Votre recherche

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

With the advent of smart cities (SCs), governance has been placed at the core of the debate on how to create public value and achieve a high quality of life in urban environments. In particular, given that public value is rooted in democratic theory and new technologies that promote networking spaces have emerged, citizen participation represents one of the principal instruments to make government open and close to the citizenry needs. Participation in urban governance has undergone a great development: from the first postmodernist ideals of countering expert dominance to today’s focus on learning and social innovation, where citizen participation is conceptualized as co-creation and co-production. Despite this development, there is a lack of research to know how this new governance context is taking place in the SC arena. Addressing this situation, in this article, we present an exhaustive survey of the research literature and a deep study of the experience in participative initiatives followed by SCs in Europe. Through an analysis of 149 SC initiatives from 76 European cities, we provide interesting insights about how participatory models have been introduced in the different areas and dimensions of the cities, how citizen engagement is promoted in SC initiatives, and whether the so-called creative SCs are those with a higher number of projects governed in a participatory way.

In an increasingly globalized world, the challenges of society need to be tackled not by single organisations but by a multitude of stakeholders. Universities can contribute by extending their role and by collaborating with external stakeholders. This study employs qualitative methods to explore how a university engages with its innovation ecosystem through two different projects.The findings, connected to the development of educational and digital systems,show: 1) evidence of two extreme approaches to external stakeholder engagement and 2) three levels of tensions (multi-layered tensions) - on an overarching level, between stakeholder groups, and within groups of stakeholders. The contribution connects to literature on open innovation, quadruple helixes and lastly to university social innovation, especially responsibility diffusion.

Public innovation has received increasing attention in recent years. Experiments with new governance structures, such as New Public Management and New Public Governance, have challenged the traditional top-down, internally driven forms of innovation in the public sector and have entailed a search for new forms of open, collaborative and interactive innovation, implying a reframing of public innovation activities. However, introducing these new frames of innovation causes uncertainties in the public sector, necessitating better understanding of how public innovation can be changed to address societal needs. This paper uses materials from case studies of 21 public living labs across Europe to analyse the lessons that can be learned from public sector participation in living labs in terms of their contribution to reframing public innovation. The “frame” construct is used to analyse and provide an understanding of how participation in living labs helps public actors to reframe innovation and address public and societal needs. Three living lab framings for changing public innovation are identified (processual learning, restrained space and democratic engagement), and the degree of intensity of these framings with respect to involving stakeholders and addressing societal challenges is discussed. The paper contributes to knowledge of public sector innovation by extending previous accounts of how public innovation can be improved.

Responsible Innovation can be the corporate answer to tackle the grand societal challenges. However, companies still have not implemented the concept in their daily innovation practices. Furthermore, citizens, as the voice of societal needs and issues, only have been involved in corporate innovation processes (design thinking, co-creation) on a very limited scale. This raises the question on how to enable the participation of citizens in corporate innovation processes in an effective and efficient way. Therefore, certain quality criteria need to be defined and tested, which has not been researched before in such a context. The aim of this exploratory case study, thus, is to develop and test quality criteria of citizen participation and find out what quality companies can reach in 20 pilot-workshops all over Europe.

Social innovation and high-quality agricultural systems are important for rural development. However, there is little information on methods for measuring the process and outcome of social innovation, particularly at the regional level. This study aimed to answer the research question: Which social innovation metrics can be applied to analyze rural development at the regional level? We carried out a systematic review of the literature on factors and indicators of social innovation, assessed the characteristics of social innovation in value-added agricultural production systems in developed countries, and proposed social innovation indicators for evaluating value-added agricultural systems in developing countries. Key elements of the process and outcome dimensions of social innovation were identified and used to generate factors, subfactors, indicators, and subindicators. The literature review showed that more research is needed on the outcomes of social innovation. Future studies should investigate the social transformations promoted by rural tourism and biodiversity valorization.

Higher Education Institutions, like many other organizations, are facing pressure from the development of digital technologies as a push towards the digitization of their activities and towards a type of change that some describe as disruptive and that forces them to review their processes and structures. This article describes the case of the medialab of the University of Salamanca, MEDIALAB USAL, as an experience of new learning space in higher education. Its origin is explained from the experiences of citizen technology laboratories and experimental laboratories at the point of intersection between Art, Science and Technology. Its structure and working methods are explained, and its activities are illustrated through the description of four educational innovation projects based on different digital technologies: a mathematics didactics project using AppInventor, Wikipedia as a tool for knowledge generation, Arduino for innovation in the teaching of Fine Arts and a university Hackathon as an activity to introduce students to social and entrepreneurial innovation processes.

The importance of university social responsibility (USR) is given by the commitment assumed by the university towards its stakeholders. This study aims at providing new insights on this topic, by analyzing the level of performance in USR that universities communicate. To this end, a structured procedure in five phases is proposed, analyzing elements of the strategic direction and considering the use of USR indicators which are grouped in the four main areas of impact (organizational, educational, cognitive and social). To do this, a qualitative approach has been followed, supported by the use of text analysis software as well as by frequency and spider diagrams. To illustrate its use and the type of analysis it allows, the procedure is applied to the case of the Catalan higher education system, presenting the results at different levels. The study ends with the discussion of the implications, a list of recommendations and suggestion for future works.

Whereas the economic impact of universities is undisputed, the social impact of universities remains vague. The purpose of this paper is to examine whether and how universities influence firms’ social engagement. Based on survey data of more than 7,000 German firms, our results reveal that universities positively affect firms’ social engagement mainly through teaching activities. Hence, our findings give impetus to a reinforcement of the university mission ‘teaching’ as a central lever for social change and increased social awareness as well as to a reorientation of the third university mission toward social needs. This paper thereby contributes to our understanding of the changing missions and values of universities and adds to the literature by exploring the underlying mechanisms of the social impact of universities. We conclude the paper with fruitful future avenues of research.

People with disabilities are an important actor and target group in social innovation initiatives worldwide, as there is a clear need for better inclusion of this group in society. A way to improve the inclusion of people with disabilities is the development of assistive technology. In practice, people with disabilities often use technologies of which the primary use is not that of an assistive technology. They use the technology for a different use and context than the developer intended – termed 'secondary use'. The current paper studies the factors that are needed to make the secondary use of technology a success. First, a literature review and explorative study in the Netherlands are performed, after which a framework on the secondary use of technology for inclusion, specifically for people with disabilities, is developed.

Cet article étudie les caractéristiques des structures de transfert technologique et des laboratoires d’innovation ouverte gérés par les universités et organismes de recherche. Il compare leurs rôles comme intermédiaires des relations science–entreprises en fonction des modes 2 et 3 de production des connaissances proposés par Etzkowitz & al (1997) et Carayannis & al (2009). Basée sur une comparaison de cas multiples en France, nous analysons leur rôle dans le développement des relations science-entreprise. Cet article identifie aussi les modes de coordination entre ces deux types d’intermédiaires. Dans certains cas, ils coordonnent leurs activités de manière ponctuelle alors que, dans d’autres cas, la complémentarité de leurs activités s’organise sur la durée.

Nous présentons dans cet article les résultats d’une enquête sur les politiques publiques de régulation de l’intelligence artificielle et en particulier sur les stratégies mises en œuvre dans des cadres socio-politiques aux échelles nationales, européennes et internationales. La France a créé des instances dans lesquels des « frottements » entre acteurs différents sont possibles, comme les groupes d’experts ou le Partenariat Mondial sur l’Intelligence Artificielle. Nous considérons que le travail de la part de l’ensemble des groupes sociaux, impliqués dans les instances que nous observons, est consubstantiel à la régulation. Les acteurs publics et privés s’organisent pour échanger et interagir de façon structurée, notamment par la mise en place de ces instances, comme le PMIA. Les dispositifs et instruments, auxquels les différents acteurs participent, contribuent à conférer un sens aux activités de régulation. Notre hypothèse repose sur l’émergence d’un « modèle français » de la régulation qui tend à promouvoir la « confiance » et dont le sens est de parvenir à l’acceptabilité sociale de l’IA.

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 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 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.

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.