Challenge Social Innovation

The paper describes ten sets of theoretical sources that have either influenced social innovation or provide useful insights. It argues that although the field has been led by practice rather than theory it now needs stronger theoretical foundations in order to progress. The theoretical sources described include: theoretical perspectives on social plasticity and change; evolutionary theories; complexity theories; theories of entrepreneurship; theories of dialectical change; theories from innovation studies; theories of techno-economic paradigms; theories concerned with the ends of innovation, in particular well-being and capabilities; and epistemological approaches to social innovation. In each case I describe some of the main ideas and arguments, and their relevance to social innovation (and in some cases their key limitations). I then suggest ways in which these may be synthesized into an overall framework for social innovation that can generate useful and often testable hypotheses to guide practice.

In light of the increasing importance of social innovation, this paper explores the question of what (new) roles social sciences can play in analyzing and shaping social innovation. The paper starts with an overview of the current situation and the perspectives of socio-scientific innovation research that have greatly contributed to the development and spread of an enlightened socio-scientific understanding of innovation. Against the backdrop of clear paradoxes and confusion in prevailing politics of innovation, the contours of a new innovation paradigm are becoming visible and causing social innovation to grow in importance. Consistently, the social sciences will be challenged to redefine their functions with regard to innovation. In the past, innovation research in the context of social sciences has contributed heavily to explain the social dimensions, the complexity and paradoxa of innovation processes. Henceforth, much will depend on realigning the range of competencies of social science and social scientists by contributing actively to the development and integration of innovations as well as by developing social innovation.

Social innovation is becoming a widely used term in international debates in the context of social challenges. Neither in political nor in social scientific discussion there seems to be a consensual definition or concept of social innovation. In search of a sociological understanding of social innovation this paper turns to Latour’s Actor-Network-Theory (ANT).

Latour is known for his insistence on the role of non-humans (which usually refers to technological artefacts) in society and how the reference to non-humans changes our understanding of social action and structure. In his view, the “social” is nothing but a type of relation, it is the way human and non-human actors link to each other, are translated and form actor-networks in a “flat” world without a “context” or “macro-level”. As a consequence, we cannot separate technological artefacts from the “social sphere” of humans anymore. Furthermore, Latour and Callon introduced a variety of general concepts that allow to empirically study this world of relations and translations.

This article discusses the potentials in applying Latour’s version of ANT to social innovation following two main questions: Does ANT provide empirical tools appropriate for analyzing innovation processes that do not have technology as their main driver and output? Does ANT help us to conceptualise social innovation in a way that avoids the exclusion of technical artefacts per se?

The paper examines the conditions under which the concept of social innovation is being cast. Three features of modern society were first identified as the hallmarks of a changing world: the dominance of large multinational firms, the decline of the welfare state and the individualisation of citizens. From this, we see how the society is being rebuilt through the constituency of social innovation in three key facets: the public interest and common good, a new approach to the concept of service and the networks strengthening the bonds of trust between citizens.

Paraphrasing the famous quote from Schumpeter, who initially explained innovation as a ‘new combination of production factors’, social innovation can be defined as a new combination of social practices. In order to qualify as social innovations, such combinations or the creation and implementation of absolutely new practices must be intentional, aiming at solving a social issue, and produce effects in terms of novel social facts. Implementation and impact distinguish social innovations from social ideas. Social objectives and rationales, rather than economic ones, make them differentiable from business-driven innovations. However, social innovations take place in business as well as in the public sector and civil society. From a particular sociological point of view, social innovations are becoming of increasing relevance not only because of the frequently mentioned so-called ‘Grand Challenges’ the knowledge society faces in the twenty-first century. On the one hand, re-integration of the most effective economy ever is on the agenda in society, aiming at the ‘management of abundance’. On the other, even the nexus between man-made social systems and human nature may need re-configuration.

The emergent domain of Service Science is dominated by business management and technical views of services and their innovation potential. A sociological theory of services can supply a conceptual framework for services as processes of mediation, of mutual reference, or of interaction or communication between a production situation and a usage situation. On the users’ side, participation in service processes may be understood as productive activity (J. Gershuny) in the sense of purposeful proactive engagement with persons or artefacts (objects or symbols). This change in the mode of realising a particular desired “function” can be defined as social innovation. Current discussions on socially desirable forms of service innovation and their chances of gaining widespread acceptance could well profit from this concept. Investigation of each of the elements of productive activity (time, place, resources, objectives, hurdles) and the way they are changed by the diffusion of new services is the task of current studies in the sociology of service innovation.

Social innovation and service innovation issues have developed separately over the last two decades, with too rare intersections between them. Both issues share many points in common, however, and sometimes even describe the same socio-economic reality. This contribution aims to help establish dialogue between these two still marginal but promising fields of economic theory and the social sciences in general. It briefly describes each of these two fields, puts them into perspective, and examines the links between them in a number of different ways.

Innovation is a threat to the status quo in the public service and therefore there are many barriers for the innovator. Several of the barriers will be illustrated including: (1) top management desires innovation but is stymied by special interests deeper in the organization; (2) management thinks its innovative by instituting only incremental change; (3) management initiates an innovation without adequate support; (4) the apparent buy-in by various levels of management masks their opposition; and (5) the arrival of new management with a new agenda. Innovators have a short life expectancy in government.

To meet the challenges of population ageing, currently is one of the most striking political and societal tasks in nearly all European countries. Population ageing can be regarded as both drivers for social change as well as point of departure for social innovations which are seen as one of the adequate answers to tackle with its challenges. This paper starts with our own understanding of social innovation. Secondly we describe population ageing in its different challenges for both the ageing population as well as for the society as a whole. It will be shown that population ageing affects more or less all sectors of society and in consequence asks for cross-sector policy approaches. The special focus of this paper is to look at social innovations answering to population ageing in the context of the “productivity discourse”. In doing this we are presenting the integrated use of technology and social services in order to support independent housing/living at home even in the case of being needy of care as an example of age-related social innovation. In the wake of population ageing new potentials for social innovation are generated which are insofar of essential importance as there are many new products and services developed especially for the elderly, which support ‘independent living’ in old age. Moreover, at the same time they generate positive effects on economic growth and employment (market innovation) which will be discussed under the heading of ‘Silver Economy’. In this context networked living (or: Ambient Assisted Living – AAL) will be presented as a special type of social innovation being at the interface between technology and social services. Networked living is not only understood as integration of information and communication technologies but also as social cross-linking of different industries, technologies, services and other key players.

In the last 20 years, publicly provided social services – a pillar of the Post-WW2 welfare states – have experienced significant restructuring throughout Europe. An important stream of research emphasizes the socially innovative impact of many restructuring experiences in specific social services and territorial contexts. In particular, great expectations are placed on the devolution of authority from the central state to local governments, the growing role of the third sector, and the increasing involvement of users, for their positive consequences in terms of response to needs, empowerment and democratic governance. However, these expectations are not fully supported by empirical evidence, some of which highlights how the growing stratification of supply is bringing about inequalities in access and quality, undermining the principle of social citizenship. Innovation in social services may thus involve new forms of social and territorial exclusion. While questioning the mainstream notion of social innovation, the paper argues that a new research agenda should address the challenge of conjugating social innovation with universal social rights and citizenship, through a renewed role for the state.

Social innovation and development have to be placed in the perspective of sustainability. Overcoming poverty and pauperisation is not only an issue for the Third World; however, the so-called developed nations, i.e. mainly the OECD countries, are facing increasing social inequality and pauperisation after their short dream of ever-lasting prosperity (Lutz 1984). Mini-credits have been regarded as a means of overcoming pauperisation first in Third World countries, later in developed countries as well, and the idea has been compensated by the Nobel Prize for peace in 2006. But not only since the recent conflict about its initiator, Muhammad Yunus, there has been rising critique, especially in India. Strategies for sustainability include Corporate Social Responsibility, the development of a strong civil society, the quality of democratic participation, and by it strengthening the trade unions as the largest democratic institutions in our societies.

Civil society is not only in the core of democratisation but also for social innovation. Since the Age of Enlightenment science and its institutions are the centre for innovation and social innovation. The reference here is not only in regard to Schumpeter but for Karl Polanyi too.

Since the 1970s there is a debate about zero growth and alternative measurements for the quality of life and working life, beyond GDP (Széll, G., & Széll, U. (Eds.) (2009). Quality of Life & Working Life in Comparison. Frankfurt/M: Peter Lang).

As a tool of development, microfinance represents an extremely complex landscape. As distinct from commercial finance, microfinance is “development finance” – finance for the creation of longer-term social and developmental value (i.e., social profit). Thus, its focus is to blend values, to re-cycle money to multiply social impact. The international policy debate, influencing the development of the sector, has been dominated by two schools – the development school and the finance school. The field has grown through innovations flowing into the sector from both traditions. The first wave, with the most original fundamental social innovation in the form of a new social design for solidarity lending through groups, did create new economic and emancipatory space for the poor women. With the entry of commercial capital, microfinance grew with a new momentum driven by a new logic, but with a “change of heart” changing its focus from the clients to the institution and its sustainability, giving rise to a second wave of innovations in institutional development, market development, product development, and technology development. However, commercialization and its focus on institutional sustainability led to a mission drift. Driven by distorted market logic and a uni-dimensional narrow economism, it has run into a deep crisis today with a “reputation risk”, as hard questions are raised about the credibility, ability and intention of the MFIs to serve the poor. Microfinance is now disintegrating as a compelling tool for poverty alleviation. The present crisis creates an opportunity for a third wave of innovations for MFIs to grow to maturity as “blended value” organizations, moving from efficiency to effectiveness, and to produce credible results in terms of social impact, to achieve ever higher social returns on investment. Future innovations should be driven by the need to create institutions which cost less, perform well, and produce impact.

‘Social innovation’ is a construct increasingly used to explain the practices, processes and actors through which sustained positive transformation occurs in the network society (Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., Sander, B. (2007). Social innovation: What it is, why it matters and how can it be accelerated. Oxford: Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship; Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4):34–43, 2008.). Social innovation has been defined as a “novel solution to a social problem that is more effective, efficient, sustainable, or just than existing solutions, and for which the value created accrues primarily to society as a whole rather than private individuals.” (Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4):34–43, 2008: 34.)

Emergent ideas of social innovation challenge some traditional understandings of the nature and role of the Third Sector, as well as shining a light on those enterprises within the social economy that configure resources in novel ways. In this context, social enterprises – which provide a social or community benefit and trade to fulfil their mission – have attracted considerable policy attention as one source of social innovation within a wider field of action (see Leadbeater, C. (2007). ‘Social enterprise and social innovation: Strategies for the next 10 years’, Cabinet office, Office of the third sector http://​www.​charlesleadbeate​r.​net/​cms/​xstandard/​social_​enterprise_​innovation.​pdf. Last accessed 19/5/2011.). And yet, while social enterprise seems to have gained some symbolic traction in society, there is to date relatively limited evidence of its real world impacts. (Dart, R. Not for Profit Management and Leadership, 14(4):411–424, 2004.) In other words, we do not know much about the social innovation capabilities and effects of social enterprise.

In this chapter, we consider the social innovation practices of social enterprise, drawing on Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., Sander, B. (2007). Social innovation: What it is, why it matters and how can it be accelerated. Oxford: Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship: 5) three dimensions of social innovation: new combinations or hybrids of existing elements; cutting across organisational, sectoral and disciplinary boundaries; and leaving behind compelling new relationships. Based on a detailed survey of 365 Australian social enterprises, we examine their self-reported business and mission-related innovations, the ways in which they configure and access resources and the practices through which they diffuse innovation in support of their mission. We then consider how these findings inform our understanding of the social innovation capabilities and effects of social enterprise, and their implications for public policy development.

What happens in the workplace has enormous social as well as economic implications. Workplace innovation is the process through which “win-win” approaches to work organisation are formulated – good for the sustainable competitiveness of the enterprise and good for the well-being of employees. Workplace innovation is also an inherently social process involving knowledge sharing and dialogue between stakeholders.

The knowledge economy that lies at the heart of the Europe 2020 Strategy is inconceivable without the active involvement of employees. There is however an unhelpful policy dualism between rights-based representative participation and discretionary task-based participation. Representative participation can drive, resource and sustain participative work practices, integrating the strategic knowledge of leaders with the tacit knowledge of employees. The paper demonstrates that, at the heart of such cases, the systemic incorporation of opportunities for “productive reflection” can be found throughout the organisation.

Social innovation of work and employment are prerequisites to achieve the EU2020 objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. It covers labour market innovation on societal level and workplace innovation on organisational level. This paper focuses on the latter. Workplace innovations are social both in their ends (quality of working life, well-being and development of talents together with organisational performance) and in their means (employee participation and empowerment). Complementary to technological innovations they regard innovations in social aspects of organisations such as work organisation, HRM and work relations. Workplace innovation – or innovative workplaces as it is sometimes called – deserves to be better incorporated in EU policies, as also has been recommended by the European Economic and Social Committee and the OECD. Some countries have experienced the benefits of national campaigns already.

Inspired by recent critical social and economic developments – and their most visible eruptions in the Arab world, Spain and Greece – which demonstrate that there is a relatively low barrier of entrance for individuals and groups to adopt social media for virtually any shared purpose, objective or cause, a “manifesto” has been written by a group of transdisciplinary researchers, activists and practitioners from the fields of ICT and social movements.

It promotes the possibility of using social media as a platform to effectively support the processes of social innovation, overcoming its limitations of speed and scale to become an alternative to currently established institutional mechanisms. Such social innovations comprise all new strategies, concepts, ideas and organizations that meet current social needs and strengthen civil society.

Further, the present paper proposes a framework for research into the elements of socio-technical architectures capable of sustaining large scale social innovations enabled by the availability of social media, considering the “paradigm shift of communication” in a knowledge society and describing key challenges of social innovation initiatives. In this context, the objective of the Manifesto on Social Media for Social Innovation is to propose actions oriented to extract the best of the potential synergies among those two concepts of social innovation and social media.

While research on social innovation develops the idea of opening up innovation processes towards society, the economic concepts of “open innovation” and “user innovation” focus on the implications for companies, customers and users of such processes. In order to find out how companies coordinate open resp. user innovation, and why users actively support companies in innovating, a case study of a German company developing computer games (Crytek) has been carried out. Adopting the theoretical facets of user innovation to this case, among others game designers and community managers of Crytek have been surveyed as well as “modders”, users who are deeply involved in generating new products. The following main results can be reported: (1) in terms of user motivation, intrinsic, social as well as extrinsic motives have a role. Extrinsic motives of the modders correlate clearly with the intentions of Crytek itself, in that it every now and then recruits its employees out of this group.

The current European Commission policies are guided by the “Europe 2020” strategy paper under which the “Innovation Union” forms one of the mayor policy flagship initiatives for the years to come. These policies are led by the Commissioner of Research and Innovation. The Innovation Union document understands innovation in a much broader sense than it was traditionally the case with seeing innovation as a technology-based process. This recent policy consensus includes social innovation as an integral part of the Innovation Union Flagship Initiative and the documents foresee a monitoring of innovation in order to control the progress made by innovative actions at European Union and at Member State level.

Measuring innovation and in particular social innovation is quite a new and challenging approach in methodological and practical terms. Therefore, the author reflects on the feasibility of measuring progress caused by social innovations and on pre-conditions to monitoring policy impact in relation to social innovations at international level.

Currently, innovation monitoring chiefly is applied with an economic focus although social data base developments have been funded by the European Commission research and development programmes over years. The paper presents selected EU research activities as well as the method and policy relevance of two innovation monitoring approaches targeting the economic dimension in the EU: the Innovation Union Scoreboard (IUS) and the Community Innovation Survey (CIS). The approaches shed some light on how monitoring instruments of social innovation may be developed.

The paper concludes that a high obstacle to monitoring social innovation is its proliferation of targets in various policy fields. Therefore, the notion of social innovations may be blurred too much in the current policy debate in order to be instrumental for measurement. Consensus needs to be reached on the point of view if either targets of specific policies (innovation, security, health, social, environment, transport, etc.) shall be monitored to which social innovation is instrumental, or if social innovation is a subject in its own to be monitored.

The paper presents the results of a research project the principal aim of which has been to elaborate and test a measurement tool for non-profit organisations (NPOs) called SAVE (Social Added Value Evaluation) operating in the welfare area (social and health services). The basic idea is to select a sample of 12 NPOs (six organisations of volunteers and six social cooperatives) dealing with services for disabled people, elderly, physical impaired, mental illness, youth, families with problems, etc., and to carry out an in-depth sociological analysis, using the case study model of social and organisational inquiry. NPOs are regarded as special organisations because they have a triple bottom line: an economic one, a social one (volunteers, workers, users, clients, etc.) and an environmental one (local community), reflecting their various stakeholders. Our hypothesis is that NPOs are characterized by two main features: the capacity to produce relational goods and their ability in generating social capital in the community.

We will never find a purpose for our nation nor for our personal satisfaction in the mere search for economic well-being, in endlessly amassing terrestrial goods.

We cannot measure the national spirit on the basis of the Dow-Jones, nor can we measure the achievements of our country on the basis of the gross domestic product (GDP).

Our gross national product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage.

It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them. It counts napalm and the cost of a nuclear warhead, and armored cars for police who fight riots in our streets. It counts Whitman’s rifle and Speck’s knife, and the television programmes which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.

Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.

It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.

It measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it tells us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.”

Speech by Robert Kennedy, 18 March 1968, University of Kansas.

The ability to perform innovation is dependent upon the way in which the relevant actors are organized. This becomes of particular importance when emphasis is on experience-based innovation, on the ability of the wider social context to support innovation, and on the need to create innovation that can meet the demand for social responsibility. This contribution traces the development of a research tradition where the point of departure was research-driven experiments with alternative forms of work organization but which has become subject to a communicative turn as well as a turn towards change that can involve many actors simultaneously. In its present shape the tradition emerges as a distributive set of activities with the idea of democratic dialogue as the core and a strong emphasis on notions like networks and regions. This research tradition has played a major role in establishing Scandinavia as the leading area for “learning organization” in Europe. The article concludes by discussing some of the challenges facing “bottom-up” change in working life today: the increasing dominance of centrally managed systems thinking, a possible reduction in influence from the labor market parties and an associated breakdown of the strong links between the local and the central and, third, difficulties associated with integrating and giving a society level profile to a pattern of distributive research.

This paper advances understanding of social innovation on two fronts. First it reflects on the role and responsibility of researchers in advancing social innovation and traces the purpose and activities of the New Zealand Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship Research Centre to illustrate how academic institutes might catalyze social innovation. Second, it highlights parallel discourses following either more micro- or macro-level leanings. At the micro level, accompanying a growing literature on social entrepreneurship is an embedded discussion on social innovation linked to innovations by social entrepreneurs. More overarching research centres on broad processes of innovation, implications of a new innovation paradigm and social innovations concerning societal issues. Bringing these two research streams closer and bridging dichotomous micro-macro perspectives, is necessary for a holistic view of innovation that recognizes social innovation as a crucial facet of innovation systems.

The book does not need concluding remarks. Born from the wealth of research and experience of its authors in the unlimited fields of social innovation, we, the editors, can only try to safeguard that nothing from its rich and imaginative generation process is lost. It is for this reason that we want to make one step back in order to look ahead.