19 september 2013 1 Survey on ICT and Electronic commerce Use in Companies Year 2013 †First quarter 2014
The main services offered by companies with 10 or more employees via their website were
%Services available on the website Percentage over the total number of companies with 10 or more employees and an Internet connection
Possibility of customers customising or designing products 7. 38 4 Seven out of 10 companies used digital signatures in some communication with external
agents. Of these, 98.4%used them to deal with the Public Administrations, and 17.2%to do
servers of shared services suppliers The main reasons that limited the companies using this service were the uncertainty about
Computing services (27.8 %The companies that did not use this service stated that they did not do so since their
*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
e-commerce were the ICT Sector (70.1%)and Information and communications (62.9 %Purchases via e-commerce represented 21.7%of the total purchases of companies with 10
Regarding communications, 76.5%of companies with fewer than 10 employees used mobile phones, compared to the 74.6%of the previous year,
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
Communication Technologies based on Open sources (CENATIC Moreover, there is another partnership agreement with the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and
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
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 ï 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
defined as enterprises with 1-249 employees, and also large companies and was implemented by means of computer-assisted telephone
enterprises that systematically innovate and implement change, were selected. The survey therefore started with screening questions.
generate by difficulties to identify innovative SMES on Romanian economy) and disproportionally stratified across four size classes (0†9, 10-49,50-249 employees)( official
Enterprises with less than 10 employees micro-enterprises) were excluded not since they generally have limited identifiable innovation activities and this population usually contains many start-ups who are very
innovative in order to survive on the market. Interviewers explicitly asked for those who were responsible for implementation of change,
%followed by enterprises between 6-10 years (33 %and those established in the last 5 years (20
as shown in Figure 2, small enterprises represents 50%of the SMES surveyed, microenterprises account for 27%and midsize
order to simulate accurately the conditions of Romanian economy 0-9 employees 10-249 employees 50-249 employees over 250 employees
managers (63,61%),changing interests of owners (59,7%),liquidity crises and success crises (58,36%).58,24%of respondents believe that the
/services (55,31%)human resources (51,52%),organizational structure 49,08 %The types of change used in companies analysed
domestic enterprises •Achieve quick results is only possible if it was developed a good plan of action
Economy Assessment in Romania, Economia. Seria Management, 2012 5. Clarke, L. Managementul schimbarii: ghid practic privind producerea
doctoral and postdoctoral research in Romanian economics science domainâ€
SOCIAL INNOVATION THEORY AND RESEARCH A Guide for Researchers TEPSIE deliverable no: 1. 4 Printed December 2014
Foundation, The Centre for Social Investment at Heidelberg University, Atlantis Consulting the Catholic University of Portugal, and
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
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, especially within the public sector. Over the last decade there
Return on Investment (SROI), the Social Reporting Standard (SRS), Social Cost Benefit Analysis SCBA), and Randomized Control Trials (RCTS
need to spread, focusing on both demand and supply side factors WP8: Using online networks to
the character of communication, collaboration and relationship building, we need a qualified framework for reflection on the impact of online
change operations, social and business models and strategic considerations, although new governance arrangements are needed typically to make this work
as well as the capital, surplus time, organisational capacity, and the models and individual actors†ambitions to turn ideas into social
transformation (e g. to a low carbon economy or co -production of public services), thinking in terms of scaling a social innovation might be limiting.
a social venture, systemic innovation and societal transformation. With this being the case it might
social needs, the social economy and its innovative potential, other environments of social innovation relevant actors and networks, technological
innovations, etc Civil society and the social economy as incubators Our hypothesis that civil society provides a
particularly fertile ground for the generation and early development of social innovations requires further validation
Effective collaborations We do not yet know much about the effectiveness of collaborations: Which types of actors must be
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
goods, as this profoundly influences how demand is perceived and satisfied Executive Summary 7 The role of the public sector in promoting
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 and new lifestyles have brought with them problems of obesity and an increase in chronic disease such
as diabetes 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 and thus spurred the interest in, and deployment of
social innovation approaches in order to address the gap. For example, Castells et al. have documented the impacts of the crisis in Barcelona, showing how
effective capital market instruments and financial supports; suitable regulatory and policy frameworks for ensuring scale and impact;
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; societal transformation and system change5;
nonprofit management6; 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 practice -led field in which definitions and meanings have
now impacting on corporate ideation processes. 11 Instead of researching and developing products in the West and then adapting them for developing
design thinking. The former is integral to the work of a number of academic institutions working in the overlapping fields of social innovation
a value that is less concerned with profit and more with issues such as quality of life, solidarity and well-being. †18 Another way to consider †socialâ€
†new ideas (products, services and models) that simultaneously meet social needs and create new
services), institutional (which focus on markets and disruptive (which focus on the political, or social movement levels.
or â€oesafe environments, †where social innovation can occur, while regimes are the larger rules or practices that shape innovation.
demands might arise, leading to fresh calls for social innovation •Unintended consequences Despite good intentions, social innovations might
New services and products New interventions or new programmes to meet social needs Car-sharing;
New practices New services which require new professional roles or relationships Dispute resolution between citizens
new services Participatory budgeting (started in Brazil and since widely scaled; is not dependent on ICT,
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. Early evidence suggests that where social services are dominated by state procurement the sector seems
see a competition of service providers making them more proactive and innovative. 50 However, these first
economy organisations and their teams are in close contact with communities where pressing social problems are evident.
in the terminology used by social economy, third sector or civil society organisations which acts as a
between social economy organizations and social innovation is a strong one, (b) there is a significant extent to 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
and investment the importance of its evaluation has started to grow. Thorough and transparent assessment of interventions which apply efficient
acceptance of the Social Return on Investment SROI), the Social Reporting Standard (SRS Social Cost Benefit Analysis (SCBA), and even
social enterprises competing for public sector funding face multiple barriers relating to the legal and administrative framework,
communication and networks to spread awareness of these opportunities. Given the importance of the public sector to social innovation, and of social
innovation to the future of the public sector a general conclusion is that both future research and
demand of citizens, innovation in the public sector is more difficult to define and identify and manage
and opportunities for social innovations in future DEFINING MEASURING DEVELOPING AND OVERCOMING FINANCING DIGITAL â
building trust in public institutions, social capital and social cohesion in local communities, greater legitimacy in public decision making processes
-profits and informal associations. We define citizen engagement in social innovation as the many ways
This suggests that stakeholders need to be comfortable with a certain amount of uncertainty and need to be open to the possibility of
innovations need to spread, focusing on both demand and supply side factors (see Figure 2). We hope that
still needs to be done to foster demand for social innovation through initiatives like socially responsible
 Patient capital  Risk capital  Crowdfunding  Loans  Social impact bonds  Venture phil
pp anthropy  Tailored courses for social entrepreenneurs and other actors SKILLS FOR INNOVATION  University programmes ffoorr ssocial entrepreneurs
 Subbssiidised secondments   MMOBILITY schemes NONFINANCIAL RESOURCES  Safe spaces for R&d  Incubators
e g. labbs for social innovation  Mentoring and coaching  Busineess development support e g. aaccelerator prog
 Professional services oof various kinds includ p ing ENHANCING DEMAND Transferring knowledge about social innovation
of innovative goods and services  Supporting private demand through tax incentives/subsidies/personalised budgets
measuring impact and outcomes  Strengthening system wide capabilities cluster policies, network policies support for R&d co-operation
 Financial/economic environment  Human resources  Legal/institutional environment  Political context  Social context
AN ECOSYSTEM FOR INNOVATIVE SOCIAL PURPOSE ORGANISATIONS OF INNOVATIVE GOODS AND SERVICES ENHANCING SUPPLY Â Campaigning and advocacy
 New flows of information (open data  Developing the knowledge base INTERMEDIARIES  Social innovation networks
 Networking opportunities/events  Information and brokerage support  Knowledge transfer programmes  Learning forums and insight
legal advice, marketing services, fiscal and accoounting services, HR advice and governance advice Figure 2: Ecosystem for Innovation Social Purpose Organisations
Areas for further research 1. Within the literature we reviewed there is a lack of research on the role of intermediaries
innovations need to spread, focusing on both demand and supply side factors (see Figure 2). We hope that
still needs to be done to foster demand for social innovation through initiatives like socially responsible
 Patient capital  Risk capital  Crowdfunding  Loans  Social impact bonds  Venture phil
pp anthropy  Tailored courses for social entrepreenneurs and other actors SKILLS FOR INNOVATION  University programmes ffoorr ssocial entrepreneurs
 Subbssiidised secondments   MMOBILITY schemes NONFINANCIAL RESOURCES  Safe spaces for R&d  Incubators
e g. labbs for social innovation  Mentoring and coaching  Busineess development support e g. aaccelerator prog
 Professional services oof various kinds includ p ing ENHANCING DEMAND Transferring knowledge about social innovation
of innovative goods and services  Supporting private demand through tax incentives/subsidies/personalised budgets
measuring impact and outcomes  Strengthening system wide capabilities cluster policies, network policies support for R&d co-operation
 Financial/economic environment  Human resources  Legal/institutional environment  Political context  Social context
AN ECOSYSTEM FOR INNOVATIVE SOCIAL PURPOSE ORGANISATIONS OF INNOVATIVE GOODS AND SERVICES ENHANCING SUPPLY Â Campaigning and advocacy
 New flows of information (open data  Developing the knowledge base INTERMEDIARIES  Social innovation networks
 Networking opportunities/events  Information and brokerage support  Knowledge transfer programmes  Learning forums and insight
legal advice, marketing services, fiscal and accoounting services, HR advice and governance advice Figure 2: Ecosystem for Innovation Social Purpose Organisations
Areas for further research 1. Within the literature we reviewed there is a lack of research on the role of intermediaries
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
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.
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 Financing innovation and growth
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
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
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;
the capital comes at regular market costs and (part of) these costs are covered by a third party within
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
link measurement with investment objectives and terms are associated central problems with that Existing and potential instruments
can satisfy innovators†capital demands. Instead of new instruments we need more effective use of
soft loans, patient capital, etc. needed by innovators Each of these combinations comes with a specific
low-threshold opportunities to improve social innovators†situations. One of the most pressing needs, peer-to-peer exchange of experiences,
) Report on the feasibility and opportunities of using various instruments for capitalising social innovators •Glã¤nzel G, Schmitz B, Mildenberger G
) Report on Social Finance Investment Instruments, Markets and Cultures in the EU All available at tepsie. eu
using ICT (Information and Communication Technology), which includes online networks communities and platforms, in the course of their
) and the sharing economy and sharing society. Our research identified three main types of effect
and new opportunities through the use of different combinations of online platforms, and the configuration of online communities and
types of social and business models not otherwise possible. This can be highly transformative of existing processes, roles and relationships
currency for the exchange of goods and services within groups with high unemployment and low
services directly to older people so they can remain in their homes longer. The ICT can also be deployed
of social need and tailor interventions or services In both situations, this can result in more effective
and sharing economy cases where much of the rest of the value chain is implemented using traditional
nurture social capital both virtually and physically like in the case of Streetbank Scaling and dissemination
initiatives using ICT to exchange goods and services and with civic engagement cases using both crowd
-mapping and crowdfunding to identify and finance local community projects 30 SOCIAL INNOVATION THEORY AND RESEARCH
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. However, while the terms
†social enterpriseâ€, †social entrepreneurship†and †social entrepreneur†are connected all closely to the concept of social innovation, 59 they are distinct
We argue that the relationship between social innovation and social enterprise needs to be better
examined, not least since †the social innovation produced by social enterprise has largely been
presumed rather than empirically demonstratedâ€. 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 thoughtâ€. 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 significant level of economic risk;
a minimum amount of paid work The social dimension consists of three as well: an explicit aim to benefit the community;
and a limited profit distribution). ) Lastly, the governance dimension includes: a decision-making power not based on
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
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
about conflating discussions of social enterprises social entrepreneurship and social innovation we still need to acknowledge that much of social
innovation comes from these very organisations In addition to these definition issues, there are associated other problems with conflating
the terms 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
enterprise and social entrepreneurship is prob -lematic because there are limits to what these can achieve.
social entrepreneurship alone; it necessarily involves political action at various levels from the formal to
Lastly, social enterprises require particular forms of support which may not be appropriate for other forms of social innovation.
the needs of social enterprises and social entrepre -neurs may give rise to a range of support structures
entrepreneurship is centred a human concept that highlights the personal qualities of a person who starts a new organisationâ€, †social innovation is
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 isâ€. 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.
a social entrepreneur may set up a social enterprise which delivers a socially innovative programmeâ€. 69
innovation, social entrepreneurship and social enterprise Social Innovation Social Entrepreneurship Social Enterprise Adapted from Nicholls & Murdock, 2012
AN AREA Of DEBATE 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 while social entrepreneurs may be important actors for social
innovation to understand, and social enterprises important organisational forms to study, they do not tell the whole story.
do not become too fixated on social enterprises as an organisational form, not least because these may
enterprise has largely been presumed rather than empirically demonstratedâ€. 70 A problematic theory of change Dey and Steyaert argue that social entrepreneurship
is currently dominated by a †grand narrative††which imparts an optimistic script of social changeâ€
entrepreneurship debate in this grand narrative contributes to †the impression that social change can be achieved without causing debate, tensions
entrepreneurship †introduces a de-politicised image of social changeâ€. 73 Indeed, there is a denial of
†neutralization†of social entrepreneurship which suggests it is ideology free (or post-ideology) and
dominant narratives of social entrepreneurship to †de-politicize, trivialize and individualize†complex social processes †culminates in a depoliticized story
social entrepreneurship tends to give an apolitical account of social change is shared by Cho who
entrepreneurship is inherently political because there is no broad agreement about what concerns are in a society†s †true†interest. 75 Determining
social entrepreneurship as a field is therefore guilty of †bypassing political processes in favour
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 or assessing whether the burdens of meeting these needs are
entrepreneurship and its connections to social change. The same process needs to be undertaken for the concept of social innovation
the services they require, or because it is undesirable or impossible to commodify the social innovation
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
whilst society as a whole profits a lot when these people are supported (e g . when offenders are rehabilitated instead of relapsing into crime
services, legal advice, accounting advice, office space, access to networks, as well as access to potential partners and funders is just as important
sector which often generates ideas, lacks the capital surplus time, organisational capacity but also the models and individual actors†ambitions to turn
campaigns, advocacy and the provision of services However, the majority of organisations in this sector are small, dependent on grants and donations
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
social venture, systemic innovation and societal transformation? Building on the literature referenced earlier that speaks to the multiple
economy or to the co-production of public services thinking in terms of scaling a social innovation might be limiting.
New services e g. new interventions or new programmes to meet social needs Replication, scaling up
New practices e g. new services which require new professional roles or relationships Adoption, replication mainstreaming, change
new services Adoption, mainstreaming implementation, change management New rules and regulations e g. the creation of new laws
such as social enterprises Diffusion, replication CONCLUSION 37 Areas for further research In this next section we lay out several overarching
social innovation, social needs, the social economy and its innovative potential, other environments of social innovation, relevant actors and networks
technological innovations, etc. Most of the future research questions we identified would benefit greatly from advanced databases containing
economics, size, age, field of activity, actors involved, etc. on which to base further research
environments in which certain ones of such types have particularly high chances of success or about
on different types of social enterprises all over the world. These efforts are not coordinated at the
Civil society and the social economy as incubators Our hypothesis that civil society provides a
particularly fertile ground for the generation and early development of social innovations requires further) validation.
particular, the connection between social economy organizations and social innovation requires more data for sound analyses.
social economy organizations are in fact innovators e g. the state of the social economy (size, age
heterogeneity, etc. the respective welfare regime effects of different entrepreneurial cultures as push-factors for social innovation.
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
profoundly influences how demand is perceived and satisfied The role of the public sector in promoting social innovation
innovation as social enterprise/social innovation as a product. The study of social movements, however
The Centre for Social Investment at Heidelberg University, Atlantis Consulting, the Catholic University of Portugal, and Wroclaw Research
relations, services and/or products. Social innovations take place at the micro scale. Societal transformation is a process of fundamental
new demands for change may occur and possibly call for further social innovations. †87 •Satisfaction of
or unresolved by services organised by the state. Social innovation can take place inside or outside of public
services. It can be developed by the public, private or third sectors, or users and communities †but equally, some innovation developed by
requires both emergence of opportunity and deliberate agency, and a connection between the two. The capacity of any society to create a
Mulgan et al. â€oeinnovative activities and services that are motivated by the goal of meeting a social need and that are developed predominantly and
products, services and models) that simultaneously meet social needs more effectively than alternatives) and create new social relationships
The Cultures of the Economic crisis Oxford university Press: Oxford, UK 2. TEPSIE, †Doing Social Innovation:
Eradicating poverty through profits. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Wharton School Publishing 13. Bernard P. 1999. †Social cohesion:
The Case of the Economic crisis and the New Economy, TRANSIT working paper, TRANSIT: EU SSH. 2013.3.2-1 Grant agreement no:
613169. Available at: www. transitsocialinnovation. eu/content/original /TRANSIT%20outputs/91%20gamechangers tsi Avelino etal transit workingpaper 2014. pdf 30. Westley F. 2008.
Social Entrepreneurship, Welfare and Civil Society Springer: London 45. Generally speaking we call existing needs †social†if
social economies in Europe-a first step towards an understanding of social innovation. A deliverable of the project:
and Social Enterprise: Evidence from Australia. In F. Hans-Werner, J. Hochgerner, & J. Howaldt (eds
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/EMES -WP-12-03 defourny-Nyssens. pdf 64.
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
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
and Social Enterprise: Evidence from Australia In F. Hans-Werner, J. Hochgerner, & J. Howaldt
narrating social entrepreneurship. Journal of Enterprising Communities. 4 (1): 85-108 72. Ibid 73. Ibid
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
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
profits, Innovation and Performance Measurement Separating Fact from Fictionâ€, Communique No 17, Centre for Civil Society Studies, Johns Hopkins
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011