Votre recherche

The last few years witnessed theoretical and practical contributions to the field of social innovation and social enterprise. However, analysis of the interplay between these two different realms is still limited. This article aims to fill some gaps in this respect. We deal with historical reconstruction of the concept of Social Enterprise and Social Innovation, and their conceptual premises. We consider the process of creation of social innovation in social enterprises. As members’ motivations, ownership rights and governance rules in social enterprises create a new relational context and new routines, which are germane to the production of social knowledge and deliberation, social innovation can be considered one of the main outcomes of this setting. Social motivations, collective action of a cooperative kind, multistakeholder governance and socialization of resources, and their interplay are singled out as main drivers of innovation. Social innovation is seen as akin to novelty in social interaction, a non-standardized and non-standardizable outcome of the operation of this organizational form.

The Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship launched its 2020 Impact Report which showcases the collective impact of the Schwab Foundation social entrepreneur community.

Participatory social innovation projects often involve the coming together of design researchers, community development groups, and community members to develop (often technological) solutions to social problems or challenges. “Intermediaries” are specific individuals and organisations who contribute to these projects by translating intentions, values and experiences between design researchers and communities. Previous research has not yet critically examined the role of intermediaries in such projects. This paper does so in a project carried out in rural areas of Europe, which sought to test and develop a technology to support the creation of FM community radio stations in isolated areas. We present the project as a biography of infrastructures to provide an account of intermediaries’ interactions during the project's unfolding. We find that how intermediaries shape the social base and ends of the project, and the interpretation of the technology involved, is influenced by their position, goals, and relationships in the process.

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.

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.

Commonly, social innovation is defined as new ideas proposals to the needs of humans. However, there is a lack of a well-definition comprehensive leading the fragmentation of field research. On the other hand, the contribution of universities for social innovation development is still less investigated. In this sense, this study intends to explore interrelations between universities and social innovation in relation to different lines of investigation employed. For this, a content analysis was applied to results obtained by Cunha et al. [1]. Five categories of analysis were defined. Findings revealed that there are a number of studies that applied qualitative research to investigate practical examples of social innovation inside of universities and few empirical studies. A link among keywords social innovation, higher education, and social entrepreneurship was found. Furthermore, the analysis showed that there is not a leader country but a distribution across several countries, where Spain and United Kingdom stand out. Thus, this result suggests that it would be helpful to develop an instrument to measure academics’ engagement with social innovation research and practice. In addition, this research contributes to current knowledge regarding the role of universities in social innovation model, providing new theoretical and practical insights of investigation.

The aim of this paper is to study the influence of corporate social responsibility (CSR) over small and medium‐sized enterprise (SME) innovation and the effect of two mediating variables, debt terms and human capital. Based on a sample of 2825 Spanish SMEs and applying a structural equations modeling, the results demonstrate that the effect of CSR on innovation is mediated by debt terms and by good human resource practices. Part of the positive effect of CSR on innovation occurs through these two variables, which, alone, positively and significantly affect innovation in SMEs. Consequently, the positive effect of CSR practices on debt terms through a decrease in asymmetric information goes further, also having repercussions on innovation. Additionally, the suitable development of human resource practices based on strategies oriented toward CSR allow companies to carry out greater and more efficient innovative activities. This paper contributes to the CSR literature considering the human resource management and the debt access in the relationship between CSR and innovation. The findings reveal important implications for policy makers and managers. For the former, the results show that it would be interesting to carry out actions aimed at assisting SMEs, especially those with fewer resources available, to implement a suitable CSR strategy, supporting sustainable development in SMEs. And, for the latter, CSR‐oriented innovation has proven to be a valuable strategy for more efficient SMEs management because of the multiple competitive advantages it generates.

L’Union européenne comme les pouvoirs publics français peinent à trouver des solutions aux crises agricoles. Le secteur laitier n’échappe pas à la règle. En 2016, quelque 7000 consommateurs français ont activement participé à la coconstruction d’une filière laitière guidée par un objectif social : améliorer les conditions de vie des producteurs. L’innovation repose ainsi sur une nouvelle méthode de fixation du prix de vente du lait conditionné. Nous montrerons par cet exemple ainsi que par d’autres exemples en France que ce type de coconstruction constitue une innovation sociale inversée. Cette dernière tire parti d’un demi-siècle d’apprentissage fondé sur l’institutionnalisation du « caractère équitable » d’un bien, lequel est au coeur du commerce équitable Nord-Sud. Le label « équitable » n’est donc plus réservé aux seuls pays en développement. Nous analyserons également la portée des technologies numériques (TN) qui réduisent la « distance sociale » entre producteurs, implantés au Sud ou au Nord, et consommateurs. Ainsi, les consommateurs peuvent arbitrer à travers les TN, et ce, dans plusieurs filières.

This paper presents the state of the art in promoting social innovation at five leading technical universities in Europe. We assess how these leading technical universities implement social innovation in their strategies, teaching, and research. The results show that all universities highlight the importance of finding solutions to global challenges and addressing Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) as a fundamental university strategy for example by promoting social innovation. Moreover, all address the universities’ need to contribute to sustainability and the Sustainable Development Goals. However, social innovation does not play an important role in research and teaching as the results show that social innovation has so far been little addressed in research and teaching. Based on the political framework in the five European countries, we draw up conclusions for technical universities

The interactions between the higher education sector and society and industry have been attracting increased attention in terms of ways to develop social innovation solutions to societal problems. Despite calls from politicians and the existence of some guidelines, we know little about how higher education could incorporate social innovation activities into its structure and missions. This study examines some practice experiences in two southern European public universities in Portugal and Spain. We show that the third mission of universities, which includes social innovation, is both linked to the first two missions of teaching and research, depending on the university’s historical and social context. The high dependence of higher education institutions on economic returns increases the importance of political action to drive the development of social innovation activities. This conditioning factor seems to be intrinsic to some of the barriers that have been identified, such as lack of legitimization and recognition of social innovation practices at the formal governmental level.

Cet article est une réponse prospective aux besoins de l'Internet des Objets en termes de simplicité d'utilisation, de gestion de la sécurité et de préservation de la vie privée. Nous proposons de satisfaire ces besoins à travers une plateforme d'intelligence collective utilisant des cartographies sémantiques en réalité augmentées pour récolter les interactions des utilisateurs avec des objets connectés. L'association de l'intelligence collective et des cartographies sémantiques permet d'envisager un design de connaissances où les capacités d'action des objets connectés sont facilement compréhensibles et modifiables par les utilisateurs. Dans ce dispositif, les technologies de blockchain sont utilisées pour partager en sécurité l'expression des utilisateurs et ainsi augmenter la confiance dans l'Internet des Objets et par la même contribuer au développement d'une réflexivité collective sur les usages de ces écosystèmes sociotechniques.

This paper reports on a long-term collaboration with a self-organised social clinic, within solidarity movements in Greece. The collaboration focused on the co-creation of an oral history group within the social clinic, aiming to record and make sense of a collection of digital oral histories from its volunteers and volunteers-doctors. The process aimed to support reflection and shape the future of the clinic's ongoing social innovation and to transform institutional public health services. Positioning the work of solidarity movement as designing social innovation, the work contributes to CSCW and 'infrastructuring' in Participatory Design aspiring to support social activism and social transformation processes. More specifically, through our empirical insights on the process of infrastructuring an oral history group within a social movement; and related insights about their ongoing participatory health service provision-we provide implications for CSCW concerned with its role in institutional healthcare service transformation.

University intellectual property policies, and the accompanying strategies for incubation of IP via licensing and spin outs, have not received much analysis from academic lawyers. Moreover, despite the success of universities in the UK at generating income from IP, not much is known about how transferable this success is when considered in the light of a rapidly growing middle-income developing economy such as Mexico’s. In this article we analyse critically some of the key tenets of IP policies at universities in the UK to identify what the key legal principles underpinning university innovation are. We further consider the potential application of these principles in Mexico, where so far only a limited number of universities have developed IP policies and strategies in line with the incubator model. We explain how universities in Mexico could implement these research findings in their own IP policies. We further note that the mere provision of an IP policy is not a panacea – on its own it is insufficient for ensuring technology transfer and it may even encourage unnecessary patenting. Further investment in infrastructure and in establishing a culture of incubation and entrepreneurship is also required.

Innovation is perhaps the buzzword in local economic development policy. Associated narrowly with neoliberal ideas, conventional notions of innovation—like its capitalocentric counterparts, enterprise and entrepreneurialism—may promise higher productivity, global competitiveness and technological progress but do not fundamentally change the ‘rules of the game’. In contrast, an emerging field reimagines social innovation as disruptive change in social relations and institutional configurations. This article explores the conceptual and political differences within this pre‐paradigmatic field, and argues for a more transformative understanding of social innovation. Building on the work of David Graeber, I mobilize the novel constructs of ‘play’ and ‘games’ to advance our understanding of the contradictory process of institutionalizing social innovation for urban transformation. This is illustrated through a case study of Liverpool, where diverse approaches to innovation are employed in attempts to resolve longstanding socio‐economic problems. Dominant market‐ and state‐led economic development policies—likened to a ‘regeneration game’—are contrasted with more experimental, creative, democratic and potentially more effective forms of social innovation, seeking urban change through playing with the rules of the game. I conclude by considering how the play–game dialectic illuminates and reframes the way transformative social innovation might be cultivated by urban policy, the contradictions this entails, and possible ways forward.

We bring bold ideas to life to change the world for good.

Consortium européen "Over the past 30 years, almost every aspect of doing design has changed. We still seem to be in the middle of a transition to greater entanglement and complexity, but with greater involvement of people and, hopefully, more value contributed by the design capabilities of many. We can anticipate these uncertainties with hope or fear. But if we can use design thinking, making, and enacting to visualize and explore the future together, then we will be able to harness our collective creativity to serve our collective dreams." * *Co-creation and the landscapes of design, Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders & Pieter Jan Stappers www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15710880701875068

Shift's approach to using design thinking for collective impact.