Votre recherche

L’innovation sociale est largement considérée comme vertueuse. Cependant, le consensus qui semble régner en la matière vient de ce que les représentations et les pratiques englobées sous ce terme recouvrent un faisceau très diversifié d’approches et de réalités. Cette polysémie permet à de nombreux auteurs de se ranger sous une même bannière alors qu’ils ont des références et des orientations distinctes, voire divergentes. L’éloge unanime de l’innovation sociale ne saurait donc faire illusion. À cet égard, un travail introductif autour de l’innovation sociale a mis en évidence deux acceptions contrastées. La première version, qui peut être qualifiée de faible, aménage le système existant, insiste sur l’importance de l’épreuve marchande et valorise l’entreprise privée dans sa capacité à trouver de nouvelles solutions aux problèmes de société. La seconde version, qui peut être désignée comme forte, affiche une visée transformatrice ; elle prône, en réaction à la démesure du capitalisme marchand, une articulation inédite entre pouvoirs publics et société civile pour répondre aux défis écologiques et sociaux. La première se contente d’une amélioration du modèle économique dominant, l’innovation s’inscrivant dans une perspective réparatrice et fonctionnelle, tandis que la seconde a pour caractéristique un questionnement critique de ce modèle, et a pour horizon une démocratisation de la société.

Face à la conception technocratique et entrepreneuriale portée par les pouvoirs publics, une approche alternative de l’innovation sociale, plus populaire et moins visible, à travers l’exploration d’initiatives citoyennes. Prenant comme point de départ le constat d’une appropriation institutionnelle de l’innovation sociale, orientée vers la compétitivité et l’efficacité marchande des expériences de l’économie sociale et solidaire, l’ouvrage vise à la fois à apporter un regard critique sur cette conception de l’innovation sociale et à remettre en lumière des expérimentations citoyennes peu prises en compte par les pouvoirs publics. Il montre ainsi la nécessité d’un tournant épistémologique valorisant les dynamiques de coproduction des savoirs et des politiques entre acteurs, chercheurs et institutions.

There are currently several social innovation initiatives being developed in isolation, where each one has its own path. In this context, actors want to collaborate and be coordinated in a network in order to increase the development and dissemination of social innovations. The use of collaboration mechanisms gives rise to the expectation that actors playing in groups tend to achieve quantitative and qualitative performance higher than individual performances. While the potential benefits of collaboration are recognized, effectively achieving collaboration is still a challenge for social innovation. In this context, the objective of this study is to identify how the concepts of collaboration are recognized in social innovation environments. In addition, we investigated which mechanisms are used and what are the difficulties faced by actors in this context. To do so, a survey research on the aspects of collaboration in social innovation environments was conducted. Results shown that engagement is the most cited challenge related to human factors; from 30 techniques mentioned, Design Thinking is the most applied; and from 41 tools, Google Drive is the most cited. Results from qualitative analysis shown that collaboration is considered essential to social innovation environments, although there are several challenges reported.

This article responds to increasing public and academic discourses on social innovation, which often rest on the assumption that social innovation can drive societal change and empower actors to deal with societal challenges and a retreating welfare state. In order to scrutinise this assumption, this article proposes a set of concepts to study the dynamics of transformative social innovation and underlying processes of multi-actor (dis)empowerment. First, the concept of transformative social innovation is unpacked by proposing four foundational concepts to help distinguish between different pertinent 'shades' of change and innovation: 1) social innovation, (2) system innovation, (3) game-changers, and (4) narratives of change. These concepts, invoking insights from transitions studies and social innovations literature, are used to construct a conceptual account of how transformative social innovation emerges as a co-evolutionary interaction between diverse shades of change and innovation. Second, the paper critically discusses the dialectic nature of multi-actor (dis)empowerment that underlies such processes of change and innovation. The paper then demonstrates how the conceptualisations are applied to three empirical case-studies of transformative social innovation: Impact Hub, Time Banks and Credit Unions. In the conclusion we synthesise how the concepts and the empirical examples help to understand contemporary shifts in societal power relations and the changing role of the welfare state.

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.

Society is at a crossroads. Interconnected systems, radical transparency, and rapidly increasing sophistication in skills, communications, and technologies provide a unique context for fostering social innovation at a planetary scale. We argue that unprecedented rates of systemic social change are possible for co-creating a future where humans and all life can thrive. Yet, this requires innovation in the conceptions, practice, teaching, and researching of social innovation itself to reimagine what it is and can be. As a multidisciplinary group of academics, practitioners, and educators, we integrate our perspectives on social innovation and humanistic management to suggest the notion of systemic social innovation. We introduce the concept of “transformative collaboration” as central to facilitating systemic social innovation and propose a multilevel model for accelerating systems change. We then develop an integrated framework for conceptualizing systemic social innovation. Four levels of social impact are identified, and these levels are bracketed with a call for transforming individual consciousness at the micro level and new collective mindsets at the macro level. Blooom is presented as a case study to illustrate transformative collaboration, demonstrate the role of mindset shift in practice, and introduce four key ingredients to systemic social innovation. Finally, a call to action is issued for social innovation practice, teaching, and research. Most importantly, we seek to inspire and accelerate systemic social innovation that enables the flourishing of every human being and all life on earth.

Technology is the answer, but what was the question? Introduction Many firms, charities and governments are in favour of more innovation, and like to side with the new against the old. But should they? A moment's reflection shows that it's not altogether coherent (whether intellectually, ethically or in terms of policy) to simply be in favour of innovation, whether that innovation is a product, a service or a social idea. Some innovations are unambiguously good (like penicillin or the telephone). Others are unambiguously bad (like concentration camps or nerve gas). Many are ambiguous. Pesticides kill parasites but also pollute the water supply. New surveillance technologies may increase workplace productivity but leave workers more stressed and unhappy. Smart missiles may be good for the nations deploying them and terrible for the ones on the receiving end.In finance, Paul Volcker, former head of the US Federal Reserve, said that the only good financial innovation he could think of was the automated teller machine. That was an exaggeration. But there is no doubt that many financial innovations destroyed more value than they created, even as they enriched their providers, and that regulators and policy makers failed to distinguish the good from the bad, with very costly results. In technology, too, a similar scepticism had emerged by the late 2010s, with digital social media described as the ‘new tobacco’, associated with harm rather than good, with addiction rather than help. Or, to take another example: when the US Central Intelligence Agency's venture capital arm, In-QTel, invested heavily in firms like Palantir, which then became contractors for the intelligence and military (a prime example of the ‘entrepreneurial state’), it was far from obvious how much this was good or bad for the world.The traditional justification for a capitalist market economy is that the net effects of market-led innovation leave behind far more winners than losers, and that markets are better able to pick technologies than bureaucracies or committees. But even if, overall, the patterns of change generate more winners than losers, there are likely to be some, perhaps many, cases where the opposite happens. It would be useful to know.

The 21st century has brought a cornucopia of new knowledge and technologies. But there has been little progress in our ability to solve social problems using social innovation – the deliberate invention of new solutions to meet social needs - across the globe. Geoff Mulgan is a pioneer in the global field of social innovation. Building on his experience advising international governments, businesses and foundations, he explains how it provides answers to today’s global social, economic and sustainability issues. He argues for matching R&D in technology and science with a socially focused R&D and harnessing creative imagination on a larger scale than ever before. Weaving together history, ideas, policy and practice, he shows how social innovation is now coming of age, offering a comprehensive view of what can be done to solve the global social challenges we face.

This book efficiently contributes to our understanding of the interplay between data, technology and communicative practice on the one hand, and democratic participation on the other. It addresses the emergence of proactive data activism, a new sociotechnical phenomenon in the field of action that arises as a reaction to massive datafication, and makes affirmative use of data for advocacy and social change. By blending empirical observation and in-depth qualitative interviews, Gutiérrez brings to the fore a debate about the social uses of the data infrastructure and examines precisely how people employ it, in combination with other technologies, to collaborate and act for social change.

This book examines the ways in which universities can play a crucial role in inclusive development, social innovation and social entrepreneurship. It aims to prove the importance of inclusive development and inclusive innovation on economic growth and demonstrate the ways in which universities can be pioneers in this area through initiatives in social responsibility and social innovation. For example, providing access to a university education without discrimination of race, gender, income status, or other factors would help to diminish the increasing income differentials currently being experienced in many countries, especially in the developing world. The research and studies included in this book provide insight into possible actions that can be taken by universities and public and private shareholders in inclusive development, social innovation, social entrepreneurship and overall regional economic and social development.

Following Kuhn, this article conceptualizes social entrepreneurship as a field of action in a pre–paradigmatic state that currently lacks an established epistemology. Using approaches from neo–institutional theory, this research focuses on the microstructures of legitimation that characterize the development of social entrepreneurship in terms of its key actors, discourses, and emerging narrative logics. This analysis suggests that the dominant discourses of social entrepreneurship represent legitimating material for resource–rich actors in a process of reflexive isomorphism. Returning to Kuhn, the article concludes by delineating a critical role for scholarly research on social entrepreneurship in terms of resolving conflicting discourses within its future paradigmatic development.

Waste generation, especially hazardous waste, can strongly affect the environment and human lives. There is an urgent need to implement sustainable hazardous waste management tools to reduce their harmful impact on the environment stemming from incorrect waste management. However, there is still a lack of business model concepts combining sustainable development and risk management in reverse logistic value chains for hazardous waste. Therefore, the authors develop a novel sustainable business model canvas for both an entity and the logistics system using the Osterwalder's Business Model Canvas integrated with the concept of sustainable development in economic, social and environmental areas (Triple Bottom Line, TBL) and risk-related elements. Then, using the developed sustainable business model canvas, the model for the logistics system for the treatment of hazardous waste containing asbestos was successfully created. The model was implemented in the prototype of computer software in the form of electronic network services.

The main purpose of this article is to introduce the Social Enterprise Model Canvas (SEMC), a Business Model Canvas (BMC) conceived for designing the organizational settings of social enterprises, for resolving the mission measurement paradox, and for meeting the strategy, legitimacy and governance challenges. The SEMC and the analysis that explains its features are of interest to academics concerned with the study of social entrepreneurship because they offer a new analytical tool that is particularly useful for untangling and comparing different forms of social enterprises. Also, it is of interest to social entrepreneurs, because the SEMC is a platform that can be used to prevent 'mission drifts' that might result from problems emerging from the mismanagement of such challenges. The arguments presented are grounded on scientific literature from multiple disciplines and fields, on a critical review of the BMC, and on a case study. The main features of SEMC that makes it an alternative to the BMC are attention to social value and building blocks that take into consideration non-targeted stakeholders, principles of governance, the involvement of customers and targeted beneficiaries, mission values, short-term objectives, impact and output measures.

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.

Les Living Labs (LLs) sont de nouvelles formes de laboratoires mettant en œuvre des approches collaboratives et expérimentales centrées sur les utilisateurs. Récemment, les capacités des LLs à développer des réseaux d’innovation ouverts et collaboratifs ont été soulignées. Mais les recherches sont encore peu nombreuses, alors même que le phénomène ne cesse d’évoluer en pratique. En s’appuyant sur l’analyse longitudinale d’une initiative en cours, les « Concept Maturity Levels Santé », impulsée par le Forum des Living Labs en Santé et Autonomie, cet article présente une recherche abductive visant à explorer et caractériser la manière dont les LLs peuvent contribuer, au-delà de projets d’innovation temporaires, à structurer des écosystèmes d’innovation ouverts et collaboratifs sur le long terme. En sus de contribuer à la littérature sur les LLs, l’article ouvre de nouvelles pistes de caractérisation des écosystèmes communautaires d’innovation jusqu’ici encore peu étudiés.Code JEL : M100

L’objectif de cet article est d’analyser une nouvelle forme organisationnelle, le living lab (LL) et sa capacité à favoriser l’innovation territoriale en milieu rural ou péri-urbain. A travers une revue de littérature et la mobilisation de la sociologie de l’acteur-réseau (Callon, 1986 ; Latour, 1987), nous positionnons les living labs comme intermédiaires d’innovation ouverte dont les caractéristiques permettent d’intégrer de nombreux acteurs hétérogènes, établissements publics, entreprises privées, associations et citoyens, sur des projets d’innovation. L’étude d’un LL rural met en évidence la capacité d’une telle structure à reconfigurer des réseaux d’acteurs pour proposer une série de tiers-lieux adaptés aux spécificités des territoires sur lesquels ils s’implantent. Cette recherche permet d’enrichir la réflexion la pérennisation des tiers-lieux ruraux et leurs spécificités par rapport aux espaces urbains.

Some see universities as a possible source of solutions to enable a sustainable transition and overcome societal challenges. Findings from three multisite case studies of Desis Labs, FabLabs, and Science Shops shed light on how universities can help empower communities and solve societal challenges locally. Adopting a sociotechnical and flat relational perspective inspired by science and technology studies (STS), we focus on the material and spatial aspects of how these spaces are configured, thereby ensuring practical relevance for policy makers and practitioners. Applying an analytical generalization methodology, we condense the qualitative data into a typology of three ideal space-types (i.e. affording, mediating, and impact-oriented) that represent specific configurations of actors, researchers, students, communities, spaces, infrastructure, equipment, facilitators, etc. The ideal space-types empower communities in different ways, require different resources to create and operate, and translate differently into specific local contexts.

Nous proposons un regard réflexif sur deux expériences de recherche-projet menées dans le cadre de thèses de doctorat. Notre réflexion porte sur les apports et limites de cette démarche dans le cadre de projets ancrés dans les champs de la santé et du handicap, plus spécifiquement des troubles du sommeil et des troubles du spectre de l’autisme. La proposition repose sur la démonstration de l’intérêt de la conception participative propre à la recherche-projet dans ces domaines sensibles au sein desquels l’enjeu de l’inclusion des acteurs apparaît comme majeur.

L’adjectif « agile » est désormais employé pour qualifier un idéal d’entreprises dynamiques et innovantes. De fait, deux interprétations de ce terme peuvent être envisagées. La première renvoie à la mise en place systématique d’une gestion de projet en mode agile, c’est-à-dire se conformant à certaines valeurs et principes formulés dans un manifeste. Celui-ci met notamment l’accent sur le développement en cycles courts, le travail en petite équipe, une conception en collaboration avec les clients et l’acceptation bienveillante des changements de besoins. La seconde se rapporte à une entreprise capable de répondre plus vite et mieux que ses concurrentes à des changements environnementaux. Dans ces deux cas, la créativité et la veille jouent un rôle important. Elles permettent à l’entreprise de rester agile en : identifiant les changements environnementaux, alertant sur ses propres routines, envisageant rapidement des réponses pertinentes pour ses clients et, autant que possible, surprenantes pour ses concurrents.

Social Innovation is one of the key indicators within the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Currently, service Design and its design thinking processes play a significant role in Innovation for businesses; it proved its social innovation impact in many projects building sustainable solutions. This study aims to highlight the value of implementing service design through the design thinking process in finding a sustainable solution for different social issues. Researchers achieved the aim of this study using qualitative methodology, implementing case study analysis as a method, were 28 design students have been asked to redesign missing social experiences during pandemics. These case studies explain how sustainable solutions can be generated via service design through the design thinking processes. The findings of this research highlight the value of implementing service design with its design thinking process to generate sustainable solutions for different social issues, concluding that this process can be taught and applied by designers to change their mindsets from `final outcome' to the concept of `final demand', aligning then with sustainability for social Innovation.