A Social Innovation Q&A

A Social Innovation Q&A This short Q&A article was prepared for the social innovation class of Roberto Fasanelli, Ph.D., Department of Social Sciences, University of Naples "Federico II".

Olivier Serrat 11/02/2021

1 Put simply, social innovation is innovation that is social in nature. Even so, it seems that different interpretations of what social innovation is about have constrained its progress. Beyond that, the difficulty of changing mindsets may be the biggest obstacle social innovators face. All the same, the COVID-19 pandemic could unleash social innovation's innate versatile potential as an emerging phenomenon of societal importance.

How Would You Define Social Innovation?

Sir Geoff Mulgan described social innovation as "innovative activities and services that are motivated by the goal of meeting a social need and that are predominantly developed and diffused through organizations whose primary purposes are social" (Mulgan et al., 2007, p. 8).

With more exigence, Phills, Deiglmeier, and Miller (2008) "rediscovered" social innovation as "a novel solution to a social problem that is more effective, efficient, sustainable, or just than existing solutions and for which the value created accrues primarily to society as a whole rather than [to] private individuals" (p. 36). In a similarly exacting spirit, Westley (2008) adjudicated that social innovation should be an "an initiative, product, or process or program that profoundly changes the basic routines, resource, and authority flows or beliefs of any social system" (p. 1).

Then again, according to Noya (2009), the Forum on Social Innovations sponsored by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) conceptualized social innovation as "conceptual, process, or product change, organizational change, and changes in financing, and new relationships with stakeholders and territories" (slide 3). More narrowly than Mulgan et al. (2007), I surmised that "social innovation equates with new ideas that successfully meet social goals through mission-related impacts" (Serrat, 2010a, p. 3).

"Why these five definitions?," you might ask. Setting terms of reference is good practice: in discussions with others, ground rules encourage respectful listening, promote openness to points of view, bolster participation and the sharing of ideas, and boost learning. But, the foregoing intuits above all that the multiplicity of definitions, each reflecting different motivations, has not helped the concept and practice (Serrat, 2013): some definitions of social innovation are so taxing they are hardly serviceable. Helpfully, Balamatsias (2018) presented pragmatic, systemic, managerial, critical, economic, comparative, universal, and "short" approaches to social innovation, this to reveal the organizing thought—some might say parti pris—behind each. Per Balamatsias (2018), the definition in Mulgan et al. (2007) would be deemed "pragmatic"; that in Phills, Deiglmeier, and Miller (2008) would be "managerial"; that in Westley (2008) would be "systemic"; that of the OECD Forum on Social Innovations would be "economic"; and that in Serrat (2010a, p. 3) would qualify as "short" seeing it keeps things simple.

Contemplating social innovation's track record, I remarked in Serrat (2016) that it would have been a good thing to agree on a common understanding of social innovation to begin with.

Why? Because without a common language with which to discuss an issue we can compare apples and oranges—that is, highlight the similarities between different things—or worse still denigrate worthy accomplishments while showcasing the nothing special. (Some people may also be social innovators in all but name.) "If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what ought to be done remains undone …" Confucius is alleged to have said. And yet, despite everything, the matter of definition is a surmountable complication if one starts with the problem—or binding constraint—and not with the solution.

2 What Is the Biggest Obstacle a Social Innovator Faces Today?

The intent of innovation has for long been to generate economic value: only infrequently has it been to address social challenges. Therefore, irrespective of Balamatsias's (2018) eight perspectives, the biggest obstacle a social innovator faces today has to do with changing mindsets. A Zen proverb has it that obstacles do not block the path: they are the path. And so, discerning obstacles is the first step to risk management and assuredly the best way to keep one's eyes on the desired outcome. Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus, cited in Serrat (2016), reasoned that: We create what we want. What we want and how we get to it depends on our mindsets.

It is extremely difficult to change mindsets once they are formed. We create the world in accordance with our mindset. We need to invent ways to change our perspective continually and reconfigure our mindset quickly as new knowledge emerges. We can reconfigure our world if we can reconfigure our mindset. (p. 2) The point is that if innovation is clearly seen to generate public value it will be easier to construct a system that enables us to address social challenges through it. Notwithstanding the profit motive's contribution to economic growth and well-being, there is a consensus of opinion that the innovations that characterized it have—ceteris paribus—exacerbated inequality (and polarization of groups or populations) over the past 40 years (Piketty, 2014); as a result of climate change, environmental degradation, globalization, and inequality, which economic growth assuredly fired, the world faces major social problems. Here, there, and everywhere, social justice issues are converging to the center of agendas.

How, then, might social innovators (and like-minded people) help construct a system that furthers social justice to strengthen civil society? Comprehensively, if soberingly, Mulgan et al.

(2007) pointed to (a) leadership and structures suited to innovation; (b) finance focused on innovation; (c) public policy frameworks that encourage innovation; (d) dedicated social innovation accelerators; (e) national and cross-national innovation pools; and (f) research and faster learning. For my part, given the accent on changing mindsets, I would recommend that social innovators appreciate the power and authority of groups in conducing particular outcomes; the role that formal and informal institutions play in allocating scarce resources; and the influence that values, ideas, ideologies, and religion have on shaping human relations and interaction (Serrat, 2011). Political economy analysis offers no quick fixes: but, it leads to smarter engagement by embracing the complex political nature of decision making and investigating how power and authority affect choices in a society. Social marketing is the use of marketing principles and techniques to alter seemingly intractable behaviors and I hazard to say social innovators should look into that too (2010b).

What New Challenges Does the COVID-19 Pandemic Pose With Respect To Social Innovation?

Globalization and pandemics are closely intertwined: it follows that the COVID-19 pandemic is redolent of the global challenges we face in the 21st century and underscores further the need for social innovations to tackle vulnerability. We may never eliminate COVID-19 and may consequently have to find ways to live with it. Pell-mell, Bonnici and Raja (2020) suggested that social innovators might help (a) make facts easily accessible; (b) develop telehealth services; (c) scale community-based screening; (d) focus on the most vulnerable; (e) prioritize mental health and well-being; and (f) protect livelihoods. The broad sweep of Bonnici and Raja's (2020) recommendations echoed the wide-ranging societal impacts of COVID-19 pandemic: theirs was a deep reflection on the innate versatile potential of social innovation as an emerging

3 phenomenon of societal importance, broader appreciation of which should galvanize the psychological safety necessary to unlock creativity and innovation. Ideally, the main characteristics of social innovation's response to the COVID-19 pandemic would relate to empowerment, scalability, and sustainability.

References Balamatsias, G. (2018, May 4). 8 popular social innovation definitions. Social Innovation Academy. Retrieved from https://www.socialinnovationacademy.eu/8-popular-socialinnovation-definitions/ Bonnici, F., & Raja, P. (2020, March 25). 6 ways social innovators are responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. World Economic Forum. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/03/how-social-innovators-are-responding-to-thecovid19-pandemic/ Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., & Sanders, B. (2007). Social innovation: What it is, why it matters, and how it can be accelerated. Skoll Center for Social Entrepreneurship.

Working Paper. Retrieved from https://www.youngfoundation.org/publications/socialinnovation-what-it-is-why-it-matters-how-it-can-be-accelerated/ Noya, A. (2009). Transforming innovation to address social challenges. [Powerpoint slides].

Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/science/inno/44076387.pdf Phills, J., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. (2008). Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(34), pp. 34–43. Retrieved from https://ssir.org/images/articles/2008FA_feature_phills_deiglmeier_miller.pdf Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Serrat, O. (2010a). Sparking social innovation. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.

Retrieved from https://www.adb.org/publications/sparking-social-innovations Serrat, O. (2010b). The future of social marketing. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank. Retrieved from https://www.adb.org/publications/future-social-marketing Serrat, O. (2011). Political economy analysis for development effectiveness. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank. Retrieved from https://www.adb.org/publications/politicaleconomy-analysis-development-effectiveness Serrat, O. (2013). SIX interview series: Olivier Serrat of the Asian Development Bank. Social Innovation Exchange, March, 20. Retrieved from https://socialinnovationexchange.org/insights/six-interview-series-olivier-serrat-asiandevelopment-bank Serrat, O. (2016). Social innovation: Dead slow ahead? Asian NGO, August, 17. Retrieved from https://asianngo.org/magazine/post-magazine/commentaries/article-detail/72/socialinnovation-dead-slow-ahead Westley, F. (2008). The social innovation dynamic. Retrieved from https://uwaterloo.ca/waterloo-institute-for-social-innovation-andresilience/sites/ca.waterloo-institute-for-social-innovation-andresilience/files/uploads/files/the_social_innovation_dynamic.pdf Resources on Evaluation, Knowledge Management, Organizational Effectiveness, Organizational Leadership, and Strategic Planning • • •

Academia.edu: https://thechicagoschool.academia.edu/OlivierSerrat ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Olivier_Serrat Slideshare: https://www.slideshare.net/celcius233