Votre recherche

Social innovation is related to new products, services, and models aiming to improve human well-being and create social relationships and collaborations. The business model innovation (BMI) context can foster social innovation and can be applied in social innovation projects and initiatives. What is important for social BMI is the social mission, which needs to be defined in order to be able to move forward with the strategy, the value proposition, and the best practices of the business. Based on the existing social innovation literature and case studies, this paper proposes an “ecosystem” approach that can provide an integrated framework for social business models. This approach adopts the quadruple/quintuple helix innovation models which are able to promote social innovation, enabling a locus-centric and triple-bottom-line-centric entrepreneurial process of knowledge discovery and exploitation. Such a framework may help to study the role, nature, and dynamics of social co-opetitive fractal ecosystems, given emphasis on civil society, political structures, environment, and sustainability. In addition, the social innovation case studies presented in this paper highlight that targeted open innovation is a key element for social BMI.

The concepts of entrepreneurship and citizenship intersect more and more in the educational projects of social entrepreneurship. In this article, we have analyzed an experiment conducted by a nonprofit organization whose mission is to increase citizen participation. We are interested in the discourses and tools that it has mobilized for training in social entrepreneurship. Our objective is to uncover the norms and values underlying the conception of citizenship transmitted through the training. We show that there are tensions between the aims of democratic citizenship promoted by the organization and the concept of the citizen that underlies training in social entrepreneurship. Our contribution is twofold: 1) We enrich the literature on education for democratic citizenship by analyzing a new approach, that of education in social entrepreneurship; 2) We take a critical look at the concept of social entrepreneurship when it is used in training for democratic citizenship by analyzing this practice and framing it within the field of social innovation

Purpose: By taking a micro-level perspective, this paper aims to examine the influence of the ongoing paradigm shift from technological to social innovation on principal investigators (PIs) and thereby links the two emerging research fields of entrepreneurial ecosystems and social innovation. The purpose of this paper is to build the basis for future empirical analyses. Design/methodology/approach: The paper is a conceptual paper and therefore focuses on theoretical considerations. Taking a quadruple helix approach, PIs are outlined as central actors of entrepreneurial ecosystems and transformative agents of the innovation process. Findings: PIs can proactively shape the innovation process and thus the shift from technological to social innovation, through various channels. They can affect all other actors of the quadruple helix, e.g. by exerting influence on the process of scientific change, on the public opinion and/or on the industry partners. Further, the paradigm shift might change the universities' role in the quadruple helix, substantiating their importance in the process of social change. Practical implications: As PIs are influencing all other actors of the quadruple helix, they are central actors of entrepreneurial ecosystems and thus crucial players in the innovation process. Hence, they need to be supported in fulfilling their role of transformative agents, accelerating and shaping the paradigm shift from technological to social innovation. Universities should therefore reconsider their missions and vision as well as their role within the society. Originality/value: This paper considers the influence of an ongoing paradigm shift from technological to social innovation on entrepreneurial ecosystems. This work focuses especially on the PIs' role as transformative agents. Therefore, it builds a bridge from entrepreneurial ecosystems to social innovation and thus contributes to both research fields. Moreover, the paper shows the great potential of PIs to influence and shape social innovation.

There has been limited study on the role of the startup ecosystem in social entrepreneurship. This article addresses the gap by applying a theoretical framework of startup ecosystem to two social enterprises originating from a Singapore university, examining how they engage with stakeholders to create social impact. WateRoam Pte Ltd is a water innovation startup that deploys cost-effective water filtration solutions to rural communities and disaster-hit locations. Tware is a wearable technology startup with a range of therapeutic products for individuals with autism, stress or anxiety. The two cases provide insights on the ecosystem for social ventures in Singapore. The Finance domain is identified as a potential area of improvement, as there is uncertainty on the appropriate growth trajectory for funding. University incubation and mentor networks are found to be pivotal in extending the Markets domain. Finally, this study highlights the Supports domain in the form of university R&D facilities and accelerator programmes that have been instrumental in strengthening connections. Extending beyond the university context, it is evident that infrastructural resources in the ecosystem are crucial. Policymakers may draw on the experience of countries, like Israel, which have successfully built such support facilities to nurture innovation-based social enterprises.

Stanford is a quintessential entrepreneurial university, encouraging firm formation from existing knowledge that the university aggregates as well as new knowledge that it creates. Its founders implanted an academic institution, with scholarly and entrepreneurial ambitions, on a ranch where cattle still graze in the upper campus. In contrast to MIT's founding role in Boston, infusing new technology into an old industrial region's firms, Stanford assisted industrial development in an agricultural region and its industrial interlocutors raised the technical level of the university in mutually beneficial symbiosis (Lecuyer, 2007). The theory and practice of how to “make over” a university into an entrepreneurial actor has come to the forefront of academic and policy attention, internationally, with the European Union sponsoring development of the U-Multirank tool that includes the phenomenon (Van Vught and Ziegele, 2012) and a Brazilian post-graduate student project part of the ITHI Global Entrepreneurial University Metrics (GEUM) initiative that produced a dedicated entrepreneurial university metric (Nerves and Mancos, 2016). As an academic institution propelled to the forefront of global rankings (O'Malley, 2018), while helping create the world's leading high-tech region, Stanford University is in a radically different position from its late 19th century developing region origins. Should Stanford respond to dramatic shift in status and fortune by reverting to an Ivory Tower mode in response to critics who label it “Get Rich U.” (Auletta, 2012)? Or, should it double down on its entrepreneurial heritage and forge more extensive ties to Silicon Valley and other innovation hubs? In 2011, then Stanford President John Hennessy responded to former New York Mayor Bloomberg's request for proposal (RFP) for a university to establish an entrepreneurial campus. Intrigued by the prospect of engaging with the city's financial, art and media complexes, Stanford invested one million dollars in proposal development but eventually withdrew its bid in the face of faculty opposition to diversion of resources as well as Cornell University's munificent counter-offer in alliance with Israel's Technion (Hennessy, 2018). Instead, Hennessy inaugurated a program with an altruistic bent, funding international scholars who will, after pursuing advanced degrees at Stanford, “drive progress for humanity rather than for a select few.” Doubtless, these nascent social entrepreneurs will internalize Silicon Valley's optimistic ideology. Success, as well as entrepreneurial exuberance, creates blinders that suppress disconcerting events, at least temporarily. In the late 00's, generating 7–9 start-ups per annum, the highest rate of any university, Stanford ignored flaws in its technology transfer process that inhibited greater attainment. The research question generated may be stated as follows: how is a hidden innovation gap recognized and resolved? An attitude of, “if it's not broken don't fix it” had taken hold rather than the converse “If it's working well make it better.” Inventions that were too early-stage to be licensed and required translational research or a start-up, languished. The first author faced a dilemma in presenting such less than stellar results from a 2005 study of Stanford's Office of Technology Licensing (OTL) to the Dean of Research, its sponsor: how could such an analysis be taken seriously in the face of overweening achievement? The Dean's response was that, “OTL is not on our radar, they make more money each year.” Nevertheless, neophyte academic entrepreneurs had independently come to a similar conclusion as ours and were impelled to act. Their initiatives are the subject matter of this article. Skeptical of Stanford's relevance to aspiring universities, Jacob et al. (2003) hold that, “The reality of building an entrepreneurial university… is an arduous task for which there is no blueprint.” Yet, a potentially replicable organizational design may be discerned by changing the focal point from Silicon Valley's efflorescence to Stanford's entrepreneurial dynamic. The article proceeds as follows. Section 2 outlines a theoretical framework for the entrepreneurial university and reviews its literature. Section 3 presents a research design to investigate the “paradox of success,” its causes and cures. Section 4 presents a series of initiatives instituted to enhance the Stanford Innovation System. Section 5 formulates an organizational change thesis, linking design thinking to Institution Formation Sociology and social with technological innovation. Section 6 proposes policy measures to improve the Stanford Innovation System in particular and the entrepreneurial university model, in general. Finally, Section 6 sums up research insights, notes study limitations and outlines future research.

In the business ethics literature, the growing interest in social entrepreneurship has remained limited to the assumption that pursuing a social mission will clash against the pursuit of associated economic achievements. This ignores recent developments in the social entrepreneurship literature which show that social missions and economic achievement can also have a mutually constitutive relation. We address this gap adopting the notion of shared value (SV) for an ethical inquiry of social entrepreneurship. Using a sensemaking framework, we assume that the emergence of SV propositions can be captured through the analysis of how social entrepreneurs make sense of events of change, selecting the journey of three exemplar cases for an inductive empirical inquiry. From our findings, we propose three themes for further examination. First, the ethical groundings of entrepreneurial SV are mostly shaped by idiosyncratic imperatives that inform both social mission and economic gain from the onset. Second, the ethical groundings of entrepreneurial SV will be likely operationalised as a filtering device, which allows for resilience as well as potentially detrimental blind spots. And third, the ethical groundings of entrepreneurial SV are expressed through ongoing transparency. Whilst there are agendas, these are not necessarily hidden but instead are likely put on show for the scrutiny of markets and communities. We hope that this evidence can add more light to our still modest understanding of the ethical groundings of social entrepreneurship.

La gestion est-elle un mal ou un remède pour les entreprises sociales et solidaires ? Les entreprises sociales et solidaires sont-elles des modèles d’apprentissage pour la gestion ? Nous amènent-elles à penser la gestion autrement ? Cet ouvrage vise à dépasser les tabous liés à la gestion dans l’entreprise sociale et solidaire. Collectif de chercheurs en sciences humaines et sociales (académiques et/ou praticiens), notre ambition est de porter un regard critique sur la gestion des entreprises sociales et solidaires. Sur la base de l’étude de nombreux cas (mutuelles, associations, coopératives de consommateurs, banques coopératives, Scop, Scic, etc.), il s’agit de questionner et comprendre les dispositifs et les pratiques de gestion des entreprises sociales et solidaires. La réflexion des auteurs s’est construite autour des questionnements suivants : Que nous apprennent les entreprises sociales et solidaires sur la gestion des organisations ? Qu’ont-elles mis en œuvre de spécifique ? Existe-t-il déjà des « pépites » à observer, à essaimer issues de leurs pratiques de gestion ? Le phénomène d’isomorphisme avec les modèles d’entreprise capitaliste est-il si important ? Si oui, est-il un problème ? Pourquoi ? Et comment construire d’autres modes de gestion ? Quelles questions les organisations doivent-elles se poser pour dépasser les tensions inhérentes à l’hybridité entre économique, social ou solidaire ? Que doivent-elles inventer ? L’ouvrage se compose d’essais qui visent à défendre des points de vue sur des sujets récurrents et importants pour les entreprises sociales et solidaires. Ces derniers sont organisés en quatre thèmes : dépasser les tabous pour une gestion utile au projet social ou solidaire ; gestion pour et par la valeur sociale ; comment organiser durablement la gouvernance démocratique ; penser autrement la gestion des ressources humaines dans l’entreprise sociale et solidaire. Ces questions, nous l’espérons, feront sens et aideront tant dans la compréhension des phénomènes que dans la prise de décisions et la formation pour une gestion au service des entreprises sociales et solidaires.

Twelve papers examine knowledge, learning, and innovation in order to enhance competitiveness. Papers also explore perspectives of cross-sector collaboration, intrafirm and interfirm connections, gender, and relational marketing. Papers discuss knowledge, learning, and innovation--research into cross-sector collaboration; entrepreneurial competencies and firm performance in emerging economies--a study of women entrepreneurs in Malaysia; whether online cocreation influences lead users' and opinion leaders' behaviors; knowledge and innovation in Portuguese enterprises; social ties and human capital in family small- and medium-sized entrepreneurial internationalization; perceived social support and social entrepreneurship--gender perspectives from Turkey; entrepreneurship challenges and gender issues in the African informal rural economy; the construction of a professional identity of a female entrepreneur; knowledge creation and relationship marketing in family businesses--a case-study approach; the gender question and family entrepreneurship research; a composite-index approach to detecting reporting quality--the case of female executives in family firms; and influencing factors in customers' intention to revisit resort hotels--the roles of customer experience management and customer value. Ratten is Associate Professor at La Trobe University. Braga is Associate Professor of the Technology and Management at the Polytechnic Institute of Porto. Marques is Assistant Professor and Coordinator of the Innovation, Markets and Organization Research Group in the Centre for Transdisciplinary Development Studies at the University of Tras-os-Montes and Alto Douro. No index.

Note : cet article a d’abord été rédigé en anglais à l’intention du blog de Carleton’s Perspective on Public Policy et vise à faire connaître les résultats de la synthèse de connaissances rédigée p…

The Triple Layered Business Model Canvas is a tool for exploring sustainability-oriented business model innovation. It extends the original business model canvas by adding two layers: an environmental layer based on a lifecycle perspective and a social layer based on a stakeholder perspective. When taken together, the three layers of the business model make more explicit how an organization generates multiple types of value - economic, environmental and social. Visually representing a business model through this canvas tool supports developing and communicating a more holistic and integrated view of a business model; which also supports creatively innovating towards more sustainable business models. This paper presents the triple layer business model canvas tool and describes its key features through a re-analysis of the Nestle Nespresso business model. This new tool contributes to sustainable business model research by providing a design tool which structures sustainability issues in business model innovation. Also, it creates two new dynamics for analysis: horizontal coherence and vertical coherence. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

L’innovation sociale connaît un regain d’attention tant du côté des acteurs socio-économiques et des responsables publics que des chercheurs. Nouvelle réponse à des besoins non ou mal satisfaits ou expérience alternative visant à des changements sociaux, ce concept polysémique donne lieu à de multiples interprétations. Ce numéro ambitionne d’analyser les conditions d’émergence, les modalités et les obstacles à la généralisation de l’innovation sociale et au changement d’échelle de pratiques innovantes et de mieux comprendre leur portée plus ou moins transformatrice de la société ainsi que leurs formes de banalisation et de récupération par les entreprises et les pouvoirs publics.

Abstract All over the world there are millions of social entrepreneurs that come up with potential social innovations. Some never get implemented in practice. Others are implemented, but then the passion fades or the solution does not reveal itself as promising for creating social impact. In some cases, the lack of sustainability or management capacity prevents a successful scaling up process. Despite all these potential obstacles, there are social innovations that go from promising ideas to becoming mainstream solutions, leading to new markets, industries, or social movements, such as Microfinance or Wikipedia. An in-depth look at main obstacles facing social innovators and the leadership skills required to overcome them is a meaningful contribution to the field of social innovation. The goal of this chapter is to propose such a contribution through an in-depth exploration of the life cycle of social innovation. The term “life cycle” implies a sequence of stages in the evolution of new ventures (Parker 2007).

Eleven papers explore research in entrepreneurship and community engagement in the context of Syracuse University's Scholarship in Action Model, which emphasizes sustainable campus-community entrepreneurial partnerships and applied research on the outcomes of these. Papers discuss the five keys to success in academic entrepreneurship; transforming a professional curriculum through engagement with practice--the Global Enterprise Technology Program at Syracuse University; tapping our fountain of youth--the guiding philosophy and first report on the Syracuse Student Startup Accelerator; Syracuse University Technology Commercialization Clinics; community development law and legal education; the Syracuse Miracle--inspiring entrepreneurs through conversations; the South Side Newspaper Project; bridging a traumatic past to an envisioned future--a case study of social entrepreneurship; inclusive entrepreneurship; the role of information and motivation in the process of innovation; and students serving as catalysts within a teacher education innovation.

This book is about the many ways in which people are creating new and more effective answers to the biggest challenges of our times: how to cut our carbon footprint; how to keep people healthy; how to end poverty. It describes the methods and tools for innovation being used across the world and across the different sectors – the public and private sectors, civil society and the household – and in the overlapping fields of the social economy, social entrepreneurship and social enterprise. It draws on inputs from hundreds of organisations around the world to document the many methods currently being used. In other fields, methods for innovation are well-understood. In medicine, science, and business, there are widely accepted ideas, tools and approaches. But despite the richness and vitality of social innovation, there is little comparable in the social field. Most people trying to innovate are aware of only a fraction of the methods they could be using. This book provides a first mapping of these methods and of the conditions that will enable social innovation to flourish.

Montréal dispose d’un solide écosystème entrepreneurial, répondant à tous les besoins.

The best tools and techniques for you to grow your startup, curated by District 3. Base de données en entreprenariat et innovation sociale

Avoir un projet d’affaires, c’est une chose. Transformer ce projet en véritable entreprise viable et pérenne, c’est autre chose. Pour s’assurer de mettre toutes les chances de son côté, il faut commencer par choisir la forme juridique d’entreprise la mieux adaptée à son projet. Les questions à se poser avant de se lancer L’entrepreneur qui […]