2.Social innovation and social entrepreneurship
Social innovation (SI) is often perceived as a concept difficult to grasp (Besançon et al. 2013; Diochon & Anderson, 2011; Richez-Battesti et al. 2012). This is partly due to the intangible aspects that it incorporates, as well as the challenges of defining, characterising and evaluating the “social” in social innovation and imagining a possible mix between “social” and “innovation”. Moreover, the reality of SI differs according to national contexts (Kerlin, 2006; 2010; Deforny & Nyssens, 2008) and to the actors making use of it. In this field, the incubators specialized in SI may be perceived as a tangible form of operationalization of the concept. As part of a larger comparative study on European incubators, the current paper seeks to explore incubators as dispositives that promote an entrepreneurial vision of SI. We analyse variations in their respective missions, vision of SI and entrepreneurial support programs and contextualise their emergence in a cross-national comparison of four European incubators.
Incubators don’t only contribute to crafting business models adapted to social issues but they also influence and shape the SI resulting from the incubation process. However, this influence has not received attention so far. The current paper seeks to explore the representations of SI promoted by incubators and their effects at project level. Knowing how incubators perceive SI is particularly relevant in order to understand their contribution to framing the SI movement, especially as they are gaining legitimacy in front of policymakers. However, despite their growing number (Baird et al., 2013), there have been little studies (Kieboom, 2014; Miller & Stacey, 2014) exploring the forces driving these new actors towards action, their visions or strategies.
The current research conceptualizes incubators as hybrid organizations (Brandsen & Karré, 2011; Doherty et al., 2014; Pache & Santos, 2012) situated at the border of the third sector, that create the premises for an infusion between different ways of thinking and models of action characteristic to the private, the public and the non-profit sectors (Defourny & Nyssens, 2010; Tracey et al., 2011). This mixture of logics can be seen in the incubators’ resort to hybrid collaborations and financing schemes that allow them to offer most often support services free of charge for the projects. However, support is granted upon a selection process meant to assure a match between the innovation proposed by the project and the image of SI promoted by the incubator.
Therefore, the paper addresses what SI looks like through the lens of incubators and place their representations in the current debate around the meanings associated to SI. On the basis of a qualitative multi-case study of four pioneer incubators in Europe (France, UK, Germany and Romania), it firstly analyses the processes which have motivated the incubators to address SI as part of their mission. Secondly, it identifies the underlying logics that have contributed to the construction of their own representation of SI. Based on these representations, the research finally assesses where and why incubators decide to put the balance between social mission and economic performance in the incubating process, and discusses the consequences in terms of positive or negative discriminations towards potentially incubated projects. It argues that despite the common characteristic of incubators of using entrepreneurial approaches in order to tackle social issues, they present variations in their logics of action and consequently promote different ideal types of projects under the same umbrella of SI.
References
Baird, R, Bowles, L. & Lall, S., 2013. Bridging the “Pioneer Gap”: The role of accelerators in Launching High-Impact Enterprises. Aspen Network of Development Entrepreneurs and Village Capital
Besançon, E., Chochoy, N., & Guyon, T., 2013. L'innovation sociale. Principes et fondements d'un concept. Paris: L'Harmattan.
Brandsen, T. & Karré, P.M. (2011). Hybrid organizations: no cause for concern. International Journal of Public Administration, 34, pp. 827–836.
Defourny, J. & Nyssens, M., 2010. Social enterprise in Europe: At the crossroads of market, public policies and third sector. Policy and Society, 29(3), pp.231–242.
Doherty, B., Haugh, H. & Lyon, F., 2014. Social enterprises as hybrid organisations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), pp. 417–436.
Kieboom, M., 2014. Lab Matters: Challenging the practice of social innovation laboratories. Amsterdam: Kennisland.
Miller, P. & Stacey, J., 2014. Good incubation. The craft of supporting early-stage social ventures. London: NESTA
Pache, A. C. & Santos, F. (2013). Embedded in hybrid contexts: how individuals in organizations respond to competing institutional logics. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 39, pp. 3–35.
Richez-Battesti, N., Petrella, F. & Vallade, D., 2012. L’innovation sociale, une notion aux usages pluriels: Quels enjeux et défis pour l’analyse? Innovations, 2, pp. 15–36.
Tracey, P., Phillips, N. & Jarvis, O. (2011). Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: a multilevel model. Organization Science, 22, pp. 60–80.
2. Social innovation and social entrepreneurship
