Social bricolage and business model innovation: a framework for social entrepreneurship organizations

Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development

ISSN : 1462-6004

Article publication date: 16 November 2022

Issue publication date: 24 March 2023

The last two decades have witnessed a surge of interest in social entrepreneurship organizations (SEOs). Understanding their business models is crucial for sustaining their long-term growth. This paper analyses how SEOs that use the approach of social bricolage adapt their business model to develop social innovation.

Design/methodology/approach

This study used in-depth multiple comparative case studies and narrative analysis to focus on the South of Italy, where these ventures play a crucial role in the entrepreneurial process of minor and abandoned cultural heritage sites, generating economic and social value and employment opportunities.

By developing a conceptual framework, this paper enhances current understanding of the social dimensions of SEOs’ business model. These ventures using the approach of social bricolage can produce social innovation, reinventing and innovating their business model. The business model innovation of the cases revealed a strong social mark and identified peculiar strategies that both respond to social needs and long-term sustainability in complex contexts.

Practical implications

This study connects previous knowledge on social bricolage with the business model innovation, highlighting routines and processes used by ventures, and provides a starting point for social entrepreneurs and innovators in the complex and often uncertain cultural domain of the Third Sector in Italy.

Originality/value

The paper aims to contribute to the literature on SEOs by exploring their main features and social dimensions. By combining social bricolage and business model innovation, it offers a novel conceptual framework for developing social innovation and for the study of SEOs.

  • Business model innovation
  • Minor cultural heritage
  • Social bricolage
  • Social entrepreneurship organizations
  • Social innovation

Scuotto, A. , Cicellin, M. and Consiglio, S. (2023), "Social bricolage and business model innovation: a framework for social entrepreneurship organizations", Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development , Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 234-267. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSBED-02-2022-0094

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2022, Adriana Scuotto, Mariavittoria Cicellin and Stefano Consiglio

Published by EmeraldPublishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for bothcommercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication andauthors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

1. Introduction

Social entrepreneurship is a sub-field in the entrepreneurship literature that describes organizations and ventures pursuing innovation and aiming to solve diverse social and environmental challenges ( Martin and Osberg, 2007 ; Shaw et al. , 2007 ; Dacin et al. , 2011 ; Mair and Martí, 2006 ; Zahra et al. , 2009 ; Di Domenico et al. , 2010 ; Janssen et al. , 2018 ). Social entrepreneurship involves the pursuit of both economic goals and social and environmental objectives ( Dees, 2001 ; Mair  et al. , 2012 ).

Smith and Stevens (2010, p. 575) argue that: “ Social entrepreneurship is a rapidly emerging domain within both the academic and practitioner communities ”. As the domain continues to grow, there has been an evolution in SE which sees different actors and new typologies of ventures arising, including social entrepreneurship organizations (SEOs) ( Bacq et al. , 2015 ). This increasing diversity challenges the development of the field of social entrepreneurship as it attempts to define its distinctive domain of academic research and encourages greater precision and conceptual clarity to allow the domain to build a scientific base of knowledge (e.g. Nicholls, 2009 ).

This results in important insights about the role of SEOs (e.g. Seelos et al. , 2011 ), that have been identified as the form of social entrepreneurship at community level, and an alternative and/or complement to the action of states, governments and private actors to address collaborative actions and unmet and/or poverty-related social needs ( Seelos et al. , 2011 ; Abebe et al. , 2020 ).

In the last two decades, several streams of entrepreneurial studies have focused on SEOs. The first stream examines their role as significant organizational players in market economies, exploring their contextual and structural dimensions and the sustainability of their economic and social outcomes ( Moss et al. , 2011 ; Bacq and Janssen, 2011 ; Zollo et al. , 2016 ).

Morris et al. (2021, p. 1100) affirm: “ Where do we find the entrepreneurship is SE? Here, it is our position that is not so much about entity creation, internally derived revenue sources, or reliance on professional management practices. Instead, our concern is the application of the entrepreneurial mindset to all the activities and challenges involved in successfully effecting social change”.

Accordingly, we can certainly state that we find in SEOs this “entrepreneurial mindset” , where entrepreneurial is the mindset applicated to all the activities involved in successfully effecting social change, and therefore of the ventures we analysed.

A second stream analyses innovation in hybrid forms of SEOs ( Austin et al. , 2006 ; Zollo et al. , 2016 , 2018 ). Nicholls (2009) argues that the problem-solving attitude of social entrepreneurs particularly fits with bricolage behaviour. According to Janssen et al. (2018) , SEOs and bricolage share important characteristics. Bricolage in social entrepreneurship (also called entrepreneurial bricolage, Zollo et al. , 2018 ) allows identification of unserved markets and needs ( Gundry et al. , 2011a , b ; Bacq et al. , 2015 ) and it is mainly based on the concept of creating new combinations of resources or inputs in order to take advantage of entrepreneurial opportunities.

Ventures can use it to develop new products and approaches, capture new opportunities ( Baker and Nelson, 2005 ), and attract and use relevant resources. Several studies ( Gundry et al. , 2011a , b ; Linna, 2013 ; Desa and Basu, 2013 ; Desa and Koch, 2014 ; Bacq et al. , 2015 ) note that the ability of SEOs to develop social innovation depends directly on their bricolage strategies and behaviour.

So far, however, little attention has been paid to business model innovation in SEOs. Only a few studies ( Zott and Amit, 2008 ; Guo et al. , 2016 ; Servantie and Rispal, 2018 ) analyse the business models that SEOs adopt to combine their economic and social mission ( Mair and Martí, 2006 ; Gundry et al. , 2011a ; Desa and Basu, 2013 ; Gasparin et al. , 2021 ). Fewer still examine how social bricolage makes SEOs’ business model sustainable, affordable and innovative ( Desa and Basu, 2013 ). These few studies are also mostly focused on bottom-of-the-pyramid markets ( Bhattacharyya et al. , 2010 ; Angeli and Jaiswal, 2016 ; Agarwal et al. , 2018 ), and transitional and developing economies ( Guo et al. , 2016 ; Desa and Koch, 2014 ; Gasparin et al. , 2021 ). This overlooks their role in different socio-cultural contexts and in developed countries such as Italy, where SEOs, especially in recent years and during the COVID-19 pandemic, play a key role in communities and the civil economy. In particular, there are strong and recent calls in the entrepreneurship literature to improve the understanding of the business models that make SEOs able to respond to unsatisfied social needs and to optimize resources ( Bacq et al. , 2015 ; Molecke and Pinkse, 2017 ; Heikkilä et al. , 2017 ; Morris et al. , 2021 ; Ciambotti and Pedrini, 2021 ).

We aim to fill this gap by drawing on the approach of social bricolage and business model innovation as drivers of social innovation ( Bhattacharyya et al. , 2010 ; Yunus et al. , 2010 ; Di Domenico et al. , 2010 ; Kickul et al. , 2018 ; Zollo et al. , 2018 ; de Souza Joao-Roland and Granados, 2020 ; Gasparin et al. , 2021 ). In particular, drawing on the works of Janssen et al. (2018) , Di Domenico et al. (2010) , Zollo et al. (2018) , Heikkilä et al. (2017) , Gasparin et al. (2021) and Do Vale et al. (2021) , we aim to analyse the specific business model of SEOs that, using the approach of social bricolage, in terms of decision-making processes, organizational and entrepreneurial choices, develop social innovation.

We use in-depth multiple comparative case studies and narrative analysis, by addressing a main research question, that is: “How do SEOs modify their business model to develop social innovation?”.

In the present study we focus on the minor cultural heritage field in the South of Italy, where SEOs play an increasingly crucial role in enhancing minor cultural heritage sites that have often been abandoned by both the State and private enterprises. They are able to respond to the social need for broader cultural heritage consumption and make abandoned sites available, filling a welfare gap ( Pol and Ville, 2009 ; Murray et al. , 2010 ; Caulier-Grice et al. , 2012 ). In particular, they have restored sites for the local communities, generating economic and social value and employment opportunities, intervening in severe situations of social distress among vulnerable people and empowering poor and marginalized segments of the population. The societal challenge of SEOs in minor cultural heritage lies in proactive social change processes activated by innovators, bricoleurs, public actors, religious institutions, private organizations and citizens giving birth to new forms of entrepreneurship, participation, community relations and work ( Consiglio and Riitano, 2015 ). As small new business, these cultural SEOs, do not have access to a full range of funding alternatives and face several challenges for their survival and success. In light of this, they foster pluri-activities for social purpose and “ making do with resource at hand ” strategies, consistent with bricolage and social bricolage theory ( Di Domenico et al. , 2010 ; Kang, 2017 ).

The importance of cultural heritage in stressed in current European policies in relation to a number of societal challenges, and how cultural firms are called to innovatively respond to such challenges, experimenting innovative business models and allowing a more effective and fair distribution, access and enhancement of culture and social issue.

Our study contributes to the academic debate in several distinctive ways. First, we offer a reply to the literature on SEOs, by exploring their main organizational features and by enhancing the understanding of their innovative and social dimensions for the developing of social innovation ( Johnson et al. , 2008 ; Yunus et al. , 2010 ; Michelini, 2012 ). Second, we extend and enrich studies on social bricolage ( Di Domenico et al. , 2010 ), applying the theory to the rising cultural economy in Italy and capturing the peculiar context of the minor cultural heritage in the South of Italy, where ventures have arisen to meet this social need for cultural consumption.

Third, by combining social bricolage and business model innovation we propose a novel conceptual framework for the study of SEOs, showing that social and cultural goals, and the paths to market and economic outcomes, are equally prioritized in creating social innovation. In response to the growing emergence of SEOs globally and the positive social value these organizations deliver, we apply both narratives as an in-depth qualitative methodology to empirically advance the understanding of their business models and how they use creative approaches to attract resources and apply in novel ways to face challenges ( Griffiths et al. , 2013 ). We believe that understanding the SEOs’ business model innovation is crucial for sustaining the long-term growth of these organizations. The remainder of this article is organized into four sections. The first section describes the background and framework connecting our approaches. It analyses links between SEOs and social bricolage framework and explores the concept of SEOs’ business model innovation. The second section introduces the research design and study site, explaining the criteria for analysis, methodology and procedures for data collection. The third section discusses and compares the cases and narratives, developing a conceptual framework for SEOs’ business model in the entrepreneurial process and management of minor cultural heritage. The final section discusses contributions and conclusions. It also acknowledges the limitations of our research and highlights avenues for future studies.

2. Background and framework

2.1 seos and the entrepreneurial opportunity of social bricolage.

SEOs combine two traditionally distinct models: a social welfare model pursuing a societal development mission and a revenue generation model that pursues profit through commercial activities ( Battilana et al. , 2012 ). They can adopt a for-profit or a non-profit legal form and occur in many industries, including education, healthcare, inclusion and cultural heritage ( Mair and Martí, 2006 ; Leadbeater, 2007 ; Seelos et al. , 2011 ; Mair et al. , 2012 ; Mintzberg and Azevedo, 2012 ). The European Commission ( Borzaga, 2020 ) noted that the concept of social enterprise has been refined over the last few decades through legislative activities designed to regulate these new types of SEO.

In the social entrepreneurship literature, bricolage is the dominant approach identified for understanding their behaviours ( Servantie and Rispal, 2018 ).

Bricolage in SEOs describes a set of actions driven by the pursuit of existing and often scarce resources that can be combined to create innovative and valuable solutions that bring positive social change to markets and communities ( Gundry et al. , 2011b ). Previous studies ( Lévi-Strauss, 1966 ; Mair and Martí, 2006 ; Desa and Basu, 2013 ; Janssen et al. , 2018 ) suggest that SEOs’ bricolage could be defined as “making do” with the resources to hand, as a way to provide innovative solutions for social needs that traditional organizations fail to address. Within constrained environments, SEOs may engage in bricolage as a means to access human and financial capital, to implement ideas and deal with any strategic weaknesses that obstruct their pursuit of social improvements ( Anthony et al. , 2008 ).

Making do, defined as the combination of available resources to solve new problems and opportunities;

Refusal to be constrained by limitations, which for SEOs include financial limitations, inadequate market returns and the governance gap; and

Improvisation, where bricolage actors reconfigure themselves as bricoleurs to be creative under pressure, “ to create order out of whatever materials were at hand ” and to replace a “ traditional order with an improvised order ” ( Weick, 1993, pp. 639–640 ).

Social value creation, the dynamic process of resource creation involving skills development, social capital and community cohesion;

Stakeholder participation, the involvement of different private and public actors in the creation, entrepreneurial process, governance structures and engagement of SEOs, in response to social needs; and

Persuasion, the process of influencing to acquire new resources and support.

These six elements form a contextualized set of social action capabilities that can be leveraged by SEOs to create social value.

The concept of SEOs as social bricoleurs was described by Zahra et al. (2009) . Social bricoleurs have intimate knowledge of the local environment and experiences and locally available resources to address small-scale local social needs and connections to the community. They share the common features of social entrepreneurs, including skilful management of unexpected opportunities, spontaneous innovation, improvised risk and rearranging resources to create social value ( Peredo and McLean, 2006 ; Bacq and Janssen, 2011 ; Zollo et al. , 2016 ).

Social bricolage is an entrepreneurial opportunity to address emergent social needs, in contexts characterized by scarce resources, high levels of economic uncertainty and seasonal activities ( Desa, 2012 ; Desa and Basu, 2013 ; Bacq et al. , 2015 ; Zollo et al. , 2017 ; Janssen et al. , 2018 ).

In these contexts, social innovation is a crucial concept encompassing social entrepreneurship. As known, social innovation studies cover the social processes of innovation itself, particularly innovations with a social purpose. In this context, ventures are seen as agents of social innovation in society, “ who help find solutions to social challenges, through creative and innovative products and ideas ” ( Waasdorp and Ruijter, 2011, p. 72 ). Gundry et al. (2011b) studied the impact of social entrepreneurs’ social bricolage in developing social innovation. Social entrepreneurs’ ability to provide innovative solutions, to attract and use relevant resources depends directly on the extent to which they use bricolage ( Gundry et al. , 2011a , b ).

According to Zollo et al. (2017) , entrepreneurial bricolage may be interpreted as the way modern entrepreneurs catalyse social innovation by effectively: (1) combining available resources in an ingenious fashion and (2) entering new markets that are ignored by their competitors and seizing the latent profitable and attractive opportunities.

Following Kickul et al. (2018, p. 409) , “ social entrepreneurs’ innovative thinking and actions, their ability to recognize and create opportunities and the use of available resources with little or no cost, that is, their bricolage behaviour ” catalyse social innovation.

In this paper, we want to extent the understanding of the relationship between the adoption of social bricolage approach and the developing of social innovation by SEOs. This relationship becomes even more important in the field of minor cultural heritage, where SEOs are establishing, because characterized by relational capacity, network implementation and spontaneous cooperative activities.

2.2 Business model innovation of SEOs

Over the last few years, business models have become subject to innovation (e.g. Chesbrough, 2010 ; Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2010 ; Foss and Saebi, 2017 ; Heikkilä et al. , 2017 ). Business model innovation “ is about how to do business in new ways ” ( Amit and Zott, 2020, p. 4 ). Several scholars have explored business model innovation as a way to overcome the limitations of the traditional frameworks in analysing new forms of business, specifically that with a social component (e.g. Yunus, 2009 ; Yunus et al. , 2010 ). Relatedly, the term business model innovation is often used to signify social innovations that facilitate inclusive growth ( Spiess-Knafl et al. , 2015 ) or target low-income consumers ( Angeli and Jaiswal, 2016 ). Scholars who have explored these new forms of business model are like to adjust the traditional business model framework. Recently academic research offered various perspectives of the business model innovation concept, such as the social business model that is “ inherently and explicitly social” in its mission and purpose ( Yunus et al. , 2010 ; Michelini, 2012 ; Wilson and Post, 2013 ). An emerging body of literature is focused on how SEOs innovate their own business model ( Lee, 2015 ; Rahdari et al. , 2016 ; Reficco et al. , 2021 ).

Several social managers contribute to the business model innovation processes “ by adopting bricolage practices, making do with whatever they have at hand, recombining resources and challenging conventional processes ” ( Do Vale et al. , 2021, p. 102 ).

In businesses with strong social implications, authors argued that the business model should be characterized by a consistent view of how SEOs generates revenues and profits. There are some specific aspects of SEOs’ business models ( Dees et al. , 2002 ; Seelos and Mair, 2007 ; Austin et al. , 2006 ; Santos et al. , 2009 ) that differ from those of commercial enterprises and traditional non-profit organizations.

According to Balan-Vnuk and Balan (2015) , there are two key reasons for business model innovation in these social ventures: namely the achievement of economic sustainability and the gathering of funds to expand the provision of important services to the collectivity. Therefore, SEOs have been encouraged to innovate their business models to cope with resource-constrained environments ( Austin et al. , 2006 ; Linna, 2013 ).

In light of these assumptions, we understand business model innovation as an outcome of the organizational change processes that identifying and describing innovative strategies to design sustainable business models ( Yunus et al. , 2010 ; Foss and Saebi, 2017 ).

Following Amit and Zott (2020) , a business model innovation strategy is the pattern of choices SEOs must make with respect to the following subjects: (1) adding novel activities as new activity system content or content innovation; (2) linking activities in novel ways, as new activity system structure or structure innovation; (3) changing one or more parties that perform any of the activities, as new activity system governance or governance innovation; (4) changing the value logic.

These four subjects of innovation derive from precise and constant contingencies, frequently mentioned in the literature on business model innovation (e.g. Yunus et al. , 2010 ; Michelini, 2012 ), that SEOs have to face, such as: lack of financial resources; locally embedded knowledge, skills and experience to be leveraged; learning by doing, experimenting trial and error; poor institutional support. These contingencies lead SEOs to make choices aimed at establishing and maintaining the social component.

With this focus, the research we present aims to respond to the call from scholars to theoretically and empirically extend the understanding of how SEOs design and reinvent their business model innovations to achieve the scope inherent in their mission ( Short et al. , 2009 ; Wilson and Post, 2013 ; Balan-Vnuk and Balan, 2015 ; Reficco et al. , 2021 ).

3. Research design

3.1 methodology.

Our empirical analysis aimed to investigate the innovation in the business models adopted by cultural SEOs for social innovation creation. This analysis is part of a wider research project targeting “SEOs and Third Sector ventures in different industries in Southern Italy”. The project was carried out in partnership with the Italian non-profit Association, which helped us to locate SEOs and other ventures to interview.

In the last ten years in some areas of Southern Italy, marked by socio-economic-structural weakness, new ventures have launched several social innovation projects to manage minor and abandoned cultural heritage ( Consiglio and Riitano, 2015 ). They mainly aim to promote and strengthen intangible structures for the social, civil and economic development of the southern regions.

This emerging field of research lacks a consolidated theoretical basis, so we adopted a qualitative method based on an inductive and interpretative research approach ( Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007 ). We used a comparative case study method and narratives ( Czarniaswka, 2004 ) to provide a structured approach through an in-depth study. The collection of the cases was based on three criteria, to provide a coherent and integrated framework to answer the research question.

manage cultural sites (e.g. churches, catacombs, historical buildings, villages, marine protected areas and gardens, owned publicly, privately, ecclesiastically or through a public–private partnership) previously in a state of neglect and decay, through activities of recovery, promotion and enhancement by and for the community;

guarantee the public use of these sites and

have defined a sustainable business and organizational model, going beyond voluntarism.

Using these three dimensions and a desk analysis, we mapped all the Italian cultural SEOs to obtain an overview. We then focused on those located in the regions of Southern Italy. This gave 22 cultural SEOs. This first sample allowed us to identify common behaviour patterns, similarities and differences in the cases, and organizational and decision-making processes.

Second, we examined the 22 ventures focussing on their social outcomes, studying their financial and mission statements, their activities, etc. We used the six constructs of the social bricolage framework to select suitable cases. This led us to remove four ventures from the later stages of analysis, because they did not fully meet the constructs. Finally, we removed another three ventures because they were unwilling to participate in our research. This left 15 suitable ventures for interviews with informants. Our aim in presenting the cases was to show how cultural ventures within resource-poor environments implement social bricolage constructs and justify an investigation of the social entrepreneurial actions used to counter constraints, to respond to environmental challenges, to take advantage of opportunities, to innovate and grow despite limitations ( Cunha, 2005 ; Wierenga, 2020 ). The comparative case study analysis also allowed us to consider how the approach of social bricolage enable cultural SEOs to create, extend and strengthen social innovation projects and activities.

According to the literature ( Gundry et al. , 2011a , b ; Zollo et al. , 2017 ) the ability of entrepreneurs to develop social innovation depends on the extent to which they use bricolage. Therefore our analysis allowed us to study this process with a specific reference to SEOs in the minor cultural heritage entrepreneurship and management, where entrepreneurs have to face a context of scarce resources. In particular, these ventures are in the peculiar circumstance to discover new ways to use resources which are usually rejected or ignored and combine existing unused resources to potentially unlock a new source of value creation ( Baker and Nelson, 2005 ; Do Vale et al. , 2021 ).

According to Baker and Nelson (2005) and Di Domenico et al. (2010) , through reusing and recombining the resources at hand to cope with new problems and uncover opportunities, social bricolage is the starting construct which guarantees the arise of a SEO. As we present in the next section, this can help SEOs in innovating content, structure and governance as well as in identifying new opportunities, all of which, accordingly, entail the implementation of business model innovation. Through the in-depth case studies on the business model innovation strategies, we highlight what SEOs aim to do to innovate their business model. The results of the narrative analysis will allow us to understand how SEOs business model are shaped by the use of social bricolage.

This can be traced through the adoption of specific innovation creating and balancing social and economic value. Table 1 gives a description of the 15 cultural ventures studied. The organizations were from different geographical locations within Southern Italy (Campania, Puglia, Basilicata, Calabria and Sicilia) and carry out a range of activities in the cultural and social domain. The cases include SEOs in both urban and rural locations.

We believe that approach of explicit comparison is a valid way to show events surrounding the emergence of the study SEOs, their intended scope and the motivation of their founders. This enabled us to go beyond the specificities of a single case to identify similarities and differences through careful abstraction ( Yin, 2014 ), providing a coherent and integrated framework to answer our research question. The cases were purposefully selected to be information-rich, revelatory and unique ( Stake, 1995 ).

3.2 Data collection and procedures

Documentary analysis;

Semi-structured interviews.

In this study, both data collection methods and investigators were triangulated ( Denzin, 1978 ). Issues emerged from the data rather than the data being fitted to predetermined categories. Fieldwork was carried out between October 2020 and July 2021.

3.2.1 Documentary analysis

To better contextualize raw data emerging from the field, the author not directly involved in the interviews collected and reviewed information from a series of supplementary sources including organizational charts, annual reports, partnership documentation, budgets, business plan, social responsibility statements, newsletters, internal communications, emails, archival material, press reviews, websites and social networks. Data arises from secondary documents have been analysed and interpreted in order to provide background information and details, that informants may have forgotten during the interviews. These information allowed us to construct Table 1 where the main characteristics of the cases involved in the study have been described. Moreover, documentary analysis also contains broad coverage of data helpful in contextualizing our research within social bricolage.

3.2.2 Semi-structured interviews

We carried out in-depth interviews with informants from each enterprise. The choice of the interviewees was in line with the qualitative narrative-style approach. We focused on well-connected and informed respondents, to get an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon. In the first step of the interviews round we involved a key informant at each organization, such as the Founder, the President, the CEO or the senior manager; in a second step, further interviews followed with other informants identified as important, such as: co-founders, vice-president, members, founding members. This approach gave us access to multiple individuals from each venture.

All interviews were conducted by two of the three authors, through Skype call. We also used site visits and observations to add depth to the case studies. Each interview lasted between 90 and 180 min. Interviews were based on an open, wide-ranging, protocol and guided through a semi-structured questionnaire. This included questions about the start-up initiative; social innovation projects, public and private partners and actors involved and partnerships activated; human resource management practices, venture capitalist involvement, donations, public–private partnerships and calls for bids. We focused on understanding the governance structure, organizational and business model innovation and sustainability model. The questionnaire aimed to stimulate interviewees’ interest in the research process.

At the end of each interview, the authors met to discuss what had emerged. They compared notes and interview records with the internal documentation previously analysed. All the interviews were recorded and later transcribed verbatim, to then build the narratives. This allowed us to focus on statements underlining the social dimension and social innovation production. To respect the anonymity of our interviewees, we allocated codes to them and the SEOs (see Table 1 ).

The next few sections provide insights and explanations from the empirical findings, and propose an integrated conceptual framework that combines the innovative and social dimensions that can be leveraged by cultural SEOs to create social innovation.

4. The analysis

4.1 social bricolage of seos in minor cultural heritage entrepreneurship.

The first empirical data collected were extracts of text from interviews with informants about the processes of social bricolage adopted by the SEOs. This section aims to explain how the different constructs of social bricolage informed the creation, the entrepreneurial process and management of cultural SEOs. We chose to illustrate the data extractions and the cross-case comparison through a synthesis in Table 2 , because of space constraints. We drew on the conceptual framework of social bricolage proposed by Di Domenico et al. (2010, p. 698) .

The first stage findings indicate social bricolage as a way to better understand SEOs strategies in terms of development and exploitation of resources. In this respect, social bricolage can be considered a key constituent action of the process of business model innovation.

4.2 Strategies of cultural SEOs business model innovation

Co-participation;

Generative leadership;

Socially-oriented activities;

Asset-based community development;

Cross-subsidization;

Management of surplus;

Grassroots;

Social relationship

Empowerment.

Co-participation

Some of my friends worked on the business plan and the SWOT analysis … our first meetings were on the church stairs because my friends said that they would be inspired by the beauty of the site.
When we started to do on-site inspections with the superintendents to get building permits, some shopkeepers in the neighbourhood were very intrigued and told us that Italian and foreign tourists walking past the closed building often asked them why the Municipality does not organize concerts and events in that amazing hanging garden (…) A pizza restaurant owner promised that if this really happened he would donate ten free entrances to the pizzeria for each concert organized. This is still one of our best ideas!
The beach cleaning is an activity that strongly joins us as a community … we are grateful for this, because when we go to work the day after cleaning, we realize that we are more cheerful and motivated. We often find that at the end of each day, the same bathers are joining us in the protected area to help us to clean, because they know how beautiful it could be the next day if there is not even a cigarette butt. This results in passion that reaches visitors.
The museum credits include the phrase ‘edited by all the people who have contributed with their stories to create this place’.

Generative leadership

In the cooperative, we don’t really see the mainstream boss–employee relationship. Brainstorming together is considered the basis of the company’s strategy. Since my first day here, I have understood that the cooperative doesn’t need ‘subordinate employees’, but individuals who want to become a partner, and who treat the catacombs like their home (…) In doing our jobs together, we create a bond that goes beyond the working relationship.
Sharing organizational responsibilities is not a symptom of inability, it is working side by side, helping each other for the same scope … What can you do alone?
I’m not a leader, I feel like a trainer. My happiness is in watching my students writing theatre plays and winning prizes. I win with them. I think that founders and leaders of SEOs find out every day how to throw their hearts over obstacles.
If you come to visit our spaces, you will not find anyone responsible for letting people in. The trust we have built in our personal and work relationships led us to give everyone copies of the key to offices and exhibition spaces so that everyone can feel at home, and can access the spaces at any time. We follow shared rules, so that everyone feels responsible for the project in the same way.

Socially-oriented activities

The third strategy of cultural ventures focuses on social value creation ( Santos et al. , 2009 ). SEOs’ primary purpose is societal and their primary goals are socially beneficial. One of the guiding principles is the primacy of social and community objectives over individual ones. SEOs pursue societal interests through the interests of their members and beneficiaries, whenever socially relevant.

At our archaeological site, school groups can take guided tours. However, a visit with a trained guide is only the final phase of the path that we have built for them. In the days before a visit, one of our members goes to visit each group in their classrooms to give them some information, and tell them about the place. This helps the young people be more aware of the place they are going to visit, and get more out of their visit.
School groups are generally very stimulated and curious about unique but unfortunately unknown places that are so close to their homes. With them, we also often deal with arguments that go beyond the historical–artistic issues because we understand that they are sensitive to issues not addressed in school programs, like environment and climate change, civic and civil education. We try to do our best with them, because they are the hope for future. Many of us were in their place years ago and without the birth of this cooperative who knows what would have happened to us? Our goal is to grow an educating community in the area.
We often witness the growth of community experiences, where citizens make a pact with the cultural heritage and other people in the district. Believing in the potential of human relationships, community building and the sharing economy engenders a change of perspective, where a new community grows that identifies with the territory and decides to take care of it!
The transformation of this abandoned site has allowed us to create new jobs for some of the people who supported us in the initial phase. Many of them have worked with us as volunteers, and their only incentive was intrinsic, because they wanted to be part of a place that is dear to them. Today they have experienced a social redemption by emancipation through their job placement as tour guides, after acquiring diplomas and degrees.

Asset-based community development

We decided not to be just service providers but instead become a platform for starting different cultural and social projects, such as dance and music classes for disadvantaged children; community handicraft courses; a social restaurant for disabled young people; a garden designed, built and managed by local people; and an association of photographers and video-makers engaged in research on visual storytelling.
We have become an urban laboratory and an ecosystem where informal groups, social incubators, associations, micro-enterprises, start-ups and other organizations can endorse their ideas and innovative projects for areas of urban decay … Besides the use of the spaces at the site, there are also projects to explore the local area through the support of local associations that deal with sustainable tourism, and bring together citizens and visitors.
We believe that the glass is half full rather than half empty. This is why we (as founders) were the first to make available and share our economic and financial resources and skills ….Following the same approach, we guarantee participation without any entry fee. Rather than setting a fee to become part of the community, we believe in the ability of those who use spaces and services to autonomously define how to contribute to the project through different ways.

Cross-subsidization

Our sources of income are mainly the sales of tickets for guided tours and events, with a small percentage from individual donations. This covers all the costs related to management, maintenance, and personnel, and the cooperative reinvests the operating surplus in social projects for the neighbourhood (…) These projects aim to offer services to citizens for free, such as afterschool clubs, summer camps, and workshops to encourage aggregation and socialization …
Site entry is free to allow access especially for younger people, and avoid creating social barriers. This allows us to cover only one third of our spending needs, but the rest is covered by commercial activities at the site and by public funding.

Management of surplus

Though the purpose is not profit, the cooperative is guided by efficiency and effectiveness criteria, pursued as a guarantee of quality of resources allocated (…) Profits are reinvested within the organization for ordinary and extraordinary maintenance of the site.
At the beginning we had to use the first ticketing receipts to tackle site improvement works that the Diocesan Curia did not want to deal with, even though the concession had not yet been completed, and the cooperative was not fully managing the sites … To date, the approach we have adopted is to establish and feed a small fund used to finance small social projects beyond the mission of cultural and tourist enjoyment and use. These projects aim to have a positive impact on the people who support us or who participated in the fulfilment of our main cultural project.
I remember once we managed to finance a guided tour for the fifth grade children of the village school. Many of those children could never have paid the entry fee. It was significant to have them here to tell us about their experiences and to thank us for all the beautiful things they had been able to see.
We have been growing by 15% (turnover) every year for five years. Some people think we are crazy because instead of taking the ticket collection fees, we continue to invest in new equipment, events and the maintenance that is always needed in a site like this (…). We all believe that this is right (…). We don’t need all the money ourselves, and we want to be able to contribute. Obviously, we cannot work for free, but we know that our business has positive effects on both a personal and a working level.
Our association was born from the will of eight people who were already involved in associative experiences in the city and had always been at the forefront of social and environmental recovery activities. It seemed obvious to us to combine forces and skills under a single name and create an association that would offer several social and cultural services, starting from the recovery of small churches that had been abandoned, but had priceless artistic value. These four buildings are located a short distance from each other in an area of socio-cultural hardship but with great potential for sustainable development.
Since it was set up, our foundation has never received any kind of public or private funding. The work in both the recovery phase, which lasted almost five years, and in the management phase, has been carried out entirely by the founding members.
(…) The Community Foundation was born … out of the need to bring together all the local people who have worked on a common goal: to improve the quality of life through education of young people, the recovery of historical and artistic spaces and to use culture for good (…). The foundation promotes the culture of solidarity, giving, and social responsibility.

Social relationships

Few people would disagree that relationships matter in entrepreneurship. But at the same time, few people are able to admit how difficult it is, especially in contexts such as ours [marine protected area] to build and maintain a solid network of relationships capable of supporting environmental protection initiatives. Social relationships and the networks of other entrepreneurs and all the people who in different ways and with different efforts had helped and supported us matter, because they are resources that can be leveraged in the start-up process. (…) We were lucky: social capital and trust greatly characterize our business.
Activities are the results of social interactions and mechanisms. Entrepreneurship cannot merely be understood in terms of ‘personality characteristics’ or in sterile economic terms. To build this type of relationship, you need time and energy (…). For months, even after obtaining the first planning permission, we continued to meet people to encourage word-of-mouth sharing. Sharing and discussing ideas with different people become the driving force for change, weaving a network, and winning people’s trust by telling them about the motivation and reasons for your project.”
Alongside the increase in the needs of minor cultural heritage, our organization has expanded and been supported by a conspicuous philanthropic donation and micro-donations from individuals, as well as corporate sponsorships (…). All these donors and sponsors understood and shared the social values and goals of the project (…). Their support is crucial to being able to deliver our services.
Since we started, we have found a large number of micro-donors who have really understood and wanted to collaborate in cultural projects, to focus on social impact beyond the ROI.

Empowerment

Those who come to us often stay with us for a long time, and work with us in different ways. This is the best aspect of our work, living a strong sharing climate. After taking a tour, some visitors feel so involved in the project that they put themselves forward as volunteers, and start actively participating in the restoration and cleaning activities in particular. Since we re-opened to the public, we now have about 200 stable volunteers per year.
People are strongly motivated by the quality and purposes of the work, allowing them to take care of the relational aspects, freely build customized services for the community and be involved in an experimental and innovative project (…)
A lot of us have grown up in the voluntary sector. The challenge we actually face is that many of our staff work on a voluntary basis. They are vital for the continuity of our daily business, but the truth is that we risk losing them and therefore not being able to go on.
In the long term we’ve tended to move from grants to contracts and we’re quite comfortable with contracts now.
In our project no one works on their own. Since we reopened the site three years ago, the team has been working without a salary. From the beginning, however, the goal for everyone has been to create job opportunities for founders and volunteers and finally from this year we will be able to get monthly remuneration.

In order to enrich our findings, the following table ( Table 3 ) outlines the main practices’ examples of the nine strategies. The table intersects our selected cases and the nine strategies, illustrating the main decoded interpretations of narrative fragments.

5. Discussion

We have analysed how social bricolage can affect SEOs’ business model innovation. We have examined fifteen narratives, all involving variations on the same theme: how the innovation of the business model can highlight its social dimension, in order to produce social innovation in the field of minor cultural heritage. Following the business model innovation framework, the cases revealed a strong social mark and identified peculiar innovative strategies that both respond to social needs and long-term sustainability.

social value proposition (i.e. the benefits offered by the business model through products and/or services);

social value equation (i.e. the way the business model generates social benefit, in terms of risks and benefits);

social profit equation (i.e. how the business model manages the revenue surplus, whether to reinvest or distribute dividends);

start-up capital (i.e. the way in which the venture is funded, including through venture or start-up capital, and the nature of the entrepreneurship).

The literature suggests that the social business model represents the most accommodating business models with which SEOs can implement their activities ( Michelini and Fiorentino, 2012 ).

Social relationships and empowerment are part of start-up capital , because the networks of informal social relations are fundamental elements of SEOs’ start-up capital. Co-participation and generative leadership are part of the social value proposition criterion, because SEOs place the fulfilment of the needs of minor and abandoned cultural heritage at the heart of their value propositions. Socially-oriented activities , asset-based community development and cross-subsidization are linked to the social value equation criterion, as ways to balance profit and social activities. The management of surplus and grassroots involvement are linked to the social profit equation criterion, because the decision to reinvest in institutional activities is a crucial aspect of ventures’ choice to allocate profits to their social mission.

Moreover, the cases showed the crucial link between social bricolage and business model innovation. In our cases, social bricolage was the constitutive and foundational approach that allowed the cultural SEOs to develop social innovative strategies despite scarce resources. Social bricolage is used in both the short and longer term, including into the phases of growth and consolidation in cultural SEOs. According to Zollo et al. (2018) and Fan et al. (2019) social bricolage is a measure that does not exclude the necessity for a structural solution to guarantee long-term sustainability and efficiency. As a result, more actively our SEOs engaged in social bricolage approach, more innovative the implemented business models were. When SEOs actively engage in bricolage, the impact on the innovativeness of the business model is greater than that of their entrepreneurial ability ( Fan et al. , 2019 ).

Making do is linked to asset-based community development because SEOs provide new services where none existed before, using disused resources such as minor and abandoned cultural heritage for new purposes, creating social value.

Refusal to be constrained by limitations is linked to cross-subsidization, because the SEOs’ ability to balance profit and social activities subverts the limitations, allowing them to develop solutions that create social value.

Improvisation is linked to co-participation , because SEOs are able to involve members of the local community in their decision-making processes and governance. This process of active participation and dialogue is made possible by the presence of generative leadership , involving different stakeholders at different levels in SEOs missions and activities.

Social value creation is linked to socially-oriented activities , because SEOs are involved in activities that deliver benefit to the local community. These activities aim to create social impact assessment systems.

Stakeholder participation is linked to social relationships , because SEOs build strategic partnerships to pursue their social missions. Business angels, venture capitalists, crowdfunding donors, investors and other partners are essential for the functioning of SEOs. These networks are based on an empowerment process, powerful sharing of the mission and intrinsic motivation among all those actors involved, which allow SEOs to grow.

Persuasion is linked to grassroots involvement , because most of the SEOs studied had originally been set up by individuals who were members of the local community. Persuasion mechanisms are also used to engage shareholders, who generate social and environmental impact through the management of surplus , using financial surpluses in institutional activities, often as a statutory obligation.

In conclusion, in light of these insights, we propose an integrated conceptual framework that draws links between the constitutive constructs of social bricolage, the strategies of business model innovation and the four social dimensions. Figure 1 shows our diamond model showing these correlations.

The relationships illustrated in the diamond allows us to assert that the innovation cultural SEOs implement in their business model goes towards a social business model innovation ( Spiess-Knafl et al. , 2015 ) in which social bricolage intrinsically takes place.

The wide adoption of bricolage is strictly related to ventures’ ability to create social innovation ( Gundry et al. , 2011b ), for developing novel approaches, attracting and use relevant resources, identifying markets in need and offering relevant products and services.

With this line of thinking we argue that the entrepreneurial mindset of these ventures drives the process of social value creation, using opportunity definition, leverage of resources and organizational building ( Morris et al. , 2021 ; Dorado, 2006 ).

Our findings are coherent with the studies of Canestrino et al. (2019) , Gustafsson and Lazzaro (2021) , and Stanojev and Gustafsson (2021) in the contextualization of business model innovation in the cultural field. In particular, these findings by our conceptual framework confirm the European Commission’s policy that acknowledges a need of a more participative approach in the safeguarding and management of cultural heritage “ through the adoption of new models that engage local communities, as for example in the social economy, and a wide range of stakeholders, through open, participatory and inclusive processes” ( European Commission, 2019, p. 12 ). To address this challenge, cultural firms have a crucial role in “ fostering social innovation by reinforcing the role of civil society in cultural heritage governance” ( European Commission, 2019, p. 12 ).

6. Conclusions, limitations and future directions

Our article aimed to provide new insights about social bricolage and business model innovation among cultural SEOs, especially when adaptability, improvisation and resilience are more important than structural efficiency ( Di Domenico et al. , 2010 ; Baker et al. , 2003 ; Zollo et al. , 2018 ). Through our empirical analysis, using the combination of comparative case studies and narrative analysis, we developed a conceptual framework explaining that cultural ventures and the peculiar SEOs, using social bricolage, innovate their business models bringing out various components which make up a social business model innovation ( Spiess-Knafl et al. , 2015 ). This alternative and reinvented business model is able to create social innovation. We find consistency of this statement in other studies in creative and cultural contexts (e.g. Pearse and Peterlin, 2019 ; Gustafsson and Lazzaro, 2021 ) where the adopted innovative business model incorporates elements of sustainability and social innovation.

The recovery and enhancement of the artistic and the cultural heritage of the neighbourhood represents the main actions implemented by the analysed cultural SEOs to pursue their social aims. In doing so, both tangible and intangible resources, as well as the support provided by different key partners, have been crucial to the success of the businesses.

Our research underlines the relevance of business model innovation as one means to support growth and competitiveness of ventures in cultural context along different phases of the life-cycle, especially for overcoming industry specificities and managerial challenges. In this sense, Italian cultural SEOs are increasingly considered as an arena for encouraging social inclusion, fostering job creation and therefore contributing to economic wealth.

Moreover, we offer a conceptualization of the social components of new business model in minor cultural heritage entrepreneurship and management for the creation of social innovation. Previous studies left underexplored how bricolage can be implemented to allow SEOs’ innovative use of their resources and how they can adopt bricolage as a long-term strategy to optimize the use and mobilization of their resources and to maintain creative use of resources.

We found that investment in the entrepreneurial process of cultural heritage has social returns that strongly contribute to economic growth and the creation of new jobs. SEOs are important in the development of areas like Southern Italy. These are not considered to be either bottom-of-the-pyramid or developing markets, but have important social implications. The dimensions, activities, relational routes and processes of birth and consolidation vary between SEOs and regional, industry and business contexts, but all of them generate innovative social and organizational responses, which leverage their proximity to communities. This occurs when cultural SEOs are able to apply specific innovative strategies in order to reinvent their business model.

Our cases were limited and circumscribed, but also powerful examples of widespread social entrepreneurship with a significant public function.

Cooperatives, associations, foundations and other third sector ventures falling under the umbrella of social entrepreneurship are all economic actors. Our cases were often developing increasingly significant entrepreneurial activities thanks to their ability to enhance spaces, places and relations. This is important in an area like Southern Italy, which needs to change quickly to generate employment and respond to the social vulnerability ( Dovis and Saraceno, 2011 ) that has expanded further during the pandemic.

Cultural SEOs are therefore a new type of social innovators. They operate as “bricoleurs”, adopting frugal solutions on a lean budget with limited capital and using their own resources ( Komatsu et al. , 2016 ). The cross-fertilization of social experiments that results from alternative business models has allowed the cultural ventures to adopt new ideas, strengthen social ties and envisage embedded solutions within a variety of networks. As social innovators, they go beyond the boundaries of the existing models, organizations and networks, mutually reinforcing their value propositions and business models.

According to Landoni et al. (2020) , cultural SEOs can overcome resource constraints through business model innovation and therefore adopt the business model innovation typical of emerging economies, based on collaboration and welfare. They become “community enterprises” strongly rooted in their local area and focused on a cohesive economy. The third sector is a real and concrete development tool in Southern Italy. Third sector organizations have activated paths of self-development in social contexts where no other option was available.

We aimed to contribute to the academic debate by offering new directions for integrating existing work on social bricolage, business model innovation and social innovation. First, we have extended the concept of social bricolage in social entrepreneurship, highlighting specific strategies for business model innovation. These strategies can create social value and offer a social business model that can be leveraged by ventures in combining social and economic value. Second, we have provided reflections on new and commonly used business models in minor cultural heritage. This helps to overcome the inefficiency of traditional organizational models and respond to a social need. A crucial tenet of our reasoning is that the minor cultural heritage consumption need is hard to meet through traditional business models, which are threatened by socio-economic crises and related public spending cuts, and the failure of traditional public, private and philanthropic models ( Consiglio and Riitano, 2015 ).

Third, we also explored social bricolage in a contextualized setting, focussing on SEOs in Southern Italy and embedded in a specific cultural field, minor cultural heritage. In examining their social components, we shed light on an understudied topic and aimed to extend and enrich the literature on the theme. We highlighted these ventures’ ability to provide effective business models and respond to the minor and abandoned cultural heritage issue in Italy and Europe.

In fact, if cultural SEOs lost the main peculiarities of the social bricolage approach in their development phase, they would miss their own identity and their mission, “ the enthusiasm and the wish to change things, (…) and the ability to provide for responses to the local needs were identified as key factors in the successful creation of social value ” ( Canestrini et al. , 2019, p. 2206 ). Moreover, they would experience negative consequences in terms of sustainability and the reinforcing of their local communities. In other words, if cultural SEOs lose their “bricoleur soul”, they are no longer able to generate social innovation.

From an entrepreneurship lens, this study will help small cultural ventures to rethink their strategies in line with skills development and respond to the challenges of economic and social change. Secondly, our findings can guide cultural social entrepreneurs in adopting the appropriate business model according to the highlighted innovation strategies that preserve the essence of the origins based on the social bricolage.

The decreases in public funding, the challenges of globalization, the opportunities of digital transformation, the increasing empowerment of audiences have pushed the cultural and creative sectors to test new approaches and to necessarily explore new organizational models ( European Commission – European Expert Networkon Culture, 2015 ).

The main practical implication is in offering new options for incorporating social dimensions and activities into SEOs’ business models. Designing business model is a process embedded in a larger strategy that starts with venture’s mission and vision. In the long term, business model is the crucial framework for finding, at the same time, a way to unlock value for the venture while delivering value to beneficiaries and capturing value for the sustainability of the activities ( European Commission – European Expert Networkon Culture, 2015 ; Sonkoly and Vahtikari, 2018 ). Cultural firms are fundamental resource for creativity and social innovation to flourish in a new entrepreneurial culture, where the economic success is not the main goal for sustaining social business ( European Commission, 2012 , 2019 ).

In the European agenda, there is a call for a deeper understanding of the role of adaptive reuse of cultural heritage in circular economy and to develop new governance and business models as well as regional and local strategies for a social use of the cultural heritage ( European Commission, 2012 , 2019 ; Stanojev and Gustafsson, 2021 ).

This study, highlighting routines and processes used by SEOs, provides a starting point for social entrepreneurs and innovators in the complex and often still uncertain cultural domain of the third sector in Italy. Until recent years, the leitmotif in the Italian cultural domain was that economic and financial resources could only be invested in the entrepreneurial process and management of cultural heritage when there was a surplus, which meant during periods of steady economic growth. Culture was therefore seen as something subsidiary in the Italian economy. Our cases showed that culture and heritage in the third sector is a powerful engine supporting the regeneration of social environments. It can play a crucial role in activating economic processes capable of positively affecting and regenerating communities.

As a result of changes in economic and social context, culture itself is often an object of change, both as a “culture that changes the context” and a “culture that changes itself”.

In conclusion, the Italian third sector is taking steps to fill the gap left by the inefficiencies of state and private actors. It needs clear incentives and rules to operate and survive. It is not possible to wait for socio-economic growth in a territory before investing in cultural and social sectors. Instead, the cultural and social development of a community may be the start of self-sustainable and effective social innovation processes. In this sense, it is recommended that policymakers and decision-makers encouraging and recognising SEOs’ activities, should not only focus on financial support, certainly necessary and essential, but also identify the gaps of intervention to develop organizational responses that can meet their long-term challenges.

The study had some limitations, which open up avenues for future research. First, we analysed cultural SEOs in Southern Italy, which is currently experiencing a relatively strong cultural, social and economic crisis. This may have biased some results. Future research could investigate other cultural contexts (such as the centre and north of Italy and other European countries, considering the differences between third sector systems) to shed light on comparisons and/or contrasts with our analysis. Second, we used a “snapshot” approach, interviewing individuals at one point in time. A longitudinal approach, following cultural ventures over an extended period of time, may offer additional insights into the dynamic processes underlying business model innovation and the use of social bricolage, and showing whether these ventures can create social innovation in the long term. It would be interesting to monitor these ventures to assess their performance and understand the potential margins of growth and risk, in terms of social and economic sustainability and scaling up.

social business model innovation

SEO diamond model

Main characteristics of analysed cases

Innovation strategies and social criteria for SEO business models, illustrated by cases

Abebe , M.A. , Kimakwa , S. and Redd , T. ( 2020 ), “ Toward a typology of social entrepreneurs: the interplay between passionate activism and entrepreneurial expertise ”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development , Vol.  27 No.  4 , pp.  509 - 530 .

Agarwal , N.R. , Chakrabarti , R. , Brema , A. and Bocken , N. ( 2018 ), “ Market driving at bottom of the pyramid (BoP): an analysis of social enterprises from the healthcare sector ”, Journal of Business Research , Vol.  86 , pp.  234 - 244 .

Amit , R. and Zott , C. ( 2020 ), Business Model Innovation Strategy: Transformational Concepts and Tools for Entrepreneurial Leaders , John Wiley & Sons , Hoboken New Jersey .

Angeli , F. and Jaiswal , A.K. ( 2016 ), “ Business model innovation for inclusive health care delivery at the bottom of the pyramid ”, Organization and Environment , Vol.  29 No.  4 , pp.  486 - 507 .

Anthony , S.D. , Johnson , M.W. and Sinfield , J.V. ( 2008 ), “ Institutionalizing innovation ”, MIT Sloan Management Review , Vol.  49 No.  2 , pp.  45 - 53 .

Austin , J. , Stevenson , H. and Wei-Skillern , J. ( 2006 ), “ Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same, different, or both? ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol.  30 No.  1 , pp.  1 - 22 .

Bacq , S. and Janssen , F. ( 2011 ), “ The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: a review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria ”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development , Vol.  23 Nos 5-6 , pp.  373 - 403 .

Bacq , S.L. , Ofstein , F. , Kickul , J.R. and Gundry , L.K. ( 2015 ), “ Bricolage in social entrepreneurship: how creative resource mobilization fosters greater social impact ”, The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation , Vol.  16 No.  4 , pp.  283 - 289 .

Baker , T. and Nelson , R.E. ( 2005 ), “ Creating something from nothing: resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage ”, Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol.  50 No.  3 , pp.  329 - 366 .

Baker , T.A. , Miner , S. and Eesley , D.T. ( 2003 ), “ Improvising firms: bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process ”, Research Policy , Vol.  32 , pp.  255 - 276 .

Balan-Vnuk , E. and Balan , P. ( 2015 ), “ Business model innovation in nonprofit social enterprises ”, in Roos , G. and O’Connor (Eds), Integrating Innovation: South Australian Entrepreneurship Systems and Strategies , University of Adelaide Press , pp.  205 - 232 .

Battilana , J. , Lee , M. , Walker , J. and Dorsey , C. ( 2012 ), “ In search of the hybrid ideal ”, Stanford Social Innovation Review , Vol.  10 No.  3 , pp.  51 - 55 .

Bhattacharyya , O. , Khor , S. , McGahan , A. , Dunne , D. , Daar , A.S. and Singer , P.A. ( 2010 ), “ Innovative health service delivery models in low and middle income countries – what can we learn from the private sector? ”, Health Research Policy and Systems , Vol.  8 No.  1 , pp.  1 - 11 .

Borzaga , C. ( 2020 ), Social Enterprises and Their Ecosystems in Europe. Updated Country Report: Italy , Publications Office of the European Union, European Commission Luxembourg , available at: https://europa.eu/!Qq64ny

Canestrino , R. , Cwiklicki , M. , Di Nauta , P. and Magliocca , P. ( 2019 ), “ Creating social value through entrepreneurship: the social business model of La Paranza ”, Kybernetes , Vol.  48 No.  10 , pp.  2190 - 2216 .

Caulier-Grice , J. , Davies , A. , Patrick , R. and Norman , W. ( 2012 ), “ Defining social innovation ”, A Deliverable of the Project: The Theoretical, Empirical and Policy Foundations for Building Social Innovation in Europe (TEPSIE) , European Commission–7th Framework Programme, European Commission, DG Research , Brussels , pp. 33 - 41 .

Chesbrough , H. ( 2010 ), “ Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers ”, Long Range Planning , Vol.  43 Nos 2-3 , pp.  354 - 363 .

Ciambotti , G. and Pedrini , M. ( 2021 ), “ Hybrid harvesting strategies to overcome resource constraints: evidence from social enterprises in Kenya ”, Journal of Business Ethics , Vol.  168 No.  1 , pp.  1 - 20 .

Cicellin , M. , Scuotto , A. , Canonico , P. , Consiglio , S. and Mercurio , L. ( 2019 ), “ Understanding low cost business model in healthcare service provision: a comparative case study in the Italian experience ”, Social Science and Medicine , Vol.  240 , pp.  1 - 9 .

Consiglio , S. and Riitano , S. (Eds) ( 2015 ), Sud Innovation. Patrimonio Culturale, Innovazione Sociale e Nuova Cittadinanza , Franco Angeli , Milan .

Cunha , M.P. ( 2005 ), “Bricolage in organizations”, FEUNL Working Paper No . 474 , pp. 1 - 32 .

Czarniaswka , B. ( 2004 ), Narratives in Social Science Research . SAGE , London .

Dacin , M.T. , Dacin , P.A. and Tracey , P. ( 2011 ), “ Social entrepreneurship: a critique and future directions ”, Organization Science , Vol.  22 No.  5 , pp.  1203 - 1213 .

De Simone , M. and Simoncini , D. ( 2012 ), Emerging Organization , Maggioli Editore , Rimini .

de Souza João-Roland , I. and Granados , M.L. ( 2020 ), “ Social innovation drivers in social enterprises: systematic review ”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development , Vol.  27 No.  5 , pp.  775 - 795 .

Dees , J.G. ( 2001 ), “ The meaning of social entrepreneurship ”, Stanford Business School Centre for Social Innovation , Draft Paper, available at: http://www.fuqua.duke.edu/centers/case/documents/dees_SE.pdf

Dees , J.G. , Emerson , J. and Economy , P. ( 2002 ), Enterprising Nonprofits: A Toolkit for Social Entrepreneurs , John Wiley & Sons , New York .

Denzin , N.K. ( 1978 ), The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods , 2nd ed. , McGraw-Hill , New York .

Desa , G. ( 2012 ), “ Resource mobilization in international social entrepreneurship: bricolage as a mechanism of institutional transformation ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol.  36 No.  4 , pp.  727 - 751 .

Desa , G. and Basu , S. ( 2013 ), “ Optimization or bricolage? Overcoming resource constraints in global social entrepreneurship ”, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal , Vol.  7 No.  1 , pp.  26 - 49 .

Desa , G. and Koch , J.L. ( 2014 ), “ Scaling social impact: building sustainable social ventures at the base-of-the-pyramid ”, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship , Vol.  5 No.  2 , pp.  146 - 174 .

Di Domenico , M. , Haugh , H. and Tracey , P. ( 2010 ), “ Social bricolage: theorizing social value creation in social enterprises ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol.  34 No.  4 , pp.  681 - 703 .

Do Vale , G. , Collin-Lachaud , I. and Lecocq , X. ( 2021 ), “ Micro-level practices of bricolage during business model innovation process: the case of digital transformation towards omni-channel retailing ”, Scandinavian Journal of Management , Vol.  37 No.  2 , 101154 .

Dorado , S. ( 2006 ), “ Social entrepreneurial ventures: different values so different process of creation, no? ”, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship , Vol.  11 No.  04 , pp.  319 - 343 .

Dovis , P. and Saraceno , C. ( 2011 ), I Nuovi Poveri: Politiche per le Disuguaglianze , Codice Edizioni , Turin .

Eisenhardt , K.M. and Graebner , M.E. ( 2007 ), “ Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges ”, Academy of Management Journal , Vol.  50 , pp.  25 - 32 .

European Commission ( 2012 ), Guide to Research and Innovation Strategies for Smart Specialisation (RIS3) , European Commission , Brussels .

European Commission - European Expert Network Culture ( 2015 ), “ New business models in the cultural and creative sectors (CCSs) ”, EENC Ad Hoc Questions , pp.  1 - 17 .

European Commission, Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture ( 2019 ), European Framework for Action on Cultural Heritage , Publications Office , available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/949707

Fan , W.S. , Huang , K.C. and Chiang , P.Y. ( 2019 ), “ An empirical application of entrepreneurial bricolage theory to resource integration using data from small and medium-sized enterprises in taiwan ”, International Journal of Business and Social Science , Vol.  10 No.  7 , pp.  65 - 77 .

Foss , N.J. and Saebi , T. ( 2017 ), “ Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: how far have we come, and where should we go? ”, Journal of Management , Vol.  43 No.  1 , pp.  200 - 227 .

Gasparin , M. , Green , W. , Lilley , S. , Quinn , M. , Saren , M. and Schinckus , C. ( 2021 ), “ Business as unusual: a business model for social innovation ”, Journal of Business Research , Vol.  125 , pp.  698 - 709 .

Griffiths , M.D. , Gundry , L.K. and Kickul , J.R. ( 2013 ), “ The socio‐political, economic, and cultural determinants of social entrepreneurship activity: an empirical examination ”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development , Vol.  20 No.  2 , pp.  341 - 357 .

Gundry , L.K. , Kickul , J.R. , Griffiths , M.D. and Bacq , S.C. ( 2011a ), “ Creating social change out of nothing: the role of entrepreneurial bricolage in social entrepreneurs’ catalytic innovations ”, Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth , Vol.  13 , pp.  1 - 24 .

Gundry , L.K. , Kickul , J.R. , Griffiths , M.D. and Bacq , S.C. ( 2011b ), “ Entrepreneurial bricolage and innovation ecology: precursors to social innovation? ”, Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research , Vol.  31 No.  19 , pp.  450 - 470 .

Guo , H. , Su , Z. and Ahlstrom , D. ( 2016 ), “ Business model innovation: the effects of exploratory orientation, opportunity recognition, and entrepreneurial bricolage in an emerging economy ”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management , Vol.  33 No.  2 , pp.  533 - 549 .

Gustafsson , C. and Lazzaro , E. ( 2021 ), “ The innovative response of cultural and creative industries to major European societal challenges: toward a knowledge and competence base ”, Sustainability , Vol.  13 No.  23 , 13267 .

Heikkilä , M. , Bouwman , H. and Heikkilä , J. ( 2017 ), “ From strategic goals to business model innovation paths: an exploratory study ”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development , Vol.  25 No.  1 , pp.  107 - 128 .

Igalla , M.J. , Edelenbos , J. and van Meerkerk , I. ( 2019 ), “ Citizens in action, what do they accomplish? A systematic literature review of citizen initiatives, their main characteristics, outcomes, and factors ”, VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Vol.  30 No.  5 , pp.  1176 - 1194 .

Janssen , F. , Fayolle , A. and Wuilaume , A. ( 2018 ), “ Researching bricolage in social entrepreneurship ”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development , Vol.  30 Nos 3-4 , pp.  450 - 470 .

Johnson , M.W. , Christensen , C.M. and Kagermann , H. ( 2008 ), “ Reinventing your business model ”, Harvard Business Review , Vol.  86 No.  12 , pp.  57 - 68 .

Kang , T. ( 2017 ), “ Bricolage in the urban cultural sector: the case of Bradford city of film ”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development , Vol.  29 Nos 3-4 , pp.  340 - 356 .

Kelly , K. and Caputo , T. ( 2006 ), “ Case study of grassroots community development: sustainable, flexible and cost-effective responses to local needs ”, Community Development Journal , Vol.  41 No.  2 , pp.  234 - 245 .

Kickul , J. , Griffiths , M. , Bacq , S. and Garud , N. ( 2018 ), “ Catalyzing social innovation: is entrepreneurial bricolage always good? ”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development , Vol.  30 Nos 3-4 , pp.  407 - 420 .

Komatsu , T. , Deserti , A. , Rizzo , F. , Celi , M. and Alijani , S. ( 2016 ), “ Social innovation business models: coping with antagonistic objectives and assets ”, in Alijani , S. and Karyotis , C. (Eds), Finance and Economy for Society: Integrating Sustainability. Critical Studies on Corporate Responsibility, Governance and Sustainability , Emerald Group Publishing , Bingley .

Landoni , P. , Dell’era , C. , Frattini , F. , Petruzzelli , A.M. , Verganti , R. and Manelli , L. ( 2020 ), “ Business model innovation in cultural and creative industries: insights from three leading mobile gaming firms ”, Technovation , Vols 92-93 , 102084 .

Lévi-Strauss , C. ( 1966 ), The Savage Mind , University of Chicago Press , Chicago .

Leadbeater , C. ( 2007 ), Social Enterprise and Social Innovation: Strategies for the Next Ten Years , London Office of the Third Sector , London .

Lee , I. ( 2015 ), “ A social enterprise business model for social entrepreneurs: theoretical foundations and model development ”, International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation , Vol.  3 No.  4 , pp.  269 - 301 .

Linna , P. ( 2013 ), “ Bricolage as a means of innovating in a resource-scarce environment: a study of innovator-entrepreneurs at the BOP ”, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship , Vol.  18 No.  3 , pp.  1 - 23 .

Mair , J. and Martí , I. ( 2006 ), “ Social entrepreneurship research: a source of explanation, prediction, and delight ”, Journal of World Business , Vol.  41 No.  1 , pp.  36 - 44 .

Mair , J. , Battilana , J. and Cardenas , J. ( 2012 ), “ Organizing for society: a typology of social entrepreneuring models ”, Journal of Business Ethics , Vol.  111 No.  3 , pp.  353 - 373 .

Marmot , M. , Friel , S. , Bell , R. , Houweling , T.A.J. and Taylor , S. ( 2008 ), “ Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health ”, Lancet , Vol.  372 , pp.  1661 - 1669 .

Martin , R.L. and Osberg , S. ( 2007 ), “ Social entrepreneurship: the case for definition ”, Stanford Social Innovation Review , Spinger , pp. 29 - 39 .

Mathie , A. and Cunningham , G. ( 2003 ), “ From clients to citizens: asset-based community development as a strategy for community-driven development ”, Development in Practice , Vol.  13 No.  5 , pp.  474 - 486 .

Michelini , L. ( 2012 ), Social Innovation and New Business Models: Creating Shared Value in Low-Income Markets , SpringerBrief in Business , London .

Michelini , L. and Fiorentino , D. ( 2012 ), “ New business models for creating shared value ”, Social Responsibility Journal , Vol.  8 No.  4 , pp.  561 - 577 .

Mintzberg , H. and Azevedo , G. ( 2012 ), “ Fostering ‘why not?’ Social initiatives–beyond business and governments ”, Development in Practice , Vol.  22 No.  7 , pp.  895 - 908 .

Molecke , G. and Pinkse , J. ( 2017 ), “ Accountability for social impact: a bricolage perspective on impact measurement in social enterprises ”, Journal of Business Venturing , Vol.  32 No.  5 , pp.  550 - 568 .

Morris , M.H. , Santos , S.C. and Kuratko , D.F. ( 2021 ), “ The great divides in social entrepreneurship and where they lead us ”, Small Business Economics , Vol.  57 No.  3 , pp.  1089 - 1106 .

Moss , T.W. , Short , J.C. , Payne , G.T. and Lumpkin , G.T. ( 2011 ), “ Dual identities in social ventures: an exploratory study ”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice , Vol.  35 No.  4 , pp.  805 - 830 .

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

Nicholls , A. ( 2009 ), “ We do good things, don’t we? Blended value accounting in social entrepreneurship ”, Accounting, Organizations and Society , Vol.  34 No.  6 , pp.  755 - 769 .

Osterwalder , A. and Pigneur , Y. ( 2010 ), Business Model Generation: A Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers , John Wiley & Sons , Hoboken, NJ .

Pearse , N.J. and Peterlin , J. ( 2019 ), “ Artistic creative social entrepreneurs and business model innovation ”, Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship , Vol.  21 No.  2 , pp.  149 - 162 .

Peredo , A.M. and McLean , M. ( 2006 ), “ Social entrepreneurship: a critical review of the concept ”, Journal of World Business , Vol.  41 No.  1 , pp.  56 - 65 .

Pol , E. and Ville , S. ( 2009 ), “ Social innovation: buzz word or enduring term? ”, The Journal of Socio-Economics , Vol.  38 No.  6 , pp.  878 - 885 .

Rahdari , A. , Sepasi , S. and Moradi , M. ( 2016 ), “ Achieving sustainability through Schumpeterian social entrepreneurship: the role of social enterprises ”, Journal of Cleaner Production , Vol.  137 , pp.  347 - 360 .

Reficco , E. , Layrisse , F. and Barrios , A. ( 2021 ), “ From donation-based NPO to social enterprise: a journey of transformation through business-model innovation ”, Journal of Business Research , Vol.  125 , pp.  720 - 732 .

Santos , J. , Spector , B. and Van der Heyden , L. ( 2009 ), Toward a Theory of Business Model Innovation within Incumbent Firms , INSEAD , Fontainebleau .

Seelos , C. and Mair , J. ( 2007 ), “ Profitable business models and market creation in the context of deep poverty: a strategic view ”, Academy of Management Perspectives , Vol.  21 No.  4 , pp.  49 - 63 .

Seelos , C. , Mair , J. , Battilana , J. and Dacin , M.T. ( 2011 ), “ The embeddedness of social entrepreneurship: understanding variation across local communities ”, Research in the Sociology of Organizations , Vol.  33 , pp.  333 - 363 .

Servantie , V. and Rispal , M.H. ( 2018 ), “ Bricolage, effectuation, and causation shifts over time in the context of social entrepreneurship ”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development , Vol.  30 Nos 3-4 , pp.  310 - 335 .

Shaw , E. and Carter , S. ( 2007 ), “ Social entrepreneurship: theoretical antecedents and empirical analysis of entrepreneurial processes and outcomes ”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise .

Short , J.C. , Moss , T.W. and Lumpkin , G.T. ( 2009 ), “ Research in social entrepreneurship: past contributions and future opportunities ”, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal , Vol.  3 No.  2 , pp.  161 - 194 .

Smith , B.R. and Stevens , C.E. ( 2010 ), “ Different types of social entrepreneurship: the role of geography and embeddedness on the measurement and scaling of social value ”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development , Vol.  22 No.  6 , pp.  575 - 598 .

Sonkoly , G. and Vahtikari , T. ( 2018 ), Innovation in Cultural Heritage: for an Integrated European Research Policy , European Commission , Brussels .

Spiess-Knafl , W. , Mast , C. and Jansen , S.A. ( 2015 ), “ On the nature of social business model innovation ”, Social Business , Vol.  5 No.  2 , pp.  113 - 130 .

Stake , R. ( 1995 ), The Art of Case Study Research , Sage , Thousand Oaks, London .

Stanojev , J. and Gustafsson , C. ( 2021 ), “ Smart specialisation strategies for elevating integration of cultural heritage into circular economy ”, Sustainability , Vol.  13 , p. 3685 .

Waasdorp , P. and Ruijter , K. ( 2011 ), “ Countries approaches and innovation policies to address social challenges: opportunities and barriers ”, Fostering Innovation to Address Social Challenges , pp.  69 - 74 .

Weick , K. ( 1993 ), “ The collapse of sensemaking in organizations: the mann gulch disaster ”, Administrative Science Quarterly , Vol.  38 , pp.  628 - 652 .

Wierenga , M. ( 2020 ), “ Uncovering the scaling of innovations developed by grassroots entrepreneurs in low-income settings ”, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development , Vol.  32 Nos 1/2 , pp.  63 - 90 .

Wilson , F. and Post , J.E. ( 2013 ), “ Business models for people, planet (and profits): exploring the phenomena of social business, a market-based approach to social value creation ”, Small Business Economics , Vol.  40 No.  3 , pp.  715 - 737 .

Yin , R.K. ( 2014 ), Case Study Research: Design and Methods , Sage , Los Angeles .

Yunus , M. ( 2009 ), Creating a World without Poverty: Social Business and the Future of Capitalism , Public Affairs , New York .

Yunus , M. , Moingeon , B. and Lehmann-Ortega , L. ( 2010 ), “ Building social business models: lessons from the grameen experience ”, Long Range Planning , Vol.  43 , pp.  308 - 325 .

Zahra , S.A. , Gedajlovich , E. , Neubaum , D.O. and Shulman , J.M. ( 2009 ), “ A typology of social entrepreneurs: motives, search processes and ethical challenges ”, Journal of Business Venturing , Vol.  25 , pp.  519 - 532 .

Zollo , L. , Rialti , R. , Ciappei , C. and Pellegrini , M.M. ( 2016 ), “ Factors stimulating social innovation in entrepreneurship: an empirical evidence of inter-organizational alliances in Italy ”, International Journal of Business and Management , Vol.  11 No.  5 , pp.  12 - 21 .

Zimmerman , B.J. ( 1995 ), “ Self-efficacy and educational development ”, Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies , Vol.  1 No.  1 , pp. 202 - 231 .

Zollo , L. , Faldetta , G. , Pellegrini , M.M. and Ciappei , C. ( 2017 ), “ Reciprocity and gift-giving logic in NPOs ”, Journal of Management Psychology , Vol.  32 No.  7 , pp.  513 - 526 .

Zollo , L. , Rialti , R. , Ciappei , C. and Boccardi , A. ( 2018 ), “ Bricolage and social entrepreneurship to address emergent social needs: a “deconstructionist” perspective ”, Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation , Vol.  12 No.  2 , pp.  19 - 48 .

Zott , C. and Amit , R. ( 2008 ), “ The fit between product market strategy and business model: implications for firm performance ”, Strategic Management Journal , Vol.  29 No.  1 , pp.  1 - 26 .

Corresponding author

Related articles, we’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Social Business Model Innovation: A Quadruple/Quintuple Helix-Based Social Innovation Ecosystem

Ieee account.

  • Change Username/Password
  • Update Address

Purchase Details

  • Payment Options
  • Order History
  • View Purchased Documents

Profile Information

  • Communications Preferences
  • Profession and Education
  • Technical Interests
  • US & Canada: +1 800 678 4333
  • Worldwide: +1 732 981 0060
  • Contact & Support
  • About IEEE Xplore
  • Accessibility
  • Terms of Use
  • Nondiscrimination Policy
  • Privacy & Opting Out of Cookies

A not-for-profit organization, IEEE is the world's largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity. © Copyright 2024 IEEE - All rights reserved. Use of this web site signifies your agreement to the terms and conditions.

Featured Content

" "

Cost Management

" "

Artificial Intelligence

Meet BCG X banner

BCG X Product Library

Business Model Innovation in Social-Sector Organizations

Related Expertise: Social Impact , Organization Design

Business Model Innovation in Social-Sector Organizations

Meeting the need.

November 07, 2012  By  Zhenya Lindgardt and  Benjamin Shaffer

This is a time of change for nonprofit organizations. New technologies—and the new approaches they enable—hold enormous potential for good. At the same time, charitable resources are constrained. The tension between the magnitude of need and the level of resources has long been a spur to creativity as nonprofit leaders seek better, more efficient, and more sustainable ways to fulfill their missions. In the current environment, the need for creativity is even more acute: organizations will have to go beyond simply tweaking existing programs in order to deliver the impact they seek. They will have to become more innovative in their underlying models, as well—and to do this, they will need to embrace the discipline of business model innovation (BMI).

The weak worldwide economy has led to both a dramatic increase in the demand for nonprofits’ services and a drop-off in funding. Deeper changes in the economy, such as globalization and the unemployment brought about by advances in technology, mean that these shifts are likely to persist beyond the current economic cycle. For-profit companies such as Apple and Ikea have overhauled their business models in order to succeed in their increasingly tough industries. BMI can help nonprofits thrive as well.

As we have written about before, BMI is about reinventing an organization’s value propositions and operating models in order to pursue growth, respond to trends, or bounce back from decline or ineffectiveness. BMI involves changing multiple components of a business simultaneously, and in a coordinated way, in order to align the organization so that it can deliver a superior value proposition. It goes beyond upgrading single functions, cutting costs, or making operational improvements; and it involves more than a change in products or technologies. Organizations have to rethink the “story” of how they operate and why.

Instead of a business model, nonprofits have a “program model” that outlines the value that they aspire to create in order to contribute to the solution of a particular problem. It comprises not just the immediate activities associated with delivering the program’s products and services but also all the supporting operations necessary to maintain these activities—as well as the fundraising to pay for it. We have found that BMI—or, in the case of nonprofits, program model innovation—can yield a substantial boost in effectiveness for nonprofits, allowing them to serve their clients better within existing budgets. (See the exhibit below.)

social business model innovation

Why Pursue Program Model Innovation?

Four kinds of challenges can signal that the time has come to pursue innovation in a nonprofit’s program model:

  • Declines in fundraising , which require nonprofits to increase their efficiency in order to maintain service levels
  • Changes in needs or the external environment , such as new or increased demand for services, or new entrants into the program “space” that call for an expansion or shift in offerings
  • New technologies that cannot be leveraged without a reconsideration and redesign of program activities
  • Unaddressed related problems in client populations that could be addressed with a new approach

New models attack problems from a different angle to help nonprofits do more. They can complement or replace traditional programs. Program model innovation can be used to change program economics in order to make it possible to serve more clients with similar or declining resources or to meet new kinds of needs. For example, a model that leverages mobile technology, cloud computing, or predictive data can yield dramatic results. New approaches can likewise help nonprofits work effectively with for-profit entrepreneurs that are moving into areas that were once served exclusively by nonprofits, such as education.

From Threat to Opportunity: An Anti-Hunger Example

Most kinds of program model innovation must address multiple challenges and opportunities in order to be effective. That’s what we saw when we worked with a leading U.S. anti-hunger organization. This nonprofit works to feed struggling families by helping food banks source food and by raising the overall awareness of hunger.

Not surprisingly, the organization was seeing a large increase in demand as individual hunger agencies sought more supplies from food banks. Yet those supplies, in the form of in-kind donations from large food manufacturers, were declining as these companies got better at minimizing excess production. These suppliers were also increasingly taking advantage of a secondary private market and selling some of their surplus to retailers such as Big Lots.

This external change led the organization to seek a model that could tap alternate food sources in order to meet growing demand. Food is left unconsumed in many venues, not just by large manufacturers. A great deal of usable food is lost locally by farmers, grocers, restaurants, institutional food services, and caterers. When added together, these local operations generate sizable quantities. In the United States alone, more than 20 billion pounds of food every year is left unconsumed after it has been prepared, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Capturing excess food from local providers, however, is much harder than the current model of trucking the excess from manufacturers to food bank warehouses. The food is perishable and the individual quantities are fairly small. The nonprofit would need to change the economics of distribution in order to make the challenging economics of this new food source work for local food banks and agencies.

The organization hit upon a Web-based, just-in-time approach that would coordinate these local food sources with volunteers and agencies. It conceived of a system in which the donating organizations’ managers could go to an online portal to offer food to those who needed it. Nearby hunger-focused agencies would monitor the portal for supplies and deploy a cadre of volunteers willing to transport food on short notice.

Suppose a local college cafeteria made too many trays of lasagna. The cafeteria manager could log on to the website and enter the details. A local service organization would claim the lasagna, alerting a volunteer via her smartphone that a pickup was available in her area. Logging in, the volunteer would be directed to pick it up on her way home from work and deliver it to her church’s soup kitchen.

In the course of the project, the organization discovered that elements of this new model were already in place at some food banks and agencies. In order to scale up these activities, the national organization was going to need a new program model altogether. While the value proposition—food for the hungry—remained the same, carrying it out was going to require an array of new capabilities. The nonprofit would need to set up and manage the new portal as well as recruit and manage lists of donors, agencies, and volunteers. Everyone involved would need training in giving or receiving these micro donations. And food banks would have to be convinced that the new model would be viable in their areas.

The national organization may need to provide startup funds, yet this foray into local service could also attract new donors. The nonprofit will also have to learn how to measure results from the program—the number of incremental meals delivered at lower cost—rather than the traditional metric of total pounds delivered.

For this one nonprofit, the new business model will complement, not replace, the existing model oriented around warehouse collection. Big companies are still donating food, just at lower levels, and the organization will still ensure that this vital source remains for food banks. At the same time, it has begun working to understand how it could help food banks and agencies take advantage of local, micro donations through this technology-based model. While the details are still being tested, the new model could be revolutionary. Over time, it could increase the engagement of local communities, energize volunteers, enable best-practice sharing among food banks, and change the way local infrastructure is funded.

Finally, even in the development stages, the work has helped the national organization establish a deeper appreciation of its role and has opened the door to considering new opportunities in the future. We can hope that models such as this one will begin feeding families across the country within a few years.

How to Develop an Innovative Program Model

Based on our work with for-profit as well as nonprofit companies, we have developed a five-step approach that any nonprofit can follow for program model innovation:

  • Articulate the current model, both its strengths and weaknesses. Assess whether and why the model needs to change: to make up for funding shortfalls, meet a new or increased client need, adapt to change in the service marketplace, or incorporate new technology.
  • Broaden the organization’s opportunity set to deliver value, including redefining how such value can be delivered—such as leveraging new solutions, technologies, capabilities, or tools.
  • Identify the details of the new model, including the operations, capabilities, and investments necessary to deliver a new value proposition for meeting the clients’ needs. A new model will fit with the nonprofit’s original mission but will attack a problem in a novel way. If this model complements rather than replaces an existing model, clarify the structures that will keep the programs separate while allowing them to share some organizational resources.
  •  Test the new model before scaling it up to full operation.
  • Embrace an innovative culture in order to continue developing new models to test on an ongoing basis.

Beyond this repeatable process, we recommend paying particular attention to three BMI imperatives that are particularly critical to nonprofits:

  • Leverage the broader mission . It’s natural for a nonprofit to become caught up in established ways of doing things. It helps to remind the organization of the underlying mission that inspires everyone’s efforts. Nonprofit mission statements, after all, rarely specify a particular model for getting the all-important results. We encourage nonprofits to dream big. Use a broad mission and vision as a license to explore and be creative. The missions and models of other organizations in the same area can help—and can perhaps even suggest “white spaces” where the nonprofit can make a difference.
  • Bring along extensive stakeholder networks . Nonprofits usually have wide networks of stakeholders willing to help with the new pressures and opportunities. The advice and support of affiliated agencies, fundraisers, foundations, and volunteers will not only increase support for the final model but also help the nonprofit come up with the model in the first place. Borrowing capabilities or assets from stakeholders, for example, can help generate new models. While it can be challenging to manage a diverse collection of stakeholders, these outsiders can facilitate change within and outside the organization. It is best to bring them in early in order to maximize the learning from them as well as to ensure that they have a stake in the new model and buy into required change. Educating stakeholders and asking for input early—getting everyone on board with the need for BMI—pays dividends later during implementation. As the model develops, the nonprofit needs to be transparent not just about the potential benefits but also the inherent tradeoffs.
  • Find the proper metrics for success . Nonprofits sometimes lack measures as clear as revenue, profit, or shareholder value to demonstrate the results from a new program model. But some kind of metric—aligned with the model—is essential for testing and managing the new approach. It is likely that these metrics will differ across models; leadership should select those metrics that measure each model’s unique contribution to the organization’s mission. Metrics are also critical to understanding whether the model has generated sufficient results to continue operations.

With these considerations in mind, leaders of nonprofits and their boards might ask five questions to determine whether it is time to explore program model innovation:

  • Are the needs of our clients changing, and therefore is our value proposition as relevant to them as it once was?
  • Are we achieving the same impact from our operations as we used to?
  • Do we have an asset, skill, or expertise that we could better apply?
  • Have we taken advantage of new technologies to serve our target population?
  • Are new nonprofits or private-sector corporations serving this population in different ways?

Business model innovation takes concerted effort, but the payoffs can be enormous. The same is true for program model innovation. It can propel a nonprofit to new levels of service to its mission—and help it to overcome current challenges. Rethinking a program model can also position the organization for ongoing innovation. We’ve gotten used to constant innovation in technology and markets. To turn those improvements into sustained progress, nonprofits need not only new program models but also the development of a culture of program model innovation.

lindgardt-zhenya-tcm9-878.jpg

ABOUT BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP

Boston Consulting Group partners with leaders in business and society to tackle their most important challenges and capture their greatest opportunities. BCG was the pioneer in business strategy when it was founded in 1963. Today, we work closely with clients to embrace a transformational approach aimed at benefiting all stakeholders—empowering organizations to grow, build sustainable competitive advantage, and drive positive societal impact.

Our diverse, global teams bring deep industry and functional expertise and a range of perspectives that question the status quo and spark change. BCG delivers solutions through leading-edge management consulting, technology and design, and corporate and digital ventures. We work in a uniquely collaborative model across the firm and throughout all levels of the client organization, fueled by the goal of helping our clients thrive and enabling them to make the world a better place.

© Boston Consulting Group 2024. All rights reserved.

For information or permission to reprint, please contact BCG at [email protected] . To find the latest BCG content and register to receive e-alerts on this topic or others, please visit bcg.com . Follow Boston Consulting Group on Facebook and X (formerly Twitter) .

Stanford Social Innovation Review Logo

  • Arts & Culture
  • Civic Engagement
  • Economic Development
  • Environment
  • Human Rights
  • Social Services
  • Water & Sanitation
  • Foundations
  • Nonprofits & NGOs
  • Social Enterprise
  • Collaboration
  • Design Thinking
  • Impact Investing
  • Measurement & Evaluation
  • Organizational Development
  • Philanthropy & Funding
  • Current Issue
  • Sponsored Supplements
  • Global Editions
  • In-Depth Series
  • Stanford PACS
  • Submission Guidelines

An Operating Model to Make Social Innovation Stick

The former chief innovation officer at USAID outlines a way for social sector organizations and funders to build innovation into their DNA.

  • order reprints
  • related stories

By Ann Mei Chang Oct. 30, 2018

Innovation is as essential to social purpose as it is to business profits. But too many organizations embrace the latest fad—whether it be a contest, crowdsourcing tool, or technology platform—while their long-standing operating norms remain unchanged. Not surprisingly, the disruptive potential of these approaches drives an initial surge of excitement, followed by people gradually drifting back into business as usual. I’ve seen this story play out year after year at nonprofits, social enterprises, B Corporations, institutional donors, philanthropists, and impact investors. But, it doesn’t have to.

The field of social innovation has undergone a quantum leap in sophistication with the relatively recent adoption of modern innovation tools such as human-centered design , behavioral science , scaling innovation , lean experimentation , and lean data . However, the resulting whole has often been less than the sum of its parts. Many practitioners are still unclear how this growing jumble of techniques fits together or with existing systems. Worse, piecemeal adoption can fill in a few missing gaps, while simultaneously ignoring other elements equally essential to success. Sometimes it feels a bit like a game of whack-a-mole.

Over the past year as part of the research for my new book, Lean Impact: How to Innovate for Radically Greater Social Good , I interviewed leaders of more than 200 mission-driven organizations across a wide spectrum of geographies, sectors, structures, sizes, and roles to learn what factors had led to outsized results and what factors had led to stagnation or sometimes even failure. What I found was that while each organization had employed its own unique mix of methodologies, the most successful shared an integrated approach to innovation that was built into its DNA. 

Without the right direction, incentives, and success criteria, the most sophisticated tools can only go so far. Promising ideas are birthed, only to hit a wall later due to other priorities, lack of funding, or fundamental flaws in design. Innovation can’t simply be bolted onto traditional systems and structures. Instead, it must be built into the very foundation of an organization.

Are you enjoying this article? Read more like this, plus SSIR's full archive of content, when you subscribe .

What we need is a radical overhaul of the underlying operating model for our institutions that includes three basic elements: audacious goals , organizational agility , and markers of progress. While they may sound simple, each is crucial and frequently neglected.

  • Goal . A measurable, audacious goal based on what is required for lasting change, rather than what is incrementally possible within existing constraints. What does success look like?
  • Agility . The systems, muscles, and culture to quickly learn and adapt in search of the best solution. How can we accelerate our learning?
  • Markers . Meaningful measures of performance along with clear success criteria. Are we reducing risk and maximizing value, growth, and impact?

These three building blocks combine to form the foundation upon which social innovation can thrive. They help inject a new mindset that in turn drives priorities and decision-making. To achieve substantial impact, innovation cannot be relegated to the early discovery stage, but rather must become an integral part of an organization’s work throughout the full lifecycle of development and deployment. Providers and funders alike must work in concert to establish a new framework for accountability.

Today, the dominant model of engagement—firmly entrenched in both organizational cultures and grant structures—involves extensive upfront planning followed by faithful implementation. This is a system optimized to deliver predictable results. It is well suited for problems that are understood and solved, where the key challenge lies in effective execution. Think utility company.

In contrast, most of the social sector engages at points of market and government failure, faces high degrees of uncertainty, and grapples with interventions that are far from sufficient. We need better solutions that will reach farther and go deeper. This calls for adaptability, not predictability. As a gross understatement, our current operating model is not fit for purpose.

To provide a framework for organizational change, let’s explore each of the three elements in depth:

1. Goal: Establish an Audacious Goal

Discussion of innovation inevitably turns to the appetite for risk and the tolerance for failure. Equally important is the role of aspiration and the drive for success that comes from having a clear and audacious goal. Among the greatest examples was US President John Kennedy’s simple and compelling 1961 call to send a man to the moon before the end of the decade that energized a nation. On the other hand, mission-driven organizations tend to adopt goals that are vague, incremental, or both. In the absence of a tangible target that requires us to stretch, risk aversion and inertia quickly set in. People need a reason to take risks. If they can even come close to the target with business as usual, why take the chance to delve into the unknown?

When I was executive director of the Global Development Lab at the US Agency for International Development (USAID), I discovered that the goal of our innovation programs—including Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) and our family of Grand Challenges for Development—had been loosely defined as “identify breakthrough innovations.” The lack of specificity had the presumed upside of making it unlikely we’d ever be perceived as failing. But it provided little guidance on whether what we were doing was working.

With a bit of a push and a lot of soul searching, the team at the lab agreed on a more concrete goal: to identify ten breakthrough innovations in five years that each improved the lives of at least one million people, demonstrated evidence of substantial impact, and had a financially sustainable path forward. The implications were apparent. While the lab had sourced many promising early stage innovations, few had yet successfully scaled. It became clear that we needed to double down on the most promising innovations in our portfolio and help them to reach the next stages of growth.

A goal is the quantifiable grand vision of the change you seek to make in the world, ideally shaped by the size and scope of the need that exists. If a problem plagues tens or hundreds of millions of people, reaching a few thousand will barely make a dent. To put things in perspective, ask yourself, Are you trying to empty the ocean with a spoon or a bathtub with a bucket?

Unfortunately, social and environmental interventions are often planned within tight constraints—of existing budget, limited staff, or the time horizon and dollar amount of a grant. This leads to modest, incremental progress at best. What if, instead, we determined the size of the need, searched for a viable solution, and then found a way to bring together the resources that would be required?

Too often, we embark on the innovation journey without a concrete grasp of our destination. Whether you are using human-centered design, behavioral science, lean experimentation, or some other approach, knowing how far you’ll need to stretch to move the needle will shape the questions you ask and the options you explore. Here’s what this might look like:

Recognize the Need | Four years ago Ben Mangan, the co-founder and former CEO of EARN , wrote about his realization that EARN’s “impact was out of whack with the size of the American economic security problem.” Although EARN’s 7,000 goal-based savings accounts placed it near the top of the micro-savings sector, it was barely making a dent in the 50 to 70 million Americans that could stand to benefit. At an awards dinner in 2012, Mangan stunned the audience by announcing an audacious goal to help one million people save a total of $1 billion by 2022. The clarity of his vision made the need for a lighter weight self-service model obvious. Since this pivot, EARN was able to serve 85,000 new users in the first year of its new SaverLife technology platform, more than ten times as many as during its first 15 years combined.

Have a North Star | Early on, MyAgro established a target “to increase the income of a million smallholder farmers by $1.50 per day by 2025.” This North Star drives the team to continually seek ways to simplify their model and cut costs, as it’s clear that financial sustainability will be the only way they can possibly reach this degree of scale. MyAgro’s research and development team constantly tests new ideas, typically starting with three stores and 30 farmers. These experiments have helped them identify numerous improvements to their model such as halving the recommended dose of fertilizer because it saved farmers money while having no discernible impact on yields, encouraging farmers to develop good saving habits because it increased how much farmers put away, and partnering with existing savings groups to lower MyAgro’s operating costs.

Set the Bar | Donors and government funders play an important role in determining the benchmarks for success. For example, after recognizing that their public school system was failing, the Ministry of Education launched the Partnership Schools for Liberia  (PSL) to identify operators who could deliver superior academic results within the constraints of the government budget. In the first year, contracts were awarded to eight nonprofit and for-profit entities for a total of 93 public schools. A rigorous third-party evaluation found that, on average, PSL students learned 60 percent more than students in government schools. If results endure and costs decline with economies of scale, the program has the potential to be expanded nationally.

2. Agility: Accelerate Your Learning

With an audacious goal in hand, many organizations then attempt to create a well-honed strategy that can be followed to achieve the goal. But, as the military has well understood, no battle plan ever survives first contact. Rather than assembling the foremost experts and attempting to come up with the perfect plan, the ability to quickly learn and adapt is far more likely to lead to an effective solution. This means finding ways to iterate on a solution in the space of days or weeks, not months or years.

As perhaps the planet’s most prominent hotbed of innovation, Silicon Valley gave birth to the lean startup model , which stresses the importance of accelerating the pace of learning through build-measure-learn feedback loops. To do so, it introduced tools for rapid experimentation using techniques such as minimum viable products, A/B tests, actionable metrics, and innovation accounting. By applying the rigor of the scientific method to systematically validate the riskiest assumptions behind a product or service, you can detect problems early, quickly explore potential enhancements, and eliminate wasted effort.

In contrast, the traditional model for learning in the social sector can resemble that of the now largely defunct encyclopedia. A program is evaluated, a randomized control trial (RCT) run or a research report is compiled—then put on the shelf in hopes someone will make good use of it later. If the intent of learning is to drive innovation and impact, then any data, information, or research collected should be:

  • Actionable . Only take the time and energy to gather data where a concrete action or decision will be taken based on the result.
  • Meaningful . Focus on improvements in performance rather than the scope of activity. Consider, for example, the adoption rate, unit costs, or degree of behavior change versus the number of people reached or dollars raised.
  • Fast . Don’t let perfect be the enemy of the good. If obtaining a comprehensive evaluation will be a lengthy process, look for early indicators of progress.

Real-Time Feedback | The American Refugee Committee (ARC) in collaboration with IDEO.org created a real-time feedback system, Kuja Kuja , that has been deployed in refugee camps in across Africa to track customer satisfaction with water distribution, health care and other services. Refugees employed by ARC stand at service locations with mobile enabled tablets and ask two simple questions—are you satisfied with the service and do you have an idea to make us better. The system has enabled ARC to quickly uncover issues ranging from inconveniently placed water taps to water access points being coopted by local thugs, and take immediate action.

Results that Matter | Harambee Youth Employment Accelerator is committed to tackling the youth unemployment crisis in South Africa by matching disadvantaged youth who have never held a formal job with employers seeking qualified talent. While many workforce development organizations are satisfied with celebrating the number of people trained or placed, Harambee takes things a step further. What matters to both workers and employers is success and retention in jobs over time. Thus, Harambee follows up with their job seekers via text messages every four months for two years to keep tabs on critical outcomes such as retention rates and promotions. When it became clear that high transport costs were a major factor in attrition, Harambee increased their emphasis on proximity when making candidate placements.

Trust and Reward | Funders can support and encourage agility by moving away from detailed plans that are tracked through cumbersome reporting to agreements on clear goals along with incentives for progress. The Global Innovation Fund and USAID’s DIV both employ a tiered funding model, adapted from the world of venture capital. Small, early stage grants allow for risk-taking, while minimizing financial downside. And, rather than micromanaging activities, demonstrated traction is rewarded through larger, follow-on rounds of funding. Such funding structures relieve both parties from the unproductive, and sometimes adversarial, tedium of compliance and allow for flexibility, risk-taking, and pivots.

3. Markers: Assess Your Value, Growth, and Impact

If your goal is the destination, and your agility enables you to accelerate, break, and steer, what remains are your markers of progress—the directions, signposts, and landmarks that will help you navigate your way there. For successful social innovation, we need to pay attention to and optimize across three dimensions: value, growth, and impact. While the ever-expanding array of innovation tools tend to be based on the same underlying best practices, they each tend to emphasize some a subset of the three.

social business model innovation

When we go too far in optimizing for the requirements of any one dimension before addressing the others, we can commit to and over-invest in a design that will eventually fall short. The long trail of failed social innovations that litter the landscape inevitably fell prey to neglecting at least one of these three dimensions. Some emphasized human-centered design and were highly responsive to customer needs, but became too expensive or complex to scale. Others prioritized business models to drive growth, but sacrificed more meaningful impact. Still others focused on rigorous evaluation of impact, but left the intended beneficiaries unenthusiastic.

Because modifications to improve one dimension may cause ripple effects that influence the dynamics for the others, it’s important to focus attention on the riskiest assumptions and promising opportunities across value, growth, and impact from the start. As we begin to eliminate the greatest points of uncertainty, we can gain the confidence to make more substantial investments and expand our audience.

Value | If people wholeheartedly want, embrace, and demand what we have to offer, we are far more likely to make a difference. Thankfully, we have come a long way since the days where well-meaning interventions would frequently be foisted on target populations without their input or buy-in. The growing popularity of human-centered design means that most organizations now engage their beneficiaries to some extent in the design of products and services. These efforts should be encouraged, sped up, aligned towards clearly defined success criteria, and sustained over the full lifecycle.

When organizations don’t consider the perceived value by beneficiaries the results can be disappointing. Take, for example, the case of the clinical trials for Tenofovir, a vaginal gel to prevent HIV transmission. Though the substance was determined to be safe and effective in a highly controlled environment, a multi-million dollar phase-three clinical trial in South Africa showed no statistically significant difference between the placebo group and the treatment group. The reason? Women didn’t use the gel consistently, both before and after every sexual encounter, because they found it impractical in their cultural context. Earlier attention to the client experience could have led to a redesign or at least a less expensive lesson.

In contrast, when Off Grid Electric in Tanzania first considered selling home solar systems using a mobile money-based lease-to-own business model, it wasn’t sure whether customers would be willing to pay small amounts for electricity on an ongoing basis. So, its first small pilot consisted of a Maasai tribesman walking from village to village to collect money in person each week. While this was certainly not a scalable model, Off Grid was able to validate user acceptance before making the bigger investment required to build and manufacture an automated system for collecting payments and metering service.

The Fund for Shared Insight’s Listen for Good initiative seeks to build high-quality feedback loops between nonprofits and their clients. Their small grants and technical assistance help client-facing nonprofits implement a five-question survey based on the Net Promoter System to ensure the perspective of their customers is heard on an ongoing basis. Through their Listen for Good surveys, Nurse-Family Partnership, a nonprofit that supports first-time mothers, heard that their clients wanted more flexibility in scheduling appointments. As a result, they fast-tracked a tele-health pilot as a backup option when busy schedules or weather prevented in-person home visits.

Growth | We need to stop thinking about scale as an absolute number to be attained, but rather the slope of the curve, or acceleration, of growth over time. In the former case, the easy temptation is to seek out donor funds that will drive the next quantum of expansion through brute force, only to see growth stagnate as the limits of philanthropic dollars are exhausted. In the latter case, we instead seek out sustainable models that will continue to drive adoption, build momentum, and eventually lead to the exponential growth required to reach a substantial portion of the need. This typically requires some form of business model, adoption by governments, replication through multiple entities, or policy change.

For all the talk of scaling social innovations, scale still tends to be an afterthought—something to consider after a solution has been successfully piloted. Yet, unleashing an engine for growth can have significant implications that affect the core design of an intervention. If it is market-driven, price sensitivity may require a pared down product or service. If it is through replication, an intervention may need to be simplified to ensure it can be deployed with high fidelity at arms-length. And, if it is government-funded, political, budget, or infrastructure realities may constrain the acceptable footprint. By taking your endgame into account from the start, the engine for growth can be built into the core of a design rather than retrofitted after the fact.

A shocking reminder of the social sector’s tendency to pilot new solutions without sufficient consideration of the long-term implications was the moratorium on mobile health pilots declared by the government of Uganda in 2012. This country had been inundated by dozens upon dozens of organizations implementing programs that were duplicative, lacked a viable path to scale, and didn’t interoperate with either the government health care system or each other. Supporting these scatter-shot efforts became a burden rather than a benefit to the health ministry. And, it wasn’t just Uganda. In 2013, a World Bank study uncovered almost 500 disparate mobile health programs around the world.

An example of a health initiative that created a sustainable and scalable model is Aravind Eye Hospitals, which was founded in 1976 with a mission to “eliminate needless blindness.” At the time, an estimated 10 million people were blind in India, the vast majority of them from cataracts that could be cured through surgery. After failing in its attempts to raise sufficient philanthropic dollars to build a hospital and provide free care, Aravind decided to cross-subsidize their services for those who couldn’t pay with the earned income from those who could. This model motivated Aravind to dramatically reduce costs and improve efficiency. All patients receive the same high-quality care from the same doctors, with the main difference being the quality of accommodations. Today, Aravind has become the largest provider of eye care services in the world, performing an estimated 300,000 cataract eye surgeries in 2017, two-thirds of which were either free or highly subsidized.

Given the limitations of charitable funding, donors hold a part of the responsibility for transitioning grantees onto a sustainable path for growth. For those with earned income business models, blended finance—a complementary mix of philanthropic and investment capital—can provide the necessary bridge out of donor dependence. While many social enterprises are already financed through custom funding stacks that include grants, debt, and equity, more systemic mechanisms are needed to facilitate broader adoption. One promising initiative is Convergence , established in 2016 as a global network for blended finance that both designs and brokers deals. Convergence believes that by leveraging public and philanthropic funding, as much as ten times more private investment dollars can be unlocked.

Impact | The ultimate goal of social innovation is to deliver social impact that persists, to the maximum degree possible. Yet, measuring impact is generally far tougher and far slower than measuring something like e-commerce purchases. As a result, on one extreme some practitioners forgo rigorous measurement and focus instead on counting the numbers of people reached, while on the opposite extreme others slow down their feedback cycle to incorporate time-consuming and expensive RCTs. Fortunately, alternatives exist. Acumen’s Lean Data initiative and IDinsight have been among the leaders who are filling the need for timely, actionable impact data.

Beyond the question of pure impact, we must also consider cost-effectiveness. It’s not enough to make a difference. We should also consider the value for money relative to the alternatives. For example, I once heard of a program that had raised the incomes of poor farmers by a total of $1 million. Not bad? It seemed far less impressive when I learned that $10 million had been spent in doing so.

When impact isn’t understood, a compelling intervention may cause attention and resources to be diverted from more effective solutions. The widespread replication of microcredit as a financially sustainable way to lift millions out of poverty is one well-documented example. By 2007, the global microcredit industry grew to almost 25,000 institutions serving more than 100 million borrowers⁠ . Yet, more than three decades after the birth of the modern movement in Bangladesh during the 1980s, a number of RCTs reported a “ lack of evidence of transformative effects on the average borrower. ” Even worse, some poor households became mired in debt, unable to keep up with high interest payments.

One area where impact can take a notoriously long time to materialize is education. Summit Public Schools’ goal of having 100 percent of its participants attend and graduate from college can’t be fully confirmed for a decade. Yet, it recognized the need for a faster feedback cycle. Thus, Summit focused on embedding a culture and process for iterative learning using a technology platform, mentor meetings, and teacher feedback to garner immediate insight into student progress. With this data, it was able to run rapid-cycle prototypes, on a weekly basis, to shape its transformative approach to personalized learning. Modifications ranged from small tweaks in curriculum to a complete reconfiguration of the school day. The Summit Public School model has now been adopted in more than 300 public schools across the United States.

To align the interests of funders and providers around creating the most cost-effective impact, the ideal scenario would be to pay for outcomes. However, this can be impractical, given the cost, time, and difficulty involved in discretely measuring many desirable outcomes—as evidenced by the still limited number of social impact bonds. Yet, smaller steps can play dividends. In their work with King County, Washington to improve timely access to outpatient mental health and substance abuse treatment, Third Sector Capital Partners established performance benchmarks, then amended the existing provider contracts to offer a 2 percent bonus for meeting targets. In addition, by 2020, a greater portion of payments will be linked to outcomes, raising the bar on what it will take to stay competitive.

Fall in Love with the Problem, Not Your Solution

If you are true to your goal, remain agile, and stay focused on meaningful markers of progress, you may find yourself facing some tough choices. The solution you initially envisioned may simply not work, or be the best option. That disruptive technology you’ve committed to deploying might not be appropriate. The opportunity to raise more money, gain more glory, or expand the footprint of your organization may not exist. Are you prepared to do what it takes to solve the problem? All the theory on innovation is only as good as the willingness to act on it.

Most people don’t realize that one of the most successful social enterprises, d.light , didn’t start out selling solar lanterns. While it has been unwavering in its goal to provide the 1.6 billion people who live without electricity access to affordable light, its first design, the Forever-Bright, was a low-cost LED light run off batteries that could be recharged by a diesel generator. This worked well in its initial markets of Myanmar and Cambodia, where children would shuttle lead acid batteries every few days to generators to be recharged. But as d.light expanded into India it discovered that generators weren’t as readily available. This caused it to pivot to a new approach—solar—and it never looked back. D.light has now sold close to 20 million solar light and power products in 62 countries.

When we hear the word innovation, we inevitably imagine the process of birthing a breakthrough idea no one has thought of before. This is based on a widely held misconception of the term. New ideas are a dime a dozen. In fact, most of the good ideas we need probably already exist . The tough part is refining and deploying an invention to make a meaningful difference in the world.

Evidence Action , has taken this to heart and works to build scalable programs based on research studies that have already demonstrated successful results. One such endeavor is their Deworm the World Initiative that aims to reach the more than 800 million children who are at risk of parasitic worm infections that can negatively impact their health, ability to learn, and future productivity. Building on existing data, Evidence Action works with policymakers to design and implement effective deworming programs at a state and national level. Through their support of India’s National Deworming Day alone, the program treated approximately 260 million children in 2017.

It’s time to shift our attention from the adoption of new innovation methods to the institutionalization of an operating model where innovation can thrive. This requires audacious goals that will force us out of our comfort zones, an emphasis on agility over planning, and a laser focus on the markers that indicate strong performance. With these foundational elements in place, the growing choice of tools, techniques, and experts will become ever more powerful and essential. Without them, our efforts will be stymied as we find ourselves continually swimming upstream.

Support  SSIR ’s coverage of cross-sector solutions to global challenges.  Help us further the reach of innovative ideas.  Donate today .

Read more stories by Ann Mei Chang .

SSIR.org and/or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and to our better understanding of user needs. By closing this banner, scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to otherwise browse this site, you agree to the use of cookies.

Logo

From Corporate Social Responsibility to Business Model Innovation

Infosys

  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share via Email
  • Download PDF

CSR teams face formidable internal competition when chasing capital expenditure within their organisation, particularly when moving into untested markets.

In the vast majority of listed companies there is an overriding view that private capital should be used to deliver maximum short-term returns to shareholders rather than funding non-core products offering long–term sustainability benefits.  So how do you convince the board your project is a legitimate, strategic and viable option for the company?

In many cases this is best achieved by finding a project that has direct links to the firm’s core operations, with a business plan that headquarters can relate to; one that feeds back into the company’s normal growth matrix.

M-Pesa, the world’s first large-scale mobile payment service, is a great example of how good ideas can impact lives and be integrated back into the core business.

M-Pesa (M stands for mobile and Pesa is Swahili for money) is a joint venture between mobile phone giant Vodafone and its Kenyan subsidiary Safaricom. Initially aimed at helping the unbanked population of Kenya receive and repay microfinance loans, the service was quickly adopted as a means to transfer remittances and pay for services. Within three years of its 2007 launch, it had 12.6 million registered users and tens of millions of transactions - equating to 30 billion Kenyan shillings (US$375 million) - every month. Today’s its operations have extended to Afghanistan, South Africa, India and Eastern Europe.

“There was a lot more we could do”

The concept was born in 2004 when a study by Vodafone’s Corporate Responsibility team confirmed what the United Nations had surmised some years earlier; that information and communication technologies were an important lever to improve social and economic conditions in the world’s poorest countries. It was proof, according to team leader Nick Hughes that “there was a lot more we could do” with the first generation network; developments which could turn corporate responsibility into real business opportunities.

His initial proposal was turned down by the Vodafone board, which was focused on the imminent launch of 3G. But a couple of senior executives saw the potential and Hughes, refusing to give up, sought financial support from the UK Government’s Challenge Fund set up to assist sustainability innovations. He was awarded £910,000 (US$1.45 million) conditional on Vodafone funding the remaining 50 percent.

When Hughes presented the idea back to Vodafone’s CFO he took a different approach. Rather than introducing the service as a separate CSR initiative he was able to present benefits understood by a traditional telco operator. M-PESA would increase Vodafone’s “stickiness” with its existing client base and boost agent loyalty. In other words he was able to show the proposal made good business sense.

Letting the business evolve

When the pilot programme kicked off in 2005, 500 customers were enrolled (with a free phone) and eight agents trained in buying and selling air time. It soon became evident that the use of M-Pesa was not confined to loan repayments. People were using their M-Pesa float to send money to relatives and pay each other for goods and services. Some used the account to hold money overnight. At the full commercial launch in 2007 the micro-loan payment functionality was removed. Customers were able to deposit or withdraw cash at M-Pesa outlets, transfer money from person to person and send pre-paid airtime. The aptly named communication campaign “Send Money Home” made no reference to either a loans or banking service.

M-Pesa soon became profitable. In addition, and even more importantly, it contributed to a reduction in churn of Safaricom’s customer base. The company has now gone beyond its payments service, forming partnerships to provide a money transfer service between the UK and Kenya; interest-bearing savings accounts; and point-of-sale micro-crop insurance for Kenyan farmers.

5 Tips for successful CSR innovation

As noted in my case study Vodafone M-Pesa: Unusual Innovation – From a Corporate Social Responsibility Project to Business Model Innovation , co-authored with Olivier Furdelle, Executive-in-Residence at the INSEAD Social Innovation Centre, M-Pesa was not the first mobile money service launched in the world, but it was the most successful.  It’s interesting to look at why.

Firstly, there was tremendous need for their product. Internal remittances are huge in Kenya, as in many African nations, and the population was looking for a cheaper, safer, more efficient way of moving their money.

Secondly , they had the market. Safaricom already had 80 percent share of the country’s mobile phone market, in other words 80 percent of the population could use their service.

Thirdly they understood the agent economics. Their business plan recognised the need to incentivise agents who had the resources to buy and resell airtime.

Number four, they were flexible. When you bring something new onto the market you have to be able to let it grow in different directions. It doesn’t matter what people use your product for as long as they use it. M-Pesa put the service out on the market and let it evolve.

And finally they took a proactive stance addressing potential risks, working alongside rather than fighting with local regulators.

Finding a versatile business model

Vodafone’s success was the result of a clearly defined objective and a strategy which could adapt. When moving into an unfamiliar marketplace you have to be prepared to adopt innovative business models and different processes.

Working under a CSR platform provides initiatives with a buffer against normal business practices allowing exploration. However once the business is established, real growth will only occur once it is integrated back into the core business.

While many firms engage in CSR for altruistic reasons, the highly competitive business world requires that, when allocating resources to socially responsible initiatives, companies consider their own business needs. Hughes recognised the importance of both. M-Pesa, while providing bottom-line benefits for Vodafone, was also able to use innovative mobile phone technology and business models to tackle development challenges in poorly resourced countries, transforming the lives of millions of people and businesses.

Loïc Sadoulet is Affiliate Professor of Economics at INSEAD.

About the author(s)

Loic sadoulet, share this post, view comments.

Anonymous User

27/11/2014, 06.31 pm

How to convince a group of companies operating in one area that their CSR program is imperative to their sustainability ?..how to translate the word sustainability in a more practical form (usually in financial terms) to those executives ? Thank you

  • Log in or register to post comments

Leave a Comment

Please log in or sign up to comment., related reads.

right incentive structure.jpg

The Right Incentive Structure Makes Firms Smarter

business model innovation.jpg

Entrepreneurship

Four Questions to Revolutionise Your Business Model

tchibo.jpg

Responsibility

CSR as a Quality Enabler

social business model innovation

Our website has a lot of features which will not display correctly without Javascript.

Please enable Javascript in your browser

Here how you can do it: http://enable-javascript.com

IdeaScale Logo

What is Social Innovation? Definition, Examples and Best Practices

By Nick Jain

Published on: July 18, 2023

Social Innovation

Table of Contents

What is Social Innovation?

Examples of social innovation, top 10 best practices of social innovation.

Social innovation is defined as a dynamic process of strategically developing and implementing inventive ideas, strategies, or interventions aimed at proactively addressing prevalent social issues and instigating positive, transformative change. At IdeaScale, our commitment to pioneering innovation sets us apart in this evolving landscape.

We actively engage in the creation and application of innovative methods, models, and approaches, targeting complex societal challenges including poverty, inequality, environmental sustainability, healthcare access, education, and more. Collaborating with a diverse array of stakeholders, including individuals, organizations, communities, and governments, we drive collaborative solutions that redefine the boundaries of social progress.

Social innovation manifests in various forms — from cutting-edge technologies to innovative business models, policies, programs, and services — all designed to make a tangible impact on individual lives and community well-being. What distinguishes us is our relentless pursuit of idea and innovation management software, ensuring our initiatives go beyond short-term fixes and catalyze enduring systemic change.

Our commitment extends beyond innovation alone; it’s rooted in recognizing the interconnectedness of social, economic, and environmental factors. We champion integrated and holistic approaches to complex societal challenges, concentrating on enhancing social outcomes, fostering inclusion, and advancing sustainable innovation.

Characteristics of Social Innovation

Social innovation exhibits several key characteristics that distinguish it from other forms of innovation . Here are some prominent characteristics of social innovation:

  • Social Impact: Social innovation aims to generate positive social impact and address pressing social challenges. It focuses on improving the well-being and quality of life for individuals and communities, particularly those who are marginalized or underserved.
  • Collaboration and Co-Creation: Social innovation often involves collaboration and co-creation among diverse stakeholders, including individuals, organizations, communities, governments, and academia. Co-creation involves actively involving beneficiaries, end-users, and other stakeholders in the innovation process , ensuring their voices are heard and their needs are addressed. It recognizes the value of collective wisdom, expertise, and resources in finding innovative solutions.
  • Systems Thinking: Social innovation takes a systemic approach to problem-solving, considering the interconnectedness of social, economic, and environmental factors. It aims to identify and address the root causes of social issues, rather than merely treating their symptoms.
  • Innovative Strategies: Social innovation encourages unconventional thinking and the exploration of new ways to address problems. It may involve repurposing existing resources, leveraging technology innovation , redesigning processes, or adapting successful solutions from one context to another.
  • Empathy and User-Centeredness: Social innovation places a strong emphasis on understanding the needs, aspirations, and perspectives of the people affected by social problems. It involves a deep sense of empathy and incorporates user-centered design principles to develop solutions that are relevant, inclusive, and meaningful to the intended beneficiaries.
  • Creativity and Innovation: Social innovation encourages creative and innovative thinking to challenge conventional wisdom and develop novel approaches to social issues. It explores ideation , methods, technologies, business models, or policy frameworks that have the potential to disrupt existing systems and create positive change.
  • Scalability and Replicability: Social innovation seeks solutions that can be scaled up or replicated to reach a broader population or address similar challenges in different contexts. It aims to create sustainable models that can be adopted and adapted by others to maximize impact.
  • Measurable Outcomes: Effective social innovations have measurable outcomes and impact metrics. These metrics help assess the success of the innovation in achieving its intended goals.
  • Empowerment and Inclusion: Social innovation aims to empower marginalized and vulnerable populations, ensuring their active participation in the innovation process and the benefits of its outcomes.

These characteristics collectively define the essence of social innovation, guiding its approach and mindset toward creating meaningful and lasting social change.

Learn more: What is Strategic Innovation?

Examples of Social Innovation

There are numerous examples of social innovation across various domains and sectors. Here are a few notable examples:

  • Microfinance

Microfinance institutions, such as Grameen Bank, have pioneered a financial business model innovation to provide small loans and financial services to individuals who are traditionally excluded from the formal banking system. This approach has helped empower low-income entrepreneurs and promote economic development in many communities.

  • Renewable Energy

Initiatives promoting renewable energy, such as solar and wind power projects, are significant examples of social innovation. These solutions address environmental concerns and provide sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels, offering clean energy options and reducing carbon emissions.

  • Social Entrepreneurship

Organizations like TOMS Shoes and Warby Parker have adopted a “buy-one-give-one” model, where for every product sold, they donate a similar product to individuals in need. This incremental innovation approach combines profitability with social impact, addressing issues such as access to shoes and eyewear for disadvantaged populations.

  • Social Innovation Labs

Social innovation labs, such as the MaRS Solutions Lab and Nesta’s Innovation Lab, provide spaces for experimentation, collaboration, and co-creation to address complex social challenges. These labs bring together diverse stakeholders, including policymakers, researchers, entrepreneurs, and citizens, to develop and test innovative solutions through a participatory and iterative process.

  • Open-Source Software

The open-source software movement, exemplified by projects like Linux and Wikipedia, has revolutionized knowledge sharing and collaboration. It allows people to freely access, use, and contribute to software and information resources, fostering global cooperation and democratizing access to knowledge and technology innovation .

  • Circular Economy Initiatives

Circular economy models, such as recycling and upcycling programs, aim to minimize waste and maximize resource efficiency. These initiatives promote sustainable production and consumption patterns by reimagining the entire lifecycle of products, reducing environmental impact, and creating economic opportunities.

  • Digital Platforms for Social Change

Digital platforms and technologies, such as crowdfunding platforms (e.g., Kickstarter, GoFundMe) and online advocacy platforms (e.g., Change.org), have enabled individuals and organizations to mobilize resources and raise awareness for social causes. By embracing digital innovation , these platforms facilitate grassroots participation and empower individuals to drive social change.

  • Social Impact Bonds

Social impact bonds, also known as pay-for-success contracts, are innovative financing mechanisms that bring together private investors, nonprofits, and governments to address social issues. Investors provide upfront capital to fund social programs, and the government repays them with a financial return only if predetermined social outcomes are achieved.

These examples illustrate the diverse range of social innovation initiatives that have emerged worldwide, demonstrating the transformative power of innovative ideas, approaches, and collaborations in addressing social issues and creating positive social change.

Learn more: What is Open Innovation?

While there is no one-size-fits-all approach to social innovation, certain best practices have emerged that can enhance the effectiveness and impact of social innovation initiatives. Here are some key best practices:

1. Deeply Understand the Problem

Take the time to thoroughly understand the social issue you are addressing. Engage with the affected communities, conduct market research , and listen to the perspectives of stakeholders. A deep understanding of the problem will help you identify its root causes, uncover insights, and develop targeted solutions.

2. Embrace Co-Creation and Collaboration

Foster collaboration among diverse stakeholders, including individuals, organizations, communities, and government entities. Encourage co-creation processes that involve beneficiaries and end-users in designing and implementing solutions. Collaboration can bring together a range of expertise, resources, and perspectives, leading to more holistic and sustainable outcomes.

4. Empower and Include Beneficiaries

Ensure that the voices and needs of the beneficiaries are central to the innovation process . Involve them in decision-making, co-design, and evaluation stages. Empower individuals and communities by building their capacity to actively participate in shaping and implementing solutions that directly affect them.

3. Adopt a Systems Thinking Approach

Consider the interconnectedness of social, economic, and environmental factors when addressing complex social challenges. Take a holistic view of the problem and analyze the broader system in which it exists. This approach helps identify leverage points for intervention and avoids unintended consequences.

5. Build Partnerships and Networks

Forge strategic partnerships with organizations, institutions, and individuals who share your goals. Collaborate with complementary entities to leverage their expertise, resources, and networks. Engage with academia, government agencies, NGOs, and private sector entities to tap into their knowledge and networks.

6. Iterate and Learn from Failure

Embrace a culture of innovation , experimentation, iteration, and learning. Be open to failure and view it as an opportunity for growth and improvement. Regularly evaluate and measure the impact of your initiatives, collecting feedback and adjusting your approach based on lessons learned.

7. Seek Sustainable Funding Models

Explore innovative financing mechanisms to support your social innovation initiatives. This could include partnerships with impact investors, government grants, social impact bonds, or revenue-generating models. Diversify your funding sources to ensure the long-term sustainability and scalability of your efforts.

8. Advocate for Policy Change

Social innovation can be further amplified by advocating for supportive policy environments. Engage with policymakers, civil society organizations, and communities to advocate for policy changes that enable and promote social innovation. Share evidence and insights from successful initiatives to inform policy discussions.

9. Foster a Culture of Innovation

Nurture a culture of innovation within your organization or community. Promote an environment that fosters creativity, encourages taking calculated risks, and embraces the exploration of novel concepts. Embrace diversity of thought and encourage individuals to challenge the status quo. Create spaces and processes that facilitate ideation and experimentation.

10. Share Knowledge and Scale Impact

Document and share knowledge gained from your social innovation efforts. Publish findings, best practices, and lessons learned to contribute to the broader social innovation field. Collaborate with other practitioners and stakeholders to scale up successful models and replicate impactful solutions in different contexts.

By embracing these best practices, social innovators can maximize their potential to create positive and sustainable social change.

Learn more: What is Computing Innovation?

Ignite Innovation

Manage Ideas and Ignite Innovation with IdeaScale’s Award Winning Software.

Ignite Innovation With Your IdeaScale Community!

IdeaScale is an innovation management solution that inspires people to take action on their ideas. Your community’s ideas can change lives, your business and the world. Connect to the ideas that matter and start co-creating the future.

Copyright © 2024 IdeaScale

Privacy Overview

Social innovation needs $1.1trn – these companies just committed to act

Companies are pledging to help the economy on social innovation.

Companies are pledging to help the economy on social innovation. Image:  World Economic Forum/Pascal Bitz

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Alexandra van der Ploeg

Jean-philippe courtois, daniel nowack.

social business model innovation

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Social Innovation is affecting economies, industries and global issues

A hand holding a looking glass by a lake

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:, social innovation.

  • During Davos 2024, this year’s Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland, the Schwab Foundation's Global Alliance for Social Entrepreneurship launched the Rise Ahead Pledge – a corporate commitment to invest in social innovations to create a more just, sustainable and equitable world.
  • Over a dozen companies have already signed up and are asking others to join to close the estimated $1.1 trillion funding need for social enterprises.
  • The pledge coincides with a landmark report from the Global Alliance for Social Entrepreneurship, Deloitte and the Schwab Foundation, which outlines best practices, business benefits and ways to partner with social enterprises for social innovation.

During Davos 2024, this year’s Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland, a dozen companies signed the Rise Ahead Pledge, committing to increase investments in social innovation and inviting others to join them to help advance social innovation globally.

Social enterprises – revenue-generating organizations prioritizing purpose over profits – are growing worldwide. New data suggests that over 10 million social enterprises generate an estimated $2 trillion in annual revenues globally – more than, for example, the apparel or telecommunications industries . This new data was surfaced by the Schwab Foundation’s Global Alliance for Social Entrepreneurship at the World Economic Forum in partnership with Bertelsmann Foundation, Catalyst 2030, Euclid Network, SAP, Social Enterprise UK and the Social Enterprise World Forum.

Recognizing social enterprise

Social enterprises are also gaining increasing recognition from global policymakers. In 2023, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on the social and solidarity economy for sustainable development . For the first time, the resolution recognized the contribution of social enterprise towards sustainable development.

In addition, increased policy momentum can be seen globally, such as the European Union’s Action Plan on the Social Economy, the African Union’s 10-year Strategy on the Social and Solidarity Economy or national strategies on social innovation in Brazil or Germany.

But despite social enterprises’ significant economic contribution and commitment to sustainable development, the new data finds that they still face a $1.1 trillion funding gap. That is why the Rise Ahead Pledge is a critical inflexion point for private-sector collaboration with the sector. Pledge signatories show how the corporate sector can contribute to and benefit from social innovation.

Leading by example

1. sap’s support for the social economy.

SAP's commitment extends beyond financial investment. The company supports policy advocacy benefiting social enterprises and invests in resources to scale the social economy. In Europe, SAP matched funding offered by the European Commission to scale the efforts of organizations, including the Euclid Network, Social Enterprise World Forum and Social Enterprise UK, to lead the Buy Social B2B Europe movement.

Globally, SAP's investments in ecosystem building are spanning key markets in 2024, including India, Brazil, the United States and several African countries. Notably, SAP also engages its employees in these endeavours, connecting their skills and expertise to meet the needs of social innovators through pro bono consulting programmes such as the TRANSFORM Support Hub .

2. Microsoft’s‘ entrepreneurship for positive impact’ initiative

Microsoft supports impact entrepreneurs dedicated to societal and environmental betterment. This initiative includes a breadth of programmes offering access to Microsoft's technologies, intensive support for selected startups and leadership development, all aligned with Microsoft's mission to empower a better future.

3. IKEA’s collaboration with social entrepreneurs

Since 2012, IKEA has been purchasing and co-creating products with social entrepreneurs, emphasizing long-term business partnerships. IKEA's plans include launching product families in its retail markets and increasing support for social entrepreneurs through accelerator programmes, funds and direct support. This approach not only fosters business growth but also creates job opportunities for vulnerable groups.

4. Sanofi’s commitment to climate change adaptation

Through its Foundation S , Sanofi has pledged $42 million through 2030 to support community-led adaptation solutions to climate change. Collaborating with Global Grand Challenges Africa and other notable foundations, Foundation S’s efforts focus on the intersection of climate change, health, agriculture and gender, showcasing the power of public-private partnerships in addressing critical global challenges.

Have you read?

The un has adopted a resolution on the social and solidarity economy. here's why it matters, circular solutions, community revolutions: the social impact of circularity, davos 2024: who's coming and what to expect, 5. lex mundi legal support.

Through its Lex Mundi Pro Bono Foundation, the company increases pro bono legal support to social entrepreneurs, creating and disseminating legal resources and building a supportive legal ecosystem. This initiative underscores the importance of diverse forms of support to the social economy.

6. Innovative financing from SK Group’s Centre for Social Enhancement Studies

In 2015, SK Group launched the “Social Progress Credits” through its foundation, the Centre for Social Value Enhancement Studies, to measure social performance, or the degree to which social enterprises solve social problems, in monetary terms and provide financial rewards based on the result.

So far, SPC has involved 326 social enterprises that generated approximately $248 million in monetized social performance over the seven years through 2022. SK Group paid the participating social enterprises $40 million in cash incentives in proportion to their social performance. With its experience of this signature social innovation initiative, SK plans to nurture the social innovation ecosystem.

7. Bayer’s engagement in health, nutrition and the environment

The Bayer Foundation supports social innovators in the Global South at the intersections of health, nutrition and the environment. Through its programmes, it provides financial and non-financial support to social innovators and their ecosystems. It aims to identify innovations with inclusive business models and work with partners to catalyze additional resources for these social entrepreneurs.

8. EY provides business support to social innovators

The EY organization collaborates with leading impact investors and entrepreneurship networks to provide a variety of skills development and coaching programmes. It provides digital tools and resources to support impact entrepreneurs at every stage of their journey. It collaborates with leading organizations such as Acumen, Unreasonable, Impact Hub and Ashoka, and EY clients, including Unilever, Microsoft, and SAP, to help impact enterprises’ scale.

9. Adecco Group’s commitment to open source social innovation

As the global corporate foundation of the Adecco Group, the Innovation Foundation provides support and acts as a catalyst for system change. It runs as a Social Innovation Lab - a venture studio for society. The foundation identifies unsolved social challenges related to employment and employability and then mobilizes various actors to co-create concrete solutions.

Via its replicable model, the Innovation Foundation provides financial and non-financial resources to social innovators who engage as entrepreneurs in residence, venture leads, innovation fellows and other partners. It emphasizes open-sourcing new models so that other players can adopt these.

10. Kale Group support social innovators in Turkey

Kale has managed a comprehensive social entrepreneurship programmes portfolio in Türkiye since 2017. The programmes include a competitive, annually held non-dilutive award programme (IBSG), a youth academy to empower future social entrepreneurs(DIBA), and an emergency response grant program for IBSG laureates. Kale Group considers the financial sustainability of the enterprises and decreasing their dependency on external funding to be the top priority.

Kale Group pledges to gradually redesign its monetary support scheme as impact investing and capacity-building accordingly. Kale Group also aims to build a more dynamic and diverse community and extend the scope of its academy to secondary education. Collaboration with the private sector, policymakers and advocacy groups is another core pillar of Kale’s vision as a thought leader.

11. SUEZ’s integrated social innovation approach

SUEZ has a long tradition in social innovation and has been a partner for social entrepreneurs for many years. Its social innovation approach delivers social and environmental solutions that help SUEZ differentiate, nurture the group’s purpose and adapt to HR evolution. Suez’s approach includes business partnerships with social entrepreneurs and access to essential services, inclusive recruitment programmes targeting vulnerable populations, social procurement and employee volunteering programmes. The company also develops an “in-house” social business (Rebond Insertion), with more than 700 employees with disadvantaged backgrounds and co-operates with social startup accelerators in the field of circular economy.

12. Melitta Group integrates social innovation into its core business

Based on over 115-years of tradition, the Melitta Group is committed to sustainable transformation. It considers social innovation and social business a precondition for successful transformation by enabling and fostering fair partnerships at eye level. The group establishes social ventures at the core of its business, collaborates with and supports social innovators, and fosters their growth by buying their products or services. The Melitta Group commits to continuously extend its social innovation measures and expects a positive impact on its business by innovating sustainable products and services for its customers.

13. Medtronic LABS’ collaborative approach to health system transformation

With at least half of the world's population unable to access essential health services, Medtronic LABS is on a mission to change the way care is delivered and measurably improve population health outcomes for patients, families and communities across the world. Supported by Medtronic and other partners, the nonprofit works with the private and public sectors to design and scale tech-enabled models that transform community health and primary care. Its SPICE platform, a next-generation open-source digital tool for health systems, enables a shift towards a data-driven, community-centred approach to primary care. To date, Medtronic LABS and partners have improved clinical outcomes for over 117,000 patients in sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and the United States.

Blueprint for change

A landmark report, the Corporate Social Innovation Compass , complements the pledge, covering more than 10 mechanisms for companies to partner with social innovators, the benefits and the journey that companies take when engaging with social enterprises. The report was co-developed by a diverse steering group of social innovators, impact investors, academia, companies and corporate foundations, led by the Schwab Foundation, the Global Alliance for Social Entrepreneurship and Deloitte.

It finds that social enterprises can innovate and drive change for companies as they are successfully working at the intersection of business, environment and society. With their commitment to increase funding and non-financial support for social innovation, the signatories of the Rise Ahead Pledge are leading the way in leveraging social innovation to build a more equitable and sustainable future.

As more companies join this initiative, they will help bridge the $1.1 trillion funding gap and help make social innovation the norm, not the exception.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

Related topics:

The agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} weekly.

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Social Innovation .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

social business model innovation

How social innovation education can help solve the world's most pressing problems

Rahmin Bender-Salazar and Roisin Lyons

January 19, 2024

social business model innovation

10 million enterprises putting people and planet first

François Bonnici

January 18, 2024

social business model innovation

10 million reasons for the private sector to invest in social enterprise

Peter Liu, Brigitte Mohn and Veerle Klijn

social business model innovation

5 examples of responsible technology: a new initiative puts AI to work for communities

Jean-Philippe Courtois, Claudio Sassaki and Adedoyin Omidiran

January 17, 2024

social business model innovation

The Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship 2024

social business model innovation

2024 Social Innovation Awards: 16 organizations improving the lives of millions

Hilde Schwab and Francois Bonnici

January 16, 2024

  • Business Models
  • Case studies

social business model innovation

Social Business Model Canvas

What it is and how to use it.

Organizations, including impact-oriented ones, are becoming aware that product/service innovation is no longer enough to keep making it in the real market. Instead, they now strive to re-invent their business models. Nowadays, entrepreneurs have several business design tools for that. In this article, we take a closer look at the Social Business Model Canvas and see how it can help organizations refine their business models.

But first, let’s define “business models”

People often think that a business model (BM) is nothing more than an explanation of how a company generates money. Simply put, “ costs vs revenues “. Yet, “ business model ” is a much broader concept, which academics and scholars have long discussed about.

what is a social business model canvas, social business design, business modelling

In early 2000s, Alex Osterwalder provided a definition of “business model” that practitioners agreed on and that is still widely diffused today, two decades later. He described it indeed as “ the rationale of how an organization creates, delivers, and captures value “. As you see, the concept of “ value ” plays a key role here. And revenue making – sometimes called “value capture” – is nothing but one component of business model.

>> We further discussed the difference between “business models” and “revenue models” in this article . Feel free to check that out too 😉

Business Model Canvas

Alex Osterwalder’s contribution to the field of business modelling and business design didn’t quite stop there. In fact, in 2008 Osterwalder developed a one-page, business model design template: the “ Business Model Canvas “.

A Business Model Canvas is a visual representation of an organization’s business model. As you may guess, it describes the way the company creates, delivers and captures value. Based on a visual language , the Canvas enables anyone to understand pillars and key components of a certain business model. A great tool for describing new or existing business models, studying competitors’ ones and presenting business ideas to external stakeholders in a quick, effective way.

Now, since 2008 hundreds of different version of Osterwalder’s original Canvas have spread out. But most importantly, practitioners noticed that the Business Model Canvas was a great tool for describing profit-oriented organizations, but not socially-oriented ones . As a matter of fact, the Canvas failed to highlight key components of non-profit initiatives, particularly those related to their beneficiaries and impact missions.

That’s how the Social Business Model Canvas came to life. Created by Social Innovation Lab (2013), this Canvas builds on the previous one and is commonly used by social enterprises, as it takes into account all the necessary components needed to achieve both social and economic sustainability.

social business model canvas, social business design, business model canvas

The template we use at Social Business Design is adapted from those developed by Tandemic and Social Innovation Lab. As you can notice, it comprises of twelve building blocks , providing details on how an impact organization creates, delivers and captures value. Each block strictly relates to the other ones, since organizations are ecosystems made of intertwined, interconnected components.

We will now explore every block of the Canvas. Let’s begin!

“Value Creation” section

1. social impact mission.

Socially-oriented enterprises all aim to change society for the better. This block is meant to highlight the ultimate social change the organization aims to generate.

social business model innovation

2. Beneficiaries

As discussed in this article , with the term “beneficiaries” we usually refer to those targets mostly affected by the social problem tackled . In other words, people whose lives the organization wants to radically improve. In this block, it’s important to clearly identify target groups through segmentation criteria such as demographics, geographics, psychographics and behaviors.

3. Core Intervention(s)

In other words, the core product, service or solution offered . A company may have one or more core offerings, especially when beneficiaries and customers differ. So, it’s important to list them all in here.

4. Value for Beneficiaries

When we talk about “value”, we usually refer to the main benefits of using a certain product, service or solution. In this block, we therefore highlight all the pain relievers and gains provided to beneficiaries thanks to the core intervention.

5. Customers

Sometimes beneficiares are able to pay for the product or service offered. When it happens, they are also the actual customers of the social enterprise. But most frequently, beneficiaries can’t afford doing that. Thus, third (paying) parties are needed. They can be companies, individuals, foundations, public authorities, just to name a few. This block shows who the ultimate payers truly are .

6. Value for Customers

.. Well, just like block n.4, but this time for customers only 😉 .

7. Channels

This block lists all the main channels used by the company to get in touch, communicate and engage with the public, as well as to sell and deliver its solution. They can be either physical or digital, owned or indirect.

social business model innovation

“Value Delivery” section

7. key activities.

Time to think about what’s needed to carry out all that has been included in the previous blocks. So, this section highlights all the mission-critical activities needed to keep the business up and running. Production, marketing, R&D, community engagement may be couple examples of that, but every enterprise has its own.

8. Key Resources

Generally speaking, fundamental resources can be physical, intellectual, human, technological or financial . Without them, it won’t be possible for the company to carry out any of the activities and operations mentioned above.

9. Key Partners and Stakeholders

In this block, we include those players (public and private) that provide key external resources or support for the business model to actually work. But please remember: you shouldn’t confuse partners and stakeholder as they are not the same.. just like we discussed in this article !

social business model innovation

“Value Capture” section

10. cost structure.

Creating and delivering a product or service results in costs and expenses. In this block, we consider the major elements of cost impacting the business. These may include staff, technology, infrastructure, advertisement, and so forth.

11. Revenue Engines

Social enterprises usually rely on a mix of different revenue streams to become (and remain) financially viable. This section lists all the different ways the organization generates such revenues – those otherwise known as “revenue engines”. For instance, a company may sell its solutions either through one-time purchases or through recurring ones (i.e. subscription, rental). Again, other engines may include intermediary fees, sponsorships, or even donation-based streams.

12. Surplus

Finally, this block explains how the company intends to use the surplus, if and when generated. Examples of that may include reinvesting it to further increase the reach of impact or even donating it to related causes.

social business model innovation

As discussed, the Social Business Model Canvas builds on Alex Osterwalder’s previous work. Because of the way it is designed, there are several reasons why social entrepreneurs can benefit from using it.

Firstly, the Canvas helps bringing the team together around the table to discuss business models using a shared (visual) language. Secondly, this tool fosters both creativity and analysis , as teams can use it for both sketching new business models or analyzing existing ones. Lastly, the Social Business Model Canvas can be also used with external stakeholders, since it helps describing key components of a business model in a concise, effective manner.

At Social Business Design we love to help current and aspiring change-makers succeed along their entrepreneurial journeys. So, if you want to get even more familiar with the Social Business Model Canvas, click the button below for a free gift designed for you 🙂

Did you like this article?

If so, then don’t forget to check out for more at Social Business Design .

Share this:

  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Cart

  • SUGGESTED TOPICS
  • The Magazine
  • Newsletters
  • Managing Yourself
  • Managing Teams
  • Work-life Balance
  • The Big Idea
  • Data & Visuals
  • Reading Lists
  • Case Selections
  • HBR Learning
  • Topic Feeds
  • Account Settings
  • Email Preferences

How a Well-Executed Social Initiative Strengthens Your Brand

  • David Aaker

social business model innovation

Programs designed to address social issues can lead to growth, customer loyalty, and employee engagement.

In the modern competitive business environment, innovative social initiatives offer a unique avenue for growth, customer loyalty, and employee engagement, often overlooked by organizations. Traditional social efforts like standard volunteering and environmental goals lack impact due to their inability to establish a unique and emotionally engaging identity. The effectiveness of social programs hinges on their alignment with a company’s identity and their ability to resonate with societal challenges, create a strong brand identity, generate excitement, and be scalable. Exemplary cases from Barclays, Dove, Hellmann’s, and Thrivent demonstrate the transformative impact of well-executed social initiatives. These programs not only revitalized brand images and increased public trust, but also significantly boosted sales and customer engagement. Implementing these signature programs requires a committed leadership, a supportive culture, and a passionate team, highlighting an underused strategy for business growth and brand strengthening.

In today’s competitive business landscape, organizations are increasingly seeking innovative strategies to spur growth, build customer loyalty, and enhance employee motivation. One often overlooked approach lies in the realm of social initiatives.

  • DA David Aaker is Professor Emeritus at UC Berkeley and the vice chairman of Prophet

Partner Center

A new Social Business Model Canvas online

Welcome to the new social business model canvas, a digital collaborative template on mural. the sbmc on mural allows you to work with your team to easily map out your social mission and social business building blocks to maximize your overall social impact goals..

This is picture of the Social Business Model Canvas.

Welcome to the New Social Business Model Canvas

The new Social Business Model Canvas (SBMC) online is based on Strategyzer’s original Business Model Canvas and consists of 14 boxes. The boxes range from understanding the complex systems in which your social issue exists to understanding the needs of the communities experiencing those issues, planning out your social mission and social value proposition offerings to beneficiaries, customers, and key funders, and identifying the building blocks for your sustainable business that puts achieving the social mission as the central goal.

Below you will find some additional support resources, such as short readings, links, videos, and pdf files of the blank SBMC, and a mock-up SBMC example that you can download. If you’d like to discuss the SBMC or have someone walk you through it, you will find contact details at the bottom of this page. We want to hear from you!

Access the Social Business Model Canvas on MURAL – instructions

The button below will take you to the app.MURAL.co website to access the Social Business Model Canvas. To collaborate with others using the template, you will be asked to create a free trial (no credit card details required). If you are working in an educational institution and have a .edu email address or are a nonprofit organization, you can request to use MURAL for free by  applying for the education plan or checking your nonprofit eligibility .

Pre-Work: Systems Thinking & Impact Gap Analysis

To be most effective with your business, we recommend you complete some pre-work before you start filling out the Social Business Model Canvas. This includes doing an impact gap analysis and understanding systems thinking. Click on the button below to get started.

How to fill out the Social Business Model Canvas 

There are 14 boxes on the Social Business Model Canvas. Each box is discussed below with some additional information and open-sourced online resources to get you started.

social business model innovation

Key Stakeholders

Key Stakeholders are those people and organizations that closely interact with your social enterprise.

social business model innovation

Social Impact Measurement Strategy

Why do you do what you do?  How will you know when you have achieved it?  For Social Entrepreneurs, it’s important that these two questions are asked regularly.

social business model innovation

Key Delivery Partners

In this section, you should focus on those key delivery partners that you will need to help you either deliver your social programs, or products or services.  

social business model innovation

Competition / Coopetition

Competitors are those other organizations who are offering similar programs, products, or services to you, to either of your segment groups.

social business model innovation

social programs, social business’ products & services, fundraising, etc.

Estimate the costs associated with key activities and resource requirements for the social business, to get an overview of costs. 

social business model innovation

Social Mission

Write your Social Mission statement in less than 8 words, stating the group(s) you will serve, the action(s) you will take, and the change(s) you want to see happen.

social business model innovation

How will you deliver your social value propositions/interventions to your Beneficiaries and Customers? Depending on your offering, you may need to think about developing mechanisms, or channels, that cater to your beneficiaries and customers.  

social business model innovation

What are the critical activities that you need to do, for your social programs, social products, and services, in order to achieve your social mission?  

social business model innovation

Macro-Environment / PESTEL

Just as with commercial business, social enterprises need to be aware of changes that are going on around them in the macro-environment. 

social business model innovation

reinvestment, donations, etc.

Deciding how you will redistribute any surplus profits you generate in one of the cornerstone goals of social business.

social business model innovation

Social Value Proposition

What Social Value Proposition will you offer for your Beneficiaries, Consumers/Customers, and primary funding stakeholders?

social business model innovation

Relationships

What mechanisms will you use to build and maintain relationships with your Beneficiaries, Consumers/Customers, and Funding Stakeholders?

social business model innovation

What key resources will you need to be able to deliver your social programs, products, and services successfully? 

social business model innovation

funding, grants, donations, awards & tradable income, etc.

Typically, social businesses have multiple sources of income to ensure the viability of the enterprise. 

social business model innovation

Social Business Model Canvas Template & Example

Access the PDF version of the Social Business Model Canvas, as well as a completed Canvas for an example social enterprise named “Need, Bake, Serve Café” (11.17.2020).

NOTE: This example is not based on a real social business. Any similarities are unintentional. Download to desktop if you wish to zoom in/read the file in detail.

Circular economy: definition, importance and benefits

The circular economy: find out what it means, how it benefits you, the environment and our economy.

social business model innovation

The European Union produces more than 2.2 billion tonnes of waste every year . It is currently updating its legislation on waste management to promote a shift to a more sustainable model known as the circular economy.

But what exactly does the circular economy mean? And what would be the benefits?

What is the circular economy?

The circular economy is a model of production and consumption , which involves sharing, leasing, reusing, repairing, refurbishing and recycling existing materials and products as long as possible. In this way, the life cycle of products is extended.

In practice, it implies reducing waste to a minimum. When a product reaches the end of its life, its materials are kept within the economy wherever possible thanks to recycling. These can be productively used again and again, thereby creating further value .

This is a departure from the traditional, linear economic model, which is based on a take-make-consume-throw away pattern. This model relies on large quantities of cheap, easily accessible materials and energy.

Also part of this model is planned obsolescence , when a product has been designed to have a limited lifespan to encourage consumers to buy it again. The European Parliament has called for measures to tackle this practice.

Infographic explaining the circular economy model

Benefits: why do we need to switch to a circular economy?

To protect the environment.

Reusing and recycling products would slow down the use of natural resources, reduce landscape and habitat disruption and help to limit biodiversity loss .

Another benefit from the circular economy is a reduction in total annual greenhouse gas emissions . According to the European Environment Agency, industrial processes and product use are responsible for 9.10% of greenhouse gas emissions in the EU, while the management of waste accounts for 3.32%.

Creating more efficient and sustainable products from the start would help to reduce energy and resource consumption, as it is estimated that more than 80% of a product's environmental impact is determined during the design phase.

A shift to more reliable products that can be reused, upgraded and repaired would reduce the amount of waste. Packaging is a growing issue and, on average, the average European generates nearly 180 kilos of packaging waste per year . The aim is to tackle excessive packaging and improve its design to promote reuse and recycling.

Reduce raw material dependence

The world's population is growing and with it the demand for raw materials. However, the supply of crucial raw materials is limited.

Finite supplies also means some EU countries are dependent on other countries for their raw materials. According to Eurostat , the EU imports about half of the raw materials it consumes.

The total value of trade (import plus exports) of raw materials between the EU and the rest of the world has almost tripled since 2002, with exports growing faster than imports. Regardless, the EU still imports more than it exports. In 2021, this resulted in a trade deficit of €35.5 billion.

Recycling raw materials mitigates the risks associated with supply, such as price volatility, availability and import dependency.

This especially applies to critical raw materials , needed for the production of technologies that are crucial for achieving climate goals, such as batteries and electric engines.

Create jobs and save consumers money

Moving towards a more circular economy could increase competitiveness, stimulate innovation, boost economic growth and create jobs ( 700,000 jobs in the EU alone by 2030 ).

Redesigning materials and products for circular use would also boost innovation across different sectors of the economy.

Consumers will be provided with more durable and innovative products that will increase the quality of life and save them money in the long term.

What is the EU doing to become a circular economy?

  In March 2020, the European Commission presented the circular economy action plan,  which aims to promote more sustainable product design, reduce waste and empower consumers, for example by creating a right to repair ). There is a focus on resource intensive sectors, such as electronics and ICT , plastics , textiles and construction.

In February 2021, the Parliament adopted a resolution on the new circular economy action plan demanding additional measures to achieve a carbon-neutral, environmentally sustainable, toxic-free and fully circular economy by 2050, including tighter recycling rules and binding targets for materials use and consumption by 2030. In March 2022, the Commission released the first package of measures to speed up the transition towards a circular economy, as part of the circular economy action plan. The proposals include boosting sustainable products, empowering consumers for the green transition, reviewing construction product regulation, and creating a strategy on sustainable textiles.

In November 2022, the Commission proposed new EU-wide rules on packaging . It aims to reduce packaging waste and improve packaging design, with for example clear labelling to promote reuse and recycling; and calls for a transition to bio-based, biodegradable and compostable plastics.

Find out more

  • Infographic on the circular economy

Related articles

Circular economy and waste reduction, share this article on:.

  • Sign up for mail updates
  • PDF version

College of Nursing

Driving change: a case study of a dnp leader in residence program in a gerontological center of excellence.

View as pdf A later version of this article appeared in Nurse Leader , Volume 21, Issue 6 , December 2023 . 

The American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) published the Essentials of Doctoral Education for Advanced Practice Nursing in 2004 identifying the essential curriculum needed for preparing advanced practice nurse leaders to effectively assess organizations, identify systemic issues, and facilitate organizational changes. 1 In 2021, AACN updated the curriculum by issuing The Essentials: Core Competencies for Professional Nursing Education to guide the development of competency-based education for nursing students. 1 In addition to AACN’s competency-based approach to curriculum, in 2015 the American Organization of Nurse Leaders (AONL) released Nurse Leader Core Competencies (updated in 2023) to help provide a competency based model to follow in developing nurse leaders. 2

Despite AACN and AONL competency-based curriculum and model, it is still common for nurse leaders to be promoted to management positions based solely on their work experience or exceptional clinical skills, rather than demonstration of management and leadership competencies. 3 The importance of identifying, training, and assessing executive leaders through formal leadership development programs, within supportive organizational cultures has been discussed by national leaders. As well as the need for nurturing emerging leaders through fostering interprofessional collaboration, mentorship, and continuous development of leadership skills has been identified. 4 As Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) nurse leaders assume executive roles within healthcare organizations, they play a vital role within complex systems. Demonstration of leadership competence and participation in formal leadership development programs has become imperative for their success. However, models of competency-based executive leadership development programs can be hard to find, particularly programs outside of health care systems.

The implementation of a DNP Leader in Residence program, such as the one designed for The Barbara and Richard Csomay Center for Gerontological Excellence, addresses many of the challenges facing new DNP leaders and ensures mastery of executive leadership competencies and readiness to practice through exposure to varied experiences and close mentoring. The Csomay Center , based at The University of Iowa, was established in 2000 as one of the five original Hartford Centers of Geriatric Nursing Excellence in the country. Later funding by the Csomay family established an endowment that supports the Center's ongoing work. The current Csomay Center strategic plan and mission aims to develop future healthcare leaders while promoting optimal aging and quality of life for older adults. The Csomay Center Director created the innovative DNP Leader in Residence program to foster the growth of future nurse leaders in non-healthcare systems. The purpose of this paper is to present a case study of the development and implementation of the Leader in Residence program, followed by suggested evaluation strategies, and discussion of future innovation of leadership opportunities in non-traditional health care settings.

Development of the DNP Leader in Residence Program

The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle has garnered substantial recognition as a valuable tool for fostering development and driving improvement initiatives. 5 The PDSA cycle can function as an independent methodology and as an integral component of broader quality enhancement approaches with notable efficacy in its ability to facilitate the rapid creation, testing, and evaluation of transformative interventions within healthcare. 6 Consequently, the PDSA cycle model was deemed fitting to guide the development and implementation of the DNP Leader in Residence Program at the Csomay Center.

PDSA Cycle: Plan

Existing resources. The DNP Health Systems: Administration/Executive Leadership Program offered by the University of Iowa is comprised of comprehensive nursing administration and leadership curriculum, led by distinguished faculty composed of national leaders in the realms of innovation, health policy, leadership, clinical education, and evidence-based practice. The curriculum is designed to cultivate the next generation of nursing executive leaders, with emphasis on personalized career planning and tailored practicum placements. The DNP Health Systems: Administration/Executive Leadership curriculum includes a range of courses focused on leadership and management with diverse topics such as policy an law, infrastructure and informatics, finance and economics, marketing and communication, quality and safety, evidence-based practice, and social determinants of health. The curriculum is complemented by an extensive practicum component and culminates in a DNP project with additional hours of practicum.

New program. The DNP Leader in Residence program at the Csomay Center is designed to encompass communication and relationship building, systems thinking, change management, transformation and innovation, knowledge of clinical principles in the community, professionalism, and business skills including financial, strategic, and human resource management. The program fully immerses students in the objectives of the DNP Health Systems: Administration/Executive Leadership curriculum and enables them to progressively demonstrate competencies outlined by AONL. The Leader in Residence program also includes career development coaching, reflective practice, and personal and professional accountability. The program is integrated throughout the entire duration of the Leader in Residence’s coursework, fulfilling the required practicum hours for both the DNP coursework and DNP project.

The DNP Leader in Residence program begins with the first semester of practicum being focused on completing an onboarding process to the Center including understanding the center's strategic plan, mission, vision, and history. Onboarding for the Leader in Residence provides access to all relevant Center information and resources and integration into the leadership team, community partnerships, and other University of Iowa College of Nursing Centers associated with the Csomay Center. During this first semester, observation and identification of the Csomay Center Director's various roles including being a leader, manager, innovator, socializer, and mentor is facilitated. In collaboration with the Center Director (a faculty position) and Center Coordinator (a staff position), specific competencies to be measured and mastered along with learning opportunities desired throughout the program are established to ensure a well-planned and thorough immersion experience.

Following the initial semester of practicum, the Leader in Residence has weekly check-ins with the Center Director and Center Coordinator to continue to identify learning opportunities and progression through executive leadership competencies to enrich the experience. The Leader in Residence also undertakes an administrative project for the Center this semester, while concurrently continuing observations of the Center Director's activities in local, regional, and national executive leadership settings. The student has ongoing participation and advancement in executive leadership roles and activities throughout the practicum, creating a well-prepared future nurse executive leader.

After completing practicum hours related to the Health Systems: Administration/Executive Leadership coursework, the Leader in Residence engages in dedicated residency hours to continue to experience domains within nursing leadership competencies like communication, professionalism, and relationship building. During residency hours, time is spent with the completion of a small quality improvement project for the Csomay Center, along with any other administrative projects identified by the Center Director and Center Coordinator. The Leader in Residence is fully integrated into the Csomay Center's Leadership Team during this phase, assisting the Center Coordinator in creating agendas and leading meetings. Additional participation includes active involvement in community engagement activities and presenting at or attending a national conference as a representative of the Csomay Center. The Leader in Residence must mentor a master’s in nursing student during the final year of the DNP Residency.

Implementation of the DNP Leader in Residence Program

PDSA Cycle: Do

Immersive experience. In this case study, the DNP Leader in Residence was fully immersed in a wide range of center activities, providing valuable opportunities to engage in administrative projects and observe executive leadership roles and skills during practicum hours spent at the Csomay Center. Throughout the program, the Leader in Residence observed and learned from multidisciplinary leaders at the national, regional, and university levels who engaged with the Center. By shadowing the Csomay Center Director, the Leader in Residence had the opportunity to observe executive leadership objectives such as fostering innovation, facilitating multidisciplinary collaboration, and nurturing meaningful relationships. The immersive experience within the center’s activities also allowed the Leader in Residence to gain a deep understanding of crucial facets such as philanthropy and community engagement. Active involvement in administrative processes such as strategic planning, budgeting, human resources management, and the development of standard operating procedures provided valuable exposure to strategies that are needed to be an effective nurse leader in the future.

Active participation. The DNP Leader in Residence also played a key role in advancing specific actions outlined in the center's strategic plan during the program including: 1) the creation of a membership structure for the Csomay Center and 2) successfully completing a state Board of Regents application for official recognition as a distinguished center. The Csomay Center sponsored membership for the Leader in Residence in the Midwest Nurse Research Society (MNRS), which opened doors to attend the annual MNRS conference and engage with regional nursing leadership, while fostering socialization, promotion of the Csomay Center and Leader in Residence program, and observation of current nursing research. Furthermore, the Leader in Residence participated in the strategic planning committee and engagement subcommittee for MNRS, collaborating directly with the MNRS president. Additional active participation by the Leader in Residence included attendance in planning sessions and completion of the annual report for GeriatricPain.org , an initiative falling under the umbrella of the Csomay Center. Finally, the Leader in Residence was involved in archiving research and curriculum for distinguished nursing leader and researcher, Dr. Kitty Buckwalter, for the Benjamin Rose Institute on Aging, the University of Pennsylvania Barbara Bates Center for the Study of the History of Nursing, and the University of Iowa library archives.

Suggested Evaluation Strategies of the DNP Leader in Residence Program

PDSA Cycle: Study

Assessment and benchmarking. To effectively assess the outcomes and success of the DNP Leader in Residence Program, a comprehensive evaluation framework should be used throughout the program. Key measures should include the collection and review of executive leadership opportunities experienced, leadership roles observed, and competencies mastered. The Leader in Residence is responsible for maintaining detailed logs of their participation in center activities and initiatives on a semester basis. These logs serve to track the progression of mastery of AONL competencies by benchmarking activities and identifying areas for future growth for the Leader in Residence.

Evaluation. In addition to assessment and benchmarking, evaluations need to be completed by Csomay Center stakeholders (leadership, staff, and community partners involved) and the individual Leader in Residence both during and upon completion of the program. Feedback from stakeholders will identify the contributions made by the Leader in Residence and provide valuable insights into their growth. Self-reflection on experiences by the individual Leader in Residence throughout the program will serve as an important measure of personal successes and identify gaps in the program. Factors such as career advancement during the program, application of curriculum objectives in the workplace, and prospects for future career progression for the Leader in Residence should be considered as additional indicators of the success of the program.

The evaluation should also encompass a thorough review of the opportunities experienced during the residency, with the aim of identifying areas for potential expansion and enrichment of the DNP Leader in Residence program. By carefully examining the logs, reflecting on the acquired executive leadership competencies, and studying stakeholder evaluations, additional experiences and opportunities can be identified to further enhance the program's efficacy. The evaluation process should be utilized to identify specific executive leadership competencies that require further immersion and exploration throughout the program.

Future Innovation of DNP Leader in Residence Programs in Non-traditional Healthcare Settings

PDSA Cycle: Act

As subsequent residents complete the program and their experiences are thoroughly evaluated, it is essential to identify new opportunities for DNP Leader in Residence programs to be implemented in other non-health care system settings. When feasible, expansion into clinical healthcare settings, including long-term care and acute care environments, should be pursued. By leveraging the insights gained from previous Leaders in Residence and their respective experiences, the program can be refined to better align with desired outcomes and competencies. These expansions will broaden the scope and impact of the program and provide a wider array of experiences and challenges for future Leaders in Residency to navigate, enriching their development as dynamic nurse executive leaders within diverse healthcare landscapes.

This case study presented a comprehensive overview of the development and implementation of the DNP Leader in Residence program developed by the Barbara and Richard Csomay Center for Gerontological Excellence. The Leader in Residence program provided a transformative experience by integrating key curriculum objectives, competency-based learning, and mentorship by esteemed nursing leaders and researchers through successful integration into the Center. With ongoing innovation and application of the PDSA cycle, the DNP Leader in Residence program presented in this case study holds immense potential to help better prepare 21 st century nurse leaders capable of driving positive change within complex healthcare systems.

Acknowledgements

         The author would like to express gratitude to the Barbara and Richard Csomay Center for Gerontological Excellence for the fostering environment to provide an immersion experience and the ongoing support for development of the DNP Leader in Residence program. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

  • American Association of Colleges of Nursing. The essentials: core competencies for professional nursing education. https://www.aacnnursing.org/Portals/42/AcademicNursing/pdf/Essentials-2021.pdf . Accessed June 26, 2023.
  • American Organization for Nursing Leadership. Nurse leader core competencies. https://www.aonl.org/resources/nurse-leader-competencies . Accessed July 10, 2023.
  • Warshawsky, N, Cramer, E. Describing nurse manager role preparation and competency: findings from a national study. J Nurs Adm . 2019;49(5):249-255. DOI:  10.1097/NNA.0000000000000746
  • Van Diggel, C, Burgess, A, Roberts, C, Mellis, C. Leadership in healthcare education. BMC Med. Educ . 2020;20(465). doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02288-x
  • Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Plan-do-study-act (PDSA) worksheet. https://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/Tools/PlanDoStudyActWorksheet.aspx . Accessed July 4, 2023.
  • Taylor, M, McNicolas, C, Nicolay, C, Darzi, A, Bell, D, Reed, J. Systemic review of the application of the plan-do-study-act method to improve quality in healthcare. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2014:23:290-298. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002703

Return to College of Nursing Winter 23/24 Newsletter

IMAGES

  1. Social Business Model Canvas

    social business model innovation

  2. The Social Business Model Canvas

    social business model innovation

  3. Business model innovation: What it is and why it matters (2023)

    social business model innovation

  4. How to use Social Innovation Model in Business

    social business model innovation

  5. Social Business Model Canvas Template

    social business model innovation

  6. Business Model Innovation

    social business model innovation

VIDEO

  1. Types of Business models and Sources of funds for Entrepreneurship or Startups

  2. Business Models of the Future Knowledge Worker

  3. Social Innovation and sustainability| Marketing Management for Social ventures

  4. Business Model Innovation Amazon, Spotify and Tinder

COMMENTS

  1. Four Steps to Sustainable Business Model Innovation

    Four Steps to Sustainable Business Model Innovation April 29, 2021 By David Young and Marine Gerard Reading time: 15 min This article is part of an ongoing series that describes the concept of "Sustainable Business Model Innovation" (SBM-I) and how companies are putting it to use.

  2. Business as unusual: A business model for social innovation

    We define Business model for social innovation, and Strategic framework for social innovation. • Social innovations tackle societal issues and develop sustainable growth. • Socially innovative SMEs have a social aim and an economically sustainable drive. Keywords SMEs Business model for social innovation Social innovation

  3. Business model innovation in social enterprises: An activity system

    1. Introduction There is increasing interest in organizations that focus on a social mission or social value creation. A subset of these organizations employ a hybrid logic that combines social and financial goals ( Battilana and Dorado, 2010, Pache and Santos, 2012 ).

  4. Social bricolage and business model innovation: a framework for social

    Social bricolage and business model innovation: a framework for social entrepreneurship organizations Adriana Scuotto, Mariavittoria Cicellin, Stefano Consiglio Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development ISSN: 1462-6004 Article publication date: 16 November 2022 Issue publication date: 24 March 2023 Downloads 2818 pdf (504 KB) 2.

  5. Social Business Model Innovation: A Quadruple/Quintuple Helix-Based

    The business model innovation (BMI) context can foster social innovation and can be applied in social innovation projects and initiatives. What is important for social BMI is the social mission, which needs to be defined in order to be able to move forward with the strategy, the value proposition, and the best practices of the business.

  6. Business model innovation in social purpose organizations

    Business model innovation Learning capabilities Dual value creation Non-profit management 1. Introduction The drive of social purpose organizations (SPOs) to contribute to the economy and societal well-being is well documented ( British Irish Council, 2010, Weerawardena et al., 2010 ).

  7. Social Business Model and Planning for Social Innovation

    Module 1 • 4 hours to complete. Welcome to Course 2 of this Specialization! In this first Module we will introduce you to the Business Model Canvas - a useful tool that will guide you through the business plan process. You will be able to categorize the elements in the Canvas and start to use it in order to create your business model.

  8. Business models & social innovation: mission-driven versus profit

    The innovation demand placed1 on both profit- and mission-driven organisations is rising steadily in the face of changing technological and social paradigms, set against a generalised atmosphere... Business models & social innovation: mission-driven versus profit-driven organisations: International Review of Applied Economics: Vol 34, No 5

  9. Business Model Innovation in Social-Sector Organizations

    Program model innovation can be used to change program economics in order to make it possible to serve more clients with similar or declining resources or to meet new kinds of needs. For example, a model that leverages mobile technology, cloud computing, or predictive data can yield dramatic results.

  10. An Operating Model to Make Social Innovation Stick

    Innovation is as essential to social purpose as it is to business profits. But too many organizations embrace the latest fad—whether it be a contest, crowdsourcing tool, or technology platform—while their long-standing operating norms remain unchanged.

  11. Business Model Innovation for Social Enterprises

    Types of Business Model Innovation for Social Enterprises As anticipated, BMI can act on one or more of the following dimensions: the " Who? ", the " What? ", the " How? " and the " What's in it? " of an existing business model. Let's now discuss common innovation pathways for each category. Innovating the "Who?" of a BM

  12. How Corporate Social Responsibility Influences Business Model ...

    Business model (BM) innovation driven by corporate social responsibility (CSR) has attracted considerable attention from scholars. However, the understanding of whether and how CSR influences BM innovation is limited.

  13. Business model innovation in 7 nonprofit social enterprises

    have a business model; it is argued that the business model cannot remain static or unchanged, but needs to be the subject of innovation. This is because it is proposed that business model innovation is 'the only way to escape cut-throat competition and sustain competitive advantage' (Matthyssens, Vandenbempt, & Berghman, 2006, p. 752).

  14. From Corporate Social Responsibility to Business Model Innovation

    From Corporate Social Responsibility to Business Model Innovation. Compassion, enlightened self-interest and an innovative approach can make CSR projects a viable part of your business operation. CSR teams face formidable internal competition when chasing capital expenditure within their organisation, particularly when moving into untested ...

  15. Social Business Model Innovation: A Quadruple/Quintuple Helix-Based

    The business model innovation (BMI) context can foster social innovation and can be applied in social innovation projects and initiatives. What is important for social BMI is the...

  16. What is Social Innovation? Definition, Examples and Best Practices

    Social innovation is defined as a dynamic process of strategically developing and implementing inventive ideas, strategies, or interventions aimed at proactively addressing prevalent social issues and instigating positive, transformative change. At IdeaScale, our commitment to pioneering innovation sets us apart in this evolving landscape.

  17. Drivers of Business Model Innovation: A Framework for Social Enterprises

    Business Model Innovation in Social Enterprises. To create a framework for social business models, the academic community has conducted researches based on social entrepreneurship and how to organize creation and acquisition of value in the company and at the social aspect. This can be done by targeting for-profit and non-profit effects ...

  18. On the nature of social business model innovation

    The business model innovation of the cases revealed a strong social mark and identified peculiar strategies that both respond to social needs and long-term sustainability in complex contexts.

  19. These companies committed to funding the social innovation gap

    Social innovation can drive change unrealized by public and private sectors but a $700 billion gap needs more signatories to a pledge launched at Davos 2024. ... Via its replicable model, the Innovation Foundation provides financial and non-financial resources to social innovators who engage as entrepreneurs in residence, venture leads ...

  20. Inequality and marginalisation: social innovation, social

    11. Business model and business model innovation as tools for social business design. The previous discussion illuminates how social enterprises can manage their intrinsic hybridity (i.e. the conflicts between economic sustainability and social impact; Seelos and Mair Citation 2005, 2007) by giving serious consideration to business model ...

  21. Social Business Model Canvas

    What it is and how to use it Organizations, including impact-oriented ones, are becoming aware that product/service innovation is no longer enough to keep making it in the real market. Instead, they now strive to re-invent their business models. Nowadays, entrepreneurs have several business design tools for that.

  22. How a Well-Executed Social Initiative Strengthens Your Brand

    Summary. In the modern competitive business environment, innovative social initiatives offer a unique avenue for growth, customer loyalty, and employee engagement, often overlooked by organizations.

  23. Social Business Model Canvas: The Business Model Canvas reinvented

    The Social Business Model Canvas builds on the business models by adding layers of social and environmental impacts. ... Few methods for business innovation have found such widespread adaptation ...

  24. Social Business Model Canvas

    The new Social Business Model Canvas (SBMC) online is based on Strategyzer's original Business Model Canvas and consists of 14 boxes. The boxes range from understanding the complex systems in which your social issue exists to understanding the needs of the communities experiencing those issues, planning out your social mission and social value proposition offerings to beneficiaries ...

  25. PDF Using the Business Model Canvas for Social Enterprise Design

    A BUSINESS MODEL clearly articulates "the rationale of how an organisation creates, delivers and captures value" (Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2009; p14). A new social enterprise may need both a business model and a business plan - however they may be needed at different times, and for different purposes. In

  26. Business Model Innovation: Turning Disruption to Competitive Advantage

    Product/Service Leadership: This business model uses product or service innovation to create value for customers. Operational Excellence: This is the workhorse of business model archetypes. Businesses built around operational excellence deliver a standard product or service that meets customers' needs at a low cost or provides superior ...

  27. Circular economy: definition, importance and benefits

    What is the circular economy? The circular economy is a model of production and consumption, which involves sharing, leasing, reusing, repairing, refurbishing and recycling existing materials and products as long as possible.In this way, the life cycle of products is extended.. In practice, it implies reducing waste to a minimum. When a product reaches the end of its life, its materials are ...

  28. Driving change: a case study of a DNP leader in residence program in a

    The DNP Leader in Residence program at the Csomay Center is designed to encompass communication and relationship building, systems thinking, change management, transformation and innovation, knowledge of clinical principles in the community, professionalism, and business skills including financial, strategic, and human resource management.