Zoekresultaten

A framework for responsible innovation in the business context

While the concept of Responsible Innovation is increasingly common among researchers and policy makers, it is still unknown what it means in a business context. This study aims to identify which aspects of Responsible Innovation are conceptually similar and dissimilar from social- and sustainable innovation. Our conceptual analysis is based on literature reviews of responsible-, social-, and sustainable innovation. The insights obtained are used for conceptualising Responsible Innovation in a business context. The main conclusion is that Responsible Innovation differs from social- and sustainable innovation as it: (1) also considers possible detrimental implications of innovation, (2) includes a mechanism for responding to uncertainties associated with innovation and (3) achieves a democratic governance of the innovation. However, achieving the latter will not be realistic in a business context. The results of this study are relevant for researchers, managers and policy makers who are interested in responsible innovation in the business context.

Social Innovation using the Best Practice Unit model

The model of the Best Practice Unit (BPU) is a specific form of practice based research. It is a variation of the Community of Practice (CoP) as developed by Wenger, McDermott and Snyder (2002) with the specific aim to innovate a professional practice by combining learning, development and research. We have applied the model over the past 10 years in the domain of care and social welfare in the Netherlands. Characteristics of the model are: the interaction between individual and collective learning processes, the development of (new or better) working methods, and the implementation of these methods in daily practice. Multiple knowledge sources are being used: experiential knowledge, professional knowledge and scientific knowledge. Research is serving diverse purposes: articulating tacit knowledge, documenting the learning and innovation process, systematically describing the revealed or developed ways of working, and evaluating the efficacy of new methods. An analysis of 10 different research projects shows that the BPU is an effective model.

Understanding the added value of co-creation for social innovation

Workplace innovation and social innovation

This is the introduction to the special issue of World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development (WREMSD) dedicated to workplace innovation and social innovation related to work and organisation. As technological and business model innovations alone are not sufficient to enhance opportunities for businesses and employment, awareness is rising that better use should be made of human talents and new ways of organising and managing. In order to make working environments more receptive for innovation, and to enable people in organisations to take up an entrepreneurial role as intrapreneurs, a shift towards workplace innovation can be observed. Workplace innovation is complementary to technological and business model innovation, and a necessary ingredient for successful renewal, in that it addresses a type of management that seeks collaboration with employees through dialogue and employee engagement.

Navigating between Opportunities and Risks

This article focuses on the hybridity of social enterprises, organizations that strive to create social and economic value simultaneously. It analyses how social entrepreneurs and local government deal with the hybridity resulting from mixing these two opposing values and what it means for social enterprises’ contributions to processes of social innovation, e.g. new ways of dealing with societal problems using innovative constellation of organizations and other actors. The article discusses the results of a study of social enterprises in and around the cities of Rotterdam, The Hague and Dordrecht in the Netherlands and by doing so looks at an urban subset of social enterprises engaged in social innovation. In the underlying study, document analysis, interviews and a survey were used to identify what drives social entrepreneurs to engage in processes of social innovation, how they generate results and how they deal with the tensions due to hybridity. The article discusses the positive and negative effects of hybridity affecting social enterprises and describes avenues for further research on the subject.

Disentangling Co-creation and Social Innovation

Co-creation and social innovation are currently linked concepts in both policy and academic research. Almost always, the attitude towards these concepts is intrinsically positive, although evidence of their added value is lacking. In my research, I looked at the development of social innovation and co-creation in theory and practice. By analysing the use of these notions in EU policies, EU grants and awarded EU projects, I was able to show that both concepts are not only unclear, but are also mutually strengthen and add value to each other. For example, co-creation is seen as an integral part of social innovation and therefore stakeholder involvement is sufficient to qualify as good social innovation, without further evidence. A systematic literature review supports these findings.Because of the ambiguity of both concepts and the fact that they reinforce each other, there is hardly any attention to the quality of co-creation as such within social innovation. We witness this not only in social innovation projects, but also, for example, in so-called living labs. In order to monitor and improve the quality of co-creation within social innovation, an evaluation framework was developed based on a systematic literature review. This framework can be used by both policy makers and participants in social innovation projects.