Social innovations are new social practices that aim to meet social needs in a better way than the existing solutions, resulting from - for example - working conditions, education, community development or health. These ideas are created with the goal of extending and strengthening civil society. Social innovation includes the social processes of innovation, such as open source methods and techniques and also the innovations which have a social purpose—like activism, online volunteering, microcredit, or distance learning.
There are many definitions of social innovation, however, they usually
include the broad criteria about social objectives, social interaction
between actors or actor diversity, social outputs, and innovativeness
(The innovation should be at least ”new” to the beneficiaries it
targets, but it does not have to be new to the world). Different
definitions include different combinations and different number of these
criteria (e.g. EU is using definition stressing out social objectives and actors interaction) .
Transformative social innovation not only introduces new approaches to
seemingly intractable problems, but is successful in changing the social
institutions that created the problem in the first place.
Prominent innovators associated with the term include Pakistani Akhter Hameed Khan, Bangladeshi Muhammad Yunus, the founder of Grameen Bank which pioneered the concept of microcredit for supporting innovations in many developing countries such as Asia, Africa and Latin America, and inspired programs like the Infolady Social Entrepreneurship Programme of Dnet (A Social Enterprise).
Prominent innovators associated with the term include Pakistani Akhter Hameed Khan, Bangladeshi Muhammad Yunus, the founder of Grameen Bank which pioneered the concept of microcredit for supporting innovations in many developing countries such as Asia, Africa and Latin America, and inspired programs like the Infolady Social Entrepreneurship Programme of Dnet (A Social Enterprise).
Focus and application
Social Innovation has an inter-sectoral approach and is universally applicable.
Social Innovations are launched by a variety of actors, including
research institutions, companies and independent organizations, which
tend to use their respective definitions of Social Innovation.
Therefore, it is worth discussing what distinguishes it from other forms
of social work or innovation.
Social Innovation focuses on the process of innovation, how
innovation and change take shape (as opposed to the more traditional
definition of innovation, giving priority to the internal organization
of firms and their productivity). It likewise centers on new work and
new forms of cooperation (business models), especially on those that work towards the attainment of a sustainable society.
The Young Foundation, in order to distinguish between social and
business innovation, stressed that social innovation is developed and
diffused via organisations, whose primary purposes are not centred on
mere profit maximisation. The Bureau of European Policy Advisers more precisely defined social innovation as socially oriented in both ends and means.
According to these influential definitions, social innovation is
characterised by: the capacity to address social needs that traditional
policy seems increasingly unable to tackle; the empowerment of groups
and individuals; and the willingness to change social relations. Hence,
social innovation is often presented as a way to increase the quality of
social services and their cost-effectiveness, offering equivalent, if
not superior, outcomes despite considerable budget constraints.
Social innovation can take place within government; the for-profit sector, the nonprofit
sector (also known as the third sector), or in the spaces between them.
Research has focused on the types of platforms needed to facilitate
such cross-sector collaborative social innovation.
Historical studies suggest that transforming any system may take many
years, and requires not only the capacity for multiple partnerships, but
also for engaging policy, legal and economic institutions.
Social entrepreneurship,
like social enterprise, is typically in the nonprofit sector excluding
both for-profit and public organizations. Both social entrepreneurship
and social enterprise are important contributions to social innovation
by creating social value and introducing new ways of achieving goals.
Social entrepreneurship brings "new patterns and possibilities for
innovation" and are willing to do things that existing organizations are
not willing to do.
Social innovation is often an effort of mental creativity
which involves fluency and flexibility from a wide range of
disciplines. The act of social innovation in a sector is mostly
connected with diverse disciplines within the society. The social
innovation theory of 'connected difference' emphasizes three key
dimensions to social innovation.
First, innovations are usually new combinations or hybrids of existing
elements, rather than completely new. Second, their practice involves
cutting across organizational or disciplinary boundaries. Lastly, they
leave behind compelling new relationships between previously separate
individuals and groups. Social innovation is also gaining visibility within academia.
Since 2014, a subdomain of social innovation has been defined in
relation to the introduction of digital technologies. The subdomain is
called digital social innovation and refers to "a type of social and
collaborative innovation in which innovators, users and communities
collaborate using digital technologies to co-create knowledge and
solutions for a wide range of social needs and at a scale and speed that
was unimaginable before the rise of the Internet".
History
Social innovation was discussed in the writings of figures such as Peter Drucker and Michael Young (founder of the Open University and dozens of other organizations) in the 1960s. It also appeared in the work of French writers in the 1970s, such as Pierre Rosanvallon, Jacques Fournier, and Jacques Attali. However, the themes and concepts in social innovation existed long before. Benjamin Franklin, for example, talked about small modifications within the social organization of communities that could help to solve everyday problems. Many radical 19th century reformers like Robert Owen, founder of the cooperative movement, promoted innovation in the social field and all of the great sociologists including Karl Marx, Max Weber and Émile Durkheim focused attention on broader processes of social change. In recent years, the work of Gabriel Tarde
on the concept of imitation has been rediscovered by social scientists
in order to better understand social innovation and its relation to
social change.
Other theories of innovation became prominent in the 20th century, many
of which had social implications, without putting social progress at
the center of the theory. Joseph Schumpeter, for example, addressed the process of innovation directly with his theory of creative destruction
and his definition of entrepreneurs as people who combined existing
elements in new ways to create a new product or service. Beginning in
the 1980s, writers on technological change increasingly addressed how
social factors affect technology diffusion.
The article "Rediscovering Social Innovation" mentions how social
innovations are dependent on history and the change in institutions.
The article discusses the ten recent social innovations reflecting
current change to include:
- Charter Schools: Charter schools are a social innovation that provides an alternative avenue for students to continue to develop and build upon their educational foundation without many of the issues prominent in the public school system. These primary and secondary schools are publicly funded and operate independently, which allows the teachers and parents to collaboratively develop alternative teaching methods for their students as related regulations are less stringent for Charter Schools.
- Community-Centered Planning: This social innovation allows communities to plan and develop systems that cater solutions to their specific local needs by using their historical knowledge and other local resources.
- Emissions Trading: The Emissions Trading program was designed to address issues associated with the continuous increase in pollution. The program provides solutions such as setting a cap on the amount that certain pollutants can be emitted, and implementing a permit system to control the amount of pollution produced by each participating business. If a business needs to use more pollution than permitted, it can purchase credits from a business that has not emitted its maximum permitted amount. The goal of the Emissions Trading program is that, over time and with increased awareness, society will limit the types and the numbers of pollutants emitted to what is only necessary.
- Fair Trade: Products including coffee, sugar, and chocolate are currently being traded without high standards that result in tough conditions for farmers and a less sustainable environment. Fair trade is a movement that certifies traders to exchange with the farmers that produce these products. The idea behind this movement is that by being paid a living-wage, being able to meet social and environmental standards and promoting "environmental sustainability, the lives of these farmers will be improved.
- Habitat Conservation Plans: Habitat Conservation Plans is an effort by the US Fish and Wild Life Service and the Environmental Protection Agency to protect species and their endangerment by providing economical incentives to conserve their habitats and protect these species from endangerment.
- Individual Development Accounts: This social innovation is made to support the working poor with saving decisions that they have made to better enhance their lives. This initiative will give $2 per every $1 saved by the working poor for College tuition, purchasing a home, starting a business, and other similar and productive initiatives. This is made possible by philanthropic, government and corporate sponsors that donate to this cause.
- International Labor Standards: Labor standards differ country-to-country, with some agreeably better than others. In effort to internationally align these, the International Labor Organization, participating governments, and employees contributed to the development of standards that protect workers’ rights to freedom, equity, security, and human dignity".
- Microfinance: This social innovation is created to support those financially unable to gain access to financial services such as banking, lending, and insurance. The ultimate goal of Microfinance is to enable an escape from poverty by helping to improve the living conditions and financial viability among the impoverished program participants.
- Socially Responsible Investing: "An investment strategy that attempts to maximize both financial and social returns. Investors generally favor businesses and other organizations whose practices support environmental sustainability, human rights, and consumer protection."
- Supported Employment: Supported Employment is a social innovation geared towards helping disabled or disadvantaged workers who are un- or under-employed due to their condition obtain suitable employment. The Support Employment service provides access to job coaches, transportation, assistive technology, specialized job training, and individual tailored supervision in effort to help program participants become more competitive applicants and better prepared overall for the job market.
Criticism
Over
the last two decades social innovation has gained significant
popularity as a strategy to tackle new social risks including population
ageing and its health correlates (Hubert, 2010; Mulgan et al., 2007,
2010; Murray, Caulier-Grice and Mulgan, 2010). However, as other
concepts recently developed within the academic debate – among them, social capital
(Ferragina, 2012) – social innovation might soon turn out to be simply
another way to juxtapose the qualifier "social" to the private sector
jargon, in order to avoid heated discussions on structural inequalities
(Grisolia and Ferragina, 2015).
In the context of ‘neoliberal austerity’, a strong call in favour
of social innovation might hide the attempt to shift public attention
from structural deficiencies and disparities to individual and group
responsibility, following the vision: "doing more with less". In order
to guarantee universal coverage and universal social rights, however,
the welfare state system cannot be managed with the logic of mere
cost-effectiveness alone (Grisolia and Ferragina, 2015).
A Universal coverage is the precondition for any well-functioning
economy, not the other way around. As such, the enhancement of
"politically motivated policies under the pretence of budget cuts" can
be particularly dangerous in its consequences for population health
(Kleinert and Horton, 2013, p. 1074). Social innovation per se might not
be able to substantially tackle pressing social needs. Rather, the
all-innovating and self-empowering jargon currently in vogue might
disguise a dangerous inattention to structural inequalities, adversely
affecting health outcomes across the board, but especially of the
poorest. Among the therapies prescribed by the neoliberal orthodoxy –
liberalisation, deregulation, devolution, individual or group
empowerment – social innovation might soon reveal itself as a convenient
buzzword, an eclectic concept to dissimulate political choices,
legitimated by the doctrine of budgetary constraints.
The redistribution of resources "from past to present generations" –
keeping constant the overall public spending – and the shift from a
"transfer-based" to a "service-based" welfare state would represent a
truly innovative approach to social policy, offering a credible and
responsible alternative to the magic wand of social innovation.
Developments since 2000
Academic research, blogs
and websites feature social innovation, along with organizations
working on the boundaries of research and practical action. Topics
include:
- Innovation in public services was pioneered particularly in some Scandinavian and Asian countries. Governments are increasingly recognizing that innovation requires healthcare, schooling and democracy.
- Social entrepreneurship, which is the practice of creating new organizations focusing on non-market activities.
- Responsible Research and Innovation, which takes into account effects and potential impacts on the environment and society. It includes Engagement of all societal actors (researchers, industry, policymakers and civil society); Gender Equality; Science Education; Open Access; Ethics; and Governance.
- Online volunteering, a free service launched in 2000 whereby individuals from all over the world contribute to the needs of development organizations and public institutions
- Open source innovation, in which the intellectual property involved in a product or service is made freely available.
- Complex adaptive systems, which have built-in mechanisms to help them adapt to changing circumstances.
- Collaborative approaches which involve stakeholders who are not directly responsible for some activity, such as stockholders and unions collaborating on business issue and business collaborating with government on regulatory issues.
- Innovation diffusion
- Localized influences that make some localities particularly innovative.
- Institutional or system entrepreneurship which focuses on agents who work at a broad system level in order to create the conditions which will allow innovations to have a lasting impact.
- Business, particularly in services.
Institutional support
The
US created an Office for Social Innovation in the White House, which is
funding projects that combine public and private resources. with foundations that support social innovation. In 2010, the US government listed 11 investments made by its 'Social Innovation Fund',
with public funding more than matched by philanthropic organizations.
This fund focuses on partnerships with charities, social enterprises,
and business.
Moreover, educational institutions are now increasingly supporting
teaching and research in the area of social innovation. In addition to
pioneered efforts by institutions such as the Harvard Business School's
Initiative on Social Enterprise (launched 1993) and Said Business School's Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship (launched 2003), INSEAD and other universities now offer short-term programs in Social Innovation, and a few such as Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge and Goldsmiths, University of London
offer Masters courses dedicated entirely to the study of theory and
practice in relation to social entrepreneurship and innovation.
Public policy makers support social innovation in the UK, Australia, China and Denmark, as well. The European Union’s innovation strategy was the first well-funded research and development strategy to emphasize social innovation.
In 2002, the South Australian government, led by Premier and
Social Inclusion Minister Mike Rann, embraced a ten-year social
innovation strategy with big investments and a focus on reform in areas
such as homelessness, school retention, mental health and disability
services.
The Common Ground and Street to Home homelessness initiatives and the Australian Centre for Social Innovation
were established in Adelaide and many reforms trialed in South
Australia have been adopted nationally throughout Australia. This
initiative, headed by Monsignor David Cappo, South Australia's Social
Inclusion Commissioner, was advised by 'Thinkers in Residence' Geoff Mulgan and New York social entrepreneur Rosanne Haggerty.
Role in curbing corruption
Lin
and Chen, in "The Impact of Societal and Social innovation: a
case-based approach" have argued that social innovation's goal is to
produce actions that are "socially valuable and good for many".
In governance, its main role is to enhance and maximize the trust
of citizens through active involvement in society, whether in the
public or private sphere.
Social innovation's role in curbing corruption is carried out through
two main mediums. Firstly, it is institutionalized through actors (in
the public and the private sectors), and secondly, it is executed with
new tools available, specifically ICTs.
Local and regional development
Literature on social innovation in relation to territorial/regional development covers innovation in the social economy, i.e. strategies for satisfaction of human needs; and innovation in the sense of transforming and/or sustaining social relations, especially governance relations at the regional and local level. Beginning in the late 1980s, Jean-Louis Laville and Frank Moulaert researched social innovation. In Canada CRISES initiated this type of research. Another, larger project was SINGOCOM a European Commission Framework 5
project, which pioneered so-called "Alternative Models for Local
Innovation" (ALMOLIN). These models were further elaborated through
community actions covered by KATARSIS and SOCIAL POLIS.
More recent works focus on the societal role of the economic life in
terms of innovations in social practices and social relations at the
local and regional levels. Social Innovation, therefore, is increasingly
seen as a process and a strategy to foster human development through
solidarity, cooperation, and cultural diversity.
The EU funded URBACT programme is designed to help cities to
exchange and learn around urban policies. The URBACT methodology can be
seen as a social innovation action planning approach. A typical URBACT
network would have ten cities working on a specific theme such as active
inclusion or regenerating disadvantaged neighbourhoods. They examine
good practice and then working through a local support group use the
results to inform their local action plan.
The Social Innovation Europe
initiative, funded by the European Commission's Directorate General for
Enterprise and Industry, was set up to map social innovation at a
European level, by creating a directory of grass-roots examples of
social innovation from across the 27 member states.
The European Commission funded the SELUSI study between 2008 -
2013 that looked at over 550 social ventures and examined how these
insights can spark change and innovation at a much larger scale. It
looked at business models of social ventures in five countries - UK
being one of them – identifying which specific practices evolved by
social ventures are particularly successful, and how and by whom – be it
social enterprise, public sector body or mainstream business – they can
be most effectively scaled-up.
The European Commission has launched a new initiative (project)
in 2013 under FP7 funding, with the aim to build a network of incubators
for social innovation across regions and countries. This network
facilitates identification of 300 social innovation examples and
facilitates its scaling. The network is organised in a way to identify
new models for scaling of social innovations across various geographical
clusters in collaboration with each other, communicating the ideas,
finding the tools and funds, developing business plans and models in
order to promote the new promising ideas throughout Europe.
- A guide also exists that provides a way to promote social innovations at a local or regional level.
