Social innovation

Social innovations are new strategies, concepts, ideas and organizations that meet the social needs of different elements which can be from working conditions and education to community development and health — they extend and strengthen civil society. Social innovation includes the social processes of innovation, such as open source methods and techniques and also the innovations which have a social purpose — like online volunteering, microcredit, or distance learning.

Prominent innovators associated with the term include Pakistani Akhter Hameed Khan, Bangladeshi Muhammad Yunus, the founder of Grameen Bank which pioneered the concept of microcredit for supporting innovators in multiple developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, and also inspired programs such as the Infolady Social Entrepreneurship Programme^[1][2][3] of Dnet (A Social Enterprise) and Stephen Goldsmith, former Indianapolis mayor who engaged the private sector in providing many city services.^[4][5]

Matters of Definition

Social Innovation has an inter-sectoral approach and is universally applicable. Social Innovations are launched by a variety of actors, including research institutions, companies or independent organizations, which each tend to use their own definition of Social Innovation. Therefore, it is worth discussing the most important aspects that distinguish it from other forms of social work or innovation. Social Innovation focuses on the process of innovation, how innovation and change take shape (as opposed to the more traditional definition of social innovation, giving priority to the internal organization of firms serving the productivity). Social Innovation focuses on new work and new forms of cooperation (business models).,^[6] especially those that work towards a sustainable society.

The Young Foundation, in order to distinguish between social and business innovation, stressed that social innovation is developed and diffused via organisations, whose primary purposes are not centred on mere profit maximisation (Mulgan et al., 2007, p. 8). The Bureau of European Policy Advisers more precisely defined social innovation as socially oriented in both ends and means (Hubert, 2010). According to these influential definitions, social innovation is characterised by: the capacity to address social needs that traditional policy seems increasingly unable to tackle; the empowerment of groups and individuals; and the willingness to change social relations. Hence, social innovation is often presented as a way to increase the quality of social services and their cost-effectiveness, offering equivalent, if not superior, outcomes despite considerable budget constraints.

Social innovation can take place within government; the for-profit sector, the nonprofit sector (also known as the third sector), or in the spaces between them. Research has focused on the types of platforms needed to facilitate such cross-sector collaborative social innovation.

Social entrepreneurship, like social enterprise, is typically in the nonprofit sector excluding both for-profit and public organizations.^[7] Both social entrepreneurship and social enterprise are important contributions to social innovation by creating social value and introducing new ways of achieving goals. Social entrepreneurship brings “new patterns and possibilities for innovation” and are willing to do things that existing organizations are not willing to do.^[7]

Social Innovation is often an effort of mental creativity which involves fluency and flexibility from a wide range of disciplines. The act of social innovation in a sector is mostly connected with diverse disciplines within the society. The social innovation theory of 'connected difference' emphasizes three key dimensions to social innovation.^[8] First, innovations are usually new combinations or hybrids of existing elements, rather than completely new. Second, their practice involves cutting across organizational or disciplinary boundaries. Lastly, they leave behind compelling new relationships between previously separate individuals and groups.^[9] Social innovation is also gaining visibility within academia.^[10]

History

Social innovation was discussed in the writings of figures such as Peter Drucker and Michael Young (founder of the Open University and dozens of other organizations) in the 1960s.^[11] It also appeared in the work of French writers in the 1970s, such as Pierre Rosanvallon, Jacques Fournier, and Jacques Attali.^[12] However, the themes and concepts in social innovation existed long before. Benjamin Franklin, for example, talked about small modifications within the social organization of communities^[13] that could help to solve everyday problems. Many radical 19th century reformers like Robert Owen, founder of the cooperative movement, promoted innovation in the social field and all of the great sociologists including Karl Marx, Max Weber and Émile Durkheim focused attention on broader processes of social change. Other theories of innovation became prominent in the 20th century, many of which had social implications, without putting social progress at the center of the theory. Joseph Schumpeter, for example, addressed the process of innovation directly with his theory of creative destruction and his definition of entrepreneurs as people who combined existing elements in new ways to create a new product or service. Beginning in the 1980s, writers on technological change increasingly addressed how social factors affect technology diffusion.^[14]

The article “Rediscovering Social Innovation” mentions how social innovations are dependent on history and the change in institutions. The article discusses the ten recent social innovations reflecting current change to include:

• Charter Schools: Charter schools are a social innovation that provides an alternative avenue for students to continue develop and build upon their educational foundation without many of the issues prominent in the public school system. These primary and secondary schools are publicly funded and operate independently, which allows the teachers and parents to collaboratively develop alternative teaching methods for their students as related regulations are less stringent for Charter Schools.^[7][15]
• Community-Centered Planning: This social innovation allows communities to plan and develop systems that cater solutions to their specific local needs by using their historical knowledge and other local resources. .^[7]
• Emissions Trading: The Emissions Trading program was designed to address issues associated with the continuous increase in pollution. The program provides solutions such as setting a cap on the amount that certain pollutants can be emitted, and implementing a permit system to control the amount of pollution produced by each participating business. If a business needs to use more pollution than permitted, it can purchase credits from a business that has not emitted its maximum permitted amount. The goal of the Emissions Trading program is that, over time and with increased awareness, society will limit the types and the numbers of pollutants emitted to what is only necessary.^[7]
• Fair Trade: Products including coffee, sugar, and chocolate are currently being traded without high standards that result in tough conditions for farmers and a less sustainable environment. Fair trade is a movement that certifies traders to exchange with the farmers that produce these products. The idea behind this movement is that by being paid a living-wage, being able to meet social and environmental standards and promoting "environmental sustainability, the lives of these farmers will be improved.^[7]
• Habitat Conservation Plans: Habitat Conservation Plans is an effort by the US Fish and Wild Life Service and the Environmental Protection Agency to protect species and their endangerment by providing economical incentives to conserve their habitats and protect these species from endangerment.^[7]
• Individual Development Accounts: This social innovation is made to support the working poor with saving decisions that they have made to better enhance their lives. This initiative will give $2 per every $1 saved by the working poor for College tuition, purchasing a home, starting a business, and other similar and productive initiatives. This is made possible by philanthropic, government and corporate sponsors that donate to this cause.^[7]
• International Labor Standards: Labor standards differ country-to-country, with some agreeably better than others. In effort to internationally align these, the International Labor Organization, participating governments, and employees contributed in the development of standards that protect workers’ rights to freedom, equity, security, and human dignity”.^[7]
• Microfinance: This social innovation is created to support the those financially unable to gain access to financial services such as banking, lending, and insurance. The ultimate goal of Microfinance is to enable an escape from poverty by helping to improve the living conditions and financial viability among the impoverished program participants.^[7]
• Socially Responsible Investing: “An investment strategy that attempts to maximize both financial and social returns. Investors generally favor businesses and other organizations whose practices support environmental sustainability, human rights, and consumer protection.” ^[7]
• Supported Employment: Supported Employment is a social innovation geared towards helping disabled or disadvantaged workers who are un- or under-employed due to their condition obtain suitable employment. The Support Employment service provides access to job coaches, transportation, assistive technology, specialized job training, and individual tailored supervision in effort to help program participants become more competitive applicants and better prepared overall for the job market.^[7]

Criticism

Over the last two decades social innovation has gained significant popularity as a strategy to tackle new social risks including population ageing and its health correlates (Hubert, 2010; Mulgan et al., 2007, 2010; Murray, Caulier-Grice and Mulgan, 2010). However, as other concepts recently developed within the academic debate – among them, social capital (Ferragina, 2012) – social innovation might soon turn out to be simply another way to juxtapose the qualifier “social” to the private sector jargon, in order to avoid heated discussions on structural inequalities (Grisolia and Ferragina, 2015).^[16]

In the context of ‘neoliberal austerity’, a strong call in favour of social innovation might hide the attempt to shift public attention from structural deficiencies and disparities to individual and group responsibility, following the vision: “doing more with less” . In order to guarantee universal coverage and universal social rights, however, the welfare state system cannot be managed with the logic of mere cost-effectiveness alone (Grisolia and Ferragina, 2015).^[16] A Universal coverage is a the precondition for any well-functioning economy, not the other way around. As such, the enhancement of “politically motivated policies under the pretence of budget cuts” can be particularly dangerous in its consequences for population health (Kleinert and Horton, 2013, p. 1074). Social innovation per se might not be able to substantially tackle pressing social needs. Rather, the all-innovating and self-empowering jargon currently in vogue might disguise a dangerous inattention to structural inequalities, adversely affecting health outcomes across the board, but especially of the poorest. Among the therapies prescribed by the neoliberal orthodoxy – liberalisation, deregulation, devolution, individual or group empowerment – social innovation might soon reveal itself as a convenient buzzword, an eclectic concept to dissimulate political choices, legitimated by the doctrine of budgetary constraints.^[16] The redistribution of resources “from past to present generations” – keeping constant the overall public spending – and the shift from a “transfer-based” to a “service-based” welfare state would represent a truly innovative approach to social policy, offering a credible and responsible alternative to the magic wand of social innovation.

Developments Since 2000

Academic research, blogs and websites feature social innovation, along with organizations working on the boundaries of research and practical action. Topics include:

• Innovation in public services was pioneered particularly in some Scandinavian and Asian countries. Governments are increasingly recognizing that innovation requires healthcare, schooling and democracy.^[17][18]
• Social entrepreneurship, which is the practice of creating new organizations focusing on non- market activities.^[19]
• Responsible Research and Innovation, which takes into account effects and potential impacts on the environment and society. It includes Engagement of all societal actors (researchers, industry, policymakers and civil society); Gender Equality; Science Education; Open Access; Ethics; and Governance.
• Online volunteering, a free service launched in 2000 whereby individuals from all over the world contribute to the needs of development organizations and public institutions^[20]
• Open source innovation, in which the intellectual property involved in a produce or service is made freely available.^[21]
• Complex adaptive systems, which have built-in mechanisms to help them adapt to changing circumstances.^[22]
• Collaborative approaches which involve stakeholders who are not directly responsible for some activity, such as stockholders and unions collaborating on business issue and business collaborating with government on regulatory issues.^[6][23][24]
• Innovation diffusion^[25]
• Localized influences that make some localities particularly innovative.^[26]
• Institutional or system entrepreneurship which focuses on agents who work at a broad system level in order to create the conditions which will allow innovations to have a lasting impact.^[27]
• Business, particularly in services.^[28]

Institutional support

The US created an Office for Social Innovation in the White House, which is funding projects that combine public and private resources.^[4] with foundations that support social innovation.^[29] In 2010, the US government listed 11 investments made by its 'Social Innovation Fund', with public funding more than matched by philanthropic organizations. This fund focuses on partnerships with charities, social enterprises, and business.^[4] Moreover, educational institutions are now increasingly supporting teaching and research in the area of social innovation. In addition to pioneered efforts by institutions such as the Harvard Business School's Initiative on Social Enterprise (launched 1993) ^[30] and Said Business School's Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship (launched 2003),^[31] INSEAD ^[32] and other universities now offer short-term programs in Social Innovation, and a few such as Goldsmiths, University of London ^[33] offer Masters courses dedicated entirely to the study of theory and practice in relation to social entrepreneurship and innovation.

Public policy makers support social innovation in the UK, Australia, China and Denmark, as well.^[34] The European Union’s innovation strategy^[35] was the first well-funded research and development strategy to emphasize social innovation.^[36]

In 2002, the South Australian government, led by Premier and Social Inclusion Minister Mike Rann, embraced a ten-year social innovation strategy with big investments and a focus on reform in areas such as homelessness, school retention, mental health and disability services.

The Common Ground^[37] and Street to Home homelessness initiatives and the Australian Centre for Social Innovation^[38] were established in Adelaide and many reforms trialed in South Australia have been adopted nationally throughout Australia. This initiative, headed by Monsignor David Cappo, South Australia's Social Inclusion Commissioner, was advised by 'Thinkers in Residence' Geoff Mulgan and New York social entrepreneur Rosanne Haggerty.

Local and Regional development

Literature on social innovation in relation to territorial/regional development covers innovation in the social economy, i.e. strategies for satisfaction of human needs; and innovation in the sense of transforming and/or sustaining social relations, especially governance relations at the regional and local level. Beginning in the late 1980s, Jean-Louis Laville and Frank Moulaert researched social innovation.^[39][40] In Canada CRISES^[41] initiated this type of research. Another, larger project was SINGOCOM^[42] a European Commission Framework 5 project, which pioneered so-called "Alternative Models for Local Innovation" (ALMOLIN). These models were further elaborated through community actions covered by KATARSIS^[43] and SOCIAL POLIS.^[44] More recent works focus on the societal role of the economic life in terms of innovations in social practices and social relations at the local and regional levels. Social Innovation, therefore, is increasingly seen as a process and a strategy to foster human development through solidarity, cooperation, and cultural diversity.^[45][46]

The EU funded URBACT programme is designed to help cities to exchange and learn around urban policies. The URBACT methodology can be seen as a social innovation action planning approach. A typical URBACT network would have ten cities working on a specific theme such as active inclusion or regenerating disadvantaged neighbourhoods. They examine good practice and then working through a local support group use the results to inform their local action plan.

The Social Innovation Europe^[47] initiative, funded by the European Commission's Directorate General for Enterprise and Industry, was set up to map social innovation at a European level, by creating a directory of grass-roots examples of social innovation from across the 27 member states.

The European Commission funded the SELUSI study between 2008 - 2013 that looked at over 550 social ventures and examined how these insights can spark change and innovation at a much larger scale. It looked at business models of social ventures in five countries - UK being one of them – identifying which specific practices evolved by social ventures are particularly successful, and how and by whom – be it social enterprise, public sector body or mainstream business– they can be most effectively scaled-up.

The European Commission has launched a new initiative (project) in 2013 under FP7 funding – BENISI Project – with the aim to build a network of incubators for social innovation across regions and countries. This network facilitates identification of 300 social innovation examples and facilitates its scaling. The network is organised in a way to identify new models for scaling of social innovations across various geographical clusters in collaboration with each other, communicating the ideas, finding the tools and funds, developing business plans and models in order to promote the new promising ideas throughout Europe.

• A guide also exists that provides a way to promote social innovations at a local or regional level.^[48]

Local and Regional development

Literature on social innovation in relation to territorial/regional development covers innovation in the social economy, i.e. strategies for satisfaction of human needs; and innovation in the sense of transforming and/or sustaining social relations, especially governance relations at the regional and local level. Beginning in the late 1980s, Jean-Louis Laville and Frank Moulaert researched social innovation.^[39][40] In Canada CRISES^[41] initiated this type of research. Another, larger project was SINGOCOM^[42] a European Commission Framework 5 project, which pioneered so-called "Alternative Models for Local Innovation" (ALMOLIN). These models were further elaborated through community actions covered by KATARSIS^[43] and SOCIAL POLIS.^[44] More recent works focus on the societal role of the economic life in terms of innovations in social practices and social relations at the local and regional levels. Social Innovation, therefore, is increasingly seen as a process and a strategy to foster human development through solidarity, cooperation, and cultural diversity.^[45][46]

The EU funded URBACT programme is designed to help cities to exchange and learn around urban policies. The URBACT methodology can be seen as a social innovation action planning approach. A typical URBACT network would have ten cities working on a specific theme such as active inclusion or regenerating disadvantaged neighbourhoods. They examine good practice and then working through a local support group use the results to inform their local action plan.

The Social Innovation Europe^[47] initiative, funded by the European Commission's Directorate General for Enterprise and Industry, was set up to map social innovation at a European level, by creating a directory of grass-roots examples of social innovation from across the 27 member states.

The European Commission funded the SELUSI study between 2008 - 2013 that looked at over 550 social ventures and examined how these insights can spark change and innovation at a much larger scale. It looked at business models of social ventures in five countries - UK being one of them – identifying which specific practices evolved by social ventures are particularly successful, and how and by whom – be it social enterprise, public sector body or mainstream business– they can be most effectively scaled-up.

The European Commission has launched a new initiative (project) in 2013 under FP7 funding – BENISI Project – with the aim to build a network of incubators for social innovation across regions and countries. This network facilitates identification of 300 social innovation examples and facilitates its scaling. The network is organised in a way to identify new models for scaling of social innovations across various geographical clusters in collaboration with each other, communicating the ideas, finding the tools and funds, developing business plans and models in order to promote the new promising ideas throughout Europe.

• A guide also exists that provides a way to promote social innovations at a local or regional level.^[48]

Some noted scholars

• Akhtar Hameed Khan
• Frank Moulaert
• Geoff Mulgan

See also

• civil society
• post fordism
• social capital
• social entrepreneurship
• sustainopreneurship
• Online volunteering

References

• Ferragina, E. (2012) "Social Capital in Europe".
• Europe Tomorrow, (2015) "Europe tour of Social & Environmental innovation".
• Social innovation exchange, (2015) "worldwide social innovation exchange".
• Grisolia F. and Ferragina, E. (2015) "Social Innovation on the Rise: yet another buzzword in a time of austerity1?", Salute e Società 1 (2015), 169-179.
• Hubert A. (ed.) (2010). Empowering People, Driving Change: Social Innovation in the European Union. Brussels: BEPA – Bureau of European Policy Advisers.
• Kleinert S., Horton R. (2013). Health in Europe – Successes, Failures, and New Challenges. The Lancet, 381: 1073-1074.
• Mulgan G., Tucker S., Rushanara A., Sanders B. (2007). Social Innovation. What it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated. London: The Young Foundation.
• Murray R., Caulier-Grice J., Mulgan G. (2010). The Open Book of Social Innovation. London: The Young Foundation and Nesta.