Innovación social estratégica pionera
GESPYE GESTIÓN PÚBLICA Y EMPRESARIAL (e-ISSN: 3061-8630)
Año 1, Núm. 1 (ene-jun 2024) • Págs. 67-77 • DOI https://doi.org/10.32870/gespye.vi1.6
Recibido: 19/12/2023 • Aprobado: 12/02/2024 • Publicado: 30/04/2024
Tipo de contribución: Artículos
Resumen.
La innovación social ha surgido como un tema importante tanto en el discurso académico como en la agenda política global. Fue durante las secuelas de la crisis económica y financiera de 2008 que la innovación social ganó fuerza como respuesta práctica a diversos desafíos sociales como la pobreza, el envejecimiento y la migración. En este contexto, hubo un reconocimiento creciente de la innovación social como un concepto prometedor digno de investigación, comprensión, definición y conceptualización. La clasificación de la innovación social es amplia e intrincada y abarca varias perspectivas a través de las cuales se puede abordar el concepto. Esta diversidad de entendimiento se refleja en la multitud de iniciativas y proyectos que se describen más adelante en este documento. A pesar de la diversidad conceptual, todas las definiciones de innovación social comparten un reconocimiento común que deben abordar: •Hacer hincapié en el intercambio abierto de conocimientos y evitar la propiedad exclusiva del conocimiento; •Adoptar enfoques multidisciplinarios e integrar la resolución de problemas en diversos campos; •Fomentar la participación y el empoderamiento de los ciudadanos y usuarios; •Priorizar las soluciones personalizadas frente a las producidas en masa
Palabras clave:
Estrategia, Innovación Social.
Abstract.
Social innovation has emerged as a significant topic in both scholarly discourse and the global political agenda. It was during the aftermath of the 2008 economic and financial crisis that social innovation gained traction as a practical response to various societal challenges such as poverty, aging, and migration. Within this context, there was a growing recognition of social innovation as a promising concept worthy of research, understanding, definition, and conceptualization. The classification of social innovation is broad and intricate, encompassing various perspectives through which the concept can be approached. This diversity in understanding is reflected in the multitude of initiatives and projects outlined later in this document. Despite the conceptual diversity, all definitions of social innovation share a common acknowledgment that they should address: •Emphasizing open knowledge-sharing and eschewing exclusive ownership of knowledge; •Embracing multidisciplinary approaches and integrating problem-solving across various fields; •Fostering participation and empowerment among citizens and users; •Prioritizing customized solutions over mass-produced ones
Keywords:
Strategy, Social Innovation.
In contemporary times, innovation has become essential for every company, reshaping the landscape of global economic growth. This transformation is driven by the rapid and continuous evolution of technology, shorter product lifecycles, programmed obsolescence, and accelerated new product development. To survive in this dynamic environment, companies, institutions, and organizations must ensure that their business strategies are both unique and innovative to establish and maintain a competitive edge, as failure to do so could result in their demise.
There is widespread consensus among authors, researchers, consultants, and management experts regarding the pivotal role of innovation for organizations. They assert that innovation is the core capability essential for organizational success, emphasizing the importance of adopting innovative approaches. Fundamentally, innovation involves leveraging existing elements in novel ways to achieve different outcomes. In the realm of social innovation, this principle applies similarly.
The present study seeks to explore its impact on science, technology, and society. After identifying and analyzing the key drivers, a theoretical methodology will be employed and scrutinized through a comprehensive examination. It will be crucial to ascertain the significance of these drivers to ensure that the data is accurately comprehended.
Lastly, it's important to note that the findings are intended to be disseminated to improve practical applications in addressing current challenges related to social innovation.
Knowledge management and social innovation are two important concepts that have emerged in recent years. While they may seem unrelated at first glance, they are actually closely linked and can have a significant impact on organizations, communities, and society.
Knowledge management is typically thought as the process of identifying, capturing, sharing, and effectively using knowledge and information within an organization. It involves creating and maintaining an environment in which knowledge can be easily accessed, shared, and utilized to improve business processes, products, and services. The goal of knowledge management is to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of an organization by leveraging the collective knowledge and expertise of its employees. Still, it is not only restricted to organizations.
In order to understand this concept, it is necessary to take a deep dive into several conceptions. López and Meroño (2011) argued that despite considerable advances in certain aspects, heterogeneous and confounding results had been presented related to the variables affecting knowledge management programs. Duhon (1998) defined knowledge management as an integrated approach that aims to identify, capture, evaluate, retrieve, and share all information, and this information can take the form of databases, documents, policies, procedures, or formerly uncaptured expertise and experience among individual workers. Knowledge management was also observed as a process of creating, acquiring and transferring knowledge reflected in the behavior of the firm, which turns out to be valuable. Basically, it is all about gathering and systematizing companies´ assets.
It is important to recognize that businesses operate within a broader societal context. Their future success hinges not only on technological advancements but also on their impact on the social environment. It's increasingly evident that business model innovation isn't solely driven by technology; companies must also leverage their human resources and engage with their social surroundings to thrive (Howaldt & Schwarz, 2010).
Moreover, businesses are realizing that their sustainability is contingent upon persuading customers that their products or services benefit people, the planet, and profitability. Many companies are embracing the concept of social entrepreneurship, which emphasizes creating social value alongside generating profits. By restructuring to support social innovation, companies can foster broader social and economic inclusion, as well as achieve objectives like reducing consumption and fostering community engagement. Consequently, social innovation not only aids in business innovation but also contributes to broader societal goals (Davies, 2014; Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, & Shulman, 2009).
According to OECD (2023) “Social innovation refers to the design and implementation of new solutions that imply conceptual, process, product, or organisational change, which ultimately aim to improve the welfare and wellbeing of individuals and communities” (p. 7).
Numerous initiatives led by civil society and the social economy have showcased innovative approaches to tackling environmental and socio-economic issues while fostering economic development. To facilitate collaboration among public, non-profit, and private entities to co-create and implement socially innovative solutions, thereby addressing socio-economic challenges, enhancing territorial resilience, and preparing for future disruptions, it is imperative to fully leverage the potential of social innovation. This necessitates the establishment of an enabling policy framework.
Social innovation encompasses the conception and execution of novel ideas, products, services, and practices aimed at addressing social and environmental challenges. It entails identifying and responding to social needs by devising fresh solutions that drive positive social change. Social innovation can manifest at individual, organizational, or community levels, often involving cooperation and partnerships among diverse stakeholders.
Once the concept of social innovation is comprehended, it becomes crucial to delve deeper into innovation strategies, which are intricately intertwined with these dynamics. The outcome of an innovation strategy is seen as a critical element in producing superior products, processes, and services, thereby catalyzing economic and social progress.
Also, a commonly referenced definition of social innovation is as follows: "Social innovation is a novel solution to a social problem that is more effective, efficient, sustainable, or just than existing solutions and for which the value created accrues primarily to society as a whole rather than private individuals" (Phills, Deiglmeier, & Miller, 2008). This definition emphasizes the importance of innovations being put into action to support the inclusion of marginalized social groups. From our perspective, a successful innovation should not only be conceptualized but also implemented, thereby promoting the social inclusion of disadvantaged target groups. Hence, we propose the following working definition of social innovation: the creation, development, and execution of new ideas aimed at addressing social challenges encountered by individuals, groups, or communities. This definition considers the 'implementation' of innovation as a crucial indicator of success in resolving social problems. Having said that, identifying the participating agents of social innovation is crucial, as one of the key aspects of social innovation involves transforming social and power dynamics. According to the examination research (Table 1), it is pertinent to highlight the main actors or agents who promote social innovation, as they hold the potential to enhance the transformative impact of these innovations (Avelino et al., 2019).
In general, the field of social innovation is relatively new, interdisciplinary, and rapidly expanding. However, Grimm et al. (2013) express concern over its evolution, noting that it is progressing in divergent directions and leading to conceptual ambiguity, potentially reaching a breaking point. Similarly, Hernández-Ascanio et al. (2021) find that various definitions of social innovation coexist without proper articulation, given its consolidation across multiple disciplines and application areas. Consequently, there is no universally accepted concept of social innovation (Herrero De Egaña, 2021). Proof of it, Table 1 includes some definitions of pioneering authors and references in this field to identify some of the key characteristics that consolidate the social innovation.
Table 1.
Social innovation conceptions and highlights
| (Bouchard, 2012) | An intervention initiated by social actors in response to the desire to meet needs, offer a solution, or take advantage of an opportunity to modify social relations, modify an action framework, or propose new objectives. | • Action by social actors • New social relations and action framework |
|---|---|---|
| (Herrera Baltazar, 2015) | Social innovation is a measurable and replicable initiative that uses a new concept or application of an existing concept to create social and shareholder value. | • New concept or implementation. • Measurable and replicable • Social value |
| (Alonso-Martínez et al., 2015) | Social innovation is “those innovations developed by governments, companies or individuals that contribute in a novel way to improving the quality of life of society and at the same time generate economic or at least sustainable benefits”. | • Involve the government • Improve quality of life • Generates economic and sustainable benefits |
| (Ayob et al., 2016) | “Firstly, and derived from the socio-ecological literature, but also evident in the literature on technology and social change, political science and design thinking, social innovation implies new forms of collaboration, whether at the individual or organizational level, often involving new and less hierarchical relationships between government, civil society and citizens”. | • New forms of collaboration • New relationships. •New ideas or innovations |
| (Bock, 2016) | Social innovation is promising, since it considers the opportunities offered by change in social organization, new partnerships, and the use of modern technology. | • New relationships or social organizations • Modern technologies |
| (Edwards Schachter & Wallace, 2017) | “Social innovation is defined by a set of common core elements underpinning three distinct and interrelated discursive areas: social change processes, sustainable development and the service sector”. | • Social change • Sustainable development • Services |
Source. Own elaboration
In the conducted review, the most observed characteristics of social innovation include the emergence of new ideas and structures of social organization. This is followed by addressing social problems and needs, resulting in the creation of value and social impact. Additionally, social innovation often entails the establishment of enduring relationships between various groups, as well as shifts in attitudes, behaviors, and power dynamics among different agents. Other significant aspects include social learning, the utilization of technology, and considerations of sustainability.
To keep on going with the proposed analysis, the methodological parameters are presented. These parameters guided the development of the current research, with a focus on achieving and responding to the set objective. According to Gil (2008), research can be classified as to the nature, the objectives and the means of searching the data. The current study is qualitative as to the nature, since it attempts to provide with a better understanding of the facts sought from the contents found in the literature review (Oliveira, 1999). The objective is exploratory, since it aims to gather information and to describe how the phenomenon occurs. As far as data collection and analysis are concerned, it is an integrative literature review, with the purpose of synthesizing results gotten in researches on a theme or question, in a systematic, orderly and comprehensive way (Ercole et al., 2014). For the preparation of the integrative review, six steps were followed: 1) elaboration of the guiding question starting from the question; 2) inclusion and exclusion criteria; 3) identification of pre-selected and selected studies; 4) categorization of the selected studies; 5) analysis and interpretation of the results, and finally 6) presentation of the knowledge review (Botelho et al., 2011). Figure 1 presents the steps and their description.
Table 2.
Stages of the Systematic Review
| Steps | Description |
|---|---|
| 1) Elaboration of the guiding question | The guiding question of the research is: “How does strategical thinking impact on social innovation?” |
| 2) Inclusion and exclusion criteria | To search the literature, a survey was conducted on the following databases: Web of Science, Ebsco, Scopus, Emerald and Scielo. In the procedure, the survey fields "Titles, Abstracts and Key words", with the following descriptors and their combinations were used: "Social innovation". The total of articles downloaded from the databases was fifty-eight. As for the content exclusion criteria, were selected only empirical articles that presented results obtained through the application of field research, thus discarding articles only theoretical. After this exclusion, only twelve articles were left for in-depth content analysis. |
| 3) Identification of the pre-selected and selected studies | Based on the research question, it was sought to identify in the articles the similarities between the objectives and the main results. |
| 4) Categorization of Selected Studies | Based on the identification of the pre-selected studies, it was sought to categorize them as to the coherence of knowledge management in social innovation |
| 5) Analysis and interpretation of results | With the categories grouped together, it began the identification of which knowledge management initiatives were focused on each one of them. |
| 6) Presentation of the knowledge review | The presentation of the review shows the interpretations and the results of the research based on the integrative analysis of the data of the articles. |
Source. Adapted from Botelho et al., 2011.
The field of social innovation is relatively recent, multidisciplinary, and rapidly expanding. Grimm et al. (2013) express concern that its evolution is diverging in various directions, leading to conceptual ambiguity that could potentially reach a breaking point. Similarly, Hernández-Ascanio et al. (2021) find that different definitions of social innovation coexist without sufficient integration, given its consolidation across multiple disciplines and application areas. Consequently, there is no universally accepted concept of social innovation (Herrero De Egaña, 2021).
According to Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995), in an economy characterized by uncertainty, the most reliable source of sustained innovation and competitive advantage is essentially knowledge. Building upon this premise. From the literature reviewed, strategic management can be understood as the capacity to identify, generate, harness, transfer, integrate, and apply superior knowledge resources inherent in individuals, teams, or organizations.
This involves a wide range of activities and interactions aimed at enhancing existing practices and fostering new innovations. A pertinent example of this would be the creation of high-quality products, processes, and services, which are pivotal for gaining a competitive edge and addressing societal needs (Meier, 2011).
The empirical findings by Surikova et al. (2015) indicate that in the context of a deficient public education system, social innovation provides new solutions, characterized as superior knowledge resources, that contribute to the development of a more capable future workforce. Similarly, Scheuerle et al. (2015) demonstrates that deploying superior knowledge resources through social innovation initiatives aimed at addressing widespread unemployment can lead to increased employment opportunities and economic benefits through enhanced consumption. Moreover, Cajaiba-Santana (2014) and Spiess et al. (2015) underscore the positive outcomes of social innovation when coupled with superior knowledge resources, such as the introduction of advanced products, processes, and services, which in turn can drive economic value in terms of profit maximization, market dominance, and improved private performance. El Arifeen et al. (2013) further emphasize the beneficial effects of social innovation and knowledge resources on issues related to social health.
Contrary to these perspectives, Cajaiba-Santana (2014) offers an alternative viewpoint on social innovation, suggesting two main approaches: agentic-centered, focusing on individual change agents akin to social entrepreneurship, and structuralist, emphasizing the influence of social structures on these agents. This suggests a connection between social innovation and institutional change, highlighting the interplay between structure and agency in driving innovation.
Furthermore, Van der Have & Rubalcaba (2016) conducted a systematic analysis of the scholarly literature on social innovation, suggesting that it represents a paradigm shift in innovation studies, encompassing a revitalization of the social aspects inherent in all forms of innovation, not just technological advancements.
Early reviews of social innovation emphasize its interdisciplinary nature and the consequent fragmentation of its scope and meaning (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014; Edwards-Schachter & Wallace, 2017; Phillips et al., 2015; Silveira & Zilber, 2017; Van der Have & Rubalcaba, 2016). Various definitions have attempted to encapsulate this diversity, often incorporating sociological perspectives and addressing both structural and agentic aspects. Pol & Ville (2009) highlight the emergence of social innovation in academic and practitioner literature, contrasting it with business innovation by its focus on social impact rather than profitability.
Once these approaches have been considered, it is important to stand out the role of strategic management, since it can be such a powerful tool for driving social innovation. It is well known that by effectively capturing, sharing, and leveraging knowledge, organizations can develop innovative solutions to social and environmental challenges. This is the reason why the theoretical study explores how strategic knowledge management can serve as a key driver for social innovation.
Firstly, strategic knowledge management can help organizations identify social and environmental needs. By collecting and analyzing data, organizations gain valuable insights into social trends, needs, and challenges that have already occurred in our daily lives. This information can be used to identify areas where social innovation is needed, as well as to develop new solutions to address these challenges. For example, a social enterprise working on renewable energy may use knowledge management to identify trends in the market and develop “new products” that meet the needs of customers and future generations (Flores-López et al., 2023).
Secondly, strategic knowledge management can help organizations collaborate and share knowledge. Collaboration is key to social innovation, and knowledge management can facilitate this collaboration. By creating knowledge-sharing platforms, organizations can connect with other stakeholders, including communities, NGOs, and government agencies.
Thirdly, strategic knowledge management can help organizations build capacity for social innovation. By developing a culture of learning and innovation, organizations can create an environment that supports social innovation. This culture can be supported by knowledge management practices, such as training and development programs, which can help employees develop the skills and knowledge needed to develop innovative solutions. For example, a social enterprise may offer training and development programs to employees, helping them to develop the skills needed to develop new products and services.
Indeed, strategic knowledge management plays a pivotal role in enabling organizations to assess the impact of social innovation. By systematically collecting data on the outcomes and effects of social innovation initiatives, organizations can gain insights into what strategies are effective, what aspects need improvement, and how to refine their approaches for better results. This continuous learning process contributes to the enhancement of social innovation initiatives, leading to more positive outcomes for communities and the environment.
Supporting this assertion, various sources provide compelling data:
The Global Innovation Index (GII, 2022) highlights the increasing importance of social innovation as a driver of economic growth and social well-being. It emphasizes the role of social innovation in addressing pressing social issues like poverty, inequality, and climate change.
The European Commission (2023) acknowledges social innovation as a critical catalyst for social and economic advancement. It recognizes the potential of social innovation to generate novel solutions to complex social challenges, promote social entrepreneurship, and foster inclusive growth.
The Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship Report (2019) underscores the rapid global growth of social innovation. It reveals the emergence of social entrepreneurs across various regions, particularly focusing on sectors such as healthcare, education, and sustainable development.
The Ashoka Globalizer Program (2023), dedicated to scaling the impact of social entrepreneurs, reports significant achievements. Its alumni organizations have collectively impacted over 100 million individuals across more than 90 countries, demonstrating the tangible effects of social innovation initiatives.
At the end of this study, the goal was achieved, since it was possible to present, by means of reviews, dissertation, and discussions regarding the set of strategic social innovation actions. As to the goals and main results of the articles analyzed, it can be observed that, in general, management turns out to be a key driver for a suitable social innovation development. It is important to stand out the fact that there are many contexts where this interconnection takes place: social, economic, technological. In addition, it should be emphasized that social innovation actions bring a strong bias of cooperative work and attendance to social needs.
As for innovation, it is worth to highlight the cooperative and collaborative work among the players of social innovation tools. As far as it goes to the use of technologies, there is a special emphasis on open technologies with free access by societies. The motivational and flexibility factor to improve productivity and decrease the costs of public organizations is crucial. For future work, it is proposed a more in-depth study of strategical approaches concerning how people learn and what motivation can be related to social innovation in different communities. That study could be justified by the objective of improving social innovation and better understanding how the collaborative networks created in these dynamics.
At the conclusion of this study, the primary objective was achieved through the presentation of reviews, dissertations, and discussions concerning strategic social innovation actions. Across the analyzed articles, it is evident that management emerges as a crucial driver for effective social innovation development. It is noteworthy that this interconnectedness occurs within various contexts: social, economic, and technological. Moreover, social innovation initiatives inherently prioritize collaborative work and address social needs.
Regarding innovation, the emphasis is placed on cooperative and collaborative efforts among stakeholders utilizing social innovation tools. The use of technology is highlighted, particularly open technologies accessible to societies at large. Motivation and flexibility play essential roles in enhancing productivity and reducing costs for public organizations.
For future research, there is a proposed focus on exploring strategic approaches concerning learning processes and motivation related to social innovation within diverse communities. Such a study would contribute to the advancement of social innovation practices and deepen our understanding of the collaborative networks fostered within these dynamics.
Alvarez, D., Gonzalez, N., & Nieto, M. (2015). La innovación social como motor de la creación de empresas. Universia Business Review, 47. https://journals.ucjc.edu/ubr/article/view/1505
Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J. M., Pel, B., Weaver, P., Dumitru, A., Haxeltine, A., Kemp, R., Jørgensen, M. S., Bauler, T., Ruijsink, S., & O’Riordan, T. (2019). Transformative social innovation and (dis)empowerment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.002
Ayob, N., Teasdale, S., & Fagan, K. (2016). How Social Innovation ‘Came to Be’: Tracing the Evolution of a Contested Concept. Journal of Social Policy, 45(4), 635–653. https://doi.org/10.1017/S004727941600009X
Bock, B. B. (2016). Rural Marginalisation and the Role of Social Innovation; A Turn Towards Nexogenous Development and Rural Reconnection. Sociologia Ruralis, 56(4), 552–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/soru.12119
Botelho, L. L. R., de Almeida Cunha, C. C., & Macedo, M. (2011). O método da revisão integrativa nos estudos organizacionais. Gestão e sociedade, 5(11), 121-136.
Bouchard, M. J. (2012). Social innovation, an analytical grid for understanding the social economy: the example of the Québec housing sector. Service Business, 6(1), 47–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-011-0123-9
Cajaiba-Santana. G. (2014). Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82, 42-51.
Davies, A. (2014). Social innovation process and social entrepreneurship. In J. Howaldt, A. Butzin, D. Domanski, & C. Kaletka (Eds.), Theoretical approaches to social innovation – A critical literature review (pp. 60−78). Social Innovation: Driving force of social change - SI-Drive [EU Seventh Framework Programme]. Dortmund: Sozialforschungsstelle.
Duhon, B (1998). It’s all in our heads. Inform, 12, 8–13
Edwards-Schachter, M. &Wallace, M.L. (2017). ‘Shaken, but not stirred’: sixty years of defining social innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119, 64–79.
Edwards-Schachter, M., & Wallace, M. L. (2017). ‘Shaken, but not stirred’: Sixty years of defining social innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119, 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.012
El Arifeen, S., Christou, A., Reichenbach, L., Osman, F. A., Azad, K., Islam, K. S., & Peters, D. H. (2013). Community-based approaches and partnerships: innovations in health-service delivery in Bangladesh. The Lancet, 382(9909), 2012-2026.
Ercole, F. F, Melo, L. S., & Alcoforado, C. L. (2014). Revisão integrativa versus revisão sistemática. Revista Mineira de Enfermagem, 18(1) 1-260.
European Commission (2023). NextGenerationEU. https://commission.europa.eu/index_en
Flores-López, J. G., Jacobo-Hernández, C.A., Leyva-Osuna B.A., and Limón-Valencia, L.A.. (2023).
Gil, A. C. (2008). Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social. 6. ed. Editora Atlas SA.
Global innovation index (GII,2022). https://www.globalinnovationindex.org/gii-2022-report
Grimm, R., Fox, C., Baines, S., & Albertson, K. (2013). Social innovation, an answer to contemporary societal challenges? Locating the concept in theory and practice. Innovation: The European Journal Of Social Science Research, 26(4), 436–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/1 3511610.2013.848163
Hernández-Ascanio, J., Tirado-Valencia, P., & Ariza-Montes, A. (2016). El concepto de innovación social: ámbitos, definiciones y alcances teóricos. CIRIEC-España, Revista de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa, 88, 164–199. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=17449696006
Herrera Baltazar, M. E. (2015). Creating competitive advantage by institutionalizing corporate social innovation. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1468–1474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusres.2015.01.036
Herrero De Egaña, B. (2021). Innovación social, tecnología y ODS. Fórmula magistral para un mundo mejor en la era del COVID-19. Revista Iberoamericana de Economía Solidaria e Innovación Socioecológica, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.33776/RIESISE.V4I1.5474
Howaldt, J., & Schwarz, M. (2010). Social innovation: Concepts, research fields and international trends. Studies for innovation in a modern working environment. International Monitoring, 5. Aachen: IMA/ZLW & IfU. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13010021
López, N., & Meroño, C. (2011). Strategic knowledge management, innovation and performance. International. Journal Informational. Management, 31, 502–509.
Meier, M. (2011). Knowledge management in strategic alliances: A review of empirical evidence. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 1-23.
monografias, dissertações e teses. Pioneira.
Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation, New York: Oxford University Press, 284, ISBN 978-0-19-509269-1.
Oliveira, S. L. (1999). Tratado de metodologia científica: projetos de pesquisas, TGI, TCC,
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2023). Social innovation https://www.oecd.org/regional/leed/social-innovation.htm
Phillips, W., Lee, H., Ghobadian, A., O’Regan, N. and James, P. (2015). Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: a systematic review. Group & Organization Management, 40(3), 428–61.
Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4), 34-43.
Pol, E. &Ville, S. (2009). Social innovation: buzz word or enduring term?. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(6), 878–85.
Scheuerle, T., Schmitz, B., Spiess, K. W., Schues, R., & Richter, S. (2015). Mapping social entrepreneurship in Germany-a quantitative analysis. International Journal of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 3(6), 484-511.
Schwab Foundation (2023). Advancing social innovation worldwide. Recovered 2023-04-04 from: https://www.schwabfound.org/
Silveira, F. F. & Zilber, S. N. (2017). Is social innovation about innovation? A bibliometric study identifying the main authors, citations and co-citations over 20 years. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 21(6), 459–84.
Spiess, K. W., Mast, C., & Jansen, S. A. (2015). On the nature of social business model innovation. Social Business, 5(2), 113-130.
Surikova, S., Oganisjana, K., & Grinberga Z. G. (2015). The Role of Education in Promoting Social Innovation Processes in the Society. In Society, Integration, Education.Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference. 4, 233-243.
The Ashoka Globalizer Program (2023). Recovered 2023-04-05 from: https://www.ashoka.org/en-us/story/ashoka-globalizer-program
The Effect of the Knowledge Management Processes Capability on Innovation Activities in the Mexican Industry. Administrative Sciences 13 (21).
Van der Have, R.P. & Rubalcaba, L. (2016). Social innovation research: an emerging area of innovation studies? Research Policy, 45(9), 1923–35.
Licencia: Esta obra está protegida bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional.