The emergence and expansion of social enterprises in different parts of the globe have made this phenomenon a focus of study in the administrative sciences, both to understand their empirical characteristics, and to model appropriate management tools. The present study aims to advance the field of studies on social enterprises and in particular the social dimension of innovation. It is hoped that this will fill in some gaps in the literature, such as: the blurred distinction between determinants and analytical dimensions of innovation; the paucity of studies that look through the lens of results; and the fact that most studies only conjoin social innovation with non-profits. To bridge these gaps, the following research problem was formulated: to what extent are social enterprise models environmental innovation generators? This study provides a continuation of the results of a multi-case, exploratory-descriptive qualitative research, under the coordination of this author, who identified and described social enterprises in all twenty-seven Brazilian states. In the second phase, the objectives were to identify the extent to which social businesses are a source of innovation and to evaluate possible relationships between social enterprise characteristics and type of innovation implemented. Social innovation was analyzed from the results perspective: i.e. new solutions (product, process, marketing, or organizational) potentially able to generate socioenvironmental value for a community. The value creation scale and analytical categories here developed allowed classification of social business in terms of its performance logic (greater emphasis on the market or greater emphasis on social). As a result, it became clear that most social enterprises with a social logic demonstrate a concern for generating different dimensions of socioenvironmental value, albeit focused on a particular location. To that end, they implement organizational innovations by dint of their ability to forge alliances and partnerships that make it possible to compensate for failure in the market. On the other hand, market-oriented enterprises were found to be more innovative, diversifying products, prices, and distribution channels, with the potential to cause the reconfiguration of their segment. One can say that social enterprises have different roles and contributions in proposing alternatives for sustainable development: those with a strong social orientation tend to prioritize local action and seek to generate social and environmental value in different dimensions. Their contribution is qualitative, with a greater depth of impact. In the case of social enterprise with a market performance logic, the contribution is in terms of scope, and thereby quantitative and scalable. Hence, the logic of social action directs greater depths of impact that provide local development and social transformation, whereas the market logic tends to cause a greater scope of impact in specific sustainable development dimensions. Finally, it can be said that there is a great opportunity for the development of social enterprises that unambiguously combine the generation of economic value with social and environmental value, in order to not only contribute to poverty reduction, but also to the conservation of biodiversity and the development of a low-carbon economy and a lower use of resources (circular economy).
Main References
AUSTIN, J.; STEVENSON, H.; WEI-SKILLERN, J. Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, v. 30, n. 1, p. 1–22, 2006
BARKI, E.; COMINI, G.; CUNLIFFE, A.; HART, S.; RAI, S. Social Entrepreneurship and Social Business: Retrospective and Prospective Research. RAE-Revista de Administração de Empresas, v. 55, n. 4, p. 380–384, 2015.
CROSSAN, M. M.; APAYDIN, M. A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, v. 47, n. 6, p. 1154–1191, 2010.
DE BRUIN, A.; STANGL, L. M. The Social Innovation Continuum: Towards Addressing Definitional Ambiguity. In: EMES-SOCENT Conference Selected Papers, Liege. 2013.
DEFOURNY, J.; NYSSENS, M. The EMES Approach of Social Enterprise in a Comparative Perspective. 2012 [s.l: s.n.].
SOCIAL ENTERPRISE KNOWLEDGE NETWORK - SEKN (Ed.). Socially inclusive business: Engaging the poor through market initiatives in Iberoamerica. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010.
MOULAERT, F; MACCALLUM, D.; MEHMOOD, A.; HAMDOUCH, A. (Ed.). The International Handbook on Social Innovation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013.
MULGAN, G. The Process of Social Innovation. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, v. 1, n. 2, p. 145–162, abr. 2006.
MURRAY, R.; CAULIER-GRICE, J.; MULGAN, G. The open book of social innovations. Social innovator series: ways to design, develop and grow social innovations. The Young Foundation, v. 30, n. 8, p. 224, 2010.
PHILLS, J.; DEIGLMEIER, K.; MILLER, D. Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, v. Fall, p. 34–43, 2008.
POL, E.; VILLE, S. Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring term? Journal of Socio-Economics, v. 38, n. 6, p. 878–885, 2009.
2. Social innovation and social entrepreneurship
