Social Enterprises face a significant challenge in improving their competitiveness without sacrificing their social objectives. Using an action research approach, we examine how the lean management tool 5S can be modified to fit the characteristics of the vulnerable workers involved in their operational processes. While 5S is typically applied to achieve efficiency, we find that the most important benefits of implementation for social enterprises are improvements in self-efficacy, ownership, and responsibility of the vulnerable workers. Other benefits were increased reliance on visual cues and reduced search time. Implementation of 5S highlighted the negative impact of circularity practices on operational efficiency.
Although critical differences exist between large companies and small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), limited empirical research has been done on human resource (HR)-related corporate social responsibility (CSR). In this paper we study aging workforce management (AWM) as a component of CSR. Our study was conducted in the Netherlands through a randomly distributed online questionnaire. Managers and team leaders of 201 SMEs responded. The data were analyzed using multiple hierarchical regression analysis. Our results are twofold: first, findings suggest that CSR policies in micro organizations with fewer than five employees seem to be strongly associated with AWM; and second, that companies with a focus on integration of older workers in daily activities do not perceive their actions as HR-related. Using AWM as part of CSR helps to give insight into the role of the owner, company size and the nature of implicit CSR practices. Our study demonstrates that the use of AWM in CSR research can lead to valuable insights and therefore, our overarching research question is answered that AWM can be used when studying CSR. © 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
This paper focuses on the specifics of the relationships between social entrepreneurs and local civil servants and politicians in The Netherlands. Policy frameworks for social enterprises (SE) are relatively underdeveloped here, as the central government took little initiative in policy development, and a legal definition for SE is lacking. This poses problems, but it also opens up possibilities to develop dialogue between local government and social entrepreneurs “bottom-up”.Both parties’ views of each other are explored, a practical tool to open dialogue is introduced and eight examples of collaboration are discussed.Through the collected experiences at local and regional levels, policy makers at the national level now also increasingly recognize the importance of SEs in the Dutch economy, and realize that the lack of national policy and legal frameworks has proven limiting and increased vulnerability of the sector. For the coming years, there are signs that policy support for SEs will become more structured and national policy action is likely.
MULTIFILE
De afgelopen twee decennia is er veel meer aandacht ontstaan bij onderzoekers en beleidsmakers voor het begrip co-creatie. Bijna altijd wordt de rol van co-creatie als positief en essentieel gezien in een proces waarin maatschappelijke of publieke uitdagingen worden onderzocht en opgelost (zogenaamde sociale innovatie). Het meeste onderzoek naar deze twee begrippen is kwalitatief van aard en gebaseerd op ‘case studies’.In zijn promotieonderzoek kijkt Peter Broekema naar de rol van co-creatie binnen sociale innovatie in Europese samenwerkingsprojecten. In zijn eerste artikel heeft hij de begrippen co-creatie en sociale innovatie tussen 1995 en 2018 binnen de EU geanalyseerd en geconcludeerd dat beide begrippen steeds breder gebruikt worden en samen met het begrip impact zijn getransformeerd tot een beleidsparadigma.In het tweede artikel keek Peter Broekema hoe beide begrippen doorwerken in specifieke subsidieoproepen en hoe consortia deze begrippen toepassen en samenwerken. Hierbij bleek dat er weliswaar verschillende typen consortia bestaan, maar dat zij geen specifieke co-creatiestrategie hadden.In zijn laatste twee artikelen zal hij gedetailleerd kijken naar een aantal EU projecten en vaststellen hoe de samenwerking is verlopen en hoe tevreden de verschillende partners zijn met het resultaat. Peter Broekema maakt hiervoor gebruik van projecten waarin hij zelf participeert (ACCOMPLISSH, INEDIT en SHIINE).EU beleidsparadigma van sociale innovatie in combinatie met co-creatie en impact. Co-creatie vindt vaak binnen eigen type stakehodlers plaatsAbstractSocial innovation and co-creation are both relatively new concepts, that have been studied by scholars for roughly twenty years and are still heavily contested. The former emerged as a response to the more technologically focused concept of innovation and the latter originally solely described the collaboration of end-users in the development of new products, processes or services. Between 2010-2015, both concepts have been adapted and started to be used more widely by for example EU policymakers in their effort to tackle so called ‘grand societal challenges’. Within this narrative – which could be called co-creation for social innovation, it is almost a prerequisite that partners – especially citizens - from different backgrounds and sectors actively work together towards specific societal challenges. Relevance and aimHowever, the exact contribution of co-creation to social innovation projects is still unclear. Most research on co-creation has been focussing on the involvement of end-users in the development of products, processes and services. In general, scholars conclude that the involvement of end-users is effective and leads to a higher level of customer satisfaction. Only recently, research into the involvement of citizens in social innovation projects has started to emerge. However, the majority of research on co-creation for social innovation has been focusing on collaborations between two types of partners in the quadruple helix (citizens, governments, enterprises and universities). Because of this, it is still unclear what co-creation in social innovation projects with more different type of partners entails exactly. More importantly however, is that most research has been based on national case studies in which partners from different sectors collaborate in a familiar ‘national’ setting. Normally institutional and/or cultural contexts influence co-creation (for example the ‘poldermodel’in the Netherlands or the more confrontational model in France), so by looking at projects in a central EU and different local contexts it becomes clear how context effects co-creation for social innovation.Therefore this project will analyse a number of international co-creation projects that aim for social innovation with different types of stakeholders in a European and multi-stakeholder setting.With this research we will find out what people in different contexts believe is co-creation and social innovation, how this process works in different contexts and how co-creation contributes to social innovation.Research question and - sub questionsThe project will answer the following question: “What is the added value of co-creation in European funded collaboration projects that aim for social innovation?” To answer the main question, the research has been subdivided into four sub questions:1) What is the assumed added value of co-creation for social innovation?2) How is the added value of co-creation for social innovation being expressed ex ante and ex post in EU projects that aim specifically for social innovation by co-creation?3) How do partners and stakeholders envision the co-creation process beforehand and continuously shape this process in EU projects to maximise social innovation?4) How do partners and stakeholders regard the added value of co-creation for social innovation in EU projects that that aim for social innovation?Key conceptsThe research will focus on the interplay between the two main concepts a) co-creation and b) social innovation. For now, we are using the following working definitions:a) co-creation is a non-linear process that involves multiple actors and stakeholders in the ideation, implementation and assessment of products, services, policies and systems with the aim of improving their efficiency and effectiveness, and the satisfaction of those who take part in the process.b) social innovation is the invention, development and implementation of new ideas with the purpose to (immediately) relieve and (eventually) solve social problems, which are in the long run directed at the social inclusion of individuals, groups or communities.It is clear that both definitions are quite opaque, but also distinguish roughly the same phases (ideation/invention, development, implementation and assessment) and also distinguish different levels (products/services, policies and systems). Both concepts will be studied within the policy framework of the EU, in which a specific value to both concepts has been attributed, mostly because policymakers regard co-creation with universities and end-users almost as a prerequisite for social innovation. Based on preliminary research, EU policies seem to define social innovation in close reation with ‘societal impact’, which could defined as: “the long lasting effect of an activity on society, because it is aimed at solving social problems”, and therefore in this specific context social innovation seems to encompasses societal impact. For now, I will use this working definition of social innovation and will closely look at the entanglement with impact in the first outlined paper.MethodologyIn general, I will use a qualitative mixed method approach and grounded theory to answer the main research question (mRQ). In order to better understand the added value of co-creation for social innovation in an EU policy setting, the research will:SubRQ1) start with an analysis of academic literature on co-creation and social impact. This analysis will be followed by and confronted with an analysis of EU policy documents. SubRQ2) use a qualitative data analysis at nineteen EU funded projects to understand how co-creation is envisoned within social innovation projects by using the quintuple helix approach (knowledge flows between partners and stakeholders in an EU setting) and the proposed social innovation journey model. By contrasting the findings from the QDA phase of the project with other research on social innovation we will be able to find arachetypes of social innovation in relation with the (perceived) added value of co-creation within social innovation. SubRQ3) These archetypes will be used to understand the process of co-creation for social innovation by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.SubRQ4) The archetypes will also be used to understand the perceived added value by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.ImpactThe project will contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between co-creation and social innovation on different levels:a) Theoretical: the research will analyse the concepts of co-creation and social innovation in relation to each other by looking at the origins of the concepts, the adaptation in different fields and the uptake within EU policies;b) Methodological: a model will be developed to study and understand the non-lineair process of co-creation within social innovation, by focusing on social innovation pathways and social innovation strategies within a quintuple helix setting (i) academia, ii) enterprises and iii) governments that work together to improve iv) society in an v) EU setting);c) Empirical: the project will (for the first time) collect data on behavioural interactions and the satisfaction levels of these interactions between stakeholders and partners in an EU project.d) Societal: the results of the research could be used to optimize the support for social innovation projects and also for the development of specific funding calls.
The scientific publishing industry is rapidly transitioning towards information analytics. This shift is disproportionately benefiting large companies. These can afford to deploy digital technologies like knowledge graphs that can index their contents and create advanced search engines. Small and medium publishing enterprises, instead, often lack the resources to fully embrace such digital transformations. This divide is acutely felt in the arts, humanities and social sciences. Scholars from these disciplines are largely unable to benefit from modern scientific search engines, because their publishing ecosystem is made of many specialized businesses which cannot, individually, develop comparable services. We propose to start bridging this gap by democratizing access to knowledge graphs – the technology underpinning modern scientific search engines – for small and medium publishers in the arts, humanities and social sciences. Their contents, largely made of books, already contain rich, structured information – such as references and indexes – which can be automatically mined and interlinked. We plan to develop a framework for extracting structured information and create knowledge graphs from it. We will as much as possible consolidate existing proven technologies into a single codebase, instead of reinventing the wheel. Our consortium is a collaboration of researchers in scientific information mining, Odoma, an AI consulting company, and the publisher Brill, sharing its data and expertise. Brill will be able to immediately put to use the project results to improve its internal processes and services. Furthermore, our results will be published in open source with a commercial-friendly license, in order to foster the adoption and future development of the framework by other publishers. Ultimately, our proposal is an example of industry innovation where, instead of scaling-up, we scale wide by creating a common resource which many small players can then use and expand upon.
The textile industry is responsible for over 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions and 20% of the world’s wastewater, surpassing the emissions from international flights and shipping combined. In the European Union, textile purchases in 2020 led to around 270 kg of CO₂ emissions per person, yet only 1% of used clothing is recycled into new garments. The municipality of Groningen manages an estimated 950 kilotons of textile waste but is only able to collect, sort, and recycle 250 kilotons. To address these challenges, Textile Hub Groningen (THG) seeks to support small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and stakeholders in creating circular textile value chains. However, designing circular value chains presents challenges, including conflicting interests, knowledge gaps on circular design principles, and inadequate tools for collaborative business model development. Potential stakeholders often find current tools too abstract and not conducive to collaboration, learning, or experimentation. As a result, circular value chains remain difficult to achieve from the perspective of individual stakeholders. Serious games have been employed to simulate and experiment with complex adaptive systems , . Research shows that well-designed playful learning enhances both learning and motivation, particularly when social elements are integrated . This project aims to answer the following research question: How can serious games be leveraged to design circular textile value chains in the region? The expected outcomes are: 1. Serious Game: Design, test, and deliver a serious game to facilitate the joint design of circular textile value chains. 2. Publications: Extract insights from the game’s design and evaluation, contributing to both academic and practical discussions. 3. Consortium for Follow-up: Mobilize partners and secure funding for future projects in related fields. Through game-based collaborative circular value chain and business model design experiences, this project overcomes barriers in designing viable circular value chains in the textile industry
