Votre recherche

This paper is intended as a contribution to the ongoing conceptual development of sustainability-oriented innovation (SOI) and provides initial guidance on becoming and being sustainable. The authors organize and integrate the diverse body of empirical literature relating to SOI and, in doing so, develop a synthesized conceptual framework onto which SOI practices and processes can be mapped. Sustainability-oriented innovation involves making intentional changes to an organization's philosophy and values, as well as to its products, processes or practices to serve the specific purpose of creating and realizing social and environmental value in addition to economic returns. A critical reading of previous literature relating to environmental management and sustainability reveals how little attention has been paid to SOI, and what exists is only partial. In a review of 100 scholarly articles and 27 grey sources drawn from the period of the three Earth Summits (1992, 2002 and 2012), the authors address four specific deficiencies that have given rise to these limitations: the meaning of SOI; how it has been conceptualized; its treatment as a dichotomous phenomenon; and a general failure to reflect more contemporary practices. The authors adopt a framework synthesis approach involving first constructing an initial architecture of the landscape grounded in previous studies, which is subsequently iteratively tested, shaped, refined and reinforced into a model of SOI with data drawn from included studies: so advancing theoretical development in the field of SOI.

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.

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.

Afin de réfléchir à la relation dans le soin et son apprentissage, dix-sept personnes sont sollicitées pour participer à une journée de codesign. Cette méthodologie consiste, par une succession d’exercices protocolisés, à favoriser la créativité du groupe via une démarche d’intelligence collective. L’article vise à réfléchir aux conditions par lesquelles une telle méthodologie peut devenir une ressource capacitante pour penser l’apprentissage de l’éthique. Le présent travail souligne notamment la place centrale de l’affectivité dans la construction du climat d’innovation et dans le mécanisme de la pensée divergente. L’article ouvre in fine de nouveaux questionnements sur l’articulation des exercices, l’affectivité, le rôle de l’animateur ou encore celui de l’usager. Les perspectives de recherches invitent à un décloisonnement disciplinaire.

The UK government has called for a rehabilitation revolution in England and Wales and put its faith in market testing. It hopes this will lead to greater innovation, resulting in reductions in re-offending while also driving down costs. However, many of the most innovative developments in criminal justice over recent decades have come through social innovation. Examples include restorative justice and justice reinvestment. In this article we argue that while social innovation will respond to some extent to conventional economic policy levers such as market testing, de-regulation and the intelligent use of public sector purchasing power it is not simply an extension of the neo-liberal model into the social realm. Social innovation, based on solidarity and reciprocity, is an alternative to the logic of the neo-liberal paradigm. In policy terms, the promotion of social innovation will need to take account of the interplay between government policy, social and cultural norms and individual and social capacity. Current proposals for reforming the criminal justice system may not leave sufficient scope to develop the conditions for effective social innovation.

The UK government has called for a rehabilitation revolution in England and Wales and put its faith in market testing. It hopes this will lead to greater innovation, resulting in reductions in re-offending while also driving down costs. However, many of the most innovative developments in criminal justice over recent decades have come through social innovation. Examples include restorative justice and justice reinvestment. In this article we argue that while social innovation will respond to some extent to conventional economic policy levers such as market testing, de-regulation and the intelligent use of public sector purchasing power it is not simply an extension of the neo-liberal model into the social realm. Social innovation, based on solidarity and reciprocity, is an alternative to the logic of the neo-liberal paradigm. In policy terms, the promotion of social innovation will need to take account of the interplay between government policy, social and cultural norms and individual and social capacity. Current proposals for reforming the criminal justice system may not leave sufficient scope to develop the conditions for effective social innovation.

Offender mental health is a major societal challenge. Improved collaboration between mental health and criminal justice services is required to address this challenge. This article explores social innovation as a conceptual framework with which to view these collaborations and develop theoretically informed strategies to optimize interorganizational working. Two key innovation frameworks are applied to the offender mental health field and practice illustrations provided of where new innovations in collaboration, and specifically co-creation between the mental health system and criminal justice system, take place. The article recommends the development of a competency framework for leaders and front line staff in the mental health system and criminal justice systems to raise awareness and skills in the innovation process, especially through co-creation across organizational boundaries.

Offender mental health is a major societal challenge. Improved collaboration between mental health and criminal justice services is required to address this challenge. This article explores social innovation as a conceptual framework with which to view these collaborations and develop theoretically informed strategies to optimize interorganizational working. Two key innovation frameworks are applied to the offender mental health field and practice illustrations provided of where new innovations in collaboration, and specifically co-creation between the mental health system and criminal justice system, take place. The article recommends the development of a competency framework for leaders and front line staff in the mental health system and criminal justice systems to raise awareness and skills in the innovation process, especially through co-creation across organizational boundaries.

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.

L’innovation sociale est devenue, en quelques années, un concept tellement galvaudé qu’il entretient une large confusion dans les débats. Utilisé d’abord en Amérique du Nord [1], il s’est généralisé avec l’arrivée, dans les années 90, de la notion anglo-saxonne d’« entrepreneurs sociaux ». Introduit ensuite par des travaux initiés par la Communauté européenne [2], il est entré dans la loi française du 31 juillet 2014 relative à l’économie sociale et solidaire (ESS). L’objet de notre article n’est pas de dresser un inventaire des différentes acceptions de ce concept, mais plutôt de chercher, d’une part, à asseoir sa définition sur des fondements théoriques et, d’autre part, à tirer les conséquences pragmatiques de ce positionnement. Nous commencerons par l’innovation technologique, car c’est d’elle qu’il est question lorsque l’on évoque l’innovation sans donner d’autres précisions. Nous verrons cependant que cette définition masque des sous-entendus qui nous serviront pour définir l’innovation sociale. Cette définition peut déboucher sur deux approches : l’une collaborative, l’autre coopérative. Il importe de le préciser, car elles n’ont pas les mêmes implications en termes de projets politiques. Nous montrerons que la question de la propriété est au centre de ce qui les différencie. Un tableau de synthèse de ce raisonnement est présenté en annexe.

L’innovation sociale est devenue, en quelques années, un concept tellement galvaudé qu’il entretient une large confusion dans les débats. Utilisé d’abord en Amérique du Nord [1], il s’est généralisé avec l’arrivée, dans les années 90, de la notion anglo-saxonne d’« entrepreneurs sociaux ». Introduit ensuite par des travaux initiés par la Communauté européenne [2], il est entré dans la loi française du 31 juillet 2014 relative à l’économie sociale et solidaire (ESS). L’objet de notre article n’est pas de dresser un inventaire des différentes acceptions de ce concept, mais plutôt de chercher, d’une part, à asseoir sa définition sur des fondements théoriques et, d’autre part, à tirer les conséquences pragmatiques de ce positionnement. Nous commencerons par l’innovation technologique, car c’est d’elle qu’il est question lorsque l’on évoque l’innovation sans donner d’autres précisions. Nous verrons cependant que cette définition masque des sous-entendus qui nous serviront pour définir l’innovation sociale. Cette définition peut déboucher sur deux approches : l’une collaborative, l’autre coopérative. Il importe de le préciser, car elles n’ont pas les mêmes implications en termes de projets politiques. Nous montrerons que la question de la propriété est au centre de ce qui les différencie. Un tableau de synthèse de ce raisonnement est présenté en annexe.

Un article de la revue Revue internationale de l'économie sociale, diffusée par la plateforme Érudit.

Un article de la revue Revue internationale de l'économie sociale, diffusée par la plateforme Érudit.

This special issue of Innovation and Development focuses on inclusive innovation; specifically on analysis of the new models of this form of innovation which are emerging. After discussing the growing need for research into those models, this editorial paper interrogates the meaning of ‘inclusive innovation’ and what it means to understand inclusive innovation in terms of models. The editorial then outlines the contribution of the papers that make up this special issue before drawing out some lessons for inclusive innovation policy and practice, and discussing future research priorities.

Notre questionnement porte sur le profond décalage entre l'évolution de la pensée économique et les pratiques politiques issues de la décentralisation. Notre hypothèse met de l’avant que les logiques politiques mobilisées dans le cadre de ces réformes ne permettent pas d’accompagner le tournant territorial de l’économie (Pecqueur, 2006; Landel et Pecqueur, 2016). La difficulté des collectivités locales à prendre en compte et à accompagner l’innovation sociale témoigne de ces décalages. Pourtant, sous l’impulsion de l’État, de nouvelles formes de coordination s’affirment, parmi lesquelles on peut citer les pôles territoriaux de coopération économique (PTCE). Ils méritent d’être observés au regard de leur capacité à accompagner de nouvelles formes de développement territorial.

Notre questionnement porte sur le profond décalage entre l'évolution de la pensée économique et les pratiques politiques issues de la décentralisation. Notre hypothèse met de l’avant que les logiques politiques mobilisées dans le cadre de ces réformes ne permettent pas d’accompagner le tournant territorial de l’économie (Pecqueur, 2006; Landel et Pecqueur, 2016). La difficulté des collectivités locales à prendre en compte et à accompagner l’innovation sociale témoigne de ces décalages. Pourtant, sous l’impulsion de l’État, de nouvelles formes de coordination s’affirment, parmi lesquelles on peut citer les pôles territoriaux de coopération économique (PTCE). Ils méritent d’être observés au regard de leur capacité à accompagner de nouvelles formes de développement territorial.

This Article provides the first legal examination of the immensely valuable but underappreciated phenomenon of social innovation. Innovations such as cognitive behavioral therapy, microfinance, and strategies to reduce hospital-based infections greatly enhance social welfare yet operate completely outside of the patent system, the primary legal mechanism for promoting innovation. This Article draws on empirical studies to elucidate this significant kind of innovation and explore its divergence from the classic model of technological innovation championed by the patent system. In so doing, it illustrates how patent law exhibits a rather crabbed, particularistic conception of innovation. Among other characteristics, innovation in the patent context is individualistic, arises from a discrete origin and history, and prioritizes novelty. Much social innovation, however, arises from communities rather than individual inventors, evolves from multiple histories, and entails expanding that which already exists from one context to another. These  Professor of Law and Chancellor’s Fellow, UC Davis School of Law. I would like to thank Camilla Hrdy, Chris Griffin, Richard Gruner, Courtney Joslin, Lydia Loren, Manesh Patel, and Darien Shanske for their comments on earlier versions of this paper. This Article benefitted substantially from presentations at the Intellectual Property Scholars Conference at Cardozo Law School, the East Bay Faculty Workshop, the Works in Progress Intellectual Property colloquium at Santa Clara School of Law, IP in The Trees at Lewis & Clark Law School, PatCon 4 at the University of San Diego School of Law, the Value Pluralism and Intellectual Property Law conference organized by the University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law and the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and BYU Law School. I would like to thank Dean Kevin Johnson and Associate Dean Vik Amar for providing generous institutional support for this project. I would also like to thank Erin Choi and the UC Davis School of Law library staff for exceptional research assistance. Finally, I would like to thank the excellent editors of the Washington University Law Review. 2 WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [VOL. 92:1 attributes, moreover, apply in large part to technological innovation as well, thus revealing how patent law relies upon and reinforces a rather distorted view of the innovative processes it seeks to promote. Moving from the descriptive to the prescriptive, this Article cautions against extending exclusive rights to social innovations and suggests several nonpatent mechanisms for accelerating this valuable activity. Finally, it examines the theoretical implications of social innovation for patent law, thus helping to contribute to a more holistic framework for innovation law and policy.

The governance of emerging science and innovation is a major challenge for contemporary democracies. In this paper we present a framework for understanding and supporting efforts aimed at ‘responsible innovation’. The framework was developed in part through work with one of the first major research projects in the controversial area of geoengineering, funded by the UK Research Councils. We describe this case study, and how this became a location to articulate and explore four integrated dimensions of responsible innovation: anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion and responsiveness. Although the framework for responsible innovation was designed for use by the UK Research Councils and the scientific communities they support, we argue that it has more general application and relevance.