (2005). Innovation: A guide to the literature. In J.  Fagerberg, D.  C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 1–26). Oxford University Press. Fairhurst, G.  T., & Grant, D. (2010). The social construction of leadership: A sailing guide. Management Communication Quarterly., 24(2), 171–210. Freeman, R. E. (2017). The new story of business: Towards a more responsible capitalism. Business and Society Review, 122(3), 449–465. Friedman, M. (1970, September, 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times, p. 33. Fuglsang, L., & Sørensen, F. (2011). The balance between bricolage and innovation: Management dilemmas in sustainable public innovation. The Service Industries Journal, 31(4), 581–595. Garaudel, P. (2020). Exploring meta-organizations’ diversity and agency: A meta-rganizational perspective on global union federations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 36(1), 101094. Graen, G. B., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years – Applying a multilevel multidomain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. Hafner, R. (2021). Why ‘Regenerative visions – beyond sustainability’? Founders of Tomorrow Project Lead. https://foundersoftomorrow.com/why-­regenerative-­visions-­beyond-­ sustainability/. Accessed 5 Aug 2023. Hansen, A.  V. (2017). What stories unfold: Empirically grasping value co-creation. European Business Review, 29(1), 2–14. Harding, R., Illes, K., & Koronis, E. (2017). Leadership as practice and a meta-profession: Conceptual propositions. Academic Conferences International Limited. Hardman, J. (2012). Leading for regeneration: Going beyond sustainability in business education, and community. Routledge. Howieson, W. B., Burnes, B., & Summers, J. C. (2019). Organisational leadership and/for sustainability: Future directions from John Dewey and social movements. European Management Journal, 37(6), 687–693. Hudson, M. (2009). Managing without profit. Leadership, management and governance of third sector organizations (3rd ed.). Directory of Social Change. Hutchins, G., & Storm, L. (2019). Regenerative leadership – The DNA of life-affirming 21st century organizations. Wordzworth Publishing. Huybrechts, B., Mertens, S., & Rijpens, J. (2014). Explaining stakeholder involvement in social enterprise governance through resources and legitimacy. In J.  Defourny, L.  Hulgård, & V. Pestoff (Eds.), Social enterprise and the third sector: Changing European landscapes in a comparative perspective. Routledge. Juarez, P., Trentini, F., & Becerra, L. (2018). Transformative social innovation for food sovereignty: The disruptive lternative. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture & Food, 24(3), 318–355. Klijn, E.-H. (2005). Designing and managing networks: Possibilities and limitations for network management. European Political Science, 4, 328–339. Lord, R. G. (2008). Beyond transactional and transformations leadership: Can leaders still lead when they don’t know what to do? In M. Uhl-Bien & R. Marion (Eds.), Complexity leadership: Part 1: Conceptual foundations (leadership horizons) (Pt. 1) (pp. 155–185). IAP-Information Age Publishing, Inc. Lortie, J., & Cox, K. (2018). On the boundaries of social entrepreneurship: A review of relationships with related research domains. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(3), 639–648. Luhmann, N. (1980/1993, 1981, 1989) Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik. Studien zur Wissenssociologie der modernen Gesellschaft, bd. 1–3. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford University Press.

7  Leadership of Social Entrepreneurship in a Multi-Stakeholder Context: A Specific…

109

Luhmann, N. (2012, 2013). Theory of society. Vol. 1 and 2. Stanford University Press. Mason, C., Kirkbride, J., & Bryde, D. (2007). From stakeholders to institutions: The changing face of social enterprise governance theory. Management Decision, 45(2), 284–301. Mitterlechner, M. (2019). Leading in inter-organizational networks. Palgrave Macmillan. Montgomery, A., Dacin, P., & Dacin, M. (2012). C ​ollective social entrepreneurship: Collaboratively shaping social good. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(2), 375–338. Naciti, V., Cesaroni, F., & Pulejo, L. (2022). Corporate governance and sustainability: A review of the existing literature. Journal of Management and Governance, 26, 55–74. Neisig, M. (2017). Transition in complex polycentric contexts: Trusting and multifunctional semantics. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 34(2), 163–181. Neisig, M. (2019). When motivation theories create demotivation and impair productivity. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 5(3), 149–152. Neisig, M. (2021). Social systems theory and engaged scholarship: Co-designing a semantic reservoir in a polycentric network. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 34(4), 763–777. Neisig, M. (2022). The circular economy: Rearranging structural couplings and the paradox of moral-based sustainability-enhancing feedback. Kybernetes, 51(5), 1896–1914. Neisig, M. (2023a). Measuring companies multicontextual contribution to a sustainable development. In S. Kacanski, J. K. Dreyer, & K. J. Sund (Eds.), Measuring sustainability and CSR: From reporting to decision-making (Ethical economy). Springer. Neisig, M. (2023b). The role of management science in forming next era semantics. Systemic Practice and Action Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-­023-­09654-­y Osborne, S., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment? Public Management Review, 18(5), 639–653. Pestoff, V. (2009). Towards a paradigm of democratic participation: Citizen participation and co-­ production of personal social services in Sweden. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economy., 80(2), 197–224. Quinn, R. E., & Thakor, A. V. (2018). Creating a purpose-driven organization. Harvard Business Review, July–August, 78–85. Raelin, J. A. (2016a). Imagine there are no leaders: Reframing leadership as collaborative agency. Leadership, 12(2), 131–158. Raelin, J. A. (2016b). Leadership as practice: Theory and practice (edited volume). Rouledge. Rey, C., et al. (2019). The new logic of purpose within the organization. In C. Rey et al. (Eds.), Purpose-driven organizations (pp. 3–12). Springer. Roland, E., & Landua, G. (2015). Regenerative enterprise: Optimizing for multi-capital abundance. Lulu Press. Roth, S., Valentinov, V., Heidingsfelder, M., & Pérez-Valls, M. (2020). CSR beyond economy and society: A post-capitalist approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 165, 411–423. Roux-Rosier, A., Azambuja, R., & Islam, G. (2018). Alternative visions: Permaculture as imaginaries of the Anthropocene. Organization, 25(4), 550–572. Sanford, C. (2017). The regenerative business: Redesign work, cultivate human potential, achieve extraordinary outcomes. Hachette UK. Sanford, C., & Haggard, B. (2020). The regenerative economic shaper perspective paper— Part 1, A framework for architecting the next economy. The Regenerative Economy Collaborative. Available: https://medium.com/the-­regenerative-­economy-­collaborative/ the-­regenerative-­economic-­shaper-­perspective-­paper-­part-­1-­8cd56d77f4b0. Schwab, K. (2021). Stakeholder capitalism; making the case for a global economy that works for progress, people and planet. Wiley. Spear, R., Cornforth, C., & Aiken, M. (2009). The governance challenges of social enterprises: A UK empirical study. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 2(2), 247–273. Spear, R., Cornforth, C., & Aiken, M. (2014). Major perspectives on governance of social enterprise. In J. Defourny, L. Hulgård, & V. Pestoff (Eds.), Social enterprise and the third sector: Changing European landscapes in a comparative perspective. Routledge.

110

M. Neisig

Stacey, R.  D., & Mowles, C. (2016). Strategic management and organisational dynamics: The challenge of complexity to ways of thinking about organisations. Pearson. Sustainable Brands. (2022) The road to regeneration. How to define and build a regenerative business. https://library.sustainablebrands.com/browse/content-­type/report. Accessed 25 June 2022. Sveningsson, S., & Alvesson, M. (2020). Global leadership: Sustaining classic managerialism. In Research handbook of global leadership (pp. 39–53). Edward Elgar Publishing. Sveningsson, S., & Alvesson, M. (2021). Ledarskap – en interaktiv ansats. Liber. U. S. Army Heritage & Education Center. (2019). Who first originated the term VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity)?. USAHEC Ask Us a Question. The United States Army War College. Retrived: https://usawc.libanswers.com/faq/84869. Accessed 11 Jan 2021. Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2017). Complexity leadership: Enabling people and organizations for adaptability. Organizational Dynamics, 46(1), 9–20. Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298–318. Uhl-Bien, M., Riggio, R. E., Lowe, K. B., & Carsten, M. K. (2014). Followership theory: A review and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 83–104. Valentinov, V. (2014). The complexity-sustainability trade-off in Niklas Luhmann’s social sys-­ tems theory. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 31(1), 14–22. Valentinov, V. (2017). Wiener and Luhmann on feedback: From complexity to sustainability. Ky-bernetes, 46(3), 386–399. Varney, S. (2021). Leadership in complexity and change  – For a world in constant motion. De Gruyter. Wahl, C. (2016). Designing regenerative cultures. Triarchy Press. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. SAGE Publications. Wronka-Pośpiech, M. (2016). ​The identification of skills and competencies for effective management in social enterprises​. A managerial perspective. Management, 20(1), 40–57. Zhu, J., Liau, Z., Yam, K. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2018). Shared leadership: A state-of-the-art review and future research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39, 834–852.

Chapter 8

How Is Social Innovation Emerging in the Danish Humanitarian Sector? Mette Apollo Rasmussen and Lars Fuglsang

Abstract  Humanitarian innovation has been pushed as a governance strategy for collaboration among private businesses and NGOs about humanitarian aid. The innovation push sets a new scene for collaboration about humanitarian aid across NGOs and businesses. This chapter investigates how central actors in the humanitarian ecosystem in Denmark make sense of the push for innovation and how processes of innovation emerge. We explore the challenges and potentials when actors engage in processes of developing humanitarian innovation. Based on observations obtained at network meetings and follow-up interviews with key NGOs, businesses, and government in the Danish humanitarian sector, we identify major learning points seeking to explain how NGOs critically adopt and sustain new practices of innovation. We contribute by providing a narrative and deeper understanding of how processes innovation occurs as social-value creating practices. NGOs face requests to adopt new and more advanced networked approaches to innovation to attract funding and solve complex humanitarian problems. Building on neo-institutional theory and the construct of strategic reflexivity from the innovation literature, the chapter investigates how central actors of the humanitarian sector in Denmark rely on the two intertwined processes of strategy-­ making and reflexivity. Keywords  Humanitarian innovation · Processes of innovation · Networking interactions · Practice-based studies

M. A. Rasmussen (*) · L. Fuglsang Department of Social Sciences and Business, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. L. Langergaard et al. (eds.), Learning about Social Entrepreneurship and Management in Times of Social Transformation, Ethical Economy 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47708-9_8

111

112

M. A. Rasmussen and L. Fuglsang

8.1 Introduction Humanitarian innovation has received increasing interest in recent years since governments have pushed for more focus on humanitarian projects that engage non-­ governmental organizations (NGOs) and third-sector organizations in innovation activities (Bessant et al., 2014; Obrecht & Warner, 2016; Ramalingam et al., 2015; Warner & Obrecht, 2017). Obrecht and Warner define humanitarian innovation as “an iterative process that identifies, adjusts and diffuses ideas for improving humanitarian action” (Obrecht & Warner, 2016, p.  3). Ideally, humanitarian innovation means that humanitarian work changes from providing short-term humanitarian aid to developing sustainable innovations. This implicates more hybrid forms of organizing, new governance structures (Lindsay et  al., 2014), and new governance dynamics (Clerkin & Quinn, 2019; Cornforth et al., 2015; Ramalingam et al., 2015). King argues that this leads to more business-like approaches with more demand on accountability (King, 2017; Sandberg et al., 2020) squeezing the autonomy of NGOs (Baur & Schmitz, 2012; Fuglsang et al., 2022). However, little attention has been paid to understanding how new approaches to addressing the need for innovation emerge in the third sector (Svensson et al., 2020). The literature defines innovation as the realization of new ideas in practice (Fagerberg, 2009). Innovation is seen as step-changes, distinct from minor organizational changes or learning processes (Hartley, 2006; Sundbo, 1997). Generally, innovation is a value creating practice, and the NGOs have a particular focus toward innovation as a social value creating practice. Social innovation is a distinct concept referring to innovation in terms of social process (such as participatory approaches) and social outcome (social-value creation) (TEPSIE, 2015). In the context of humanitarian aid, this implies new technology, new services or new types of local collaboration/organization which contribute to developing social value in terms of humanitarian aid. Research on NGOs and third sector has highlighted how various types of innovation can be conceptualized, such as administrative and technological innovations (Jaskyte, 2011). It has been demonstrated that innovations in non-profit organizations are often conceptualized as social innovations and as associated with social value creation (Shier & Handy, 2014; Svensson et al., 2020). We respond, in particular, to Bessant et al.’s (2014) call for research on innovation in the humanitarian sector and their assertion that there is a need to investigate how new governance strategies pointing toward open and interactive innovation implicate a potential development of new understandings of innovation related to the third sector. What is interesting here is, how different actors enact innovation based on differing perspectives on innovation, and how activities forced by the new structures activate and engage different key actors in the humanitarian sector in social innovation activities. This chapter, focusing on NGOs in Denmark, seeks to understand how NGOs engage with innovation as a contemporary phenomenon and how it affects their thinking about humanitarian aid. Based on observations obtained at network meetings and follow-up interviews with key NGOs, businesses, and government in the

8  How Is Social Innovation Emerging in the Danish Humanitarian Sector?

113

Danish humanitarian sector, we identify major learning points concerning how NGOs develop humanitarian innovation. The Danish humanitarian sector are non-­ government civil society organisations and businesses, such as the Danish Refugee Council and the company Grundfos, which are partners to the Danish government in addressing urgent needs in humanitarian aid in natural disasters and wars or in the context of long-term conflicts, see also Table 8.1 for participants in this study. We explore the processes by which the engagement with innovation occurs and is sustained. We pay attention to how the unfolding of the innovation construct is not only driven by single NGOs to solve their specific problems but via collaborative efforts across the humanitarian sector also is a contested activity of development and mutual learning. We explore the processes through which the understanding of innovation occurs. Our key explorative research question is as follows: How do key actors in the Danish Humanitarian sector mutually engage with innovation as a social-value creating practice? The chapter contributes to extant research by extending research and knowledge of how humanitarian innovation takes place, is integrated into, conceptualized, and institutionalized in third sector organizations by developing an understanding of process facets that drive the adoption and development of humanitarian innovation. While new actors are entering the humanitarian scene, the process of innovation hinges upon the engagement and interests of the humanitarian actors and their processual learning approach. Further the chapter adds to social innovation research by exploring how new practices of innovation become adopted and sustained by the Table 8.1  Overview of data collection Activity “Unravelling innovation in the humanitarian ecosystem” 5-h workshop seminar, co-organized by the Danish ethical trading initiative, Danish refugee council, and the authors (https://www.dieh.dk/ arrangementer/114/)

Open-ended, semi-structured interviews Ongoing conversations

Participants Businesses Engsko A/S, Grundfos, LEO pharma A/S, Lifeshelter, Lulu lab, NEPCon, Novozymes, SolarSack Humanitarian organizations ADRA Denmark, CARE, DanChurchAid, Danish refugee council, Danmission, the Danish Association of the Physically Disabled, save the children, red cross, Danish family planning association, Danida Other Access2innovation, Dansk fashion and textile, the Danish ethical trading initiative, Roskilde university, University of Exeter, Unumed 7 participants from the conference All senior employees working with innovation and partnerships Top managers from a large Danish NGO

Data obtained Fieldnotes

Recorded and transcribed Fieldnotes

February 2019

2018– 2019 2018– 2019

114

M. A. Rasmussen and L. Fuglsang

NGOs. The chapter highlights how this depends on governance-driven as well as agency-driven facets. The chapter is structured as follows. First the case is presented. Then, the theoretical framework is outlined, drawing partly on neo-institutional theory. Next, the method is explained. Then, findings are presented. In the final section, we use the theoretical model to discuss and outline how new practices of innovation are developed by NGOs, the contributions of the chapter to existing literature and avenues for further research.

8.2 The Case Danish government encouraged from 2013 collaborative innovation in the humanitarian sector, sometimes referred to as the “innovation turn” toward more agentic, systematic, and collaborative approaches to innovation. The innovation concept was presented by Danida1 in 2013 stating that: “Denmark will explore new ways to allow for non-core funding that respects the multilateral and independent nature of the organisations while contributing to innovation and progress on priority issues that overlap with Danish political priorities” (Danida, 2013, p. iii). This new financing strategy not only called for innovation but also emphasized partnerships as a driver for innovation. In 2017, Danida stated that partnerships are thought of as a catalyst for “synergy, innovation and novelty” (Udenrigsministeriet Danida, 2017, p. 11). Further, in 2018, the Finance Bill allocated DKK 60 million to support innovation and the promotion of entrepreneurship (The Danish Government, 2019, p. 7) related to the focus on public-private partnerships (Udenrigsministeriet Danida, 2017, p. 16). The Danish Government provided funding for strategic partnerships in which 10% of the budget could be used for innovative solutions (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, n.d.). A representative from Danida explained: “Previously it [collaboration] was CSR-driven from the private sector, and now the private sector and the NGOs, between them, are trying to make it market-driven based on common incentives” (interview, Danida representative).

8.3 Theoretical Conceptualization Theorizing helps researchers to see and study phenomena that would otherwise not be investigated, and to advance knowledge in a field, especially about how and why a phenomenon occurs (Corley & Gioiia, 2011). The theoretical framework applied for the purpose of this chapter seeks to capture how new practices of innovation are collaboratively created and potentially become institutionalized into more solid

 Denmark’s development cooperation organized under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

1

8  How Is Social Innovation Emerging in the Danish Humanitarian Sector?

115

practices (Lounsbury & Crumley, 2007). Tolbert and Zucker (2012) suggested three processes of institutionalization—habitualization, objectification, and sedimentation. Habitualization, which is the focus of this chapter, is when new practices emerge in response to openings and pressures in the environment and become applied by several relevant actors. Objectification is moving towards a more permanent status for institutional arrangements and their adoption by decision-makers. Sedimentation is a more widespread and long-term dissemination and perpetuation of institutional arrangements. In the context of practice-based theory (Nicolini & Monteiro, 2017; Reckwitz, 2002), Lounsbury and Crumley (Lounsbury & Crumley, 2007) further discuss how institutionalization processes may start with the emergence of new experimental practices that possibly become stabilized through processes of theorization, social recognition, and negotiation (Maguire & Phillips, 2008; Svejenova et  al., 2007). This conceptualization implies that experimental practices are seen as dynamic phenomena that could be rejected, adapted, incorporated into existing frameworks, spurred by government and governance regimes, and/or guided through the formation of new institutional social-symbolic frameworks. Maintaining institutional changes requires “institutional work” (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006), i.e., active maintenance of new practices. There is a call for research on dynamics of institutionalization through which contradictions and antagonisms are better analyzed and understood, such as repairing or concealing tensions (Vargo et al., 2015), shifting phases of tensions, solutions, compromises and unexpected outcomes (Banoun et al., 2016; Oldenhof et al., 2014; Tuominen et al., 2020), and institutional reconciliation processes (Chandler et al., 2019). We focus on the initial stages when the construct of innovation starts to emerge and becomes integrated as lingo in the humanitarian sector. There may be competing practices, uncertainties, and tensions at play (Banoun et  al., 2016; Kewes & Munsch, 2019; Oldenhof et al., 2014). Following Mead, we argue that reflexivity is an essential social process where the individual re-interprets own experiences from a new perspective in a process that has the ability of changing understandings of the present (Mead, 1934). We observe how the actors potentially re-interpret own experiences from new perspectives. Further, organizational actors must interpret and take stock of changes in the social and economic environment and formulate adequate strategies based on these interpretations (Daft & Weick, 1984; Fuglsang & Sundbo, 2005). Through sensemaking processes (Weick et al., 2005), NGOs become involved in interpreting changes occurring in society and what appears to be required of them to remain “in business” and act effectively. This “strategic reflexive” approach can be applied to describe the antagonisms in how NGOs adopt the construct of innovation. This framework helps explain why some NGOs are able or willing to adopt the lingo of innovation, while others are not, thus emphasizing that innovation is a contested practice. Stabilization of emerging practices occurs when many actors adopt such practices and reflexively adapt them to their own organization or use them to theorize and develop extant ideas. However, we assume that these processes are complex, contradictory, and contextual. In what follows, we investigate the specific processes to reveal how Danish NGOs are developing the innovation approach.

116

M. A. Rasmussen and L. Fuglsang

8.4 Investigating Processes of Innovation as Emerging Social Value Creating Practices Studying how innovation emerges as social-value creating practices in the Danish humanitarian sector informed our choice of an exploratory research methodology (Guba & Lincoln, 1982; Yin, 2009). The knowledge produced is contextual and useful for building theory from empirical evidence (Becker, 2017).

8.5 Data Collection We started with conversations with leaders and managers from the Danish Refugee Council involved in the work with innovation; additionally, using a snowball sampling technique, we identified other participants starting from the network and contexts of this organization to explore how they were developing an innovation approach. Using a qualitative case-based research strategy asking “how” and “why” questions, we sought to capture contextual experiences of the process of innovation (Flyvbjerg, 2001). To collect contextual data, we used a variety of methods, including observations, conversations, interviews, participation in events within the Danish humanitarian sector, and documents analysis. We combined observations with open-ended, semi-­ structured interviews to gain a richer understanding of “what is going on” (Alvesson and Sköldberg (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009). The data collection strategy was twofold. First, a multi-stakeholder workshop entitled “Unraveling innovation in the humanitarian ecosystem” (February 2019) was organized for the dual purpose of identifying major themes and issues implied by stakeholders in the Danish humanitarian sector and recruiting interviewees for the follow-up research. Forty-five representatives from the Danish humanitarian sector attended the workshop. The data gathering method applied during the workshop can best be described as an extended focus group discussion, which was useful to gain multiple perspectives on innovation in the Danish humanitarian sector. The workshop encompassed observations of interactions among actors as they collectively analyzed and tried to make sense of and conceptualize innovation, and its relevance and usefulness. We accessed accounts of how they understood innovation and how the perception of innovation as a new governance paradigm was changing their everyday working life. With permission from the participants, the researchers took notes on the discussions, and the contents were analyzed to identify core themes and key participants for follow-up interviews. Second, we sought participants who were engaged in discussions about innovation in the Danish humanitarian sector. Among the workshop participants, three made themselves available for follow-up interviews, and an additional four participants were recruited based on recommendations made by initial contacts (i.e., the

8  How Is Social Innovation Emerging in the Danish Humanitarian Sector?

117

snowball sampling technique). All interviewees were senior employees at their respective organizations and had attended the workshop. Such qualitative samples are based on a purposive sampling method, intended to develop descriptions of the field of study based on a small but relevant sample facilitating an in-depth exploration (Bryman, 2012). Our sample represents three different perspectives—NGOs, business, and government. Based on the results from the workshop, interview guidelines were prepared prior to the first semi-structured interviews to give direction. The interviews provided data on the multiple forms of understanding reported by the different respondents (Spradley, 1979) as well as a chance to re-visit particular observations from the conferences and to share interpretations of these concrete situations (Czarniawska, 2004). The interviews were conducted onsite by two researchers, asking respondents to explain their broad experiences of humanitarian innovation by telling us about critical events and incidents related to the humanitarian innovation approach (Fuglsang, 2017). The interviews lasted approximately 45  min and were all transcribed for analysis. We offered all interviewees anonymity, and, when quoting directly, names were changed into whichever part of the sector they represent, such as NGO officer, business manager, or Danida representative. For further details of the data, see Table 8.1.

8.6 Data Analysis The analysis was an ongoing joint activity, and patterns of change emerged during the observations, interviews, and theoretical writings. We applied a narrative strategy to construct a detailed story from the raw data and to prepare a framework of events for analysis. As the first step, we identified parts of the empirical data relevant for our given problem formulation. We looked for keywords related to how the innovation approach was perceived and developed. Next, we created empirically driven themes, which were used as overarching headlines for the analysis.

8.6.1 Case Findings: Humanitarian Actors Making Sense of the Innovation Turn In this section, we present our findings on how actors in the Danish humanitarian sector collectively engage in processes of innovation. The analysis reveals three processes through which NGOs make strategic claims about their development of innovation as a perspective on their work practice.

118

M. A. Rasmussen and L. Fuglsang

8.6.2 Strategic Blame Gaming The institutional environment in which the humanitarian sector is thriving is largely shaped by funding initiatives by Danida. These funding initiatives also set the scene for how innovation and collaboration in the sector are thought of and are emerging. Many NGOs have initiated innovation activities driven by new funding structures. Our empirical data suggest that key actors in the Danish humanitarian sector generally recognize the strategic role of innovation but that a “blame game”, formulated as a critique of funding structures, seems to be occurring in which different actors propose that the funding structures in the humanitarian sector are shortsighted and do not sufficiently support new initiatives for them to become successful. From a business perspective, it is argued that “One of the main challenges in relation to innovation is that the ones providing the money are not progressing” (interview, business manager). The same argument is brought forth from the NGO perspective whereby a secretary general stated, “The limitation is in the financing” (DIIS Conference, 2018). It is proposed that to be innovative, it is not only the ways of working and collaboration that need to be adjusted but also the way the entire system is financed. An ongoing discussion among key actors is whether there is dysfunctionality in the UN system obstructing the Danish humanitarian sector from reaching its potential for innovation. The discussion seems to center around a blame game in which “the system” is considered incapable of supporting the innovation turn, thus blocking development of innovation practices in the humanitarian sector. Financing is also a concern for the NGOs; however, their expectations are different because they are positioned differently in the value chain and are in closer contact with the people who receive help. The NGOs report that they are not gaining what they expected from private businesses. Some of the NGOs expected businesses to bring finance along, but instead, they are finding that NGOs are providing the funding for businesses by doing all the work relating to writing up applications for funding. This funding primarily supports the development of new products in favor of businesses (interview, NGO officers). The most critical reactions from the NGO perspective center on the fact that private companies do not have the same obligations toward solving crises and helping people, and as such, the innovation turn could degrade the conditions of the poorest people. A key theme dominating many of the interviews and conversations was how professional worlds at times clash due to actors seeing and experiencing things in diverse ways. Critical NGOs voice questions how innovation affects their core activities and values when forced into business thinking. Our findings indicate that actors seek to explore individual and common interests in pursuing humanitarian innovation activities. Business actors aim to develop markets for their products; hence they are concerned with business models and financing systems for humanitarian innovation projects; they request a strategic approach to integrating technology, financing, and market development (interviews and workshop).

8  How Is Social Innovation Emerging in the Danish Humanitarian Sector?

119

Businesses are aware that innovation needs to be commercially sustainable, but at the same time they acknowledge the potential for developing new business models. NGO officers also acknowledge the need to develop new ways of working that contribute to core business activities. One secretary general stated: “We must contribute to the core business of the companies” (DIIS Conference, 2018, NGO officer). Thus, despite the blame game and criticism of the financial system and its consequences, all actors make claims about changes in the environment that will create new strategic opportunities for developing innovation.

8.6.3 Reflexively Conceptualizing Innovation from Different Perspectives Many of the NGOs expressed a critique on the innovation discourse. Innovation appears to them as a concept that is biased toward the private sector, technology, and management. As such, it seems to pull attention away from the key role of NGOs as being based in the logic of civic society, aid, and humanism, often with a critical eye toward market-driven approaches Although there are critical reactions to the innovation turn, the actors participate in a positive understanding and efforts in developing innovation as a driver for new practices, however experiences resonate more or less well with practices. NGOs argue that innovation is not something new in their field. What is new, however, is that the notion of innovation is now explicitly applied and pushed for. Some frustration seems to relate to resistance against the business jargon that suddenly is setting the scene. One NGO officer stated, “I find it a challenge. We have to enter the market economy, and we haven’t really grasped it yet” (interview, NGO officer). We found that actors in the humanitarian sector are seeking to reflexively understand and apply the notion of innovation within their own organizations. The innovation term creates tension, shape future actions, support new collaborations, and create confusion. Under the surface, it pushes an ideological discussion related to core values and how the civil society actors can be watchdogs in relation to the values of the business world. This does appear to be a challenge, as explained by an NGO officer: “I have to acknowledge that it is a difficult space to navigate in, and even though I am the innovation manager, I think our most important task in the years to come, is acting as police—or guard dog—of ethics” (interview, NGO officer). Actors are trying to develop what they think will be useful and relevant competencies when engaging in processes of innovation, and they seek to grasp the construct of innovation from different perspectives. We heard that this is a process, as explained by one NGO employee: “The conceptual understanding [of innovation] is something the organization slowly is trying to grasp from different perspectives and is in the process of trying to understand, and yet, there is not as such a common understanding” (interview, NGO officer). What does seem to be important is the

120

M. A. Rasmussen and L. Fuglsang

development of competencies to cross the bridge between business and NGO forms of understanding and thus, for actors to be capable of speaking a lingo linking NGO and business perspectives. One NGO officer explained how innovation flourishes when collaborating partners can understand needs and develop flexible solutions (interview, NGO officer). This supports the general call for changes in the humanitarian sector and paves the way for what some call a new NGO role in fostering collaboration between NGOs and businesses.

8.6.4 Expanding Activities An NGO officer explained how innovation and business models have become a way to reflect upon what they do, and this creates possibilities for not just doing “business as usual” (interview, NGO officer). Another NGO officer argued: “What I think will happen in the near future, a scenario we and others are considering, is how we can profit from it as well, and not just standing on the side as consultants. So, there is a change coming up, in the way we think for-profit and non-profit” (interview, NGO officer). However, reorganizing NGOs creates tensions in organizations. Tensions relate to being afraid of losing what they are good at and letting go of core competencies. NGOs explain that they feel that business employees are trying to “do the right thing” by working with NGOs. The call for expanding activities and skills appeared as a re-orientation for both NGOs and businesses. The NGOs report becoming more businesslike and developing business activities and practices. This leads to new job positions and titles, making NGOs more like private businesses in this respect. The engagement results in a completely new set of activities, practices, and jobs that direct and harness employees’ engagement in work. We found that actors in the humanitarian sector try to develop step-by-step what they think would be useful and relevant practices to facilitate innovation. One NGO officer explained, “…the first visual change in the organizations is that we create new functions” (interview, NGO officer). Titles such as Innovation Officer, Business Developer, SDG Partnership Advisor, Business Engagement Advisor, and Innovation Advisor are appearing. This creates positions for employees with backgrounds other than formerly expected within the sector: “There are more people entering the organization who have different backgrounds and who do not know the trade of the organization, but instead they know the other side” (interview, NGO officer). In the same way, businesses in the humanitarian sector develop new job titles, such as Global Partnerships Director, CSR Director, Partnership Manager, and Head of Global Engagement. A Danida employee explained: “What we experience with it [innovation] as a part of the partnership agreement is that the NGOs are starting to change. They seem to be building up capacity in the innovation field. They have innovation units; they hire people to work with innovation and they organize innovation activities across the organization” (interview, Danida representative).

8  How Is Social Innovation Emerging in the Danish Humanitarian Sector?

121

Various new collaborations and ways of working seem to be emerging due to, or related to, the development of the innovation approach. The activities vary in scope and focus, but what all actors have in common is that they must identify how innovation can be organized. We heard from the NGO community that the innovation approach gives them an opportunity to sit down and rethink what they are doing: “It has had a great impact. Suddenly we must think differently about what we are doing […] we now have an opportunity to consider new ways of working and try to figure out how to do that” (interview, NGO officer). For instance, an innovation network for both NGOs and businesses emerged. The network has participation from most NGOs and several businesses. The innovation network is a place where participants develop their understanding of innovation and find new ways of working as well as a space where challenges and options can be discussed (interview, NGO officers). Initiatives such as developing the world’s first sustainable refugee camp as a collaboration among CARE and Danish frontrunners within sustainable solutions emerge (https://care.dk/saadan-­arbejder-­care/campplus/ August 15, 2020). Respondents also described how collaborations among NGOs and non-profit startups are initiated. NGOs explained that startups are often agile and capable of grasping relevant needs: “They are start-ups, so they are still in a process where they want to learn. They are very curious and want to get involved, and that is their approach. They do not just turn up with one-size-fits-all solutions” (interview, NGO officer). However, the situations described above are not comprehensive of the expanding number of activities being referred to in the empirical data. Rather, they are examples of how collaborative relations are emerging and imply a general need for adaptability from all parties involved. We found that due to expanding activities, new organizational practices start to emerge in terms of new ways of prioritizing, strategizing, and innovating. All interviewees reported being encapsulated in organizational priorities for developing new organizational practices fitting an innovation governance paradigm. One outcome of the innovation turn seems to be that several NGOs are organizing innovation collectively. They are still struggling with how activities should be organized, as explained by an NGO employee: “We are in a process trying to figure out how to organize the partnerships, the legal rights […] and how we choose collaborating partners” (interview, NGO officer). An important question here is with whom to engage and how to select them. At the same time, we heard that the NGOs must turn down businesses who, in the name of innovation, want NGOs to test their products. Both NGOs and Danida are aware that innovation funding is not to be used to subsidize businesses but should be related to the core activities of the NGOs. An NGO worker explained: “A lot of people within the system are questioning whether development money has been turned into support for Danish organizations” (interview, NGO officer). Summing up, it became apparent that by expanding their activities, NGOs come to recognize the construct of innovation as having a strategic role. Actors in the humanitarian sector express that something new must happen and those innovative collaborations might contribute more than what they can individually manage. This is explained by a secretary general, who stated: “We need to be challenged by

122

M. A. Rasmussen and L. Fuglsang

people outside the sector to lift the degree of innovation. We must dare to take new steps” (DIIS Conference 2018, NGO officer2). It is believed that the sharing and development of knowledge should be centralized and that this is when innovation might appear. Meeting up in smaller micro-settings to discuss challenges also seems to be a useful way to overcome some of the barriers. We heard NGOs explain how participation in a workshop on innovation created a space where actors in the humanitarian sector met up and discussed what is about to happen. It was argued that “The discussion on private-NGO partnerships went a step further because we were able to discuss what was difficult and where we were going in the wrong direction. We managed to do that because we were a mix of people and a relatively small group” (interview, NGO officer).

8.7 Discussion and Conclusion: Innovation as Contested and Antagonistic Practice The purpose of this article was to examine how innovation as a social-value creating practice is developed and potentially institutionalized in the humanitarian sector. We asked, “How do key actors in the Danish Humanitarian sector mutually engage with innovation as a social-value creating practice?” The following three processes of adoption surfaced from the case study (Table 8.2): (1) strategic blame-gaming, when actors identify others’ interests and start to acknowledge and interpret the strategic challenges of innovation but also blame “the system” for a lack of financing and support; (2) reflexively conceptualizing innovation, when the actors seek input from government, community, and scholars to reflect on and theorize activities as innovation from different perspectives; and (3) expanding activities, referring to creating activities, practices and job functions that establish innovation as a core activity. Developing the innovation approach thus entails subtle processes of rejection, adaption, incorporation into existing frameworks, which is partly spurred by organizational interests, partly by government and governance regimes, and is being guided through the formation of new institutional structures. The development of the innovation construct requires “institutional work” and is complex, contradictory, and contextual. Government representatives, business organizations, and NGOs take part in collective yet contested processes of interpreting strategic challenges of innovation and developing innovation to the involved organizations’ needs. These findings imply that the development of the innovation approach is both a strategic and a reflexive process, with shifting phases of skepticism, tensions, and adaptions. The findings largely concur with neo-institutional theory, which describes the initial stages of institutionalization as habitualization when new approaches emerge in response to problems and become applied by several relevant actors  https://www.diis.dk/event/innovative-ngo-partnerskaber-verdensmaalstid

2

8  How Is Social Innovation Emerging in the Danish Humanitarian Sector?

123

Table 8.2  The dialectic process of the adoption of the innovation approach

Strategic blame game

Conceptualizing

Expanding activities

Findings from empirical data Actors identify the challenge of innovation and the lack of sufficient institutional support Actors engage in meetings and workshops where a reflexive conceptualization of innovation starts. Skepticism and positive views are expressed People become employed in different functions to drive forward innovation New functions and titles emerge as a response

Changes in the humanitarian sector The financing and funding of the innovation approach starts to direct the attention of the humanitarian sector actors New forms of collaboration emerge that drive the innovation approach

Innovation as an approach potentially becomes institutionalized through habitualization

(Tolbert & Zucker, 2012; Lounsbury & Crumley, 2007). Yet, where the neo-­ institutional approach describes the emergence of new institutions mainly as a response to problems, the present analysis suggests that government representatives initially push the innovation approach by introducing it as a rule and norm. The interaction of macro- and micro-structures appears critical for these changes to happen (Coleman, 1986). Thus, adopting the innovation approach can be described as a dialectic process between emerging governance structures and emerging contested practices, which manifest in organizations’ strategies and reflexivity. The study shows that there is a need to conceptualize development and institutionalization of innovation as antagonistic and contested processes and practices. Innovation is not an objective phenomenon but dependent on processes, practices, and outcomes. There are conflicted perspectives on its meaning and usefulness that need to be captured better in research to understand better how humanitarian problems can be addressed. Generally, we call for more ethnographic and qualitative research with a focus on processes and practices (Denzin, 1969) that describe routines, activities, interactions, resistances and conflicts in the humanitarian sector pointing toward developing innovation activities. Overall, there is a need for research that is more longitudinal and interpretive to capture the intertwined and complex processes of innovation within that sector. Since the processes of innovation are not bound to one organizational unit that creates innovation, there is a need for multi-sited ethnographic approaches in this work (Ybema et al., 2009). The key practical implication of our study is that connecting business approaches including the language of innovation to the value-driven activities of NGOs is possible but not unproblematic. Innovation activities already transpire in practices and initiatives of civil groups and social businesses, and these are increasingly funded and organized through public governance structures (Grin, 2020). Government funding and organizing may embrace the emerging value-based activities of the humanitarian sector if done in the right way. The risk is, however, that the lingo of

124

M. A. Rasmussen and L. Fuglsang

innovation will squeeze the autonomy and undermine value-creating activities of the NGOs. Further learning new ways of engaging and interacting across sectors requires trust among participants. In summary, applying the construct of innovation may, depending on how this is done, create an awareness help NGOs to address societal challenges collaboratively with other actors. Learning Reflections • Innovation is dependent on processes, practices, and outcomes, and should be discussed and elaborated close to the practice where it has its relevance. • There is a danger that the business language will replace the more critical approaches and squeeze the autonomy and value-creating practices of the NGOs. Thus, the key actors in the humanitarian sector need to learn new ways of engaging and interacting with each other and with other stakeholders based on relations of trust. • Innovation as a solution to humanitarian problems is challenged due to competing perspectives and understandings. Conflicting perspectives on the meaning and usefulness of innovation need to be captured better in research to understand how humanitarian problems can be addressed. • Governments must embrace contextual value-based micro-activities of organizations to develop profound strategies for innovation and collaboration within the humanitarian sector. Acknowledgement  This project has received funding from CIRCLES, Roskilde University. In memory of Professor Søren Jagd (1953–2020), Roskilde University.

References Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research (Vol. 33, Issue 2). SAGE. Banoun, A., Dufour, L., & Andiappan, M. (2016). Evolution of a service ecosystem: Longitudinal evidence from multiple shared services centers based on the economies of worth framework. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 2990–2998. Baur, D., & Schmitz, H.  P. (2012). Corporations and NGOs: When accountability leads to co-­ optation. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10551-­011-­1057-­9 Becker, H. S. (2017). Evidence (1. Udgave.). The University of Chicago Press. Bessant, J., Ramalingam, B., Rush, H., Marshall, N., Hoffman, K., & Gray, B. (2014). Innovation management, innovation ecosystems and humanitarian innovation. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford University Press. Chandler, J. D., Danatzis, I., Wernicke, C., Akaka, M. A., & Reynolds, D. (2019). How does innovation emerge in a service ecosystem? Journal of Service Research, 22(1), 75–89. https://doi. org/10.1177/1094670518797479 Clerkin, B., & Quinn, M. (2019). Restricted funding: Restricting development? VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(6), 1348–1364. Coleman, J. (1986). Social theory, social research, and a theory of action author. American Journal of Sociology, 91(6), 1309–1335. Corley, K. G., & Gioiia, D. A. (2011). Sahiwal. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32.

8  How Is Social Innovation Emerging in the Danish Humanitarian Sector?

125

Cornforth, C., Hayes, J. P., & Vangen, S. (2015). Nonprofit–public collaborations: Understanding governance dynamics. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(4), 775–795. Czarniawska, B. (2004). On time, space, and action nets. Organization, 11(6), 773–791. Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. The Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 284. Danida. (2013). Danish Multilateral Development Cooperation Analysis. Denzin, N.  K. (1969). Symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology: A proposed synthesis. Synthesis, 34(6), 922–934. DIIS Conference. (2018). Field notes from the conference Innovative NGO-Partnerskaber i en Verdensmålstid, Copenhagen, 22nd of November 2018. Fagerberg, J. (2009). Innovation: A guide to the literature. In The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford University Press. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge University Press. Fuglsang, L. (2017). The critical incident technique and everyday innovation. In F.  Sørensen & F.  Lapenta (Eds.), Research methods in service innovation (pp.  40–59). Edward Elgar Publishing. Fuglsang, L., & Sundbo, J. (2005). The organizational innovation system: Three modes. Journal of Change Management, 5(3), 329–344. Fuglsang, L., Jean, H., Rønning, R., & Geuijen, K. (2022). A sector with dynamic hybridization. In Valuing public innovation. Palgrave. Grin, J. (2020). ‘Doing’ system innovations from within the heart of the regime. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 22(5), 682–694. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and methodological bases of naturalistic inquiry. Educational Communication & Technology, 30(4), 233–252. Hartley, J. (2006). Innovation and its contribution to improvement: A review for policymakers, policy advisers, managers and researchers. Department for Communities and Local Government. Jaskyte, K. (2011). Predictors of administrative and technological innovations in nonprofit organizations. Public Administration Review, 71(1), 77–86. Kewes, A., & Munsch, C. (2019). Should I stay or should I go? Engaging and disengaging experiences in welfare-sector volunteering. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30, 1090–1103. King, D. (2017). Becoming business-like: Governing the nonprofit professional. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(2), 241–260. Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In The SAGE handbook of organization studies (2nd ed., pp. 215–254). Lindsay, C., Osborne, S. P., & Bond, S. (2014). The “new public governance” and employability services in an era of crisis: Challenges for third sector organizations in Scotland. Public Administration, 92(1), 192–207. Lounsbury, M., & Crumley, E. T. (2007). New practice creation: An institutional perspective on innovation. Organization Studies, 28(7), 993–1012. Maguire, S., & Phillips, N. (2008). ‘Citibankers’ at citigroup: A study of the loss of institutional trust after a merger. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 372–401. Mead, G.  H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist (C. W. Morris, Ed.). University of Chicago Press. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark. (n.d.). 16 strategiske partnerskaber. Retrieved August 7, 2019, from http://um.dk/da/danida/samarbejspartnere/civ-­org/stoetteform/strategiske-­partnere/ Nicolini, D., & Monteiro, P. (2017). The practice approach: For a praxeology of organisational and management studies. In A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of process organization studies (pp. 110–126). SAGE. Obrecht, A., & Warner, A. T. (2016). Summary More than just luck: Innovation in humanitarian action HIF-ALNAP research on successful humanitarian innovation. www.alnap.org

126

M. A. Rasmussen and L. Fuglsang

Oldenhof, L., Postma, J., & Putters, K. (2014, February). On justification work: How compromising enables public managers to deal with conflicting values. Public Administration. Ramalingam, B., Rush, H., Bessant, J., Marshall, N., Gray, B., Hoffman, K., Bayley, S., Gray, I., & Warren, K. (2015, May). Strengthening the humanitarian innovation ecosystem, pp. 1–50. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–263. Sandberg, B., Elliott, E., & Petchel, S. (2020). Investigating the marketization of the nonprofit sector: A comparative case study of two nonprofit organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 31(3), 494–510. Shier, M. L., & Handy, F. (2014). From advocacy to social innovation: A typology of social change efforts by nonprofits. Voluntas, 26(6), 2581–2603. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Wadsworth Group/Thomson Learning. Sundbo, J. (1997). Management of innovation in services. Service Industries Journal, 17(3), 432–455. Svejenova, S., Mazza, C., & Planellas, M. (2007). Cooking up change in haute cuisine: Ferran Adria as an institutional entrepreneur. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(5), 539–561. Svensson, P. G., Mahoney, T. Q., & Hambrick, M. E. (2020). What does innovation mean to nonprofit practitioners? International insights from development and peace-building nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(2), 380–398. TEPSIE. (2015). The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe. In TEPSIE (Ed.), Doing social innovation: A guide for practitioners. European Commission, 7th Framework Programme. The Danish Government. (2019). The Government’s priorities for Danish Development Cooperation 2019—Expenditure framework for Danish development cooperation, 2019–2022. Tolbert, P.  S., & Zucker, L.  G. (2012). The institutionalization of institutional theory. Studying Organization: Theory & Method, 169–184. Tuominen, T., Edvardsson, B., & Reynoso, J. (2020). Institutional change and routine dynamics in service ecosystems. Journal of Services Marketing, 34(4), 575–586. Udenrigsministeriet Danida. (2017). Verden 2030: Danmarks udviklingspolitiske og humanitære strategi. Vargo, S.  L., Wieland, H., & Akaka, M.  A. (2015). Innovation through institutionalization: A service ecosystems perspective ☆. Industrial Marketing Management, 44, 63–72. Warner, A., & Obrecht, A. (2017). Working paper: Monitoring humanitarian innovation. In HIF/ALNAP. Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. Ybema, S., Yanow, D., Wels, H., & Kamsteeg, F. (2009). Studying everyday organizational life. In Organizational ethnography: Studying the complexity of everyday life. SAGE. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research. In Applied social research methods series (Vol. 28, Issue 1).

Chapter 9

Evaluating Social Impact Roger Spear

Abstract  This chapter addresses the challenging question of how to assess the social impact of an intervention. It develops a critique of an established approach, which monetises outcomes, and reveals the complex factors involved in measuring outcomes. And in this way builds a pluralist perspective drawing on environmental and ethical thinking, which indicates complementary or alternative approaches. It is based on secondary sources (The chapter is based on English language publications, particularly Anglo-Saxon studies), theoretical and empirical, and traces the historical evolution of social return on investment. It develops key learning about critical analysis, contrasting perspectives in social and environmental impact assessment, and understanding about major themes in the methodologies of measuring and evaluating outcomes. Keywords  Social impact · Evaluation · Social return on investment · Stakeholders · Monetisation · Commensurability · Value pluralism

9.1 Introduction This chapter addresses a central issue in the emergence of social entrepreneurship, and the restructuring of welfare systems  – evaluation methods for assessing the extent to which socially entrepreneurial initiatives meet social needs and create sustainable social change. And, as governance systems shift away from the state to the market, do we let “1000 flowers bloom” and trust that social entrepreneurs will not just succumb to popular solutions? Or can evaluation methodologies provide an alternative system of governance which allows the relative merits of different entrepreneurial initiatives to be critically examined? Social return on investment (SROI) R. Spear (*) Roskilde University & Open University, Roskilde, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. L. Langergaard et al. (eds.), Learning about Social Entrepreneurship and Management in Times of Social Transformation, Ethical Economy 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47708-9_9

127

128

R. Spear

has emerged as a prominent method for that task; but this chapter attempts to go beyond SROI through a critical analysis that reveals many of the issues that need to be addressed if evaluation methodologies are to play an important role in informing the direction of social change. Social return on investment (SROI) is an impact measurement technique for measuring social, environmental, and economic outcomes, and monetizing their values. It has gained a substantial degree of legitimacy amongst many policy makers, and practitioners concerned with impact measurement. It is typically evaluative, i.e. conducted retrospectively, based on outcomes achieved, but it may also be used to forecast social value for an activity not yet undertaken. It may be used internally to examine “how well we are doing”, leading to improved performance and relations with stakeholders, or externally to enhance reputation, inform funders, demonstrate added value for procurement contracts, etc. In the context of a growing emphasis on audit, measurement, and target-setting, this critical review attempts to enhance the capabilities of anyone concerned to learn how to better negotiate the governance challenges of evaluating social impact. This chapter begins by briefly considering the genealogy of SROI, from its use by The Roberts Economic Development Fund (REDF) in the USA, to evaluate funding requests of social enterprise for its portfolio of investments (comprehensively reviewed in Emerson et al., 2000). The chapter notes that while REDF’s use of SROI was quite close to cost benefit analysis methods (CBA), the model changed significantly when it was adopted by the UK Cabinet Office, which developed a methodology handbook to promote the use of SROI for social enterprise. The chapter explores the adaptations developed by New Economics Foundation (NEF, 2007), and the UK Cabinet Office (Nicholls et al., 2009, 2012), and critically assesses their rationale (Sect. 9.2). In particular, it examines: a more extensive stakeholder role, the use of theory of change (logic model), attribution issues, issues of comparability, including how “degree of difficulty” of improving target group is addressed. The basis for the critical analysis will be an examination of the method elaborated in the UK Cabinet Office guide (Nicholls et al., 2012 – which is still the guide recommended on Social Value International (SVI) website); by examining some case studies of how practitioners use it, and other published critiques (e.g. Arvidson et  al., 2013). The chapter compares SROI with cost benefit analysis (CBA) and explores the lessons that apply to SROI (Sect. 9.3). It goes onto examine ethical critiques, leading to more pluralist perspectives (Sect. 9.4). Finally, it concludes with a summary of the critique, and some proposals for adapting, complementing or replacing SROI as an assessment method.

9.2 International Adaptation of SROI Nicholls (2017) who was involved in the introduction and development of SROI in the UK provides a detailed account of the origins and adaptations. The story begins with the venture philanthropy of the Roberts Enterprise Development Fund (REDF),

9  Evaluating Social Impact

129

a private charitable foundation established in January 1997, as a social venture capital fund with a small portfolio of investments over 3–5 years in 7 nonprofits, which were running 23 social enterprise, in order for them to employ people on the margin of society. This initially involved conducting a cost-benefit type analysis to account for the “true costs” and financial/social returns of social enterprises run by its nonprofit in the San Francisco Bay Area (Emerson & Twersky, 1996; Gair, 2002). Their concerns were: to measure the performance of social enterprise for the benefit of practitioners and philanthropist-investors, to assess how effectively they used resources, and to assess whether their financial investment had proved beneficial to individuals and society. Dissatisfactions with the CBA effort led to them to set up a ‘Social Return on Investment Project’, which was then used to evaluate the impact of 23 social enterprise, concerned with training and employment for disadvantaged people, in the Bay Area. This resulted in three forms of value – economic, socio-economic (where tools were developed to monetize some social benefits), and social (which is non-­ monetisable). The term Blended Value was used to refer to the combination of the first two forms of value. In addition to the reporting of monetisable outcomes, the SROI report included profiles of typical employees and their risk characteristics to indicate non-monetisable benefits. The SROI report is complemented with qualitative information about individuals, their risk profiles, and accounts of non-­ monetisable social value. By the early 2000s, REDF had considerably developed its methods and practices, but (as reported by Gair, 2002) there were still methodological challenges remaining: In 2004, supported by the Hewlett Foundation, a group of SROI practitioners from USA and Europe set about addressing some of these (CBA) issues, developing the SROI method, and moving it to an international platform (Nicholls, 2017). This phase also involved moving SROI away from measuring social value for venture philanthropy portfolio needs, to broader forms of resource allocation, partly informed by accountancy standards. Nicholls argues that the work of Accountability (a global independent not-for-­ profit organisation aiming to advance accountability, sustainable business practices, and corporate responsibility) was important in establishing better standards for stakeholder engagement (Accountability, 2005, 2011, 2015), and for materiality i.e. what information and evidence should be included (excluded) to give a true and fair account, to inform stakeholders  – bearing in mind that the degree of rigour may depend on purpose. This broader sense of accountability can be seen as part of global movement regarding sustainability, and more inclusive models of governance such as stakeholder theory (e.g. Hutton, 1997). Accountability Principles are also about reporting performance (including non-financial), a key injunction is to “disclose credible and verifiable information about strategy, goals, standards and performance to those stakeholders who partly or wholly base their decisions and actions on this information” (Accountability Stakeholder Engagement, 2015, p. 11). In the UK, from 2003, the New Economics Foundation (NEF) engaged in various collaborations, and developed a guide drawing on and elaborating the REDF SROI model (NEF, 2007). In their approach, they emphasised stakeholders,

130

R. Spear

materiality (focusing on important areas via stakeholders), the theory of change (through an impact map), and attribution (what is attributable to the intervention), plus deadweight (what would have happened anyway, without the intervention). Institutional developments paralleled these changes to SROI and associated standards. A SROI Network was set up in the UK, and one in Europe. Moreover, in 2015 The UK Network merged with the Social Impact Analysis Association for form Social Value International to support collaboration, and standardisation of methods (Nicholls, 2017). The main principles of SROI include: Involving stakeholders to discuss what gets measured and how this is measured; Understanding and articulating how change is created, recognising positive and negative changes as well as intended and unintended consequences; valuing the things that matter i.e. the importance of different outcomes, informed by stakeholders’ preferences; only including what is material to give a true and fair picture; only claiming the value that the activities are responsible for creating (attribution); being transparent, accurate and honest; ensuring appropriate independent assurance of the results. (Nicholls et al., 2012). This leads to the conclusion that SROI is no longer just a CBA type approach1 linked to the interests of investor needs; but it now encompasses elements of other impact measurement systems to meet the needs of other stakeholders for accountability, and for performance management by the social enterprise managers. This leads to dilemmas in the use of SROI, and a consideration of inconsistencies underlying its methodology, and/or different patterns in it use. These further challenges will be considered in the next section.

9.3 Current Challenges for SROI This section draws on the impact measurement literature at various levels (academic, practitioner, policy: e.g. GECES, 2014), and includes several reviews of SROI reports: Banke-Thomas et al. (2015) found 156 studies, and reviewed 40 in the public health area, of which 12 were deemed of poor quality; Krlev et al. (2013) surveyed 114 SROI studies, with 73% considered good quality; and Nicholls (2018) draws on 92 studies to bring out materiality and empowerment issues. The section focuses on several themes emerging from these reflections, including: the stakeholder role, attribution, theory of change, commensurability, approach to risk, monetisation, standardisation, reducing barriers: complexity and cost of a study, equality and fairness. In the process, it examines the extent to which current CBA practices are relevant to the challenges faced by SROI. The principles are similar: comparing costs and benefits, but CBA is typically used in policy analysis to examine a range  Criticism could also me made of lack of incorporation of more sophisticated CBA developments for example in the treatment of quantifiable but non-monetisable benefits, and qualitative unquantifiable costs and benefits; and how to report on these. See for example Annex 2 of HM Treasury, 2018. The Green Book. 1

9  Evaluating Social Impact

131

of policy options, prior to decision-making, while SROI is used to evaluate the costs and benefits of current operations.

9.3.1 Role of Stakeholders Greater orientation towards a stakeholder approach is a feature of the current international version of SROI, and benefits to other stakeholders are monetised; see for example non-state stakeholders and how their outcomes can be monetised (Nicholls et  al., 2012, p.  49). Greater engagement and empowerment of stakeholders is required throughout the whole analysis, including reporting, where: “the (SROI) ratio should be presented alongside the other information, such as the story of how change is being created and case studies from participants.” (ibid., p. 75) The stakeholder approach is still a strong theme currently (e.g. OECD, 2015). The rationale for involving stakeholders includes: strengthening accountability, establishing legitimacy and salience of different stakeholders, accessing their information and knowledge, particularly regarding the logic model theory of change, and empowering stakeholders in the evaluation process. However, there is variation in the selection of stakeholders to include. Krlev et al. (2013) found that beneficiaries and the state were the most common stakeholders considered, but they argued for the inclusion of employees, volunteers, and family & friends. Banke-Thomas et al. (2015) differentiated between four types of stakeholder: beneficiaries, implementers, promoters and funders. In CBA, the role of stakeholders (HM Treasury (2018) Green Book) is largely functional to secure better quality information, and to get a wide range views on the different aspects of an intervention’s theory of change: “Research, consultation and engagement with stakeholders and the wider public, should be conducted at an early stage. This provides understanding of the current situation and valuable insights into potential improvements.” (HM Treasury (2018) Green Book, p. 18). But in CBA all outcomes – social, economic, environmental, financial etc. are assessed. While in SROI the choice of stakeholders governs outcomes to be considered; and is based on “materiality” i.e. if activities of the organisation materially impact a stakeholder.

9.3.2 Attribution and Counterfactuals In the social entrepreneurship world, where “boosterism” is sometimes present, being clear about attribution means not claiming more than is warranted, and avoiding “counterfactuals” which are claims contrary to the facts. But in the NEF Guide (2007), attribution is estimated mainly by informed guesswork using whatever existing research is available as a benchmark. Attribution in the 2012 Guide is much more fully covered, with consideration of deadweight (what would have happened without the intervention, e.g. without a work integration social enterprise, some

132

R. Spear

people would have got a job), displacement (the extent to which the intervention displaces outcomes elsewhere, such as a WISE café reducing the income of a nearby café), and drop-off (the extent to which the outcome declines with time – typically after a year). Displacement covers adverse or negative effects elsewhere, and is addressed in SROI and CBA; deadweight is also challenging and is the focus of considerable technical development. In CBA high standards are used such as (quasi-) experimental methods; while for SROI quasi-experimental methods have been used in very few studies. Three approaches have been more common: ex ante/ ex-post assessments; use of secondary statistics; and qualitative methods (sometimes using focus groups or interviews, which may have been used in other phases of an analysis). Banke-Thomas et al. (2015) argue that higher standards are required for estimating the counterfactual (deadweight) objectively – either using ex-ante and post-hoc observations, or control groups (RCT). Krlev et al. (2013) note that only 2.6% of their 114 studies used control groups; most use secondary national-local survey data; but they argue that ex ante post hoc observations (18% in their study) could be more cost-effective, and part of a continual evaluation process. Fujiwara (2015) warns against the psychological biases of involving stakeholders in qualitative methods. There is an emphasis on being transparent about the methods and processes involved in these estimates, specifying assumptions, and being accountable to stakeholders. Judgements about materiality (so as to avoid misrepresentation) influence decisions about what information, and which stakeholders and activities to include; on the other hand cost and resources will also limit the extent of information gathering compared to more easily available benchmarked data. Banke-Thomas et al. (2015) argue that greater transparency is needed, suggesting benchmarks for processes, formal processes for consulting with stakeholders for verification purposes, or developing an audit trail. Krlev et al. (2013) found (in 114 cases) a severe lack reflection, with many not discussing limitations at all; and an exaggerated focus on the SROI monetary ratio, and relatively little balanced discussion about the overall non-monetised social value created.

9.3.3 Different Purposes CBA is concerned with assessing social benefits compared to the costs to society of different options for achieving specific outcomes; while SROI may have three different purposes: external for investment appraisal or assessment of value added in procurement; or internal for marketing reputation or learning. The key result for CBA is net social benefit (minus costs) to society (i.e. public good); but for SROI it is the ratio of social return/costs of the intervention to the organisation (and to its stakeholders).

9  Evaluating Social Impact

133

9.3.4 Theory of Change The theory of change uses the logic model, and may be simple and focused (linear and easily understood), but often lacking much elaboration of causal mechanisms; or complex (with detailed stages) (Costa & Pesci, 2016; Ebrahim & Rangan, 2014), and thus requiring considerable research. Moreover, as Banke-Thomas et al. (2015) argue a more elaborate specification of theory of change, detailing linkages from inputs to outcomes is necessary to strengthen trustworthiness of claims about impact and counterfactuals.

9.3.5 Commensurability From a policy and management perspective it is essential to address issues of commensurability i.e. how to compare different initiatives and strategies. The approach to commensurability in SROI is problematic – at REDF, the commensurability challenge (Gair, 2002) focused both on inter-industry, and intra-industry comparability, due to variations in the degree of difficulty in supporting the target group. They referred to this as the apples and pear comparisons…and recognised that, at that time, SROI analysis did not allow investors to assess the relative value of competing investments from different sectors. The roots of SROI in CBA might lead one to think that commensurability is important, since it is a primary concern of CBA, which aims to decide between options. And value commensurability (Westall, 2009) appears to be assumed in SROI, (as in CBA), otherwise why emphasise a social return ratio as an outcome of a study. But fundamentally commensurability is undermined due to problems regarding the monetisability of certain values, which either leads to under-reporting of impact, or to different ways of reporting separate categories of value impact. The theoretical basis for commensurability is also weak; CBA is based on utilitarianism and social welfare theory, which provides a basis for commensurability, while SROI has a weaker theoretical basis for commensurability, being a mix of social accounting bases. Fujiwara (2015) argues that since SROI is more oriented to a stakeholder approach, this can lead to an ethical position emphasising the concept of the agency of the stakeholders: Agency-centred moral theory recognises that a person may value things even though they may not improve her wellbeing. This leads to an “irreducible ‘duality’ in the conception of a person in ethical consideration” (Sen, 1991 p.41) as we can perceive of an individual in terms of her agency or in terms of her wellbeing. The agency based approach is a relativist approach to ethics and is in sharp contrast to other established social impact measurement methods, which generally take an absolutist approach to defining the moral account of the good (usually defined as wellbeing). Relativist approaches face a number of serious challenges and these need to be addressed by SROI at the outset. (p. 8)

134

R. Spear

This position chimes with the ‘capabilities approach developed by Sen (1979, 1999), and Nussbaum (2000), which is critical of improvements in social welfare seen as based on aggregation of improvements in personal utilities (benefits minus costs), firstly because there may be distributional inequalities, and secondly differing capabilities of people to access what they need. A capabilities approach emphasises the importance for people to achieve something they value – rather than utility or resource-based assessments – and not just outcomes but intrinsic value of having freedoms to choose the capabilities they need. The original formulation of SROI was simple and unitary in its emphasis on monetisation, and its focus on savings to government. Now its foundations are more pluralist and more complex – more oriented to stakeholders with diverse formulations of value depending on which stakeholders are studied. There now seems to be a greater recognition of the outstanding challenges of commensurability for SROI, particularly that it is not always useful to consolidate performance outcomes into a single measure of value, e.g. health compared to income levels: “The nuanced decision-making that comes with differing measures of value is an inherent part of social mission work, which needs to be accepted and embraced via systems designed to include it.” (Gair, 2009, p. 11). Another outstanding commensurability challenge is how to address different “degrees of difficulty” of making improvements for diverse target groups, with varied capabilities; and addressing “creaming” – opportunistic selection of easier to integrate members of target group.

9.3.6 Monetisation Challenges: Valuation of Non-monetary Outcomes Commensurability can also be addressed through standardisation of methods and values. There are four different ways of valuing non-monetary outcomes in the Guide (Nicholls et  al., 2012): stated preferences technique (willingness to pay), revealed preference techniques, the travel cost method, alternatively assessing average household spending. The UK Government’s advice on CBA (HM Treasury, 2018) in the Green Book, has a 14-page annex for different types of non-monetisable outcome (including environmental, land values, energy efficiency, life and health, and travel time). As Fujiwara, writing in 2015, notes, CBA has substantially advanced its valuation techniques, and SROI needs to upgrade its guidance. The use of appropriate techniques is one major issue in monetisation, but choice of indicators and proxies is crucial, as well as the role of stakeholders (especially beneficiaries). There is a need to examine more closely judgements about choosing indicators, and proxies; in SROI these are influenced by assumptions about theory of change, stakeholder interests (particularly the more powerful), data availability, and policy concerns.

9  Evaluating Social Impact

135

Banke-Thomas et al. (2015) argue that beneficiaries play a key role in valuing outcomes, but stakeholder consultation needs to be combined with multiple sources of data (triangulation) to improve trustworthiness. But Fujiwara (2015) argues relying on qualitative methods raises important challenges of psychological bias in judgements about outcomes. Engaging and empowering stakeholders is generally regarded as both a strength and a weakness of SROI, so the emphasis is on how to manage it without prejudicing valuation standards.

9.3.7 Standardisation Standardisation is an important way of addressing valuation variability. At a detailed level, all cases reviewed by Krlev et  al. (2013) discussed non-monetised social value, but the way this was assessed was very varied, and there seems a need for greater standardisation in the use of both quantitative and qualitative measures of social value. Similarly, and perhaps more surprisingly, financial indicators had a very low level of standardisation. And frequently the rationale for choice of financial proxies was poorly explained. Standardisation is key part of CBA, which is much more highly developed in its use of valuation techniques and use of standard values for specific costs-benefits where market prices are not easily ascertained. These are much less developed in SROI, but there are some emerging alternative approaches to standardizing values, such as by HACT (Trotter et al., 2014), and the Australian Social Values Bank. In 2019, the Australian Social Value Bank (ASVB) was established through partnership work with Daniel Fujiwara, who also helped create the HACT indicator bank; “the ASVB social values cover a broad range of community interventions, focusing (at present) on the following domains: crime, drugs and alcohol, education, employment, social and community, health, home and sport. The ASVB currently contains 62 primary outcomes (benefits to individuals), differentiated by age and geography (732 values), and 196 secondary values (benefits to society) to produce 928 values.” (AVSB, 2019, p. 4). However, despite these ways of improving valuation, fully valuing social effects remains an issue. Krlev et al. (2013) argue that there are problems in fully capturing social effects, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Furthermore, there is a tendency to overemphasise quantitative indicators, and monetisation.

9.3.8 Reducing Barriers: Complexity and Cost Given that SROI has been around for almost 20 years in various forms, it is perhaps surprising it has not been used more. Krlev et al. (2013) surveyed 114 SROI studies conducted between 2000 and 2011, predominantly in Anglo-Saxon countries; for most of these years numbers were below 10 p.a., but jumped to 22 in 2010, and

136

R. Spear

45 in 2011. Based on responses to a survey of social enterprise in the health and social care sector, Millar and Hall (2013) identified some barriers to its use: financial proxies being seen as inadequately representing social value; the resource costs of conducting a study; and the fact that contract commissioners were unfamiliar with or didn’t value the approach, preferring their own key performance indicators (KPIs). Considerations of materiality particularly regarding the purpose of exercises are indicated as ways of managing costs in the 2012 Guide; and the degree of rigour may need to be related to purpose: internal learning, external investment appraisal or assessment of value added in procurement. For example, an analysis for internal learning and performance assessment purposes might not be as costly in its search for benchmarks, etc. Another way of addressing this issue is through Indicator databanks, as noted above, however, care needs to be taken to ensure it is only marginal costs that are claimed, rather than average costs. A continual tension between practitioner methods (shaped by purpose), and the higher but more costly standards of social science is present e.g. in general there is a lack of use of quasi-experimental methods. NESTA’s standards of evidence approach (Puttick & Ludlow, 2012) provides a useful way of managing different qualities of evidence with its five levels ranking.

9.3.9 Equality and Fairness Distributional inequalities effects, winners and losers (for different income groups or types of organisation, or areas) are typically made visible in CBA, both as constraints on choices, and to demonstrate intended or unintended consequences. This is an additional analysis required by policy makers since CBA typically does differentiate between winners and losers i.e. who benefits and who bear the costs. Equalities analysis may also be conducted covering age, disability, gender, race, religion, etc. Since public sector bodies are required to have to consider ways of advancing equality. This kind of analysis is also relevant at the organisational level when considering for example impact on a community – but it is not currently part of SROI which aggregates social benefits for all its stakeholders, − but doesn’t examine distributional inequalities effects, winners and losers.

9.4 Towards More Pluralist Perspectives: Ethical and Philosophical Considerations CBA is based on a utilitarian view that determines the most efficient way of achieving aggregate individual well-being, for a given amount of resources.

9  Evaluating Social Impact

137

Social and environmental outcomes are at the most difficult boundary for unitarist approaches seeking a common currency for comparability (typically monetary value). Take the famous CBA study of possible sites for the third London airport, where the destruction of wildlife, and a coastal area, or a church, had to be compared with destroying an inland rural area (landscape and rural amenity) – it was decided that none of these were measurable, although they were discussed as constraints on choice of locations to consider (in particular the environmental aspects). O’Neill (1997) also notes value conflicts within the environmental field, where ornithologists conflict with botanists over flooding wetlands which would increase birdlife, but destroy plant life. Westall (2009) contrasts a unitarist perspectives on values, as being universal, with moral relativism, an approach behind some forms of liberal thinking, which holds that “all values are relative and equally worthy of respect…..But she notes that this “should not … be confused with ‘value pluralism’ which is a position that holds that values can be different but that there may be room for consensus or the recognition that some values may be practically limited or could be in some kind of hierarchy.”(p. 6).

This leads to conclusions of incommensurability, which arises not only because of different interests of elite and disadvantaged groups, but also due to the legitimacy of different values and their valuation. One important different valuation system is rights – if market efficiency decisions would impinge on legitimate rights of citizens or environmental actors e.g. by threatening extinction. So, this could be seen as a constraint on the market efficiency options. And these considerations of

138

R. Spear

equity or distributive justice, can be incorporated in decision making processes (as noted above, with reference to HM Treasury (2018) Green Book); however adaptation is contested (Copp, 1987) – Rawls2 principles of justice require protection of the most disadvantaged, CBA exacerbates their position; Copp (1987) draws on this ‘disequity objection’ to assert that CBA fails to accurately measure welfare effects, and cannot be satisfactorily adapted through distributional weighting. A different kind of objection is that issues relating to environmental sustainability are also difficult to incorporate into CBA due to asymptotic valuation (where NPV emphasises short-term benefits over long-term costs e.g. leading to resistance to short term costs of climate change investments over long term benefits). An alternative3 is to make use of CBA, but base it on a weak sense of commensurability as outlined in the Ramsey Centre Report (reported by O’Neill, 1997, p. 80), which used a ranking system: ‘our measure of social welfare needs only to rank options (i.e. be “ordinal”) and need not contain information about the gaps between items so ranked (i.e. be “cardinal”)’ (Attfield & Dell, 1989, p. 35; Ramsey Centre Report). This leads to judgements like ‘this is ranked better than that’, i.e. not based on financial cost-benefit, but on welfare units and a system of ranking preferences. This is still based on an assumption that it is possible to arrive at some algorithmic aggregation of preferences, and thereby shifts the evaluation issue to one of decision-­ making processes from evaluation of outcomes. (O’Neill contests this view). Other ways to reconcile calculative and deliberative decision-making have been developed. Stirling (1997, p. 196) proposes a multi-criteria mapping approach as a way of integrating assessment techniques into a deliberative decision-making process, with the following broad framework: “Each appraisal criterion might be conceived as a discrete dimension in a multi-dimensional social ‘criteria space’. The performance of each possible ‘conditionally optimal’ policy option may be pictured as a single point in this criteria space. Differing perspectives over the relative importance of the different criteria and differing performance data will generate separate regions of this space, in which various of the different policy options may be considered conditionally optimal. Different social and political constituencies might employ the approach in an iterative and reflexive fashion to explore the implications of official performance appraisal results under their own particular perspectives.” With some elements of similarity, Costa and Pesci (2016) develop a multiple-­ constituency approach for social enterprise. Arguing against a ‘gold standard’ of unitarist measures, their approach regards organisational effectiveness as socially constructed by different stakeholders, thus emphasising the multi-directional accountabilities of social enterprises. They consider the interests of different types of stakeholders, their salience, relational closeness, as well as issues of social  Rawls developed a more progressive utility function termed the Max-Min criterion, where welfare is seen as maximised when the utility of those who have the least is the greatest. 3  Another alternative arises from the institutional economics concept of property rights for pollution, congestion, and resource depletion, and policies to create markets for these rights; this offers a complementary parallel path for CBA; although in the field of socio-economic disadvantage it’s not clear that such rights are easily applied, e.g. if a large supermarket disadvantages small social enterprise, could it be required to pay for inequitable distributional impacts? 2

9  Evaluating Social Impact

139

justice, and differing levels of power. And they propose a meta-approach to select methods and metrics appropriate for different types of stakeholders: donors, managers, beneficiaries, investors, and workers.

9.4.1 Democratisation and Deliberative Systems Kapp (quoted in Hodgson, pp. 56–57) argues against methodological individualism, and ethical individualism – reducing different societal levels to the individual level, and reducing moral values to economic ones; instead, he argues for other levels and the irreducible concept of social cost. And as Söderbaum (1999) asserts we need to move to multi-dimensional thinking, rather than one dimensional thinking. Linked to this is the institutional focus on needs rather than wants, and needs defined at different levels. Such needs are regarded as instrumental values, which can be determined by scientific process and debate, so that evaluations are based on their “impact on humanity and on the ecosystem as a whole, rather than being driven by measures of individual self-interest.” (Hodgson, 1997, p. 59). This leads to emphasising deliberation about appropriate moral values for society, rather than calculation based on perceived self-interest. Moreover, this strong argument by institutional economists is paralleled by important arguments by philosophers and sociologists. As O’Neill4 (1998) asserts: “Deliberation: What kinds of resolutions are possible given irreducible value plurality? In the end, the answer to that question is simply ‘use your judgement after the best possible deliberation’ (p. 125), which is based on force of argument – for and against. There has been an interest in experimenting with different forms of deliberative democracy, which has spawned a variety of innovations and experiments. These include citizen juries, local participatory budgeting, citizens’ assemblies and fora, but also the use of referenda. For example, Jacobs (1997) with regard to environmental issues, argues that Citizen Juries could be used to inform decision-makers, of the “meanings, reasons, values and arguments” elaborated by Jury participants. (p. 223): “Factors to be assessed would include genuinely marketed costs and benefits (which could be brought together in a CBA – though it will often be more helpful to disaggregate net present value between different social groups and over time). They would also include the consequences and impacts for ecology, culture, and community, as identified and expressed by expert witnesses and interest groups; and ethical and other values arising, similarly. And of course the quantitative and qualitative results of the deliberative value-articulation institutions should also be taken into account as an expression of overall ‘public opinion’” (p. 225).  NB O’Neill argues that it is important to differentiate between negotiation which is “reasonblind” and relevant to conflicts of interest; as compared with deliberative processes within discursive institutions where reasoned dialogue leads towards an “ideal of convergence of judgements founded on good reason.” (O’Neill, 1997, p. 85). 4

140

R. Spear

9.5 Conclusions This chapter, through a critique of SROI, has attempted to raise many of the issues evaluation methodologies have to grapple with, if they are to play important roles in guiding social entrepreneurs attempting to address social needs and improve the governance of social change. It began by examining how SROI has evolved from an instrument for appraising investments by a funding body, to a method suitable for assessing the social value for contracting purposes, and for enterprise learning and strategy. At this time, it moved away from its CBA roots, to adopt some social accounting practices, including a strong orientation to all salient stakeholders. When the international version of SROI had been developed, it had significantly addressed the weaknesses of the earlier REDF model, but many of these issues are continuing challenges for SROI and CBA, such as: stakeholder role, attribution, theory of change, (including fully capturing unintended costs and benefits), approach to (social) risk, issues of equality and fairness, commensurability, monetisation, standardisation, reducing barriers of complexity and cost of a study. The challenges raised by ethical-philosophical considerations critically addresses the unitarist assumptions underlying SROI-CBA – that values can be reduced to a single (monetary) measure; secondly a recognition of value pluralism leads to a view of incommensurability of some values; thirdly there are different ways of addressing this (including ranking and calculative methods); fourth, addressing inequalities is problematic in SROI-CBA, and there are different ways in which distributional inequalities may be considered by modifying these approaches; fifth, the capabilities approach offers an alternative or complementary way of more fully addressing inequalities; and finally, deliberative approaches have a role to play in addressing value pluralism. This chapter provides the basis for enhancing learning for students, practitioners, and researchers about: conducting a critique through secondary sources, building a thematic framework for measuring and evaluating social impact, developing broader perspectives -from unitarist to pluralist, and examining both technical-calculative and more discursive deliberative approaches.

References AccountAbility. (2003, 2005, 2015, 2018). AA1000 series of standards. https://www.accountability.org/standards AccountAbility (2015). AA1000 AccountAbility stakeholder engagement standard 2015. AccountAbility. Arvidson, M., Lyon, F., McKay, S., & Moro, D. (2013). Valuing the social? The nature and controversies of measuring social return on investment (SROI). Voluntary Sector Review, 4(1), 3–18. Attfield, R., & Dell, K. (1989). Values, conflict and the environment. Report of the Environment Ethics Working Party, Ian Ramsey Centre, St. Cross College. AVSB. (2019). The Australian social value bank and the social value principles. https://asvb.com.au/

9  Evaluating Social Impact

141

Banke-Thomas, A.  O., Madaj, B., Charles, A., & van den Broek, N. (2015). Social Return on Investment (SROI) methodology to account for value for money of public health interventions: a systematic review. BMC public health, 15(1), 1–14. Copp, D. (1987). The justice and rationale of cost-benefit analysis. Theory and Decision, 23(1), 65. Costa, E., & Pesci, C. (2016). Social impact measurement: Why do stakeholders matter? Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal. Ebrahim, A., & Rangan, V. K. (2014). What impact? A framework for measuring the scale and scope of social performance. California Management Review, 56(3), 118–141. Emerson, J., & Twersky, F. (Ed.). (1996). New social entrepreneurs: The success, challenge and lessons of non-profit enterprise creation. The Roberts Foundation. Emerson, J., Wachowicz, J., & Chun, S. (2000). Social return on investment: Exploring aspects of value creation in the nonprofit sector. https://redfworkshop.org/new-­millennium/ Fujiwara, D. (2015). The seven principle problems of SROI. Gair, C. (2002). A report from the good ship SROI. The Roberts Enterprise Development Fund. http://www.socialreturns.org/docs/good_ship_sroi_gair.pdf Gair, C. (2009). SROI act II: A call to action for next generation SROI. REDF. GECES-Sub-group on Impact Measurement. (2014). Proposed approaches to social impact measurement in European Commission legislation and in practice relating to: EuSEFs and the EaSI. European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion. Available at: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-­detail/-­/publication/0c0b5d38-­ 4ac8-­43d1-­a7af-­32f7b6fcf1cc. Accessed Feb 2020. HM Treasury. (2018). The green book: Central government guidance on appraisal and evaluation. Hodgson, G. (1997). Economics, environmental policy and the transcendence of utilitarianism. In J. Foster (Ed.), Valuing nature? Economics, ethics and environment (pp. 60–76). Routledge. Hutton, W. (1997). Stakeholding and its critics (Choice in welfare no. 36). The Institute of Economic Affairs. Jacobs, M. (1997). Environmental valuation, deliberative democracy and public decision-making institutions. In Valuing nature? (pp. 223–243). Routledge. Krlev, G., Münscher, R., & Mülbert, K. (2013). Social return on investment (SROI): State-of-the-­ art and perspectives-a meta-analysis of practice in social return on investment (SROI) studies published 2002–2012. Millar, R., & Hall, K. (2013). Social return on investment (SROI) and performance measurement: The opportunities and barriers for social enterprises in health and social care. Public Management Review, 15(6), 923–941. New Economics Foundation. (2007). Measuring social value: A DIY guide to social return on investment. New Economics Foundation. Nicholls, J. (2017). Social return on investment – Development and convergence. Evaluation and Program Planning, 64, 127–135. Nicholls, A. (2018). A general theory of social impact accounting: Materiality, uncertainty and empowerment. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 9(2), 132–153. Nicholls, J., Lawlor, E., Neitzert, E., & Goodspeed, T. (2009). A guide to social return on investment. Office of the Third Sector, Cabinet Office. Nicholls, J., Lawlor, E., Neitzert, E., Goodspeed, T., & Cupitt, S. (2012). A guide to social return on investment: The SROI network. In Accounting for value. (Updated version of the 2009 guide above). Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge University Press. O’Neill, J. (1997). Value pluralism, incommensurability and institutions. In J. Foster (Ed.), Valuing nature (pp. 75–81). Routledge. O’Neill, J. (1998). The market: Ethics, knowledge, and politics (Vol. 10). Psychology Press. OECD. (2015). Policy brief on social impact measurement for social enterprises. Puttick, R., & Ludlow, J. (2012). Standards of evidence for impact investing. Nesta. Sen, A. (1979). Equality of what? Tanner Lecture.

142

R. Spear

Sen, A. (1999). Commodities and capabilities (OUP catalogue). Oxford University Press. Söderbaum, P. (1999). Values, ideology and politics in ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 28(2), 161–170. Stirling, A. (1997). MULTI-CRITERIA MAPPING: Mitigating the problems of environmental valuation?. In Valuing nature? (pp. 198–222). Routledge. Trotter, L., Vine, J., Leach, M., & Fujiwara, D. (2014). Measuring the social impact of community investment: A guide to using the wellbeing valuation approach. HACT. Westall, A. (2009). Value and the third sector. Working paper on ideas for future research.

Chapter 10

Arts-Based Creativity and Culture in Social Entrepreneurship Linda Lundgaard Andersen and Kai Roland Green

Abstract  This chapter explores how arts-based creativity and culture have moved further to the center of the social entrepreneurship (SE) field. Through a patchwork of international examples, we ask how arts-based social entrepreneurship reconfigures the relationship between creative and social value? Various cases are used to demonstrate three different ‘depths’ to the blending of these value forms: through the promotion of worker conditions and protections in new ventures (micro-­ entrepreneurship), the fusion of different social service models across sectors (hybridity), and the revivifying of community spaces and places (transformation). The analysis includes cases such as the DIY (Do It Yourself) movements of Portugal and Brazil as processes of micro-entrepreneurship; INSP, a Danish civil society organization based on principles of the social economy; and the UK-based Bromley by Bow as a community center with socially entrepreneurial character. The concluding discussion considers how arts perspectives can aid the culturally-aware SE scholar in diversifying their units of interest and analysis and makes a case for nuanced attention to practices of redistribution, recognition, and social justice promoted by such arts-based ventures in the SE field. Keywords  Arts-based creativity and culture · Social entrepreneurship · Social enterprise · Creative and social value · Hybridity · Transformation

L. L. Andersen (*) Department of People and Technology, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] K. R. Green Department of Digital Design and Information Studies, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. L. Langergaard et al. (eds.), Learning about Social Entrepreneurship and Management in Times of Social Transformation, Ethical Economy 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47708-9_10

143

144

L. L. Andersen and K. R. Green

10.1 Introduction In many parts of the world, arts-based creativity and culture in social entrepreneurship are significant drivers for developing life skills, empowerment, strengthened community relations, and novel forms of enterprise. Arts and culture organizations engage in multiple kinds of value: social value, financial value, civil and democratic value, restorative and recovery value, and productive value. Despite pressure on state subsidies, the connection between the arts, culture, and social research continues to be prominent: there are new business models for arts and culture organizations, increased awareness towards ethical (and unethical) practices, and increased attention for wellbeing, access, and care from producers of creative social economies (Comunian et al., 2020). Numerous arts-based cultural encounters and capacities for transformation are located at centers of community renewal and civil society organisations. They display a variety of formats and activities, including learning, healing, and encouraging individual expression. So-called “communities” for impact include regions, cities, neighborhoods, schools, or ethnic groups (Guetzkow, 2002, p. 1). In this chapter, we explore how arts-based creativity and culture have moved further to the center of the social entrepreneurship (SE) field by foregrounding the relationship between ‘creative’ and ‘social’ value through a patchwork of international examples from the field. We include the DIY (Do It Yourself) movements of Portugal and Brazil as processes of micro-entrepreneurship; INSP, a Danish civil society organization based on principles of the social economy; and the UK-based Bromley by Bow as a community center with socially entrepreneurial character. The cases demonstrate various organizational formats, engagement types, and value forms in arts-based social entrepreneurship. In the concluding discussion, we demonstrate that the capacity for arts-based ventures to transform spaces, places, and people, fuse different social services, and promote worker protections show them to be a growing dimension of the SE field, emblematic of broader sectorial tensions and opportunities.

10.2 State of the Art(s) in Social Entrepreneurship As a general approach, social entrepreneurship can be defined as “the process by which effective, innovative, and sustainable solutions are pioneered to meet social and environmental challenges” (Chahine, 2016, p. 26), frequently including the role of the entrepreneur as “someone who designs and implements an intervention, product, or service that improves the wellbeing of marginalized individuals and populations” (ibid., p. 26). Social enterprises are thus organisations that implement social and economic values as equally important values in a certain governance structure: i.e., “an organization (either nonprofit or for-profit) that is formed to meet a social or environmental challenge, that streamlines its operations and supply chain to

10  Arts-Based Creativity and Culture in Social Entrepreneurship

145

maximize social impact and minimize the use of resources, and that uses a sustainable, replicable, and potentially scalable business model” (ibid., p. 26). Culture, arts, and creativity have become core assets in policy strategies for the global competitiveness of regions and cities and an element in processes of gentrification and touristification, even while most arts and culture organisations suffer from the effects of austerity. These conditions of political economy constantly confront the arts: the “contract-based, short-term and precarious” dimensions of the cultural industries (McQuiltern et al., 2022, p. 7) appear compounded by the general atmosphere of “competition, uncertainty, and fluctuating markets” (ibid., p. 147) in neoliberal economies. These conditions also impact the labor and life conditions where community-based cultural workers perform their activities, producing a context of public funding reduction and ill-fitting cultural policies (Belfiore, 2022). Given the cross-sectoral and hybridized nature of the SE field, such conditions create definitional complexity: social entrepreneurship involves non-governmental and civil organizations that implement an increasingly hybrid economic model and diversify their activity profile (Ridley-Duff & Bull, 2015). They also produce tensions between the often local dynamics of social enterprises and the significant policy landscape of the ‘creative city,’ regarded by arts scholars as a landscape that “largely disregard[in]g social creativity and social innovation“(André & Abreu, 2010, p. 61). This paper explores the tensions inherent in using the arts in the SE field by asking how arts-based social entrepreneurship reconfigures the relationship between creative and social value? The question is important for creating meaningful links and justifications for the role of the arts in social change. Within the crossovers of arts, health, and wellbeing, numerous studies have been undertaken illuminating a variety of methods and ways that situate arts in many settings: arts on prescription, arts in mental care settings, singing with hospital patients, dancing, arts engagement in community settings, creative arts and music for Dementia patients, visual arts for young people and arts, and health and sociality in community settings (Stickley & Clift, 2017, p.  2). While these have similarities with the formal practices of art therapy, arts and health are characterized as “flexible, non-medicalized and independent” (Swan, 2013, p. 50); this independence speaks to the sectorial diversity of the SE field and the challenges of operating under market conditions. Some social entrepreneurship research implicitly endorses a blurred view of creative-social value. Guetzkow understands the impact of arts and culture as (1) direct involvement, (2) audience participation, and (3) presence of artists and arts organizations that is cross-sected by criteria of individual outcome like mental health, psychological and interpersonal, and finally, community benefit in terms of economic, cultural, and social (Guetzkow, 2002, p.  5). In exploring the claimed impacts of arts-based activities, Jermyn generates a detailed list based on research literature, also confirmed by Barraket (Barraket, 2005): developing self-confidence and self-esteem, mental and psychical health and wellbeing, creativity and thinking skills, planning and organizing, employability of individuals, communicative skills, urban regeneration and educational attainment, social capital, community identity, social cohesion, social change and decreases social isolation, understanding of

146

L. L. Andersen and K. R. Green

different cultures, alleviating the impact of power and reducing criminal behaviour (Jermyn, 2001, p. 13). C

S

Entrepreneurial Coalition

C

S

Hybrid

C

S

Trans-formation

In the following examples, we explore a framework of three different depths by which creative and social value are made to relate in arts-based socially entrepreneurial ventures. First, new examples of the micro-entrepreneurship model – as an entrepreneurial coalition between creative and social value, in which each value form remains distinct but works against the other’s political and economic vulnerabilities. For example, Mulgan (2023) connects the maker’s movement (in which previously enthusiastic consumers become product designers) with the role-reversing dynamic of the classic social entrepreneurship example microcredit, framing both as an example of the artistic principle of ‘inversion’ (p. 52). In both contexts, switching the sender/receiver relationship generates greater social value in the venture, but without artistic value being compromised, just as innovations in disability arts show (Green, 2020, p. 10). Second, new organizational hybrids demonstrate the fusion of value forms, where a new entity emerges, but the value forms still retain their distinctiveness. These hybrids are especially needed because classic social entrepreneurship models require adaptation to the arts. For example, McQuiltern et al. (2022) describe how the Work Integration Social Enterprise – a venture with a specific hiring policy to support marginalised groups into the labour market – is less well adapted to the arts sector because it prefigures the role (and the individual’s desire for a role) rather than leaving space for self-job creation (2022, p. 6). Third, radical transformations of people and resources are possible when creative and arts-based dynamics entangle with social value in such a way that the two become inseparable. If a foundational social dynamic of the arts “helps people to disrupt their own identities, but in safe ways” (Mulgan, 2023, p. 19), then the audient/beneficiary of an arts-based social enterprise may not be able to distinguish between the artistic and social impact they have experienced. While we can find significant advantages and potential in this model, indistinctness between creative or social origin impacts can also manifest as a lack of institutional support. As Swan describes, in the context of arts-based interventions in health, such benefits “may not have occurred as a result of the creative process, but through other factors, such as through the social contact that can occur between participants” (Swan, 2013, p.  54). The issue has implications for the difficulty of securing funding for arts-­ based ventures when they fall ‘between the stools’ of social or creative impacts (Cancellieri et al., 2019; Green, 2020).

10  Arts-Based Creativity and Culture in Social Entrepreneurship

147

10.2.1 Micro-Entrepreneurship: Social Enterprises and the Strengthening of Cultural Workers Artistic and cultural organizations provide a bridge to emboldening social value, but how is this relationship configured? Sustaining artistic and cultural expressions through both market and non-market relations demonstrates tensions around the place of the arts in economic analysis. The tension comes from, on the one hand, embedding cultural and artistic dimensions in socio-economic relations and, on the other, the pressures of the market economy and related individualization. Comunian et al. identify “the possible evolution from the creative industries and creative economy towards creative-social economies” (Comunian et  al., 2020, p.  101). Their findings reflect three key dynamics: the emergence of creative–social economies as an area of research over time, the geography of this emerging area, and the recent dynamism in research outputs. A growth in arts-based social enterprises points to an increased interest in how the arts can support social and economic development: the ways new economic models can generate employment for individuals excluded from the labour market, allowing more people to participate in art markets and challenge dominant market models of cultural production and consumption (McQuilten et al., 2020). Social dimensions emphasize aesthetic, cultural, and civic values circulating and giving consistency to the linkages between people and the planet, helping to create community by constructing utopias and narratives in spaces of diversity, citizenship, and trust. It involves artists, culture workers, and often collaborations across sectors (public, conventional enterprises, cooperatives, associations), resources (market, public grants and philanthropy), and activity fields. Arts-based social enterprises embrace a co-dependence of three goals, often in tension and competition – artistic practice, social purpose, and economic activity. Clashes arise between external forces like government policy, markets, investors, and philanthropy interested in the ‘self-sufficient’ economic potential of arts-based social enterprises and those working in such ventures that tend to prioritise human growth, social values, and ethical business over large financial returns. Often entrepreneurs are ambivalent about their roles, posing both critical and affirmative actions, but are also embedded in conditions of contemporary capitalism and neoliberalism consumption (McQuilten et al., 2020). The DYI cultures and entrepreneurs in Portugal and Brazil display some of these dynamics. DIY Cultures in Independent Music Scenes, Portugal and Brazil Paula Guerra has investigated the Portuguese – and Brazilian – independent music field for decades and how it has been sustaining itself through DIY (Do It Yourself) practices. The musicians have the potential to overturn existing hierarchies, mobilise people and engage constructively with social, racial, gender, and other differences (Guerra, 2019, 2021). DIY processes seem to provide a space for marginal voices and communities, spanning a range of practices that address themes like democracy, social and spatial justice, and cultures of sustainability. Based on a

148

L. L. Andersen and K. R. Green

long-range investigation that began in 2005 (and is still ongoing), Guerra has examined the trajectories, careers, and strategies of more than 300 musicians in different genres of Portugal’s independent scene (indie, rock, punk, hardcore, electronic, etc.). In her research, Guerra addresses the theme of professionalization in music, exploring the relationship between independence, DIY careers, and economic sustainability. The DIY ethos is part of the core values of the punk subculture and emerges here as a new standard for promoting employability and managing the risk and uncertainty associated with building a music career. The ultimate need is to understand the social trajectories of young people imbued in these subcultures, especially when acquiring specific capitals, namely competencies, capacities, knowledge, and networks (Guerra, 2019, p. 5). Guerra points to how DIY has become a supportive crutch in the sense that it refers to a mode of musical production that distinguishes itself, symbolically and ideologically, from the traditional and commercial circuits of popular music, through the creation of a counterculture that is opposed to dominant cultural representations (Guerra, 2019, p. 7). Today, it is living through a process of professionalization and institutionalization, which implies a redefinition of its borders and relationship with the mainstream music industry. It seems more accurate to assume that the DIY and independent musical practices coexist with mainstream practices in a continuum and a vast dynamic of intersections, generating varying degrees and forms of independence (Guerra, 2019, p. 8). Many of these social actors are collectively called ‘creative workers’ and they recognize that they must mostly take care of themselves, taking on an entrepreneurial perspective in their career. Taking on more tasks formerly controlled by firms and specialized technicians, the artists must engage in widely distinct parts of the creative process in a cross-cultural or interdisciplinary mode. While profoundly attractive in terms of market-entering fees and costs, the DIY artist is laden with labour market risk and uncertainty about the use-­ value of their cultural productions (Guerra, 2019, p. 8). Many of the DIY artists then display what Guerra labels as “the two sides of the “DIY coin”: a case of “Resistance” and a case of “Existence”” (2021). In addition to their bands, they participate in community outreach, organizing and publishing, album sales, label management, and concert organizing, and some also search for a healthier lifestyle (Guerra, 2021, p. 133).

10.2.2 Hybridity – Creativity and Culture in Arts-Based Civil Society Organizations Suppose the dynamics of arts and culture provide a novel kind of coalition partner for the promotion of social value through entrepreneurship. In that case, this illustrates the relationship between these value forms as relatively easy to distinguish and deconstruct. However, through the alternative lens of ‘hybridity,’ we can see how the relationship between the two can become more entangled, fusing to

10  Arts-Based Creativity and Culture in Social Entrepreneurship

149

produce new organizational forms rather than new projects and products in the more individualist paradigm of entrepreneurship. Hybridity recognises that creative and social values are more open to fusion, mainly through the conditions of the third sector. Zimmer et al. point to how megatrends like individualization, globalization, and neo-liberalism are drivers of change within the third sector, providing several challenges that affect third-sector organizations, social enterprises, and modern hybrids (Zimmer et al., 2018, pp. 13–14). Clearly, arts and culture can be addressed in all three organizational types, and these megatrends influence significant financial, organizational, social, business, and civil constellations. In a five social enterprise and CSO case evaluation of arts initiatives and activities for social inclusion, Barraket concludes that: “there is significant evidence that arts initiatives and activities play a role in achieving social inclusion outcomes for disadvantaged individuals, groups, and communities” including individual empowerment and community healing” (Barraket, 2005, p. 13). The hybrid civil society organization INSP illuminates these points. INSP – A Hybrid Civil Society Organization, Denmark The first impression when approaching INSP is chaotic and brownish; a site with many woodsheds peeled paint and a large yard with self-made plant containers, wood tables, and chairs made of pallets. To the left, a bike repair shop is situated and, to the right, a woodwork shop and some creative machinery. A smoking area is organized in the back corner. Stepping inside, there is the scent of cooking; the fire is on, and several minor groups are spreading out in the sizeable ceilinged room. In one corner, the manager, some staff, and volunteers plan and develop an organisational chart. Opposite, a group of young guys watch music videos and work on an INSP!dummy for Roskilde Sound. In the middle, a group of women of different cultures and languages narrates with word pictures and images (Andersen, 2019). INSP is a hybrid civil society organization and a cultural center with a high turnout of local citizens and users, a group of employees whose profile and number vary according to the organization’s task portfolio and finances (Espersen et al., 2018). INSP operates through social inclusion, social innovation, and social entrepreneurship. This is done by exploring how a mixture of people and partners can be brought together and create new activities through social, cultural, and business logic and how this can help solve the local community’s challenges and realize its potential. INSP runs a wide range of user-directed activities, which combine work integration and arts-based creative entrepreneurship of young unemployed people. ‘Ledig med Drive’ focuses on including young people at risk from the local area, weekly cookouts, and shared meals for local residents. INSP Sound is a volunteer-run sound company. Some run a wood- and metal workshop and a volunteer-run concert group organizing upcoming layer artists. INSP!reDesign produces circular products from recycling, as well as lectures and tours. The financial setup is a mixed economy consisting of an annual operating agreement with the local municipality, association quota, sale of services to local authorities, income from food sale and rental of premises, other products and outreach activities, and program funds for development and experimental activities.

150

L. L. Andersen and K. R. Green

INSP applies a ‘blending philosophy’ emphasizing the importance of local solid anchoring, where local citizens make up most participants and citizens in vulnerable positions are blended in. For example, a year-long partnership with Roskilde municipality focussed on improving life skills and opportunities for young people in social psychiatry. Through art and creative activities, physical activities, food and communal eating, conversations, and social interaction, a faster healing and coping process is initiated to get people into education or a job. The ingredients have consisted of an organizational collaboration with local social psychiatry staff, employees at INSP, and local young people who act as ‘social hosts’ who help and bridge from the atypical and limited community of mentally vulnerable young people to the typical social interaction and activities in INSP (Espersen et al., 2018; Nielsen, 2016; Sievers, 2016). Case studies and evaluations of INSP indicate how the mix of resources and finances leads to unstable fluctuations and dependence on local political constellations (Andersen, 2018; Espersen et al., 2018). In INSP, the volunteers are, on the one hand, crucial and a driver for sustainability and idea power, but at the same time, they are unstable, fluctuating in their commitment and with a high degree of turnover (Andersen, 2019; Nielsen, 2016).

10.2.3 Transformation – Cultural Encounters in Arts-Based Social Enterprises While the two previous sections have illustrated the creative/social-value relationship as relatively distinct, we might finally address how the specific dynamics of artistic outputs (which draw on the aesthetic and symbolic to engender multiple forms of meaning) offer a more radical alteration of the core units of entrepreneurial practice – their trans-formation. This dynamic can be illustrated by considering the significance of ‘trans-­forming’ the substance of economic categories using the arts. The idea of cultural outputs as a ‘commons’ is an increasingly potent perspective, drawing literature, creative writing, media, pedagogy, indigenous and visual cultures into common conversations over the redistribution of resources and power, particularly for cultural artifacts. By doing so, recognitions and representations can perform social and personal transformations (Quinn et  al., 2012, p.  15). Such redistributive schemes are even more significant in the ‘cultural’ commons because they leverage human capital, given the vast system of volunteer or under-compensated labour in the arts. Whether or not the network of common resources can be maintained, the applications to social services continue to be innovative. Bennett, et al. have provided an art-based and experimental design applied as a group-based method to support people living with memory loss in social settings, such as care homes and day centers, or participating in enrichment programs, where a key purpose is to support social interaction and connection. The method involved here is a free-associative process in which a visual stimulus (in this case, the film) is used to elicit thoughts, feelings, and further visual

10  Arts-Based Creativity and Culture in Social Entrepreneurship

151

imagery in a group setting where people respond first to the stimulus and then to one another, building up a pattern of shared responses (Bennett et al., 2019, p. 3). The following example illustrates an arts-based and cultural community center and sketches different methods and approaches as a multi-methodical profile. Bromley by Bow – A Community Center, London, UK Only when one enters the community center does the contrast manifest itself. The area is a classic English working-class neighbourhood, with tiny red brick houses on two floors, close together, with tiny front yards and small fences. Row after row. Behind the red brick wall that encircles the Bromley by Bow center, a green landscape starkly contrasts the brick and asphalt outside. There are winding paths paved with small mosaic patterns, trees, shrubs, and flower beds scattered around, and many unconventional small buildings: a round tower, a semi-circle which is the open, inviting reception, the cafe, which has large glass sections facing the green landscapes, and an elongated wooden house with a grass-covered roof and many trellis corridors with green covering. Many buildings have round or semi-round shapes, and many micro-utility gardens are in the corner of the plot in an ingenious pattern, forming a large, divided circle centered with a small table and benches. Occasionally there are small figures and sculptures, and pictures, paintings, and mosaics are hanging, locally produced by citizens (Andersen, 2016, p. 230). Bromley by Bow is a flagship for social enterprises and social inclusion, with 30 years of history and organizational development, located in East London. The center was founded by Reverend Andrew Mawson in 1984, kick-starting a social civil society organization that, over the next three decades, developed a project portfolio, participant groups, an economic and social basis, and collaborative partners (Leadbeater, 1997). Bromley by Bow displays an experimental, holistic, and relational approach to initiatives within health promotion, social entrepreneurship, active citizenship, integrated and inclusive work, micro-enterprises, and communities. They operate through a multi-methodical range of activities and welfare services of a social, cultural, aesthetic, and entrepreneurial nature. The activities are aimed at the local citizens and are developed and maintained by various volunteers and paid staff. Local artists and musicians collaborate in health, social, educational, and restorative activities. Research evaluations of Bromley by Bow’s actions and results document that the center has been able to both adapt to decades of different social policies and welfare practices – also called welfare pluralism – and to develop and maintain a distinct profile, which has at times gone against the grain (Froggett et  al., 2005, p.  143). Research points to how the learning and participation dimension has significant importance and priority that pervade many  – if not all – dimensions of the organization. This shows itself as a focus on the narrative, a cultural story-telling track that the organization uses widely: in health efforts, in aesthetic and arts-based creative activities, in competence and training courses, in culture, and the physical-spatial arrangements. But it also manifests itself in a participatory track that the entire organization has put to the foreground through methods, goals, resources, and assessment criteria (Froggett et al., 2005, p. 124).

152

L. L. Andersen and K. R. Green

The center has initiated local social enterprises, established and incorporated a permanent collaboration with general medical practice and supplementary health services, and has functioned as a dominant provider of social and health services in the local area. The portfolio also contains many voluntary projects developed and maintained through several local partnerships and networks. The center is physically housed in unique buildings that are spatial and aesthetic expressions of how architecture can serve and facilitate a concept of community. Architecture is a crucial factor in life in the center as it encourages social interaction and creates a beautiful and spacious atmosphere that helps people who stay there to feel valued. A stage is set for creative exchange. These spaces are parts of a viable networked organization with fluid boundaries, capable of maintaining a constant dynamic exchange with its environment and surroundings (Froggett et  al., 2005, 3). The architectural and aesthetic expression draws inspiration from inclusive design, which through the term inclusive environment, emphasizes how locations, buildings, and places must be usable by everyone regardless of age, gender, or disability (Langton-Lockton, 2004). Buildings, spaces, places, and decorations are assessed and created in Bromley by Bow from multifunctional perspectives: the inclusive, the aesthetic, the holistic, the regenerative, and the sustainable.

10.3 Discussion: Micro-Entrepreneurship, Hybridity, and Transformation in the SE Ecosystem This patchwork of cases has tried to illuminate several ‘bright spots’ within the social enterprise ecosystem. Together, these variously demonstrate the role of the arts in fostering a blend of creative and social value: through the promotion of worker conditions and protections in new ventures (micro-entrepreneurship), the fusion of different social service models across sectors (hybridity), and the revivifying of community spaces and places (transformation). While they work with challenging economic conditions, exacerbated by societal pressures on the arts, we have tried to show that such challenges come with associated opportunities – particularly from the energy and mobilisation that the arts provide to social justice issues. In discussing the increased complexity of political needs and cause areas, Fraser finds “redistribution and recognition as dimensions of justice that can cut across all social movements” (Fraser, 1999, p. 133). In reflecting on the significance of this patchwork, we lastly consider how the cases seek different ways to obtain social justice through redistributions, recognitions, and valuations of the core life skills of participants of art-based ventures. The significance of the Bromley By Bow case lay in its capacity to enrich the spatial dimensions of community life, reflecting critical processes of social innovation which aim to incorporate “the two objectives of social/territorial cohesion and demographic stimulation” (Cancellieri et al., 2019, p. 93). This requires an affirmation that local contexts have the capacity to provide more enriched and joined-up

10  Arts-Based Creativity and Culture in Social Entrepreneurship

153

services, as well as revealing the need for greater citizen engagement to give such ventures legitimacy. Arts and culture schemes assist in both these aspects by providing a space of “social transformation“where “collective action has different levels of formality and crosses over to other eco-social demands” (Nogales-Muriel, 2022, p. 11). As the concept of the ‘commons’ illuminated, the engagement of multiple groups in co-producing social services underscores that the individualism of much neoliberal policymaking is always dependent on access to a common pool of resources. Key to the possibility of transformation in such services is the “collective references and memories” (André & Abreu, 2010) needed for communities to participate meaningfully, helped by the “presence of artists and cultural agents” (Nogales, 2017, p. 9). Suppose Bromley By Bow demonstrates a form of ‘redistribution’ (through an emphasis on the common goods of cultural projects). In that case, the case of INSP underscores the need for creative approaches to perform ‘recognition.’ Such recognition can emerge in the entrepreneurial coalition model from an act of ‘inversion’ (as introduced in the opening framework) when the roles of agent and beneficiary are switched. Yet, the phenomenological character of the arts – its ability to help interpret complex states like what it means to feel healthy or hybrid states like being lovesick (Sigurdson et  al., 2015)  – opens the door for artistic and social roles to interrelate. INSP demonstrates such a dynamic in its enrolment of young people as ‘social hosts’ for mediating psychology and social services, just as magicians can be re-cast into the role of quasi-occupational-therapists in another arts-based social enterprise, Breathe Magic (Green, 2020). INSP also experiences fluctuations in its volunteer base and general mix of participants but instead focuses on the “information exchange, cooperation, and knowledge sharing among the different actors” (Cancellieri et al., 2019, p. 90) that accompany arts-based enterprises which supplement state-run services. The cultural industries have the capacity to incubate radical forms of recognition because they fuse productive and industrious logic with the sensory and unpredictable dynamics of the arts. In Swedberg’s words, this is to have “one foot, so to speak, in the rational world [as defined by Max Weber] and another in the irrational world” (Swedberg, 2006, p. 253) – a dynamic that we see playing out in the construction of organisational forms (i.e., third sector and social enterprises) as the ‘shoes’ warn in such exploration. Finally, the dynamics of the DIY cultures of Portugal and Brazil underscore the role of markets and professionalisation in achieving redistribution and recognition – so long as they help to ‘push the boundaries’ with new entrepreneurial arrangements. As in the case of emblematic models of arts-based social enterprises like the Smart model (Nogales, 2017), cultural workers frequently must band together in the face of sectorial pressures. It is a bizarre feature of the arts sector, as Swan observes that however much cultural workers might emphasise that there is a bottom-line of minimum support without which creative output cannot be made, the accessibility and flexibility of the arts make it phenomenally well adapted to crises and a drop in participation (Swan, 2013, p. 53). Economically, this looseness inevitably means a downward pressure on wages and conditions for the arts in competitive economies. Against this, DIY music cultures find their value and necessity through

154

L. L. Andersen and K. R. Green

entrepreneurial chains of collaboration and concern for competency development (particularly of marginalised groups). Doing so also reflects a broader element of social justice provision that is distinctly non-local. By creating affinities not on the need for local service provision, but through a mutual passion for creative output and professionalisation, the DIY music cultures underscore that arts-based social enterprise can work at levels beyond that of the individual, geographical community, or nation. Rather, policymaking must keep apace with the “increasing geographical mobility of artists” and the fact that the work created by their trans-national networks” may not fit comfortably with the locally familiar and culturally valued” (Scherdin & Zander, 2011, pp. 180–181).

10.4 Conclusion and Learning Points In conclusion, we have tried to demonstrate the increasing influence of artistic and cultural themes in social entrepreneurship by pointing to the distinctive ways these hybrid initiatives try to serve their communities. The status of the arts in the political economy of neoliberal democracies generates profound difficulties for social enterprises around arts and culture – those influenced by the distinct mix of values (creative, social, and economic) and levels of participation (individual, local, and communal). Economically, the arts and culture field goes beyond traditional divisions that even social entrepreneurship  – through its business and organizational studies associations – often replicate. Arts perspectives thus aid the culturally-aware SE scholar in diversifying their units of interest and analysis: artistic outputs, for example, break beyond the categories of ‘processes’ and ‘products’ by manifesting diversely as intangible ‘services,’ memorable ‘experiences’ and effectual ‘transformations‘(Pine & Gilmore, 2011). Arts-based social enterprises are typically forced to “mirror” the issues that marginalised groups  – including young people entering a rapidly changing labour market – experience in the creative industries, in general, such as “hard measures” and metrics for success (McQuiltern et al., 2022, p.  148). Yet, as interest grows in the transformative, hybrid, and entrepreneurial capacities of arts-based ventures, there is hope that such organisations go beyond merely ‘mirroring’ and begin to radically change the ever-challenging conditions of political economy, while still pursuing more creative and sustainable approaches to social justice. Learning Points • Through micro-entrepreneurship, arts-based social projects work with the conflicted role of creative value within classical accounts of the economy (where the productiveness of artistic creation is routinely contested). Yet, this allows new micro setups to emerge when creative and social value form a coalition of interests, incubating alternative dynamics to market-led exchange. Members of the cultural industries thus develop forms of redistributive and reciprocal resourcing against the pressure of surviving as a member of the arts.

10  Arts-Based Creativity and Culture in Social Entrepreneurship

155

• Through hybridity, we are confronted with both positive and negative dynamics of the fluidity of creative value. Its capacity for reinvention allows creative value to mix and merge with existing categories of social value in novel and hybrid ways. The fact that such outcomes retain the distinctiveness between the creative and social is advantageous for pursuing multiple outcomes but, as examples of operating hybrids show, social entrepreneurship must still operate around institutional differences in categorisation and funding between the two value forms. • Through processes of transformation, however, we can understand how the entanglement of value forms becomes so total that creative dynamics can trans-­ form the core substances of entrepreneurship. Given that arts and aesthetics actively work with multiple layers of representation, creative value offers social entrepreneurship the capacity to see existing arrangements (of systems and resources) in novel ways. This dynamic encourages us to resist the over materialization of economic discourses in social entrepreneurship, and for students and practitioners to look to arts and culture for novel ways of incubating, exchanging and recognising value.

References Andersen, L.  L. (2016). Multimetodisk social intervention: Bromley by Bow [Multi-methodic social intervention: Bromley by Bow]. In Social intervention. Meningsfuld indgriben i menneskers llv [Social intervention. Meaningful intervening people’s lives]. Frydenlund Academic. Andersen, L. L. (2018). Neoliberal drivers in hybrid civil society organisations: Critical readings of civicness and social entrepreneurism. In M. Kamali & J. H. Jönsson (Eds.), Neoliberalism, Nordic welfare states and social work (pp. 43–52). Routledge. Andersen, L.  L. (2019). Cultural transformativity, solidarity economy and intersectional learning: A theoretical framework. In Paper presented at COST 3rd WG2 Research Workshop on “Unlocking the transformative potential of culture and the arts through SE”. André, I., & Abreu, A. (2010). Understanding the dynamics of social innovation through arts: The case of Montemor-o-Novo, Portugal. In F. Moulaert, D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood, & A. Hamdouch (Eds.), Social innovation: Collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research (pp. 60–66). Barraket, J. (2005). The role of the arts in social inclusion. Social Policy Working Paper, 4(Issue 4). Belfiore, E. (2022). Who cares? At what price? The hidden costs of socially engaged arts labour and the moral failure of cultural policy. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 2022(1), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549420982863 Bennett, J., Froggett, L., Kenning, G., Manley, J., & Muller, L. (2019). Memory loss and scenic experience: An arts based investigation. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 20(1). Cancellieri, G., Turrini, A., José, M., Perez, S., Salido-Andres, N., Kullberg, J., & Cognat, A. S. (2019). Social innovation in arts & culture. In H. K. Anheier, G. Krlev, & G. Mildenberger (Eds.), Social innovation: Comparative perspectives (Routledge studies in social enterprise & social innovation). Routledge. Chahine, T. (2016). Introduction to social entrepreneurship. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group. Comunian, R., Rickmers, D., & Nanetti, A. (2020). Guest editorial. Social Enterprise Journal, 16(2), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-­05-­2020-­085

156

L. L. Andersen and K. R. Green

Espersen, H.  H., Andersen, L.  L., Petersen, A., & Olsen, L. (2018). Inklusion og deltagelse af sårbare borgergrupper i samskabende arenaer. Evaluering af tre partnerskaber mellem civilsamfund og kommuner [Citizens in vulnerable positions and inclusion in cocreating partnerships between civil society and municipality]. VIVE Det nationale center for viden til velfærd. Fraser, N. (1999). Social justice in the age of identity politics: Redistribution, recognition, and participation. In Culture and economy after the cultural turn (pp. 25–52). SAGE. https://doi. org/10.4135/9781446218112 Froggett, L., Chamberlayne, P., Buckner, S., & Wengraf, T. (2005). Bromley by Bow Centre research and evaluation project: Integrated practice-focus on older people. In Bromley by Bow Centre, …. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Bromley+by+Bow+Centre +research+and+evaluation+project+:+integrated+practice+-­+focus+on+older+people#0 Green, K. R. (2020). Dis/ability arts and systemic innovation in the UK and Sweden. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2020.1788122 Guerra, P. (2019). Limited pleasures and DIY cultures: A path of resistance and survival in Portugal’s independent music scene over the last decade. Repositorio-Aberto.up.Pt. https://repositorio-­aberto.up.pt/handle/10216/123630 Guerra, P. (2021). So close yet so far: DIY cultures in Portugal and Brazil. Cultural Trends, 30(2), 122–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/09548963.2021.1877085 Guetzkow, J. (2002). How the arts impact communities. Centre for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, 7–8. Jermyn, H. (2001). The arts and social exclusion: A review prepared for the Arts Council of England. Arts Council of England. Langton-Lockton, S. (2004). What is inclusive design? (nr. 101, pp. 9–11). Access By Design. Leadbeater, C. (1997). The rise of the social entrepreneur (demos papers). McQuilten, G., Warr, D., Humphery, K., & Spiers, A. (2020). Ambivalent entrepreneurs: Arts-­based social enterprise in a neoliberal world. Social Enterprise Journal, 16(2), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-­03-­2019-­0015 McQuilten, G., Spiers, A., Humphery, K., & Kelly, P. (2022). Art-based social enterprise, young creatives and the forces of marginalisation. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-­3-­031-­10925-­6_1 Mulgan, G. (2023). Prophets at a tangent: How art shapes social imagination (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009321631 Nielsen, S. K. (2016). Creating participation for youth with mental health problems. Cross-sector collaboration between public services and the civil society in Denmark and Sweden. Nogales, R. (2017). Social transformation and social innovation in the field of culture: The case of the SMart model and its adaptation across Europe. Nogales-Muriel, R. (2022). Regaining our imagination to face and resist reality in a context of transitions: Lessons from ecofeminism, the commons, and the social and solidarity economy for culture and the arts. In R. Mirabella, T. Coule, & A. Eikenberry (Eds.), The handbook of critical perspectives on nonprofit organizing and voluntary action: Concepts, applications and future directions. Edward Elgar Publishing House. Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (2011). The experience economy (Updated ed.). Harvard Business Review Press. Quinn, T. M., Ploof, J., & Hochtritt, L. J. (2012). Art and social justice education: Culture as commons. Routledge. Ridley-Duff, R., & Bull, M. (2015). Understanding social enterprise: Theory and practice. Sage. Scherdin, M., & Zander, I. (2011). Art entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/kbdk/detail.action?docID=681144 Sievers, S.  M. M. (2016). Fragile heterotopias  – A case study of a Danish social enterprise. Community Development Journal, 51(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsv064 Sigurdson, O., Priebe, G., Sager, M., Bernhardsson, K., & Brodén, D. (2015). Culture and health: A wider horizon. Department of Literature, History of Ideas, and Religion, University of Gothenburg. https://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/40177

10  Arts-Based Creativity and Culture in Social Entrepreneurship

157

Stickley, T., & Clift, S. (2017). Arts, health and wellbeing: A theoretical inquiry for practice. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Swan, P. (2013) Exploring the tensions between organisational ethos and stakeholder demand: A case study of a community ‘arts and health’ social enterprise. PhD thesis, Durham University. Swedberg, R. (2006). The cultural entrepreneur and the creative industries: Beginning in Vienna. Journal of Cultural Economics, 30(4), 243–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10824-­006-­9016-­5 Zimmer, A., Hoemke, P., Pahl, J.  B., & Rentzsch, C. (2018). Resilient organizations in the third sector. Professionalized membership associations, social enterprises, modern hybrids. Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Münster.

Chapter 11

Do We Need Utopia for a Theory of Social Innovation as Social Change? Jennifer Eschweiler and Luise Li Langergaard

Abstract This chapter introduces social innovation (SI) as a concept of social change. After introducing conceptual work of recent years that situates SI in a democratic tradition of systemic change, particularly Transformative Social Innovation theory, we explore the relevance of utopia as additional element of a theory of social innovation as social change. While multi-level system approaches try to provide analytical tools to measure the impact of SI efforts over time they do not elaborate enough on the role of initial motivations, worldviews and hopes of social actors who decide to engage in SI processes, inspired by dreams and visions of alternatives. Human desire and imagined possibilities are considered key drivers of action but they are under-estimated in SI research with transformational interest. To bring their role to the fore we suggest working with Levitas’ distinction of content, functions and form of utopia to help operationalise the utopian dimension in relation to motivations and goals of SI. Utopia helps to formulate and reformulate a critique of the present, which can motivate SI but in Levitas’ approach it also encourages ongoing critical reflection on change actions and efforts. Used in a theory of change together with more system-centered approaches like TSI we make a conceptually derived argument that utopia can help towards a more integrated understanding of SI and social change by keeping focus on the role of actors throughout SI process and outcomes. Keywords  Social change · Utopia · Transformative social innovation My motivation for studying social entrepreneurship and management was to find a way for transforming my frustration into action concerning societal and environmental problems that we are all inescapably immersed in. It has become clear that our world today is based on frameworks that are not sustainably viable, nor democratic or inclusive to all. But if not the existing ones, then how to create bridges again between people that are not collapsing of their lousy construction? (SEM student 2020)

J. Eschweiler (*) · L. L. Langergaard Department of People and Technology, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. L. Langergaard et al. (eds.), Learning about Social Entrepreneurship and Management in Times of Social Transformation, Ethical Economy 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47708-9_11

159

160

J. Eschweiler and L. L. Langergaard

11.1 Introduction This chapter introduces social innovation (SI) as a concept of social change. After introducing conceptual work of recent years that situates SI in a democratic tradition of systemic change, particularly Transformative Social Innovation (TSI) theory, we explore the relevance of utopia as additional element of a theory of social innovation as social change. The democratic stream in SI research draws on social movement and third sector theory, conceptualizing social innovation as a normative approach to further democratization, empowerment, address human needs and foster social sustainability. TSI theorises social innovation as transformative system change, in an attempt to provide better tools for analysing SI efforts by bottom-up organisations and social movements that work towards social, cultural and educational change and sustainable transition in collaborative ways. It adds a critical perspective that also shows the limitations of SI as transformative change effort. We include utopia as a concept to a theory of SI as social change for several reasons: First, multi-level system approaches try to provide analytical tools to measure the impact of SI efforts over time. They do not elaborate enough on the role of initial motivations, worldviews and hopes of social actors who decide to engage in SI processes, inspired by ideas of alternatives, do not consider how system-level interactions feed back into SI initiatives, how they alter social change ideas and the consequences of that. We also see continuous engagement of SI actors, even in the face of adversities inherent to systems or discourses they seek to alter. What keeps them going might be the utopian spark, the striving towards another, a better future, which requires adaptations of the course of imagining, of partnerships, alliances and strategies, maybe the utopian idea or ideal itself, but which also keeps them spiralling forwards. Secondly, conceptualizing social innovation through the lense of social change is very much in line with Roskilde University’s problem-oriented and critical approach to research and pedagogy, and it is pivotal to the curriculum in both the professional Master in Social Sustainability (MSB) and the Master programme in Social Entrepreneurship and Management (SEM). When asking students in our international programme about the motivation for choosing SEM, a utopian spark often comes to the forefront. Oftentimes instrumental in their choice of the programme, ideas for an altered future are tangible and sometimes clearly expressed. Third, we realised through a literature review on utopia and social innovation and some initial field work that the wish for change is a strong motivator and that utopia is back in business as a popular concept that actors in civil society are not afraid to refer to in relation to their work. When asking international students why they chose to study SEM at Roskilde University as part of a study portfolio exercise, we get a wide array of responses, ranging from specific interest in the acquisition of tools that will enable students to set up a social business, manage an NGO or become intrapreneurs in the public

11  Do We Need Utopia for a Theory of Social Innovation as Social Change?

161

sector to a more general wish to contribute to social change. Students come with a variety of Bachelor degrees and work experiences, from all of Europe and from other parts of the world. They are united in a sense that business for profit alone cannot have positive impacts on global well-being but that collective organizing, solidarity or redistribution, generally associated with civil society or public welfare, can be combined with economic thinking and practice. This is in itself innovative and maybe even utopian when trying to imagine social entrepreneurship or solidarity economy not as niche phenomenon but as an alternative to the current for-profit business paradigm, blurring the boundaries between societal spheres. Interest in social innovation, social entrepreneurship and social and solidarity economy is growing both in research and in practice, understood as organizational forms and collective actions that are close to people’s needs, combine different resources in innovative ways, are governed in a participatory manner, and solve social problems locally and in society. In short, social innovation and social enterprise are argued to ‘offer a way out of the stalemate that has resulted from a decade and more of management-driven public sector reforms’ (Avelino et al., 2017). The European Strategy 2020, The European Social Business Initiative, EU-funded research and calls for social innovation competitions all demonstrate the huge interest – and hope – that solutions can be found collectively, with resources already at hand. Also, in other parts of the world the concepts have been gaining ground (Banerjee et al., 2020; Gaiger et al., 2019; Bidet & Defourny, 2019). In the context of SEM, students starting the Master programmes have heard enough about social entrepreneurship and social innovation to consider them tools for their own social change intentions. ‘I have observed my personal willingness to help people in need, to bring social change even if is just a small element in a bigger picture. I chose this study program in order to …. learn … how to become a sustainable social enterprise’ (SEM student 2019). This quote also underlines the role of individual actors and small collectives as part of system change. Thinking about business in other terms is one approach for students to envisage sustainability. Social entrepreneurship is understood as offering ‘opportunities for development, social impact and economic growth’ (SEM student 2019) and as social innovation itself. It can be linked to personal well-being and sense of purpose. ‘I realized that I wanted to help people and not myself. I suddenly felt the joy of making other human beings’ everyday life more comfortable which just kept growing on me’ (SEM student 2019). There is also a deeper interest in bringing about change that motivates students: ‘What I always was missing was the driving idea how to tackle social and sustainable issues, instead of just producing and selling something that people think the world needs’ (SEM student 2020). Another one wrote: ‘It has become clear that our world today is based on frameworks that are not sustainably viable, nor democratic or inclusive to all. But if not the existing ones, then how to create bridges again between people that are not collapsing of their lousy construction? Moreover, how to make sure that a bridge is not used only into one direction but all parties – including human groups and nature – are of its benefit?’ Many are looking for the

162

J. Eschweiler and L. L. Langergaard

right tools for action: ‘My motivation for studying social entrepreneurship and management was to find a way for transforming my frustration into action concerning societal and environmental problems that we are all inescapably immersed in’ (SEM student 2020). In other words, the focus of the programme as well as Roskilde University’s pedagogical approach and position as a critical university are attractive to students, also due to the social change agendas implicit in the programme’s teaching. We will now turn towards a conceptual clarification how to understand social innovation in relation to social change before making the connection to utopia.

11.2 Social Innovation Social innovation (SI) is a concept with a variety of meanings depending on the context in which it takes place and the actors engaged with it. It refers to initiatives that aim to solve social problems, meet social needs or collectively work towards improving opportunities for people threatened by exclusionary processes or looking for alternative futures (Martinelli, 2013). The history of the concept of innovation reveals that SI as a term emerged as a response to the rise of innovation as central concept in the twentieth century, increasingly linked to markets, goods, firms, management and an idea to believe in (Godin, 2015, 6–8). SI is tapping into the innovation semantics, but also shares some technological and business innovation characteristics such as the new combination of resources, first described by Chesbrough et al. (2008) and Leadbeater (2007), adding a social dimension to technology, market and market-oriented strategies to solve social problems (Moulaert & MacCallum, 2019, xxi). Critics of this stream see it as a neo-liberal take on problem-solving, doing more with less, identifying and promoting solutions that are practical within the framework of the existing economic order, rather than on understanding the structural causes and conflicts underlying the problems in need of solving (Fougère et al., 2017). There is no explicit underlying theory of social change, only a possibility of social change through micro-level SI scaling or diffusion (Howaldt & Schwarz, 2016). In more normative approaches to SI it appears as a corrective of the negative consequences of market-oriented innovation, understood as technological advances that can be commercialized without following a common good purpose (Godin, 2015). The foundations for this reading of SI emerge in the mid-twentieth century in form of emancipatory movements, relevant in conceptualisations of SI as a broader societal phenomenon (bottom-up democratisation through emancipatory civil society and third sector), drawing on sociology, political philosophy and social and solidarity economy (Moulaert et al., 2005; Hulgård et al., 2019). Focus is not only on alleviating the consequences of social exclusion or environmental destruction, but also on challenging the forces that lead to exclusion both within and beyond their territorial reach (Moulaert & MacCallum, 2019, 1). Social innovation processes in this tradition are described as collective and participatory (Hulgård &

11  Do We Need Utopia for a Theory of Social Innovation as Social Change?

163

Shajahan, 2019; Howaldt et  al., 2015). Such perspectives make SI a democratic driver for social change. More specifically, Howaldt and Schwartz (2017) conceptualise SI as a new combination of social practices driven by certain actors in a targeted manner with the goal of addressing needs and problems in such a way that new practices become accepted and diffused in society, thus developing transformative potential. Conceptualizing Social innovation as Social Change Social change can be understood in various ways and it is difficult to study and analyse. As researchers trying to understand social change, how do we decide on the scale of our inquiry, how do we select variables at different scales, as well as their interactions? We always make certain choices prioritising certain explanatory assumptions over others and focus more on some groups of actors than on others. Hence every model of social complexity is reductionary, every picture of the social distorted (Rothenberg, 2010, 7). In the social sciences, scholars tend to study social problems and solutions as embedded and thus as context and path dependent. While focus is on collective solutions, including multiple level actors like organisations, users, local and national governments, institutional or system factors are also considered. Traditions of collaboration between state and civil society, social capital, institutional design and dominant logic (focus on increased economic efficiency vs. citizen participation) both at national and local levels are proposed as variables that shape success or failure of social innovation (Bloom & Dees, 2008; Krlev et al., 2018). In different frameworks, conditions for SI and social change can depend on available resources, welfare logics, levels of public deliberation, legal frameworks, social relations, normative discussions of ‘the good life’, etc., making the question what is really needed for social innovation to work extremely difficult (Terstriep et al., 2020). Social change can also occur to different degrees. In SI research social change is conceptualised in various ways: through innovation in social relations based on values of solidarity, reciprocity and association at community level (Moulaert, 2009, 2), through changes of social practices in society that can lead to change of society (Howaldt & Schwartz, 2016), or as new social and power relations and empowerment (Avelino, 2017) through bottom-up and co-evolutionary innovation and change processes (Avelino et al., 2019). In the context of social entrepreneurship, Barinaga (2012) distinguishes between system maintenance (new ideas and solutions within existing structures), system expansion (e.g., including new groups or services and system to an otherwise intact system) transformation (new ways of organising society). Actor and system perspectives are not often combined. Taking the example of Transformative Social Innovation (TSI) theory, the agency of actors is acknowledged in so far as point of departure are socially generated ideas how to better satisfy needs and problems that need collective implementation, adaptation, and configuration (Howaldt et al., 2015; Howaldt & Schwartz, 2017). The TSI framework includes narratives of change that take the form of sets of ideas, concepts, metaphors, discourses or story lines about change and innovation. These reveal ideas about why the world needs to change, who has the power to do so,

164

J. Eschweiler and L. L. Langergaard

and how this can be done, thus linking an initiative’s transformative ambition to broader societal context (Haxeltine et al., 2017, 16). From then on TSI follows a critical-institutionalist approach, focussing on the interaction of contextual dynamics at different scales with the aim to understand how SI can both reproduce and change institutions using political tactics and strategies (Haxeltine et al., 2017). One reasoning in favour for such an approach is the ‘agentic bias’ that the authors often identify in SI research, which rests largely on localized case studies (ibid.). The notion of transformative is taken to mean an irreversible, persistent adjustment in societal values, outlooks and behaviours, social innovation is at best one component of such broader change, captured in a co-­evolutionary relationship with other types of change or innovation (Avelino et al., 2017, 3). It involves new relationships and new ways of knowing and framing. Social innovation interacts with innovation in societal sub-systems (not necessarily triggered by SI), macro-level changes that are perceived as game-changers (demographic change, ecological phenomena or socio-technological trends) that change the playing field, and with discourses and narratives that create or close opportunities for change interests to take hold. Another important component of TSI theory is the question how actors are empowered or disempowered by processes of social innovation. The multi-level perspective can help identify drivers and barriers in empowerment processes. Drawing on research in sustainability transitions and transition governance, Avelino et  al. develop a typology of power that distinguishes three levels that can or not affect each other. Macro-tends (conceptualised as landscape) signify and legitimise policy objectives, dominant institutions and practices (conceptualised as regimes) reinforce and reproduce power relations, while niches of innovation enable people to learn, create new resources and new ideas (2017, 506–8). SI can become transformative when niches and regimes engage in power sharing, described as a social mechanism that generates a particular outcome (ibid., 5). The TSI framework acknowledges that actors initiate SI processes with a normative aims and aspirations to make changes for the better, based on a critique of the present (and maybe also the past). It also focusses on the impact of social innovation, embedded in hierarchical relationships, captured as empowerment of actors and target groups. The institutional approach also shows the hard limits for actors that can only be transgressed through what appears long-lasting collaborations and external, meta-level changes. While TSI’s co-evolutionary institutionalist theoretical model draws on the normative democratic understandings in social innovation research and positions itself at a critical distance from business-school inspired entrepreneurial heroes or idealized images of agents of social change, we feel that it does not provide us with a full picture. TSI includes narratives of social change that might feed into visions that become underlying normative drivers of social change processes in public discourses (Wittmayer et al., 2019). We suggest taking a step back and study the role of visions, dreams and hopes at actor level in social innovation niches, how they impact social innovation process and change over time as the utopian idea interacts with different system levels. This is where we propose to examine utopia as

11  Do We Need Utopia for a Theory of Social Innovation as Social Change?

165

additional element a theory of social change through social innovation, as utopia ‘is always the first step towards that which is – and remains – not-yet’ (Jacobsen & Tester, 2012, 1).

11.3 Utopia and Social Innovation Despite similarities and overlaps between the two concepts, we rarely see them connected in the research literature (Langergaard & Eschweiler, 2022). They share a focus on change for a better future, based in critique of the present. Human desire and imagined possibilities are considered key drivers of action but they are under-­ estimated in SI research with transformational interest. ‘The utopian dimension opens a pandora’s box of human desire in this time of multiple crises, a view on imagined possibilities that guide human action, adding visions of hope to the critical assessments of the present that keep actors going in their efforts to imagine a better world’ (Langergaard & Eschweiler, 2022). Utopia in general refers to the good life or the good society that is not (yet) existent. It entails critique of the present and the projection of a better life. Utopias are informed by historical and spatial value propositions and norms, can be formulated as responses to major crises or serious problems of society, and are often presented against dystopias, which are reflections of existing problems (Jakobsen, 2017). Utopia indicates a desire for (social) change, but a key disagreement in the literature lies in the question to what extent utopia can or should be merely expressive  – wishful, something to continuously strive for through constant improvement and reform  – or instrumental  – wilful, to be practically implemented, incremental or radical (Levitas, 2007). Utopian desires and imagination can be multifold and directed at micro, meso and macro changes: for a better form of living, for alternative social practice or a different society altogether. It can be located ‘in the mind of an individual; it may be a fictional or mythical place shared or built in the imaginations of many; it may be actualized in the material world in a geographical place’ (Portolano, 2012, 116), or in a combination of the above. It can thus be both elusive or concrete steps, symbolic in rhetoric or material in action. While Marxist notions of utopia saw utopia as a driving force (a notion not shared by Marx himself), political utopia became discredited in Europe with the end of the terror regimes if the twentieth century, moving from political project to utopian attitude (Vieira, 2017, 66). Contemporary utopianism, mostly a philosophical concept, is ‘a device to promote critical thinking and a strategy for the search of transitory truths’ (ibid. 72), a spiral search for something better based on reality, which assumes willingness to act as much as the ability to critically reflect, in reference to political and moral value. However, Vieira suggests to ‘rescue the political utopia from the exile that it has been forced into’ (ibid. 73), a sentiment expressed by all social innovation actors that we have so far interviewed for further empirical research. Utopia reflects a desired state of future affairs that can be represented as

166

J. Eschweiler and L. L. Langergaard

an idea or a more fully formed ideal of society, influenced by context, subjective desire and the question, ‘would this be a good society, if it existed’ (Levitas, 2011, 5). A useful approach to conceptualising utopia as an element of a theory of social innovation for social change is Levitas’ distinction of content, function and form of utopia (Levitas, 2011). Content refers to the actual normative utopian portrayal, which can be more or less precise, open-ended or closed. An example for the former is Wright’s real utopia (2010), inspired by the same bottom-up initiatives as SI research. He describes them as utopian waystations, dynamic and evaluative between what is desirable and what is pragmatically possible. Together they have the potential to trigger social change, especially if embedded in what Friedman calls utopia as democracy (2012), a state in which people can express themselves freely and equally without domination. Functions refer to the desire for something else, for a better life or a better way of being. It can take the function of compensation through wishful dreaming (Levitas, 1990) or of critique (articulating the present as unsatisfactory) and change (the capacity to inspire the pursuit of a different world). Much of the activism driving SI is based on critique of the current system. Similarly, utopias emerge as responses to major crises or serious problems of society. With critique also come projections, hopes, dreams and aspirations for a better future (Jakobsen, 2017). Utopias provide images of new goals, that help to critically reflect dominant ideology (Vieira, 2017, 69). Bloch’s concrete utopia is based on a sense of possibility (Thompson, 2012, 33) that gives us hope and anticipation of possible other futures. The not-yet refers to both an absence and a potential, it is captured in social dreaming, maybe initially as a form of compensation, but eventually ‘combining the functions of critique and change’ (Portolano, 2012, 129). Jakobsen’s grounded utopias, which refer to cultural practices that are alternative forms of living that can function as some kind of example, focus ‘on the possibilities for better societies latent in the present’ (Jakobsen, 2017, 39). Form refers to the way utopia is told. It can be described in literature, art, or performance, it can be experimental or experiential. Bloch distinguished abstract and concrete utopia. While the former is more of a fantasy, concrete utopia is found in arts and culture expressing a longing which helps ‘forward dreaming’ (Levitas, 2011, 111). Real utopias like basic income or certain cooperative forms of organization have a clear practical dimension, they are experiments with practices and not merely ideas, visions or fantasies (Wright, 2010). Activism and social movements are experiences in Friedman’s democracy as utopia (2012). Content, functions and form of utopia are relevant in relation to SI for social change, both in terms of conceptual understanding and empirical work, as they can help to operationalise the utopian dimension in relation to motivations and goals of SI. Functions can be helpful to elucidate types and objects of critique as well as strategies for change in SI initiatives. Engaging with the functions of critique and change in SI makes it possible to address the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of such projects.

11  Do We Need Utopia for a Theory of Social Innovation as Social Change?

167

11.4 Conclusion: Towards an Integrated Understanding of Social Innovation for Social Change I am striving for self-realization, helping society, gaining experience of orientation towards achieving a result. (SEM student 2020)

This chapter gives an overview of conceptual and theoretical work that connects SI and social change, starting with a normative understanding of SI rooted in third sector, civil society and democratic participation, and moving from different understandings of social change to TSI theory that serves as an analytical tool to study the impact of SI in relation to other change processes. This framework only includes actor level perspectives conceptualised as motivations shaped by narratives and stories, but overall follows an institutionalist approach in which social innovation is just one phenomenon. We therefore introduce utopia as additional actor-centered concept, arguing that the role of visions, dreams and imaginaries of actors engaged in SI is under-researched and hence not properly understood. Narratives and stories can be the form of utopias and provide utopian content, which determines the normative claims underlying SI for social change, e.g., equality, social justice and democracy as core values to defend vs. potentially disempowering changes that limit participation and transparency of goals. Thus, the literature on utopia raises attention to the seemingly overlooked aspect of risk in SI – that of change aspirations that shatter the existing order. TSI theory does point to the risk of disempowering people and communities (Avelino et al., 2017) but confined to niches SI cannot cause serious harm. The function of utopia in transformative SI processes is of conceptual interest for two reasons at least: it helps to formulate and reformulate a critique of the present, which can motivate SI but in Levitas’ approach it also encourages ongoing critical reflection on change actions and efforts. Critique and social dreaming interact and are informed by engagement with other actors, institutions, discourses and events, which informs action towards a potential not-yet. The utopian portrayal might change but stay alive as a driving force: to compensate, to critique or to continue to act. Do actors see a-yet possibility for change, or are they merely striving for an idea about an alternative? Do they follow a clear strategy (for incremental or radical change and how does it change through interaction with other actors, systems and events? Dissecting SI initiatives through these dimensions can reveal what is at the core of actors’ transformative goals. The function of utopia is assumed to influence content and form, expressed in SI process and repertoire, making SI and transformative change processes a political factor. SI is often portrayed as an apolitical tool for addressing social challenges, but by bringing the visions of alternative futures and societies to the fore we can also focus on political and ethical aspects of SI. It might well be that SI is a utopia in itself, with the hope for it to become transformative. SI might also be one of the functions of utopia, a strategy for change with an array of possible contents and forms. To understand the nature of SI as well as its role in social change efforts we conclude that utopia is an interesting added conceptual dimension of SI for social change. It strengthens the actor-centered perspectives

168

J. Eschweiler and L. L. Langergaard

in SI for social change research. It sheds light on actors, helping to make implicit wishes, dreams, hopes, goals and intentions explicit factors in SI theory and in practice. Used in a theory of change together with more system-centered approaches like TSI can help towards a more integrated understanding of SI and social change by keeping focus on the role of actors throughout SI process and outcomes, not make them extras with good intentions confined to niches while the big wheels are turning, creating occasional opportunities. Adding utopia this way to the teaching canon in social entrepreneurship and management also gives legitimacy to the hopes and aspirations of students. ‘I am striving for self-realization, helping society, gaining experience of orientation towards achieving a result’ (SEM student 2020). If we consider social entrepreneurship and social innovation a 21st skill the same is true for utopia in times of adversity. Learning Points • Social change is pursued by actors in interaction with other actors, systems, discourses and macro-level events, allowing utopia as additional element of a theory of social innovation through the lens of social change. The utopian idea or ideal is conceptualised as important aspect of the actor perspective, in interaction with system-based perspectives on SI and social change. • The chapter is an encouragement to integrate humanities and social sciences in the study of SE and SI as well as for practitioners to dare utopian thinking.

References Avelino, F. (2017). Power in sustainability transitions: Analysing power and (dis)empowerment in transformative change towards sustainability. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27, 505–520. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1777 Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J. M., Kemp, R., & Haxeltine, A. (2017). Game-changes and transformative social innovation. Ecology and Society, 22(4), 41. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-­09897-­220441 Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J. M., Pel, B., Weaver, P., Dumitru, A., Haxeltine, A., Kemp, R., Jørgensen, M. S., Bauler, T., Ruijsink, S., & O’Riordan, T. (2019). Transformative social innovation and (dis)empowerment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 45, 195–206. Banerjee, S., Carney, S., & Hulgård, L. (Eds.). (2020). People centered social innovation: Global perspectives on an emerging paradigm (pp. 1–16). Routledge. Barinaga, E. (2012). Overcoming inertia: The social question in social entrepreneurship. In Hjorth, D (Ed.), Handbook on organisational entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar Publishing, 242–256. Bidet, E., & Defourny, J. (Eds.). (2019). Social enterprise in Asia: Theory, models and practice. Routledge. Bloom, P. N., & Dees, J. G. (2008). Cultivate your ecosystem. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(1), 47–53. Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (Eds.). (2008). Open innovation. Researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0191622729.001.0001 Fougère, M., Segercrantz, B., & Seeck, H. (2017). A critical reading of the European Union’s social innovation policy discourse: (re)legitimizing neoliberalism. Organization, 24(6), 819–843. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508416685171 Friedman, S. (2012). Democracy as an open-ended utopia: Reviving a sense of uncoerced political possibility. Theoria, 59(130), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3167/th.2012.5913001

11  Do We Need Utopia for a Theory of Social Innovation as Social Change?

169

Gaiger, L. I., Nyssens, M., & Wanderley, F. (Eds.). (2019). Social enterprise in Latin America. Theory, models and practice. Routledge. Godin, B. (2015). Innovation contested: The idea of innovation over the centuries. Routledge. Haxeltine, A., Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J.M., Kunze, I., Longhurst, N., Dumitru, A., & O’Riordan, T. (2017). Conceptualising the role of social innovation in sustainability transformations. In Social innovation and sustainable consumption: Research and action for societal transformation (pp. 12–25). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315201559 Howaldt, J., & Schwartz, M. (2016). Social innovation and its relationship to social change  – Verufying existing social theories in reference to social innovation and its relationship to social change. Project report D1.3. SI-Drive. Social Innovation: Driving Force of Social Change. Howaldt, J., & Schwartz, 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), 163–180. Howaldt, J., Kopp, R., & Schwarz, M. (2015). On the theory of social innovations; Tarde’s neglected contribution to the development of a sociological innovation theory. Technische Universität Dortmund. https://nbn-­resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-­ssoar-­419633 Hulgård, L., & Shajahan, P. K. (2019). Chapter 4: Genealogy and institutionalization of people-­ centered social innovation in Kudumbashree, Kerala, India. In L.  Hulgård, S.  Banerjee, & S. C. Steven (Eds.), People-centered social innovation (p. 2020). Routledge. Hulgård, L., Banerjee, S., & Carney, S. (2019). People-centered social innovation: An emerging paradigm with global potential. In L.  Hulgård, S.  Banerjee, & S.  C. Steven (Eds.), People-­ centered social innovation (pp. 1–16). Routledge. Jacobsen, M. H., & Tester, K. (2012). Utopia as a topic for social theory. In M. H. Jacobsen & K. Tester (Eds.), Utopia: Social theory and the future (pp. 1–4). Taylor and Francis Group. Jakobsen, O. (2017). Transformative ecological economics: Process philosophy, ideology and Utopia. Routledge. Krlev, G., Anheier, H. K., & Mildenberger, G. (2018). Chapter 3: Methods. Identifying and analysing the social innovation streams. In G. Krlev, H. K. Anheier, & G. Mildenberger (Eds.), Social innovation. Comparative perspectives (pp. 49–76). Routledge. Langergaard, L. I., & Eschweiler, J. (2022). The role of social dreaming – Utopia as the unknown variable in social innovation? Journal of Social Entrepreneurship. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 19420676.2022.2094990 Leadbeater, C. (2007). Social enterprise and social innovation: Strategies for the next ten years. A social enterprise think piece for the Office of the Third Sector, Cabinet Office, Office of the Third Sector. Levitas, R. (1990). Educated hope: Ernst Bloch on abstract and concrete utopia. Utopian Studies, 1(2), 13–26. Levitas, R. (2007). Looking for the blue: The necessity of utopia. Journal of Political Ideologies, 12(3), 289–306. Levitas, R. (2011). The concept of utopia [Student ed. / with a new preface by the author]. Peter Lang. Martinelli, F. (2013). Learning from case studies of social innovation in the field of social services: Creatively balancing top-down universalism with bottom-up democracy. In F. Moulaert, D. MacCallum, A. Mehmodd, & A. Hamdouch (Eds.), The international handbook on social innovation (pp. 346–360). Edward Elgar. Moulaert, F. (2009). Social innovation and community development – Concepts, theories and challenges. In F. Moulaert, F. Martinelli, E. Swyngedouw, & S. González (Eds.), Can neighbourhoods save the city (pp. 4–16). Routledge. Moulaert, F., & MacCallum, D. (2019). Advanced introduction to social innovation. Edward Elgar. Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., Swyngedouw, E., & Gonzáles, S. (2005). Towards alternative model(s) of local innovation. Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland), 42(11), 1969–1990. https://doi. org/10.1080/00420980500279893 Portolano, M. (2012). The rhetorical function of utopia: An exploration of the concept of utopia in rhetorical theory. Utopian Studies, 23(1), 113–141.

170

J. Eschweiler and L. L. Langergaard

Rothenberg, M. A. (2010). The excessive subject : A new theory of social change. Polity. Terstriep, J., Rehfeld, D., & Kleverbeck, M. (2020). Favourable social innovation ecosystem(s)? – An explorative approach. European Planning Studies, 28(5), 881–905. Thompson, P. (2012). What is concrete about Ernst Bloch’s ‘concrete utopia’? Vieira, F. (2017). From the political utopia to the philosophical utopia – And rescuing the political utopia, on second thought. In Z. Czygànyik (Ed.), Utopian horizons (pp. 63–75). Central European University Press. Wittmayer, J.  M., Backhaus, J., Avelino, F., Pel, B., Strasser, T., Kunze, I., & Zuijderwijk, L. (2019). Narratives of change: How social innovation initiatives construct societal transformation. Futures: The Journal of Policy, Planning and Futures Studies, 112, 102433. Wright, E. O. (2010). Envisioning real utopias. Verso.

Index

A Art, 88, 144–152, 166 Autonomy, 13, 60, 88, 112, 124 C Care, 4, 5, 8, 11, 37, 63, 113, 121, 136, 144, 145, 148, 150 Civil society, 1–3, 5, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 50, 87, 101, 113, 119, 144, 148–151, 160–163, 167 Commensurability, 130, 133–134, 138, 140 Corporate social responsibility (CSR), 4, 11, 80, 82–90, 100, 120 Cost benefit analysis (CBA), 13, 128–140 Creative value, 154, 155 D Democratic decision-making, 3, 55 Democratic governance, 3, 54, 103 Designer role, 40, 45 Design for sustainability, 36 Developing countries, 10, 68, 69, 71–73 E Ecological sustainability, 2, 87 Embodied ethics, 34, 37–38, 40, 42, 43, 46

Empowerment, 3–5, 11, 14, 16, 34, 37, 44, 46, 58, 63, 64, 68, 131, 144, 149, 160, 163, 164 Entrepreneurship education, 7–8, 21–24, 28 Evaluation, 12–13, 16, 17, 127, 128, 131, 132, 138–140, 149–151 G Global citizenship, 5, 8 Governance, 3, 6, 8, 10–13, 36, 50, 56, 63, 69–75, 85, 88, 97, 102–103, 112, 115, 116, 121–123, 127–129, 140, 144, 164 H Humanitarian aid, 13, 112, 113 Humanities, 14–15, 17, 38, 81, 82, 86, 87, 139, 168 Hybrid, hybridity, 2, 7, 11, 14, 74, 75, 95, 96, 99–100, 104, 112, 145, 146, 148–150, 152–155 I Inclusion, inclusivity, 2–4, 6, 8, 16, 28, 36–44, 46, 55, 64, 96, 131, 149, 151 Informality, 68–70, 73–75 Innovation, 2, 4–7, 9–13, 16, 17, 20, 22, 25, 35, 50, 52–54, 56, 59–64, 75, 80, 81, 83–88, 90, 104, 112–124, 139, 146, 162–164

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 L. L. Langergaard et al. (eds.), Learning about Social Entrepreneurship and Management in Times of Social Transformation, Ethical Economy 66, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-47708-9

171

172 L Leadership theory, 12, 96–106 Legitimacy, 8, 10, 11, 75, 80, 83, 88, 90, 128, 131, 137, 153, 168 Limited statehood, 10, 69, 70, 72, 73, 75 M Marketization, 11 Micro-entrepreneurship, 14, 144, 146–148, 152–154 Multi-level analysis, 72, 74 P Participation, 3, 4, 8–10, 14, 16, 25, 35, 36, 38, 40–43, 45, 46, 49–51, 53–64, 81, 84, 101, 116, 121, 122, 145, 151, 153, 154, 163, 167 Participatory design, 34, 36 Pluriverse, 9, 34, 36–40, 42–46 Problem-oriented project learning (PPL), 8, 21–29 R Real utopia, 166 Responsible research, 5–6 S Social change, 2–6, 8–10, 13–17, 20, 21, 28, 29, 34, 36, 38, 45, 53, 54, 61–63, 68, 101, 104, 106, 127, 128, 140, 145, 160–168 Social design, 5, 9, 34, 36, 38–44, 46, 50, 51, 55–56, 62 Social enterprise, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 23, 50–52, 56–58, 60–62, 68, 73, 95, 96, 99, 105, 106, 128–131, 136, 138, 144–154, 161 Social entrepreneurs, 9, 13, 16, 23, 24, 34, 36, 37, 44–46, 52, 61, 63, 71, 73, 75, 97, 100, 103, 127, 140

Index Social entrepreneurship (SE), 1–17, 23, 24, 26, 28, 34, 38, 45, 46, 50–52, 56, 58, 59, 61–63, 68–75, 80, 83, 85, 87, 89, 90, 96, 97, 99–105, 127, 131, 144–155, 160–163, 168 Social innovation (SI), 2–17, 23, 41, 46, 49–51, 53–64, 80, 82, 83, 85, 97, 104, 112, 113, 145, 149, 152, 160–168 Social justice, 2, 10–12, 15, 16, 36, 96, 104, 138–139, 152, 154, 167 Socially responsible innovation, 11, 80–90 Social return on investment (SROI), 13, 127–136, 140 Social science, 3, 4, 14, 35, 81, 86, 136, 163, 168 Social sustainability, 7, 9, 25, 34, 36, 38–40, 43–46, 90, 160 Social systems theory, 12, 105 Social value, 2, 12–14, 23, 36, 45, 52, 100, 101, 104, 112, 113, 116, 122, 128–130, 132, 135, 136, 140, 144–150, 152, 154, 155 Stakeholder management, 56, 84–86, 89, 90 Sustainable development goals (SDGs), 8, 11, 25, 28, 36, 58, 80, 86–90, 120 Sustainable education, 8, 26 T Transformation, 14, 21, 53, 68, 104, 144, 146, 150–155, 163 Transformative social innovation (TSI), 15, 160, 163, 164, 167, 168 Trust, 13, 44, 64, 124, 127, 147 U Utopia, 15, 147, 160, 162, 164–168 V Value pluralism, 137, 140