Social innovation value chain: Governance and intermediaries

SIC Summer School

Tilburg, 2016, September 21th

Javier Echeverria (jecheverria@sinnergiak.org)

Sinnergiak Social Innovation, University of the Basque Country

8

SI: Plurality of agents and values

A definition of SI:

“Social Innovations are innovations that are social in both their ends and their means –

new ideas (products, services and models) that simultaneously meet social needs (more

effectively than alternatives) and create new social relationships or collaborations. They

are innovations that are not only good for society but also enhance society’s capacity to

act. Social innovations take place across boundaries between the public sector, the

private sector, the third sector and the household”

(http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/social-innovation/index_en.htm).

1.- It is based on the notion of social needs, which is too restrictive. We prefer talking

about social problems, as the Social Innovation Center of Stanford University does

(Phills, Deiglmeier, & Miller 2008). Even better: just in case we prefer the expression

“social demands” (J. Castro, Sinnergiak). It implies social knowledge of problems and

needs, because they generate explicit social demands.

2.- Social innovators: plurality of stakeholders with different perspectives, interests and

values. Disruptive social innovations produce always conflicts of values.

3.- Axiological approach:

Social ends should be justified by social values.

Social innovations generate social value.

Diverse stakeholders accept different social values.

13

The axiological approach to SI studies (J. Echeverria, Innovation and Values: A European

Perspective. Reno, NV, UNR/CBS, 2014)

Def. 4: Innovations are interactive processes that create value in generating and diffusing something new in particular environments (Echeverria 2014, 288). Social innovations are interactive processes that create social value in generating and diffusing something new in social (familiar, local, regional…) environments Different kinds of innovation, diverse types of values

Def. 5 (briefly): (Social) Innovations are interactive processes that generate something new and (socially) valuable in particular (social) environments (Ibid., 291). Def. 6: Novations are the results of these innovations (Ibid., 291).

13

Social Innovation and social value creation (Stanford University, Center for Social Innovation)

- Social innovation: “the process of inventing, securing

support for, and implementing novel solutions to social

needs and problems” (James A. Phills Jr., Kris

Deiglmeier, & Dale T. Miller (2008), “Rediscovering

Social Innovation”, Stanford Social Innovation Review,

Fall 2008, p. 1).

- “Ultimately, social innovation is what creates social value”

(Ibid., p. 2).

- They distinguished clearly between social innovation,

social entrepreneurship and corporative social

responsability.

- However, they have only considered four values: “social

innovation should be more effective, efficient,

sustainable and just than existing solutions and for which

the value created accrues primarily to society as a whole

rather than private individuals” (Ibid., p. 39).

13

Social Innovation and social value creation (Stanford University, Center for Social Innovation)

- Comments to the Stanford’ definition: 1) There are more social values, for example social inclusion.

2) Social innovations can beneficiate social groups, not only

“society as a whole”

3) There are societies, not one society. There are intersocial

innovations.

4) Social innovations create and destroy social value

5) Social innovations should be innovations, not only social

changes: even so disruptive social innovations.

6) Social innovation agents: individuals, organizations and social

movements.

7) European social innovation studies are focused on

organizations. What about social movements?

13

Who does Social Innovation? (G. Mulgan, Young Foundation 2007, chapter 3)

- Individuals, Movements and Organizations.

- British individuals innovators: Robert Owen (18th

Century), Octavia Hill (19th Centrury), Michael Young

(XXth Century)

- Others (Muhamad Yunus –Grameen-, Wangari

Maathai, Saul Alinsky, Abbé Pierre, etc.).

- Movements: feminism, environmentalism…

- “Like individual change-makers these movements

have their roots in ideas grown from discontent” ...

“but their histories look very different;

environmentalism, for example, grew from many

different sources” (p. 15). ”Feminism too grew out of

many different currents” (Ibid.).

- Organizations: Priority, because scaling of SI

13

Who does Social Innovation? (G. Mulgan, Young Foundation 2007, chapter 3)

“Environmentalism has spawned a huge range of social innovations,

from urban recycling to community owned wind farms. Today

environmentalism is as much part of big business culture” (p. 15)

“As in the case of environmentalism, thousands of social innovations

grew out of the (feminist) movement: from clubs and networks to

promote women in particular professions, to integrated childcare

centres, abortion rights, equitable divorce laws, protections against

rape and sexual harassment, maternity leave and skills programmes

for mothers returning to the labour market” … “Many of its

ideas were crystallised through legislation” (Ibid.)

“All of these movements have also emphasised empowerment

– enabling people to solve their own problems rather than waiting for

the state, or heroic leaders, to solve problems for them” (p. 16).

2

Main characteristics of innovative social movements

1) Plurality of sources of social innovation processes.

2) Plurality of stakeholders, coming from the three sectors: civil society,

business and administrations.

3) Each kind of agent has different interests and values.

4) There are always opositors to social innovation’s proposals:

5) The diffusion of social innovations is usually conflictive, because there

emerge conflicts of interests and values among stakeholders.

Axiological perspective:

An innovation’ process involves many staheholders with different systems of

values and different positions at a (non linear) value chain.

Social value is generated, but also destroyed. If not, we can speak of social

change, but not of social innovation.

Main social innovations are disruptive: they transform social relations and

values.

Innovation studies should analyse social movements, not only innovative

organizations.

2

Plurality of stakeholders and consequences

A process of innovation produces not only specific results (novations). It has

also later consequences, which do not depend just on the people promoting

the innovation, but on other agents as well (stakeholders). Some of these

consequences can generate unexpected and even undesirable effects.

Consequently, not only benefits but also dammages (social dammages) should

be considered and evaluated.

Consequentialist and pluralistic approach to innovation studies, focusing on

social movements.

2

Plurality of stakeholders and consequences

A process of innovation produces not only specific results (novations), but it

also has later consequences, which do not depend just on the people

promoting the innovation, but on other agents as well (stakeholders). Some of

these consequences can generate unexpected and even undesirable effects.

Consequently, not only benefits but also dammages (social dammages) should

be considered and evaluated, if possible.

The systemic character of innovation processes demands a

consequentialistic approach of the innovation studies, based not only on

the initial evaluation of its promotor, but also of its adopters and refusers.

The emergence of unexpected effects derives from the conditions of

uncertainty in which processes of innovation are developed.

3

Diffusion of social innovations Revisiting Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 1962

“The newness means that some degree of uncertainty is involved in diffusion”

(Rogers, 1962, p. 6).

Situated View: “The same innovation may be desirable for one adopter in one

situation, but undesirable for another potential adopter in a different situation”

(Ibid., p. 12)

These claims are specially adequate for social innovations

Imitation, adoption and appropiation of social innovations

Different evaluations of the same innovation (positive, negative,

mixed)

Adopters (and refusers) of social innovations have different needs,

demands and systems of values.

Measuring degrees of acceptation (reject) and appropiation of SIs.

Diffusion is the core in generating, increasing or destroying social value for any

kind of innovation, especially for social innovations. The process of diffusion

involves always different stakeholders (chains of social value).

4

Social diffusion of social innovations

Social innovation can arise from civil society (Goldenberg, 2004; Mulgan,

2007), but it can also originate from the private and public sector (Murray,

Caulier-Grice and Mulgan, 2010). Social innovation processes are normally

local, and they can appear in small, medium or large scales.

In these processes several agents always intervene, adding complexity and

variety to the process (Phills, Deiglmeier and Miller, 2008). Therefore, the

uncertainty of social innovation is even more significant than the uncertainty of

technological innovation.

In particular, replication of social innovations in other contexts is never

guaranteed, precisely because it’s always context dependant and socially

located.

There are social perspectives and values, not only individual ones.

Shared values as a key notion for social innovation policies.

5

Complexity of the processes of social innovation

There are several reasons for the bigger uncertainty and complexity of social

innovation in comparison to technological innovation.

Firstly, it involves a much bigger diversity of stakeholders and agents (third,

private, and public sectors) (Freeman et al., 2010). As we have just said, the

processes of social diffusion are always multiagent.

Secondly, it’s sometimes promoted by social agents that don’t always plan their

actions and strategies, nor even calculate the possible consequences.

Thirdly, it’s based on social knowledge, which involves greater uncertainties

and difficulties to be measured than the scientific knowledge.

Fourthly, it doesn’t have a guarantee for stable funding, which makes any

prediction of final results very difficult to anticipate.

Methodological conclusion: measuring social innovations requires surveying

different stakeholders, not just one, as it is usual in the OECD’s methodology

(Oslo Handbook).

7

Policies of (Social) Innovation and Data

Policies of innovation (and social innovation) must be based on empirical

information and reliable data.

OECD: “Measurement of innovation is crucial for policy

making” (OECD, 2010, Foreword).

NESTA: “Measuring innovation effectively is important because policy

is affected by how we measure results. Lord Kelvin’s adage “if you

cannot measure it, you cannot improve it” has an important

implication: if something needs to be improved, it must first be

measured correctly” (NESTA, Innovation Index, 2009, p. 6).

Innovation studies should provide data related to different stakeholders, not

only to the social innovation’s promotor, agent or entrepreneur.

Especially, user’s evaluation is required. Users’innovation (von Hippel 1988,

2005) should be considered and analysed, because it’s a very important kind of

social innovation.

When designing policies or strategies of social innovation, if there is a lack of

data, the eventual undesirable effects are certain.

17

Enhanced studies of social innovation: a main example

• We should analyse disruptive processes of social innovation promoted by social movements, not only by organizations.

• A major case in the European Union: the migrant’s movement coming from Syria, Lybia, etc. It’s a good example of inter-social innovation.

– Migratory movements are always innovative and disruptive for migrant people, because they move to a new country and their internal and external relationships are deeply modified. They create a new Lebenswelt: sometimes a better world of life, sometimes not.

– Migratory movements can be disruptive also for the receivers’ groups and the absorbers’ societies, which become social stakeholders.

– Example: migrant’s maffias are also stakeholders and should be analysed by researchers on social innovation processes. Even so movements of volonteers and political agents, of course.

• There are inter- or trans-social innovations with different chains of values.

10

Inter-social innovations: consequences

Role of public policies in the case of social innovative movements: a) Support (and study) social innovation processes, including disruptive ones. b) Create a legal context eliminating social innovation barriers. c) Improve social absorptive capacity of inter-social innovations: open societies. d) Fostering social innovation infrastructures: inter-social innovation clusters, such as SIC.

There are always barriers to social innovation: promotion of social innovation means also elimination of this kind of barriers. During a process of social innovation can arise new social demands and services, and even so new social values. Especially in the case of disruptive social innovations. The diffusion of a social innovation is a long process, in which various social agents are usually involved. Each stakeholder should be analyzed, together with its links with other social agents. Uncertainty, unintended consequences of social innovation

9

Final Suggestions

1.- We should expand the systemic model (Lundvall, Nelson) to social

innovation studies.

2.- Identifying the potential stakeholders it is a very complex task, which can

only be done at the local and regional level. It requires a deep analysis of the

relations (links) among agents and stakeholders within the social value chain

(or social value network: the linear model in unadequate in SI’ studies).

3.- One of the biggest uncertainties in the study of social innovation derives

from the unavailability of a reliable census and data of the potential innovative

actors and stakeholders.

Provocative proposal: the degree of oposition to a social innovation

initiative should be considered as an indicator of SI.

5.- We should analyse disruptive processes of social innovation promoted by

social movements, not only by organizations.

References 1

• Bakhshi, H., Freeman, A. y J. Potts (2011), State Uncertainty: Innovation Policy through Experimentation, London, NESTA, Provocation 14. April 2011.

• Castro, J., Echeverria, J. and Unceta, A. (eds.) (2016): Hidden Innovation. Concepts, Sectors and Case Studies. San Sebastián, Sinnergiak Social Innovation.

• Echeverria, J. (2014), Innovation and Values: a European Perspective, Reno, NV, UNR/CBS.

• European Commission. (2011), Empowering people, driving change Social Innovation in the European Union, Bureau of European Policy Advisers, Luxemburg.

• European Union. (2010), This is European Social Innovation, Luxemburg, EC, disponible en http://www.youngfoundation.org/publications/reports/this-european-social-innovation-december-2010.

• European Union. (2012), Financing Social Impact Funding social innovation in Europe – mapping the way forward, Luxemburg, EC, disponible en: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=7048 (pp. 2-60).

• Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C. (2010), Stakeholder Theory. The State of the Art, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

• Gurrutxaga, A, and Echeverria, J. (2012), La luz de la luciérnaga: diálogos de innovación social, Madrid, Plaza y Valdés.

References 2

• Jalonen, H. (2012), The Uncertainty of Innovation: A Systematic Review of Literature, Journal of Management Research 4: 1, pp. 1-47.

• Mulgan, G. (2007), Social Innovation: what is it, why it matters, how it can be accelerated, London, Young Foundation, Basingstoke Press.

• Murray, R., J. Caulier-Grice and G. Mulgan (2010), The Open Book of Social Innovation, London, Young Foundation and NESTA.

• OECD/European Communities (2005), Oslo Manual: Guideliness for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3d. ed., Paris, OECD/EC.

• OECD (2010a), The OECD Innovation Strategy, Getting a Head Start on Tomorrow, Paris, OECD.

• OECD (2010b), Measuring Innovation: a New Perspective, Paris, OECD. • OECD (2010c), The New Nature of Innovation, Paris, OECD. • James A. Phills Jr., Kris Deiglmeier, & Dale T. Miller (2008), “Rediscovering Social

Innovation”, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall 2008. • Rogers, E. K. (1962), Diffusion of Innovations, New York, The Free Press, 4th

edition, 1995. • SIX and Young Foundation (2010), Study on Social Innovation, European

Union/Young Foundation 2010.

THANK YOU