1. Theoretical Background The concept of Social Innovation (SI) has been one of the most discussed in the field of innovation in the last years (Ashta et al. 2014) and is even getting stronger in the debate about social development (Rüede and Lurtz, 2012). This is particularly due, on one side, to the relevance that knowledge and innovation have among the most important strategically-significant resources for both firms and local systems competitiveness (Barile and Di Nauta, 2011; Barile et. al., 2013; Calza et al. 2015; Canestrino, 2008; Di Nauta et. al., 2015) and, on the other side, to the challenges that are affecting the worldwide social development and sustainability (Canestrino et al., 2015; Canestrino et al., 2016). Despite these trends, the emerging process of SI (Goldenberg et al., 2009; Murray et al., 2010; Westley and Antadze, 2010; Rüede and Lurtz, 2012) seems to be understudied, particularly referring to the conditions upon which it may be sustained and reinforced. Understanding SI is not easy, not only cause of the existing overlapping between the theoretical backgrounds – namely innovation and social responsibility – usually used to explain the concept, but also cause of the high number of actors – social entrepreneurs, investors, incubators, intermediary organisations, and transnational networks – generally involved in the process (Avelino and Wittmayer; 2015). According to Mulgan (2006), SI refers to innovation activities and services that are motivated by the aim of meeting a social need, and that are predominantly diffused through organizations primary focused on social purposes. In this direction, managing SI requires the evaluation, in an integrated manner, of both organizations’ innovation activities and social responsibility. With reference to innovation, several models have been proposed in literature (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998). The authors usually consider knowledge – mainly new knowledge – as the outcome of a learning process that is implicitly equated with innovation. In a broad sense, local availability of know-how is the background for setting up the learning process, which can lead to a social innovation. In fact, every innovation arises and includes knowledge; at the same time, every innovation is responsible for new knowledge diffusion (Canestrino et al., 2015; Grant, 1991). Since very few firms are able to develop internally a wide range of knowledge, the interaction among actors is required to foster knowledge creation and, consequently, innovation: thanks to proximity, individuals, as well as organizations, are able to get in contact one to each other, sharing resources, know-how and capabilities. Then, innovation generally arises thanks to a system of actors who relate one to each other producing new patterns of learning (Canestrino and Magliocca, 2016). In doing this, both individuals and organizations are strongly influenced and shaped by institutions; that means they are “embedded” in an institutional environment, or set of rules, which include the system of laws, norms, and standards (Lundvall, 1992; Edquist, 1997). Not surprising, a well-established body of literature recognises the important linkage among knowledge, networks and innovation. Within this field, for example, the concept of National Systems of Innovation (Freeman, 1987; Nelson, 1992, Lundvall, 1992) explains the process of innovation, by considering it as the outcome of the interaction among firms, organizations and institutions. In the path of the mentioned perspective, the locus of innovation lies no longer within the boundaries of a single firm, but within the nexus of the (potential) relationships among several actors which are able to favour fruitful learning interactions in a systems’ perspective (Canestrino at al., 2016; Del Giudice et al., 2011). Actually, analysing the way the actors that belong to a given system – being it an organizational or social one – create, transfer and share knowledge for innovation, it seems not new within the field of knowledge management: what is new, in Authors’ opinion, is the attempt to explore the way they achieve sustainability by the means of SI. It means, therefore, to investigate the way some kinds of innovation networks shift their own aim from “improving the productivity” to “solving a problem for a better quality of life for the community”, thus creating novel social patterns. 2. Purpose Following the above reflections, this paper aims at exploring the way SI arises within the locus of collaborations, which means the way some networks turn into the so-called Systems for SI – SfSIs –, finally enabling the involved actors to reach both economic and social sustainability. In doing this, a case study analysis has been discussed. 3. Design/methodology/approach A two step-based approach was designed to reach the aimed research’s goals. Firstly, a literature review has been carried out in order to shape a wider understanding of SI, as well as to picture the characteristics and the dynamics of the networks for SI (called Systems for SI – SfSIs). Secondly, a qualitative method has been adopted by the means of face-to-face interviews, visits and meetings to the selected key-actors belonging to the SfSI “La Paranza” – located in Naples, in the South of Italy. The key actors were interviewed, following “a conversation with purpose” (Burgess at al., 1991). The adopted method allowed: i) to learn about the network’s activity and how it has been started up; ii) to explore it in detail, with reference to both the actors involved and the role they play; iii) to understand the way it has developed over time, turning into a SfSI. 4. Findings Examining the experience of “La Paranza” enabled the Authors to highlight the way a small network, based on personal and informal relationships among a few number of people, got the chance to turn into a SfSI able to reach both economic and social sustainability. The presence of a shared vision and joining common experiences were finally identified as key drivers in the emergence of a SfSI: the shared vision particularly acted as glue, supporting the emergence of a “core” network, but it was only joining common experiences that the selected network turned into a SfSI, allowing the members to acquire the identity of a “community”. It means therefore that a SfSI arose when a Community of Practice (CoP) established among the networks’ members, inspiring people to create value for society. In such circumstances, collaborations, exchange of ideas and learning processes were reinforced, transforming the set of relationships and interactions among the actors into the locus for knowledge creation and innovation. 5. Originality/value This contribution has both theoretical and practical implications. From a theoretical perspective, the proposed it contributes to the literature improvement about SI by developing a more comprehensive knowledge-based and systems-oriented framework of the concept, increasing the scholars’ ability to recognize and understand SI, as well as the SfSIs and their dynamics. Besides, it allows also to show the way private players may act, as well as the way they should act to grant sustainable development, widening the actual debate about sustainability and urban re-vitalization. From a practical perspective, it expands the ability of practitioners to manage a SfSI, supporting the effectiveness of firms’ innovation practices with reference to both organizations’ goals and societies’ aims. This contribution is the first output of an ongoing research about SfSIs, based on the selection and the investigation of empirical evidences located in the city of Naples, in the South of Italy. The research is still on going, mainly cause of the long time required to analyses the networks’ dynamics, as well as to explore the way they change time by time. Accordingly, the proposed findings may be reasonably considered as a useful starting point for future deepening about the topic. 6. Research limits The contribution presents the same limits that every single case study analysis has, the most common of which concern the inter-related issues of methodological rigor, researcher’s subjectivity, and external validity (results generalization). Despite this, dealing with a single case study, allowed Authors to collect much more information, otherwise not available, as well as to fully understand the dynamics of the selected SfSI.

A path towards Sustainability through Social Innovation: evidences from Italy

CANESTRINO, ROSSELLA;
2018-01-01

Abstract

1. Theoretical Background The concept of Social Innovation (SI) has been one of the most discussed in the field of innovation in the last years (Ashta et al. 2014) and is even getting stronger in the debate about social development (Rüede and Lurtz, 2012). This is particularly due, on one side, to the relevance that knowledge and innovation have among the most important strategically-significant resources for both firms and local systems competitiveness (Barile and Di Nauta, 2011; Barile et. al., 2013; Calza et al. 2015; Canestrino, 2008; Di Nauta et. al., 2015) and, on the other side, to the challenges that are affecting the worldwide social development and sustainability (Canestrino et al., 2015; Canestrino et al., 2016). Despite these trends, the emerging process of SI (Goldenberg et al., 2009; Murray et al., 2010; Westley and Antadze, 2010; Rüede and Lurtz, 2012) seems to be understudied, particularly referring to the conditions upon which it may be sustained and reinforced. Understanding SI is not easy, not only cause of the existing overlapping between the theoretical backgrounds – namely innovation and social responsibility – usually used to explain the concept, but also cause of the high number of actors – social entrepreneurs, investors, incubators, intermediary organisations, and transnational networks – generally involved in the process (Avelino and Wittmayer; 2015). According to Mulgan (2006), SI refers to innovation activities and services that are motivated by the aim of meeting a social need, and that are predominantly diffused through organizations primary focused on social purposes. In this direction, managing SI requires the evaluation, in an integrated manner, of both organizations’ innovation activities and social responsibility. With reference to innovation, several models have been proposed in literature (Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998). The authors usually consider knowledge – mainly new knowledge – as the outcome of a learning process that is implicitly equated with innovation. In a broad sense, local availability of know-how is the background for setting up the learning process, which can lead to a social innovation. In fact, every innovation arises and includes knowledge; at the same time, every innovation is responsible for new knowledge diffusion (Canestrino et al., 2015; Grant, 1991). Since very few firms are able to develop internally a wide range of knowledge, the interaction among actors is required to foster knowledge creation and, consequently, innovation: thanks to proximity, individuals, as well as organizations, are able to get in contact one to each other, sharing resources, know-how and capabilities. Then, innovation generally arises thanks to a system of actors who relate one to each other producing new patterns of learning (Canestrino and Magliocca, 2016). In doing this, both individuals and organizations are strongly influenced and shaped by institutions; that means they are “embedded” in an institutional environment, or set of rules, which include the system of laws, norms, and standards (Lundvall, 1992; Edquist, 1997). Not surprising, a well-established body of literature recognises the important linkage among knowledge, networks and innovation. Within this field, for example, the concept of National Systems of Innovation (Freeman, 1987; Nelson, 1992, Lundvall, 1992) explains the process of innovation, by considering it as the outcome of the interaction among firms, organizations and institutions. In the path of the mentioned perspective, the locus of innovation lies no longer within the boundaries of a single firm, but within the nexus of the (potential) relationships among several actors which are able to favour fruitful learning interactions in a systems’ perspective (Canestrino at al., 2016; Del Giudice et al., 2011). Actually, analysing the way the actors that belong to a given system – being it an organizational or social one – create, transfer and share knowledge for innovation, it seems not new within the field of knowledge management: what is new, in Authors’ opinion, is the attempt to explore the way they achieve sustainability by the means of SI. It means, therefore, to investigate the way some kinds of innovation networks shift their own aim from “improving the productivity” to “solving a problem for a better quality of life for the community”, thus creating novel social patterns. 2. Purpose Following the above reflections, this paper aims at exploring the way SI arises within the locus of collaborations, which means the way some networks turn into the so-called Systems for SI – SfSIs –, finally enabling the involved actors to reach both economic and social sustainability. In doing this, a case study analysis has been discussed. 3. Design/methodology/approach A two step-based approach was designed to reach the aimed research’s goals. Firstly, a literature review has been carried out in order to shape a wider understanding of SI, as well as to picture the characteristics and the dynamics of the networks for SI (called Systems for SI – SfSIs). Secondly, a qualitative method has been adopted by the means of face-to-face interviews, visits and meetings to the selected key-actors belonging to the SfSI “La Paranza” – located in Naples, in the South of Italy. The key actors were interviewed, following “a conversation with purpose” (Burgess at al., 1991). The adopted method allowed: i) to learn about the network’s activity and how it has been started up; ii) to explore it in detail, with reference to both the actors involved and the role they play; iii) to understand the way it has developed over time, turning into a SfSI. 4. Findings Examining the experience of “La Paranza” enabled the Authors to highlight the way a small network, based on personal and informal relationships among a few number of people, got the chance to turn into a SfSI able to reach both economic and social sustainability. The presence of a shared vision and joining common experiences were finally identified as key drivers in the emergence of a SfSI: the shared vision particularly acted as glue, supporting the emergence of a “core” network, but it was only joining common experiences that the selected network turned into a SfSI, allowing the members to acquire the identity of a “community”. It means therefore that a SfSI arose when a Community of Practice (CoP) established among the networks’ members, inspiring people to create value for society. In such circumstances, collaborations, exchange of ideas and learning processes were reinforced, transforming the set of relationships and interactions among the actors into the locus for knowledge creation and innovation. 5. Originality/value This contribution has both theoretical and practical implications. From a theoretical perspective, the proposed it contributes to the literature improvement about SI by developing a more comprehensive knowledge-based and systems-oriented framework of the concept, increasing the scholars’ ability to recognize and understand SI, as well as the SfSIs and their dynamics. Besides, it allows also to show the way private players may act, as well as the way they should act to grant sustainable development, widening the actual debate about sustainability and urban re-vitalization. From a practical perspective, it expands the ability of practitioners to manage a SfSI, supporting the effectiveness of firms’ innovation practices with reference to both organizations’ goals and societies’ aims. This contribution is the first output of an ongoing research about SfSIs, based on the selection and the investigation of empirical evidences located in the city of Naples, in the South of Italy. The research is still on going, mainly cause of the long time required to analyses the networks’ dynamics, as well as to explore the way they change time by time. Accordingly, the proposed findings may be reasonably considered as a useful starting point for future deepening about the topic. 6. Research limits The contribution presents the same limits that every single case study analysis has, the most common of which concern the inter-related issues of methodological rigor, researcher’s subjectivity, and external validity (results generalization). Despite this, dealing with a single case study, allowed Authors to collect much more information, otherwise not available, as well as to fully understand the dynamics of the selected SfSI.
2018
9781138597280
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11367/60455
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact