23.7 21.0 35.8 50.6 Website availability and use The main services offered by companies with 10
%)Services available on the website Percentage over the total number of companies with 10 or more employees and an Internet connection First Quarter 2014 Company introduction 90.5 Privacy policy statement or certification
or receiving online job applications 21.1 Ordering or booking online 16.9 Online order tracking 11.1 Website customisation for regular users 8. 4 Possibility of customers customising or designing
products 7. 38 4 Seven out of 10 companies used digital signatures in some communication with external agents.
%and company database server (54.7%).53.4%of the companies that used Cloud computing did so by paying any service existing in servers of shared services suppliers.
%the risk of corporate security holes (31%)and the high price of Could Computing services (27.8%).
*The intensities in the use of Information and Communication Technologies refer to the following indicators:
Accommodation services (80.7%),Food; beverages; tobacco; textile; clothing; leather and footwear; wood and cork; paper;
The total volume of orders of goods and services made via e-commerce reached 195,405. 4 million euros, 6. 8%more than in 2012.
The branches of activity with the highest percentages of companies that made purchases via e-commerce were the ICT Sector (70.1%)and Information and communications (62.9%).
Regarding communications, 76.5%of companies with fewer than 10 employees used mobile phones, compared to the 74.6%of the previous year,
Methodological annex The survey on the Use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and Electronic commerce in Companies is integrated in the statistics plans of the European union designed to quantify the Information Society.
The Survey has been conducted by the National Statistics Institute (INE), in cooperation with the National Foundation Centre of Reference for the Application of Information and Communication Technologies based on Open sources (CENATIC.
and 10,618 companies with fewer than 10 employees, located in Spain and belonging to sections C, D e f, G h i, J, L, M, N and group 95.1, according to the National Classification of Economic activities
The sample was designed to offer results by branch of economic activity and by Autonomous Community. As regards Electronic commerce, any transaction carried out through telematic networks is considered to be as such.
Goods and services are procured via these networks, but the payment or dispatch of the good or service may be performed using this channel or others.
perceived by employees and other stakeholders, their resistance to change will be more intense. lack of leadership.
i e. employees must be shown opportunities and threats in a convincing manner and particularly the EU would achieve it aware of the need for change
defined as enterprises with 1-249 employees, and also large companies and was implemented by means of computer-assisted telephone interviewing.
and representing enterprises that systematically innovate and implement change, were selected. The survey therefore started with screening questions.
The sample was represented only by representatives of ITC domain (generate by difficulties to identify innovative SMES on Romanian economy)
Enterprises with less than 10 employees (micro-enterprises) were excluded not since they generally have limited identifiable innovation activities
%followed by enterprises between 6-10 years (33%)and those established in the last 5 years (20%).0-5 years 6-10 years over 10 years 161 273 385
small enterprises represents 50%of the SMES surveyed, microenterprises account for 27 %and midsize companies have a rate of 19%.
in order to simulate accurately the conditions of Romanian economy. 0-9 employees 10-249 employees 50-249 employees over 250 employees 223 408 154 34 27%50
%liquidity crises and success crises (58,36%).58,24%of respondents believe that the process of organizational change cannot be controlled completely vs. 41,75%believe that it is possible to direct organizational change.
Areas affected by the change The areas highly affected by the change are represented by new products/services (55,31%)human resources (51,52%
so was a difficult for domestic enterprises; Achieve quick results is only possible if it was developed a good plan of action coupled situational management practices in situations
, Tudorache, A. and Zgubea, F. Knowledge Based Economy Assessment in Romania, Economia. Seria Management, 2012 5. Clarke, L. Managementul schimbarii:
project number POSDRU/159/1. 5/S/142115 Performance and excellence in doctoral and postdoctoral research in Romanian economics science domain
Digital Agenda Targets Progress report Digital Agenda Scoreboard 2015 1 Digitisation has been changing not just our economy
which is affecting all sectors of the economy and society the digital economy. These changes are happening at a scale
and speed that bring immense opportunities for innovation, growth and jobs. They also raise challenging policy issues for public authorities
Eurostat Digital Agenda Scoreboard 2015 7 European SMES continue to miss out on the opportunities of online sales.
a missed opportunity Large companies, on the other hand, are much more active, with 35%of them selling online.
Eurostat 0510152025303540czdkhrseiebedeukltesmteu28fisiptnlateefrskcyhuplelrolulvbgiteco merce by SMES share of companies with online sales>1%of turnover, in%(2014) Digital Agenda Scoreboard 2015 8 The use of egovernment services by citizens
The rise of the use of egovernment services has been driven mostly by the increase of regular Internet users,
while the share of Internet users who use egovernment services has edged up by only 3 percentage points,
%This contrasts with other services such as online shopping, where the rise of the share of Internet users from 54%to 63%has been a major driver for the overall increase.
the Danish Technological Institute, The Young Foundation, The Centre for Social Investment at Heidelberg University, Atlantis Consulting, the Catholic University of Portugal,
1. Overview of the system of social innovation 2. Measuring social innovation 3. Removing barriers to social innovation 4. Generating capital flow 5. Engaging the public 6. Knowing
The relationship between social investment and social innovation has been researched under and poorly understood. WP4 examined how the social economy is funded,
the pros and cons of different forms of funding and how the strategy and organisational development of social innovators can be promoted in terms of funding.
as the acquisition of investment usually brings high capital costs and risks. Enhanced cooperation between different actors will help to improve income sources and also the opportunities for more investment in the field
as we have found there are a substantial number of innovators ready and willing to acquire investment.
WP5: Engaging the public. Citizen engagement is recognised widely as a key component to many social innovations,
and have a wider spectrum of application, e g. the Social Return on Investment (SROI), the Social Reporting Standard (SRS),
We also developed an ecosystem model for thinking about the support that social innovations need to spread, focusing on both demand and supply side factors.
As online networks are substantially changing the character of communication, collaboration and relationship building, we need a qualified framework for reflection on the impact of online networks.
Technology can dramatically change operations, social and business models and strategic considerations, although new governance arrangements are needed typically to make this work well.
as well as the capital, surplus time, organisational capacity, and the models and individual actors'ambitions to turn ideas into social innovations and scale them.
If we are interested most in large scale societal transformation (e g. to a low carbon economy or coproduction of public services),
We need to better understand the relationship between scaling a social venture, systemic innovation and societal transformation.
Most of the future research questions we identified would benefit greatly from advanced databases containing information on social innovation, social needs, the social economy and its innovative potential, other environments of social innovation, relevant
Civil society and the social economy as incubators. Our hypothesis that civil society provides a particularly fertile ground for the generation
To look at the demand side of social innovation procurement and commissioning as well as how to encourage
and stimulate private demand, we need to further explore the nature of social innovation in terms of its outcomes and impacts as common goods,
as this profoundly influences how demand is perceived and satisfied. Exec utive summary 7 The role of the public sector in promoting social innovation.
Migration and highly diverse communities have put pressure on community cohesion and, in some cases, placed additional demands on already pressed local services;
a rapidly ageing population has increased dramatically demands on health and care services as well as public and personal budgets;
The economic and financial crisis of 2007-2008, the subsequent cut backs in public services and the accompanying‘austerity agenda'across Europe and elsewhere have exacerbated many of these trends
Graphic Footprints Introd uction 9 As such, before and beyond the economic crisis, there are a broad range of social, economic, environmental and demographic pressures
effective capital market instruments and financial supports; suitable regulatory and policy frameworks for ensuring scale and impact;
the development of new products, services and programmes; social entrepreneurship and the activity of social enterprises;
the reconfiguration of social relations and power structures4; workplace innovation; new models of local economic development;
and enterprise-led sustainable development. 7 There is no single, commonly agreed definition of social innovation. 8 This reflects the fact that social innovation is predominantly a practiceled field in which definitions
These frugal approaches to innovation are now impacting on corporate ideation processes. 11 Instead of researching
'12 Other significant contributions to the field of social innovation include systems thinking and design thinking.
AND OVERCOMING FINANCING DIGITAL € Definin g social innovation 11 concepts include, for example,‘social capital,
'‘social cohesion',‘impact investment'and‘sustainable development'.'This notion of a quasi-concept is a useful framing device
a value that is less concerned with profit and more with issues such as quality of life, solidarity and well-being.'
services and models) that simultaneously meet social needs and create new social relationships or collaborations.'
(which focus on products and services), institutional (which focus on markets), and disruptive (which focus on the political,
or safe environments, where social innovation can occur, while regimes are the larger rules or practices that shape innovation.
new needs and demands might arise, leading to fresh calls for social innovation. Unintended consequences Despite good intentions, social innovations might prove to:
All available at tepsie. eu Type of social innovation Description Example New services and products New interventions or new programmes to meet social needs Car-sharing;
, Bedzed) New practices New services which require new professional roles or relationships Dispute resolution between citizens and the state in The netherlands (the professional civil servant role has changed dramatically
and citizens'social needs are met much better) New processes Co-production of new services Participatory budgeting (started in Brazil and since widely scaled;
Measuring social innovation framework conditions Social innovation and the social economy We propose that there is a strong connection between social economy organizations and social innovation.
Social economy organisations are a major component of the economy and therefore warrant attention. For instance, the sector generates 7%of the national income in Denmark
and employs up to 10%of the total workforce in Germany. 47 In other countries (as is the case in Greece) there is no data to be found on employment in the social economy.
Thus we are still lacking more comprehensive and comparable data on the sector. The Third Sector Impact project that started early in 2014 will help to make this data available. 48 Nonetheless, the extent to
which social economy organisations are in fact innovators depends on numerous variables, e g. the size of the social economy and also on the welfare regime.
where social services are delivered in quasi-markets we see a competition of service providers making them more proactive and innovative. 50 However,
Typically, these social economy organisations and their teams are in close contact with communities where pressing social problems are evident.
we still witness some confusion in the terminology used by social economy, third sector or civil society organisations
(or against) our propositions that (a) the connection between social economy organizations and social innovation is a strong one,
which social economy organisations are in fact innovators, and that (c) this extent varies depending on numerous variables,
such as the size of the social economy, the respective welfare regimes and also the social problem we look at. 2. Examine existing methodologies for technological innovation and foster synergies between social and technological innovation measurement approaches.
and investment the importance of its evaluation has started to grow. Thorough and transparent assessment of interventions which apply efficient and credible assessment
The acceptance of the Social Return on Investment (SROI), the Social Reporting Standard (SRS), Social Cost Benefit Analysis (SCBA),
For example, in the UK, social enterprises competing for public sector funding face multiple barriers relating to the legal and administrative framework
and a lack of communication and networks to spread awareness of these opportunities. Given the importance of the public sector to social innovation,
although the public sector needs to innovate to meet the increasing demand of citizens, innovation in the public sector is more difficult to define
and contexts and could lead to more homogeneous data about social innovation and opportunities for social innovations in future.
and civic engagement activities are critical in building trust in public institutions, social capital and social cohesion in local communities,
This suggests that stakeholders need to be comfortable with a certain amount of uncertainty and need to be open to the possibility of unanticipated outcomes.
focusing on both demand and supply side factors (see Figure 2). We hope that this will provide a helpful structure which will help individuals assess the sources of support which are available in a given context,
From our research into the individual‘building blocks'identified in this diagram we believe that more work still needs to be done to foster demand for social innovation through initiatives like socially responsible procurement or the personalization of public services.
and overco ming barriers 25 Prizes for social innovation Grants for early stage development FINANCIAL SUPPORT Debt instruments Patient capita l Risk capital Crowdfunding Loans Social impact
bonds Venture phi l panthropy Tailored courses for social entrepreneurs and other actors SK I LLS FOR INNOVAT ION University programmes for social entrepreneurs Subs idised secondments Mobility schemes NONFINANCIAL RESOURCES Safe spaces for R&d Incubat o r
s (e g. labs for social innovat ion) Mentoring and coaching Bu siness deve lo p m ent support (e g. accelerator progdrammes) Peer to peer support Professional services of various
ENHANCING DEMAND Transferring knowledge about social innovation P r e-comm e r cial proc urement Public procurement and commissioning of innovative goods and services Supp
o r ti n g pri vate demand throug h tax incentives/subsidies/personalised bu dgets (measuring impact and outcomes) Strengthening
support for R&d co-operation) FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS Financial/economic environment Human resources Legal/institutional environment Political context Social context AN ECOSYSTEM FOR INNOVATIVE SOCIAL
AND SERVICES ENHANCING SUPPLY Campaigning and advocacy New flows of information (open data) Developing the knowledge base INTERMEDIARIES Social innovation networks Centres for information and evidence Hubs for diffusion and adoption Platforms for open
opportunities/events Information and brokerage support Knowledge transfer programmes Learning forums and insight legal advice, marketing services, fis cal and accounting services, HR advice
First, there are those social innovators operating market business models and generating the majority of their income from sales (social enterprise activity);
and second, there are those dependent on grants and donations (traditional community and voluntary sector activity) and operating in fields where the beneficiaries are
so marginalized that functioning business models operating in regular markets are unlikely or impossible. We may hypothesize that this latter type generally yields more potential for social impact, because of one assumption
let alone finance investments in growth and further innovation. In contrast, if social innovators do operate successfully in regular markets,
then their financing and investments in growth are not such a problem regular markets and investment actors will channel required resources to where they are needed
and where they will produce regular returns. Where social innovation is needed very much, however, market failure persists
However, this is not to say that social innovations which have sustainable business models are somehow of less social value
but generating capital flows for them obviously is less so much of a problem. Four key findings complement these general observations:
or the financial risks that acquiring external growth capital brings, social innovators tend to favour it.
related to this, capital costs are the main problem of investment logics to social innovators. The investment logic of commercial or impact investing is applicable on a rather limited basis, partly because of social innovators'income models,
but also because of legal and cultural constraints. Online survey results showed that only some 10%of the social innovators surveyed could service commercial types of investment at market terms,
while another 40%of the sample is potentially capable of repaying an investment at some reduced cost of capital.
Therefore, forms FINANCING DIGITAL € Financin g social innovation 27 of low-cost capital are needed and there are two principle paths to follow here:
Either the capital comes directly at low or no cost in the form of a recoverable grant or a low-or zero-interest loan;
or the capital comes at regular market costs and (part of) these costs are covered by a third party within some contract arrangement in favour of the social innovator.
Further research is needed to analyse ways to exploit investment models through more effective mechanisms of reducing investment capital costs which are the main barrier for this form of financing.
Where financial returns cannot serve as the simple measure of organisational success, more nuanced ways of capturing impact are needed.
However, comparability issues and the potential to link measurement with investment objectives and terms are associated central problems with that.
we have learned that existing instruments can satisfy innovators'capital demands. Instead of new instruments we need more effective use of the instruments available (e g.,
and types of capital (loans, soft loans, patient capital, etc. needed by innovators. Each of these combinations comes with a specific bundle of potential advantages and disadvantages to both parties,
Here too there are very low-threshold opportunities to improve social innovators'situations. One of the most pressing needs
and opportunities of using various instruments for capitalising social innovators. Glänzel G, Schmitz B, Mildenberger G. 2012.
Report on Social Finance Investment Instruments, Markets and Cultures in the EU. All available at tepsie. eu 28 SOCIAL INNOVATION THEORY AND RESEARCH Digital technology in social
innovation An increasing number of social innovations are using ICT (Information and Communication Technology), which includes online networks, communities and platforms,
and the sharing economy and sharing society. Our research identified three main types of effect:
which deliver new impacts and new opportunities through the use of different combinations of online platforms,
and help configure new types of social and business models not otherwise possible. This can be highly transformative of existing processes, roles and relationships,
and inexpensively available, is being used in the TEM initiative in Greece55 to support a local currency for the exchange of goods and services within groups with high unemployment and low income.
for example by social entrepreneurs or intermediaries in the Viedome Total Community Platform initiative in the Netherlands56 to provide services directly to older people
and tailor interventions or services. In both situations this can result in more effective social innovation outcomes,
place making and sharing economy cases where much of the rest of the value chain is implemented using traditional and physical activities.
and are able to nurture social capital both virtually and physically (like in the case of Streetbank).
for example, with local currency initiatives using ICT to exchange goods and services, and with civic engagement cases using both crowdmapping
and crowdfunding to identify and finance local community projects. 30 SOCIAL INNOVATION THEORY AND RESEARCH Areas for further research 1. How digital technology is being used in social innovation,
as well as what sort of social innovations outcomes are being achieved in different situations. 3. How ICT is changing the social and business models of social innovation,
the problematic tendency to conflate discussions of social innovation with those of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship.
Social innovation, social enterprise and social entrepreneurship Discussion about social innovation is still dominated by issues about social enterprise and social entrepreneurship.
while the terms‘social enterprise',‘social entrepreneurship'and‘social entrepreneur'are connected all closely to the concept of social innovation,
and social enterprise needs to be examined better, not least since‘the social innovation produced by social enterprise has largely been presumed rather than empirically demonstrated'.
'60 While there is little empirical evidence to prove that social enterprises are more successful than other organisational forms in producing social innovations,
they can themselves be seen as a social innovation. As Galaskiewicz and Barringer explain, ‘the social enterprise is special
because it incorporates contradictory institutional logics into its mission and operations'61 for example, the logics of commerce and corporate success on the one hand and social purpose and democratic participation on the other.
Although social enterprises (and social entrepreneurship) do require special attention and research, a problem arises when social enterprises generally,
and the activities they undertake become synonymous with social innovation. What are social enterprise and social entrepreneurship?
Drawing on contexts, Defourny and Nyssens outline three schools of thought within social enterprise and social entrepreneurship. 62 First, originating from the US,
there is the‘earned income school of thought'.'The emphasis within this school is on social enterprises as combining social and economic goals,
and not necessarily as vehicles for innovation. Second, following Dees and Anderson, Defourny and Nyssens identify the‘social innovation school'of thought.
Here the emphasis is on social enterprise as the activities of social entrepreneurs, with less concern about income flows and more on the outcomes and social impact achieved by individuals.
There is also often an emphasis on the idea of social entrepreneurship as bringing about systemic change through innovation.
Third, is the European research network EMES'understanding of social enterprise. 63 This includes three dimensions (based on economic
social and governance issues. The economic dimension of social enterprise includes three criteria (a continuous activity producing goods and/or selling services;
a signi cant level of economic risk; a minimum amount of paid work. The social dimension consists of three as well:
While definitions of social enterprise vary considerably, all three schools of thought share the idea that social enterprises have as their explicit and primary aim the creation of‘social value'rather that the distribution of profits generated.
Further, social enterprises are engaged not organisations only in activities such as advocacy or grant giving, they must 32 SOCIAL INNOVATION THEORY
AND RESEARCH be involved directly in the production of goods and services on an ongoing basis. There are however,
three main areas of contention across these schools of thought, namely, the levels of independence or autonomy;
the extent to which social enterprise is a collective or individual endeavour; and the degree to which profits are distributed.
While there is often an implicit assumption that social enterprises are by nature new, entrepreneurial and innovative,
it is only in the second‘social innovation school'that innovation is drawn out as a major defining feature.
While this is one of the reasons we should be careful about conflating discussions of social enterprises, social entrepreneurship and social innovation,
social enterprise and social entrepreneurship. First, a focus on social enterprise within social innovation discourses obscures the real and important contributions made by public sector innovators, social movements and non-entrepreneurial civil society organisations.
In addition, although some discourses on social entrepreneurship view the concept very broadly, and understand it as operating within a much wider political and social context,
there is generally a poor account of how social entrepreneurship relates to politics, social movements and collective action.
This is problematic when trying to understand the relationship between these concepts and social change. Second and closely related
a focus on social enterprise and social entrepreneurship is problematic because there are limits to what these can achieve.
Although they are connected to some‘kind of implicitly shared confidence in market forces to solve an increasing part of social issues in modern societies,
Nicholls and Huybrechts argue that‘enduring social change cannot be the result of social entrepreneurship alone;
'65 Lastly, social enterprises require particular forms of support which may not be appropriate for other forms of social innovation.
Focusing too heavily on the needs of social enterprises and social entrepreneurs may give rise to a range of support structures
while'social entrepreneurship is centred a human concept that highlights the personal qualities of a person who starts a new organisation','
'unlike the terms social entrepreneurship and social enterprise, social innovation transcends sectors, level of analysis and methods to discover the processes the strategies,
while social entrepreneurship and social innovation clearly overlap,'a difference lies in the fact that social innovation is not necessarily market oriented,
while social entrepreneurship clearly is'.'68 Elsewhere, the TEPSIE project has argued that‘social innovation is much broader than either social enterprise
or social entrepreneurship but may overlap with one or the other or both. For example, a social entrepreneur may set up a social enterprise
which delivers a socially innovative programme'.'69 We illustrate the relationship in Figure 3: Figure 3:
Relationship between social innovation, social entrepreneurship and social enterprise. Social Innovation Social Entrepreneurship Social Enterprise Adapted from Nicholls & Murdock,
2012 An area of de bate 33 While social entrepreneurship should be viewed as a key component of current thinking within social innovation,
it should be recognised that the field of social innovation is much broader than social enterprise and social entrepreneurship.
Social innovation is concerned clearly with new combinations of activities and resources to develop new social practices,
however, these need not be generated by entrepreneurs, and they need not take the form of market based activity.
and social enterprises important organisational forms to study, they do not tell the whole story.
In particular, it is important we do not become too fixated on social enterprises as an organisational form,
Indeed,‘to date, the social innovation produced by social enterprise has largely been presumed rather than empirically demonstrated'.
'70 A problematic theory of change Dey and Steyaert argue that social entrepreneurship is currently dominated by a‘grand narrative
Just like many discourses on social innovation, the social entrepreneurship debate in this grand narrative contributes to'the impression that social change can be achieved without causing debate, tensions or social disharmony.'
because the grand narrative around social entrepreneurship'introduces a de-politicised image of social change'.
and Steyaert describe this as a‘neutralization'of social entrepreneurship which suggests it is ideology free
This tendency within dominant narratives of social entrepreneurship to‘de-politicize, trivialize and individualize'complex social processes‘culminates in a depoliticized story of harmonious social change'.
'74 The concern that the dominant narrative of social entrepreneurship tends to give an apolitical account of social change is shared by Cho who points out that the very act of defining something as‘social
'and therefore within the domain of social entrepreneurship is inherently political because there is no broad agreement about
'Cho argues that social entrepreneurship as a field is therefore guilty of'bypassing political processes in favour of a subject-centred, market-oriented approach to the definition and achievement of‘social'objectives'.
'The implication of his argument is that social entrepreneurship cannot itself constitute a normative account of social change.
Rather,'social entrepreneurship is a means to an end; it is not itself capable of defining social needs
and better interrogate the underlying assumptions about the concept of social entrepreneurship and its connections to social change.
This may be because they do not have a sustainable revenue model perhaps the beneficiaries they serve cannot afford the services they require,
%the rate at which many social investment funds make investments. This suggests limitations to the role that social/impact investment can play in funding
and financing social innovations. Clearly, there remains a significant role to be played by philanthropic organisations
and public agencies providing capital at low or no costs. In particular, the provision of non-repayable forms of funding will remain important,
whilst society as a whole profits a lot when these people are supported (e g . when offenders are rehabilitated instead of relapsing into crime).
The provision of business support services, legal advice, accounting advice, office space, access to networks, as well as access to potential partners and funders is just as important.
The informal, community sector which often generates ideas, lacks the capital, surplus time, organisational capacity but also the models and individual actors'ambitions to turn ideas into social innovations and scale them.
through campaigns, advocacy and the provision of services. However, the majority of organisations in this sector are small,
and business skills to exploit market opportunities to set up and grow a social enterprise (although we also know that the people in charge lack these very skills very often).
Even in some of these cases, however, marketing a social innovation may be a very special task
From scaling to systems innovation What is the relationship between scaling a social venture, systemic innovation and societal transformation?
If we are interested most in large scale social transformation (e g. to a low carbon economy or to the co-production of public services
It has also been noted that social innovation is often filling gaps that were deepened as a result of austerity politics in the aftermath of the economic crisis of 2007/2008.
Types of social innovation Examples Growth could be conceptualised as New services e g. new interventions or new programmes to meet social needs Replication, scaling up, mainstreaming, adoption New practices
e g. new services which require new professional roles or relationships Adoption, replication, mainstreaming, change management New processes e g. co-production of new services Adoption, mainstreaming, implementation,
change management New rules and regulations e g. the creation of new laws or new entitlements Policy diffusion New organisational forms e g. hybrid organisational forms such as social enterprises Diffusion,
replication Concl usion 37 Areas for further research In this next section we lay out several overarching areas for further research,
Data and monitoring It is clear that we require more and better data on social innovation, social needs, the social economy and its innovative potential, other environments of social innovation, relevant actors and networks, technological
but we could also make first steps towards reducing such complexity by identifying types of social innovations (economics, size, age, field of activity, actors involved, etc.
we could learn more about environments in which certain ones of such types have particularly high chances of success
and the ICSEM project83 based in Belgium is in the process of building a database on different types of social enterprises all over the world.
Civil society and the social economy as incubators Our hypothesis that civil society provides a particularly fertile ground for the generation
the connection between social economy organizations and social innovation requires more data for sound analyses.
We need to dig deeper into the numerous variables determining in how far social economy organizations are in fact innovators (e g. the state of the social economy (size, age, heterogeneity, etc.
Another potential area for future research is to look at the demand side-procurement and commissioning as well as how to encourage
and stimulate private demand through, for example, personalised budgets, tax incentives etc. In this respect again, it is worth further exploring the nature of social innovationand its outcomes and impacts as common goods,
as this profoundly influences how demand is perceived and satisfied. The role of the public sector in promoting social innovation The large number of social innovation cases studied over the course of TEPSIE seems to suggest that the public sector plays an important role in promoting
Much of the existing literature on social innovation is influenced by a business/technology view of social innovation (social innovation as social enterprise/social innovation as a product.
the Danish Technological Institute, The Young Foundation, The Centre for Social Investment at Heidelberg University, Atlantis Consulting, the Catholic University of Portugal,
and ends and they include new social practices, new ideas, models, rules, relations, services and/or products.
new demands for change may occur and possibly call for further social innovations. 87 Satisfaction of social needs Link to social innovation life-cycle Social acceptance Anne x:
or unresolved by services organised by the state. Social innovation can take place inside or outside of public services.
and scale is a dynamic process that requires both emergence of opportunity and deliberate agency,
Innovative activities and services that are motivated by the goal of meeting a social need and that are developed predominantly
services and models) that simultaneously meet social needs (more effectively than alternatives) and create new social relationships or collaborations.
The Cultures of the Economic crisis. Oxford university Press: Oxford, UK. 2. TEPSIE,‘Doing Social Innovation: A Guide for Practitioners'.
Eradicating poverty through profits. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Wharton School Publishing. 13. Bernard P. 1999.‘
The Case of the Economic crisis and the New Economy, TRANSIT working paper, TRANSIT: EU SSH. 2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no:
Potentials for Business, Social Entrepreneurship, Welfare and Civil Society. Springer: London. 45. Generally speaking we call existing needs‘social
The measurement of social economies in Europe-a first step towards an understanding of social innovation.
Barraket, J. & Furneaux, C. 2012) Social Innovation and Social Enterprise: Evidence from Australia. In:
) Social Enterprises and Social Categories. In: Gidron B, Hasenfeld Y (eds. Social Enterprises: An Organizational Perspective.
Palgrave Macmillan. 62. Defourny J, Nyssens M. 2012. Conceptions of Social Enterprise in Europe: A Comparative Perspective with the United states. In:
Gidron B, Hasenfeld Y (eds. Social Enterprises: An Organizational Perspective. Palgrave Macmillan. 63. www. emes. net/site/wp-content/uploads/EMESWP-12-03 defourny-Nyssens. pdf 64.
Defourny J, Nyssens M. 2012. Conceptions of Social Enterprise in Europe: A Comparative Perspective with the United states. In:
Gidron B, Hasenfeld Y (eds. Social Enterprises: An Organizational Perspective. Palgrave Macmillan. 65. Huybrechts B, Nicholls A. 2012.
Social entrepreneurship: Definitions, drivers and challenges. In: Volkmann CK, Tokarski KO, Ernst K (eds. Social Entrepreneurship and Social Business.
Springer Gabler, pp. 31-48.66. Westley F, Antadze N. 2010. Making a difference: Strategies for scaling social innovation for greater impact.
The Innovation Journal: The Public sector Innovation Journal. 15 (2): 1-18.67. Phills Jr J R, Deiglmeier K,
Social entrepreneurship: Definitions, drivers and challenges. In: Volkmann CK, Tokarski KO, Ernst K (eds. Social Entrepreneurship and Social Business.
Springer Gabler, pp. 31-48.69. Caulier-Grice, J. Davies, A. Patrick, R. Norman, W. 2012) Defining Social Innovation.
Barraket J, Furneaux C. 2012) Social Innovation and Social Enterprise: Evidence from Australia. In F. Hans-Werner, J. Hochgerner,
The politics of narrating social entrepreneurship. Journal of Enterprising Communities. 4 (1): 85-108.72. Ibid. 73.
) Politics, values and social entrepreneurship: A critical appraisal. In: Mair J, Robinson J, Hockerts K (eds.
Social Entrepreneurship. New york: Palgrave Macmillan. 76. Ibid. 77. Known as public services in the UK. 78. www. ssireview. org/articles/entry/innovation is not the holy grail 79.
) Politics, values and social entrepreneurship: A critical appraisal. In: Mair J, Robinson J, Hockerts K (eds.
Social Entrepreneurship. New york: Palgrave Macmillan. 80. Among others, the Third Sector Impact Project (http://thirdsectorimpact. eu/)and ITSSOIN (http://itssoin. eu/)undertake what we suggest concerning social innovation measurement research;
)‘ Non profits, Innovation and Performance Measurement: Separating Fact from Fiction',Communique No. 17, Centre for Civil Society Studies, Johns hopkins university, 2010 93.
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011