Rechercher

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.

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

This essay revisits the historical development of a concept – tecnologia social – as one avenue for discussing alternatives to post-development, arguing that the Western-based historical path of technology development is one of the main sources of growing human impoverishment, social inequalities and economic dependency. The concept of tecnologia social points towards political processes that create opportunities to redefine the arrangements among social groups, artefacts and methods used in everyday life, particularly for production and consumption. Because the post-development debate has been criticised for formulating a sound and strong critique to mainstream development but failing to propose concrete empirical alternatives, we seek to foster the debate through the Latin American concept of tecnologia social.

Inspired by the South American research tradition known as “social technology,” this article proposes an operational framework to advance the understanding of mechanisms that help to promote social transformation. To illustrate its theorizing potential, we apply the framework to a nonprofit organization–Parole d’excluEs–that was created in Montreal (Canada) in 2006 and that has been promoting citizen mobilization and commitment to social change (parole-dexclues.ca). To that end, we offer a theoretical paper with an empirical illustration as a first step in a reflection on employing a global South theoretical lens–drawing on the concept of social technology–to make sense of a global North social innovation experience and to advance existing knowledge on the mechanisms of social transformation. The results contribute to social innovation research and practice, particularly at the interface between the management and nonprofit literatures.

The case provides an opportunity to understand how tecnologia social – a South American concept that might be seen as an equivalent to social innovation – can help promote social change. To illustrate the potential of social technologies, the case of Agência de Redes is presented. The case is intended for use at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Its purpose is to promote the discussion of the South American concept of tecnologia social, as well as to analyse of one particular tecnologia social using a conceptual model to understand the mechanisms that might promote social change.

This case examines the major challenges faced by Productions Jeun’Est (PJE) and Prodigium, a social enterprise working in the cultural sector. The profits generated by Prodigium’s activities in the entertainment field are invested in the PJE training program that aims to increase the social inclusion of vulnerable youth by training them to be technicians in the cultural market. By studying this case, students are expected to understand the elements of a social business model, to analyze the role of the different elements forming a social innovation and to evaluate the challenges of planning its transfer to another context.

The term ‘social innovation’ has come to gather all manner of meanings from policymakers and politicians across the political spectrum. But while actors may unproblematically unite around a broad perspective of social innovation as bringing about (positive) social change, we rarely see evidence of a shared vision for the kind of social change that social innovation ought to bring about. Taking inspiration from methods that recognise the utopian thinking inherent in the social innovation concept, we draw upon Erik Olin Wright’s concept of ‘real utopias’ to investigate the moral underpinnings inherent in the public statements of Ashoka, one of the most prominent social innovation actors operating in the world today. We seek to animate discussion on the moral principles that guide social innovation discourse through examining the problems that Ashoka is trying to solve through social innovation, the world they are striving to create, and the strategies they propose to realise their vision.

There have been many creative responses to modern economic, political and technological developments and their (un)intended social and ecological consequences. These responses provide the soil for the type of social innovation identified in this article: citizen innovation as niche restoration. It is about civic action that creates novelty by seeking to restore the places and practices citizens already value. Drawing from an in-depth case study on decentralized water management, the concept of citizen innovation as niche restoration is explored, and its implications for political participation and sustainability discussed.

The rise of social innovation expresses a discontent with innovation as we know it, and its ability to deliver just and sustainable outcomes. Yet, social innovation is also notoriously vague as a concept, thereby putting into doubt whether the concept offers any real improvements or alternatives. This paper issues an invitation to think about social innovation as a collaborative concept. The conceptual framework shows collaboration, rather than contestation, to offer a space for the working together of different perspectives and actors. The collaborative concept frame welcomes and seeks to explain a diversity of uses. Singling out key features of social innovation as a collaborative concept, it seeks to contribute to an emerging practice that makes different contributions part of a progressive conversation about social innovation, the evaluative ideas associated with it and the evidence from policies and projects. Identifying transformative, taxonomical and transitional–sceptical uses of social innovation, the paper highlights the importance of analysing the evaluative aspects of the multisectoral reconfigurations associated with social innovation so as to keep track of its role for justice and sustainability.

The term ‘social innovation’ has come to gather all manner of meanings from policymakers and politicians across the political spectrum. But while actors may unproblematically unite around a broad perspective of social innovation as bringing about (positive) social change, we rarely see evidence of a shared vision for the kind of social change that social innovation ought to bring about. Taking inspiration from methods that recognise the utopian thinking inherent in the social innovation concept, we draw upon Erik Olin Wright’s concept of ‘real utopias’ to investigate the moral underpinnings inherent in the public statements of Ashoka, one of the most prominent social innovation actors operating in the world today. We seek to animate discussion on the moral principles that guide social innovation discourse through examining the problems that Ashoka is trying to solve through social innovation, the world they are striving to create, and the strategies they propose to realise their vision.

There are calls for social innovation to help with the effort to halt biodiversity loss. However, research on social innovation and biodiversity is dispersed and covers a multitude of disciplines. A systematic overview of research on social innovation and biodiversity is missing and this paper contributes by focusing on social innovation to tackle the drivers of biodiversity loss and unsustainability. The paper reviews research on social innovation in changing land use (agriculture, forestry, aquatic ecosystems and cities), in tackling exploitation of organisms (fishing, hunting, harvesting), and in addressing threats of climate change, pollution and invasive species. Across these drivers, we find a) a strong emphasis on social innovation as civic action for changing practices in addressing unsustainability, b) that social innovation research tends to focus on local experimentation although there are bodies of literature on policy-driven innovations and consumer/producer-driven innovations, and c) that there is very little research taking a critical perspective to explore negative or unintended consequences of social innovation. Drawing on the review, we propose three cross cutting issues that can be a focus for future research, practice and supportive policy: social innovation for nature-based solutions, social innovation for participatory governance, and social innovation for technology that tackles biodiversity loss.

A look at the worst practices in using the collective impact approach for social change and lessons on how to avoid them.