Unpacking social innovation

Around the world there is growing interest in the concept of social innovation among policymakers, foundations and academic institutions. In his first week of office in 2009, President Obama announced the establishment of an Office of Social Innovation in the White House. In 2010 the Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative, Innovation Union, placed major emphasis on social innovation describing it as “an important field which should be nurtured”. The last decade has also seen the emergence of academic centres, networks and hubs all devoted to supporting social innovation.

As a field of activity, social innovation is immensely broad, covering examples as diverse as microfinance, fair trade, new models of eldercare, preventative interventions in health and criminal justice and online platforms which enable sharing, mass collaboration and peer to peer learning. Why are we seeing such growing interest in this hugely diverse concept?

First, there is the context of mounting challenges –

the financial crisis, climate change, an ageing society

and global inequalities. All of these will require new

approaches if they are to be adequately tackled.

Second, there is a growing sense that our current

business, government and civil society structures

are ill equipped or incapable of dealing with these

challenges. This suggests a need for new ways of

organising business, new models of public governance

and so on. Both of these facts point to a need for innovation

of some kind. But there is also an increasing

awareness that the traditional focus of innovation

studies on technological and economic innovation is

insufficient. In this context there is a renewed interest

in innovation concerned with new social practices,

organisational forms and modes of behaviour.

Defining social innovation

How should we understand the term ‘social

innovation?’ Currently, this term is being used in many

different ways. Our table (below) suggests five distinct

uses of the term that we see frequently.

Although it is helpful to acknowledge this diversity

of uses, when working on a multi-partner research

project such as TEPSIE, it is important to have some

shared understanding of the phenomenon we are

examining. As part of this project we have suggested

the following definition:

Social innovations are new solutions that simultaneously

meet a social need (more effectively than

existing solutions) and enhance society’s capacity

to act (by creating new relationships, developing

capabilities/capacities and providing better use of

assets and resources).

To unpack this further, we have distinguished

between core elements (that must be present in

any social innovation) and common features, those

characteristics that we tend to observe in many social

innovations. The diagram above shows these core

elements in the inner ring, with common features in

the outer circle.

The core elements we identify are:

• Novelty: social innovations are new to the field,

sector, region, market or user.

• From idea to implementation: there is a distinction

between invention (developing ideas) and innovation

(implementing and applying ideas).

• Meets a social need: social innovations are explicitly

designed to meet a recognised social need.

• Effective: social innovations are more effective

than existing solutions – they create a measurable

improvement in terms of outcomes.

We see this as very much a working definition and

one we will revisit as the project progresses.

Social innovation in practice

Although it is important to have some common

understanding of what we mean by the term social

innovation, it is inevitable that in a practice-led field,

definitions and meanings will vary. Social innovations

are dependent on the social, economic and cultural

contexts in which they are devised. Given that this

is a field that has emerged through people doing

things in new ways rather than thinking about them

academically, social innovation is often best understood

through examples. The mini case studies we

present throughout this article aim to give a flavour

of the breadth of activity we understand to be social

innovation.

Enthusiasm for the concept of social

innovation is now widespread. One of the key

lessons from our current research project is

that when thinking about how this enthusiasm

turns into concrete support, it is important to

be clear what we are talking about. Initiatives to

support a social enterprise selling goods to the

public will look very different from those aimed

at supporting a new practice within a state

funded health care service, for example. Indeed

there are some limitations to categorising such

a diverse and broad range of organisations,

approaches and practices under the banner of

‘social innovation’. The challenge for the field as

it progresses is whether, as we get more specific

about the different branches and activities

within social innovation, the term itself can

retain meaning and avoid the fate of so many

other popular buzzwords.

Case: Homeshare International, Spain

Homeshare International helps to match

students in need of accommodation

with older householders who have spare

capacity in their home and would like

some companionship as well as help

with household duties. The organisation

began in the UK and has now expanded

worldwide. Homeshare is particularly well

embedded in Spain.

The amount of help given in each case is

tailored to both parties’ needs upon mutual

agreement. The support needed may be

help with the household tasks, or it may be

financial support, or a combination of both.

Homeshare is described as “essentially an

exchange that recognises that two people

have needs and something to offer”.

In Spain, some programmes offer their

homesharer students additional help by

providing them with lunch vouchers, bus

passes, full payment of enrolment fees

and books for their courses. The Spanish

Homeshare programme emphasises the

principles of mutual help and solidarity

between generations as well as encouraging

the quality of homesharing rather

than the number of matches.

See www.homeshare.org/spain.

Case: Living Goods, Uganda

Living Goods operates a network of saleswomen

in Uganda who go door-to-door

offering health products, such as mosquito

nets, condoms and water treatment tabs,

at affordable prices. CEO Charles Slaughter

was inspired by the ‘Avon lady’ model that

was founded in 1886 in rural California. He

noticed that many of the challenges of the

rural US – a need for cash income where

there was no job economy, women who

had needed to maintain responsibility for

houses, families and farms alongside any

paid work – were similar to challenges in

rural Africa.

The Living Goods model uses key

characteristics of successful franchises

including carefully screened agents, expert

training and low cost of goods achieved

through scale. The women entrepreneurs

work as independent agents and when

launching their franchise, they receive a

below market inventory loan, along with

a ‘Business-in-a-Bag’ containing uniforms,

signs, and basic health and business tools.

The women get a reliable job, and community

members get access to basic health

care products outside of a hospital or clinic

system. Living Goods is aiming to make

available a range of ‘pro-poor’ technologies

developed for use in Africa (such as high

efficiency stoves, solar lights and water

filters) accessible to more people by selling

them on a weekly-instalment basis.

See www.livinggoods.org.

Case: SPICE, Wales

Spice began at the University of Wales

Institute, working mainly in the Welsh

Valleys. It has since spun out to become

a UK social enterprise, along with its

sister organisation, Timebanking Wales.

Spice has developed a model of agency

time credits which enable people to take

more active roles in their communities

and to co-produce local services. The

organisation pioneered a person-to-agency

time banking model whereby institutions

like local authorities, schools, colleges and

housing associations grant time credits for

volunteer work, which can then be spent

as part payment on community events,

transport, trips and other services.

The Spice model was developed to support

greater civil engagement in communities in

South Wales and promote a return to some

of the traditions of active participation

which saw this region generate mutual

societies, educational settlement trusts,

miner’s welfare institutes and chapels

during the 19th and 20th century.

See www.justaddspice.org.

Case: I Paid a Bribe, India

I Paid a Bribe is a platform set up by nonprofit

organisation Janaagraha in 2010 that

aims to understand and tackle the issue

of corruption in Indian public services.

Citizens are invited to use the platform

to upload reports about bribes they paid,

bribes they resisted and instances where

they received a service without paying

a bribe. By gathering this information,

the project is able to map the scale of

corruption, uncover patterns and trends

and lobby for changes in governance and

accountability processes. Janaagraha

uses the data that they collect to produce

citizen reports that help citizens avoid

bribery, as well as reports for government

agencies that highlight particularly corrupt

teams or departments. The organisation

also makes recommendations for reforms

to rules and procedures.

As well as painting a picture of the nature

and scale of bribery in India, I Paid a Bribe

can be used to put pressure on corrupt

officials and on government departments.

There have been many instances where

government rules and procedures have

been changed in response to information

gathered through the site. I Paid a Bribe

has now been replicated in Pakistan, Kenya,

Greece and Zimbabwe.

See www.ipaidabribe.com.

Anna Davies & Julie

Simon work as senior

researchers for Young

Foundation (UK). This

article was developed as

part of the TEPSIE project

which is funded under

the European Commission’s

7th Framework

Programme and is

an acronym for “The

Theoretical, Empirical and

Policy Foundations for Building Social

Innovation in Europe”. The project is

a research collaboration between six

European institutions led by the Danish

Technological Institute and the Young

Foundation and runs from 2012-2015.

You can read more about the project at

www.tepsie.eu.