Responsible innovation by social entrepreneurs: an exploratory study of values integration in innovations

ABSTRACT

The upcoming concept of responsible innovation seems to gain foothold in Europe and beyond, but it still remains unknown how it can be implemented in the business context. This article explores how social entrepreneurs integrate values into their de facto responsible innovations, and provides empirically informed strategies to develop, implement and scale these innovations. It is based on an empirical investigation of 42 case studies of best-practice social entrepreneurs. This empirical study shows that social entrepreneurs focus on creating direct socio-ethical value for their target beneficiaries. They coordinate collective stakeholder action to develop, implement and scale their systems-changing solutions. And their bottom-up innovations are evaluated and scaled for impact. Ultimately, institutional support is sought to create top-down systems change. This article suggests a synthesised model of integrated strategies for responsible innovation that also covers implementation and scaling of innovation.

KEYWORDS:

• Social entrepreneurship
• social innovation
• civil society
• scaling
• value co-creation
• strategies

Introduction

Responsible innovation is a new and emerging concept that aims to take social and ethical aspects explicitly into account during innovation while balancing economic, social, cultural and environmental aspects. It is a new approach to innovation to develop better novel practices, deliver more societal benefits, better grasp the impacts of technologies, and realise public acceptance (Ribeiro, Smith, and Millar 2017). It is about taking ‘care of the future through collective stewardship of science and innovation in the present’ (Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten 2013, 1570). This is expected to result in more responsible solutions for the grand challenges of our time (Von Schomberg 2011; Wickson and Carew 2014).

As such, responsible innovation has a positive connotation (Bos et al. 2014) and the idea gets a foothold in Europe and beyond. The concept focuses predominantly on how to govern science and technological development in a responsible way, thereby focusing primarily on the development phase of science and innovation. However, if responsible innovation wants to realise a paradigm shift in society, it needs to be adopted by the business community as well, since companies not only develop innovations but also bring them to the market. That it is crucial to get companies on board becomes clear in an EU funded project COMPASS, which specifically aims to provide a business case (i.e. incentives) for high-tech firms to adopt responsible innovation processes. Unfortunately, there are several reasons related to the drivers for responsible innovation, the process itself and the subsequent outcome that make it questionable to implement it in a business context (Blok and Lemmens 2015).

First, grand challenges like climate change are often called ‘wicked’ because they are complex, ill-structured public problems that are hard to pin down or to solve (Batie 2008). It is then highly questionable how to become responsive to stakeholders when such grand societal challenges act as inputs for innovation. Second, responsible innovation presupposes a transparent and interactive innovation process. However, transparency and interaction can challenge the information asymmetries on which business opportunities and innovation are based. Hence, such processes can jeopardise the competitive advantage of the firm, and thus its reason of existence. Third, the presupposed mutual responsiveness between stakeholders and shared responsibility for both the innovation process and its marketable products is conflicting with the notion that the investor alone is responsible for the risk-reward assessment and the subsequent investment decision (Blok and Lemmens 2015). Lastly, responsible innovation has a narrow focus on innovation outputs as it is being understood as science and technological development. This excludes other innovation outcomes even though they can have major societal implications as well (Blok and Lemmens 2015; Lubberink et al. 2017). Furthermore, responsible innovation neglects the crucial stage of implementing the innovation and scaling for impact. This is unfortunate since responsible innovation is not only about innovating with society, but also for society (Owen, Macnaghten, and Stilgoe 2012). The business context however focuses on scaling innovations to maximise (social) impact. But this likely creates new managerial challenges, which may challenge the ethical principles that are behind the innovation in the first place (André and Pache 2016).

One of the assumptions in this article is that the emerging field of responsible research and innovation can be advanced if it learns from de facto responsible innovation practices that are already taking place in a business context. De facto responsible innovation is in this research understood as innovation practices and processes that are in line with the current understandings of responsible innovation, but they are not initiated with clear frameworks or guidelines for responsible innovation in mind. Learning from de facto practices appears to be commonplace in the emerging field of responsible innovation, others learned for example from risk assessment practices (e.g. Chatfield et al. 2017), Corporate Social Responsibility (e.g. Pavie, Scholten, and Carthy 2014) or social- and sustainable innovation (e.g. Lubberink et al. 2017). Furthermore, Ruggiu (2015) champions alternative entrepreneurial forms that may have a disposition to engage in responsible innovation. The second assumption in this article is therefore that social entrepreneurs form a business community where de facto responsible innovations are developed, implemented and scaled for impact. There are three main reasons that support this assumption.

First, social entrepreneurs are capable of finding innovative solutions for complex societal challenges while adopting a business logic that focuses on efficiency (Bacq and Janssen 2011; Phillips et al. 2015). Second, social entrepreneurs have the aspiration to innovate for the benefit of society as opposed to pursuing profit or shareholder value like profit-oriented entrepreneurs (Shaw and Carter 2007; Santos 2012). Furthermore, their core values and beliefs are directly related to their actions (Waddock and Steckler 2016). Third, social entrepreneurs often develop social innovations (Phillips et al. 2015) that are not only social in their process but also in their outcomes (Ayob, Teasdale, and Fagan 2016). It is therefore similar to responsible innovation, which is about science and innovation for society that takes place with society (Owen, Macnaghten, and Stilgoe 2012). Studying de facto responsible innovation in a social entrepreneurship context can therefore expand the narrow understanding of innovation being understood as science and technological development.

This article therefore aims to obtain a better understanding of de facto responsible innovations in the business context of social enterprises. It is based on an exploratory empirical investigation of 42 best practice social entrepreneurs. This research aims to contribute to the literature in the following ways. First, it explores how substantive values for responsible innovation are embedded in the innovation outcomes and their implications for society. The normative substantive approach is more suitable for the purpose of this study as it focuses more on the ‘product dimension’ and the value that can be created by including societal values. This approach is for example present in von Schomberg’s definition of responsible innovation (Ruggiu 2015), which is the definition that is most often referred to in its field (Burget, Bardone, and Pedaste 2017). Second, this article provides empirically informed strategies that social entrepreneurs follow to implement and scale de facto responsible innovations to create more social value. It is important not only to focus on the process of developing the innovation but to focus on its outcomes as well, because the final innovation outcomes create social value by solving societal problems or pressing social needs (Phillips et al. 2015). Third, ensuing from the findings in this article, the case will be made that the business logic in companies might not only conflict with the current concept of responsible innovation but they may be an opportunity to strengthening the concept instead.

The following section presents the theoretical framework in which the normative substantive approach to responsible innovation is discussed. The second part of the theoretical framework discusses the concept of social entrepreneurship, and the norms, values and beliefs that guide their innovation activities. The materials and methods section explicates what data are analysed in this research, and how they are analysed. The results show how the most encountered normative values are integrated into innovative solutions by social entrepreneurs, and how they are implemented and scaled for impact. The discussion and conclusion of this article finishes with the conclusions that can be drawn from the results, and a discussion where we make a case that the conditions in the business context are not only a barrier for responsible innovation, it may also function as an opportunity for the concept of responsible innovation at the same time.

Theoretical framework

The central idea behind the concept of responsible innovation is to steer innovations into desirable directions and to make sure that they have the right impacts for society. However, who is in the position to decide what a desirable direction is, or what the right impacts of innovation should be? People have different and sometimes competing values, and hold different views about desirable directions and the right impacts of innovation (Von Schomberg 2013). There are two main approaches in the field of responsible innovation that inform how these desirable directions and right impacts can be determined, and thus whether an innovation can be deemed responsible (Ruggiu 2015): the normative approach and the procedural approach.¹

The normative approach is based on (predetermined) substantive values that should be embedded in innovation outcomes and their implications in order to be considered responsible. Hence, it focuses on the outputs of the innovation process, rather than the process itself (Von Schomberg 2013). The procedural approach (Ruggiu 2015) focuses primarily on the process of innovation; it is based on procedural reasoning where the process of responsible innovation should adhere to certain conditions or dimensions (Pellé 2016). It focuses on deliberative forms of stakeholder engagement, who are included at an early stage to establish the values that the innovation outcomes and their implications should respond to (Ruggiu 2015). In other words, it does not proclaim a predetermined normative view on the innovation outcome nor its implications but predominantly focuses on the ‘process dimension’ of responsible innovation.

However, these different approaches are not mutually exclusive and combinations can be found within conceptualisations of responsible innovation (Pellé 2016). The definition of responsible innovation by Von Schomberg (2013) is illustrative for this, as he argues that the process dimension should be based on transparency and mutual responsiveness among stakeholders, while the product dimension should have the right impacts that follow from predetermined normative substantive values. This article focuses on the product dimension of responsible innovations, and therefore builds upon the normative substantive approach where the right impacts of innovations are articulated.

Norms, values and beliefs in responsible innovation

The normative (substantive) approaches focus predominantly on the innovation outcome and their implications (e.g. in van den Hoven et al. 2013 or Von Schomberg 2013) which rely on sets of outcome-oriented norms and values (Ruggiu 2015; Pellé 2016). Those norms and values can act as more practical ‘anchors’ to steer the innovation in a predetermined desirable direction or to assess whether innovation outcomes and their implications can be deemed responsible (Pellé 2016). Von Schomberg (2013) argues that there are public values that are already determined and democratically agreed upon. These public values are communicated in the EU Treaty, and they are embedded in the principles, rights and freedoms that are stipulated in the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights (henceforth EUCFR). These rights, principles and freedoms can be seen as the parameters of the right impacts of innovations.

Based on the treaty and the EUCFR, Von Schomberg argues that innovations should be steered towards (ethical) acceptability, societal desirability and sustainability, which should act as the three normative anchor points for responsible innovation (2013). Following from the EU treaty, one could say that innovations and their implications should be ‘founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities’ (European Union 2007, 11). Furthermore, innovations should be designed with a view to a desirable society, hence ‘a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail’ (European Union 2007, 11). Inferring from the EUCFR, one could conclude that innovations and their impacts on society should not conflict, and preferably benefit social justice, gender equality, solidarity and human rights, quality of life, protection of human health and the environment, sustainable development and a competitive social market economy. Figure 1 shows a graphical overview of these normative anchor points, the public values and the subsequent rights, principles and freedoms.

Figure 1. An overview of the right impacts of responsible innovation outcomes and their implications.

Ruggiu (2015) connects the focus on normative targets for the product dimension with what can be considered the problem or purpose dimension of responsible innovation. He argues that the grand challenges that are stipulated in the Lund Declaration (e.g. global warming, aging populations or energy supply) refer to societal needs and ambitions, which can therefore also be seen as normative ends for responsible innovation. He further argues that ‘the development of entrepreneurial forms that address these needs thus represent an alternative way of increasing productivity and expanding markets through responsible innovation’ (Ruggiu 2015, 226).

However, the normative approach is not without its caveats. For example, it does not give any guidance when it comes to colliding substantive norms and values; an innovation for enhanced security can for example conflict with privacy. However, this article aims to explore how substantive norms and values are integrated into innovation outcomes, and provides practical implications. The normative approach is more suitable due to its focus on the product dimension of innovation.

Norms, values and beliefs in social entrepreneurship

Definitions of social entrepreneurship should logically draw upon entrepreneurial processes that require opportunity exploitation and resource (re)combination processes (Newth and Woods 2014). The following working definition is therefore adopted in this article:

Social entrepreneurship is exercised where some person or group: (1) aim(s) at creating social value, either exclusively or at least in some prominent way; (2) show(s) a capacity to recognize and take advantage of opportunities to create that value (“envision”); (3) employ(s) innovation, ranging from outright invention to adapting someone else's novelty, in creating and/or distributing social value; (4) is/are willing to accept an above-average degree of risk in creating and disseminating social value; and (5) is/are unusually resourceful in being relatively undaunted by scarce assets in pursuing their social venture. (Peredo and McLean 2006, 64)

Social value can be understood here as the value for society that is generated by solving a societal problem or responding to pressing social needs (Alvord, David Brown, and Letts 2004). The value creation process starts with finding a solution for a societal problem or social need. However, value creation is spurred by maximising impact, which requires scaling of innovation (André and Pache 2016). This may be done by (1) diversification, i.e. diversifying the range of products or services (2) scaling across, i.e. disseminating and sharing the innovation with other actors (3) scaling deep, i.e. improving and enriching the current innovation, or (4) scaling up, i.e. reaching new beneficiaries not yet served. Overall, social entrepreneurs have a tendency to develop a sustainable solution for the problem more so than ensuring a sustainable (competitive) advantage for their organisation. Furthermore, they focus more on methods to empower others as opposed to the logic of control that can often be found in commercial companies (Santos 2012).

Social entrepreneurs are emphatic and driven by prosocial motivations and responsibility motives (Mair and Noboa 2006; Stephan and Drencheva 2017). Their values and beliefs play an important role for their enterprise, which is for example reflected in their dedication to create sustainable social impact over (personal) profit. These social logics can compete with market logics and raise ethical challenges (Zahra et al. 2009). However, social entrepreneurs are capable of staying loyal to their own values and beliefs even though they operate in an entrepreneurial setting that is full of dominating market forces (Dey and Steyaert 2016). This is important because their values and beliefs are deeply rooted in the mission of their enterprise (Zahra et al. 2009) and play an important role in their entrepreneurial decision-making (Koe Hwee Nga and Shamuganathan 2010). Visionary social entrepreneurs envision a desirable future state in which a certain societal problem or pressing social need is resolved. These visions are influenced by their own norms, values and beliefs. Not only do they have as such a normative vision, but they also have the capacity to visualise and advance a sustainable solution to reach that desirable future state (Waddock and Steckler 2016). However, ‘wayfinding’ social entrepreneurs act without having a clear vision yet; they act for example out of moral obligation. The sense making of their actions and subsequent translation into vision follows later. Yet, both have an internal drive to do something good for society (Waddock and Steckler 2016) and act upon their norms, values and beliefs.

Not only in responsible innovation but also in social entrepreneurship literature the issue is raised that there is no consensus about the common good. There can be contestation as to what is social about the innovation outcomes of social entrepreneurs (Cho 2006). Exactly this ‘social’ sub-concept is ill-defined in social entrepreneurship literature, and defining it is problematic because establishing the social ends is a political process that is full of values (Cho 2006; Choi and Majumdar 2014). Many social entrepreneurs organise the development of their solutions around values that they consider to be social. This implies that they make claims about their ability and position in society to articulate what is in the interest of the public. This is especially troublesome in cases where this ‘social’ is contested (Cho 2006) such as the public sector in which social entrepreneurs often operate (Santos 2012), not to mention cases where the values of radical social entrepreneurs differ from the prevailing societal morals and norms (Zahra et al. 2009). For example, Girls Not Brides is an organisation committed to ending child marriages in countries where this is still a tradition. However, Cho (2006) argues that innovations in cases of contestation can only be considered social when they are the result of a public political process; otherwise, it is merely the entrepreneur’s conception of ‘the good’ that he or she aims to pursue. The call for a procedural approach in the governance of innovation is therefore not only confined to the field of responsible innovation.

This research can therefore act as a double-edged sword because it delineates what is social about the innovations of social entrepreneurs based on the normative substantive approach in responsible innovation. At the same time, it advances the field of responsible innovation by exploring how the rights, principles and freedoms are integrated into innovations, and it provides strategies for successful implementation and diffusion of responsible innovations in society.

Materials and methods

The research subjects of this study are 42 social entrepreneurs who are elected as Ashoka fellows.

Ashoka Fellows are visionaries who develop innovative solutions that fundamentally change how society operates. They find what is not working and address the problem by changing the system, spreading the solution, and persuading entire societies to take new leaps. […] social entrepreneurs persist however long the transformation takes. They are creative yet pragmatic, constantly adjusting and changing, with a committed vision that endures until they have succeeded. (Ashoka 2011, 11)

Ashoka is a prominent organisation that provides a platform to support their elected fellows. The social entrepreneurs need to go through an exhaustive selection process to become elected. They have to meet five criteria to become elected: they provide a novel solution, show creative problem-solving, portray entrepreneurial quality, have an ethical fibre, and their solution has (potential for) social impact. There are multiple interviews with the entrepreneur and others in their network, as well as site visits, to determine whether they meet the criteria. The information that is collected throughout this selection process is also shared in a profile description of the entrepreneur, which contains detailed information regarding the new idea, the problem addressed, the strategies followed, and a biographical summary of the entrepreneur’s life. In this article, we present the findings by addressing the social enterprise in each case that is mentioned as opposed to the individual entrepreneur. The main reason for presenting the results in this way is to move away from the problematic narrative of the heroic individual (Dacin, Dacin, and Tracey 2011) and instead acknowledge the fact that it is the collective of individuals in the social enterprise (as well as the eco-system around the organisation) who develop and implement the social innovation (Dacin, Dacin, and Tracey 2011; Dufays and Huybrechts 2014; Phillips, Alexander, and Lee 2017).

As part of a larger research project, we approached Ashoka social entrepreneurs to complete a self-assessment questionnaire regarding their innovation process and conducted content analyses of their profile descriptions which cover their innovation outcomes and implications. Based on the questionnaire-based data, we were able to differentiate between typologies of social entrepreneurs with regard to their innovation process (Lubberink et al. 2018). For more insights into the process of social innovation, and key characteristics of the social enterprises, we kindly refer you to the article (Lubberink et al. 2018). However, in this article, we concentrate on the outcomes of the innovation process (i.e. the product dimension), and the results are therefore based on content analyses of their profile descriptions. We contacted social entrepreneurs (n ≈ 270)² who operate in Europe, the United States or Canada, and who are elected between 2009 and February 2016. We invited them to participate in this project by contacting them via e-mail, sending e-mail reminders, and having follow-up phone calls. In the end, there were 42 social entrepreneurs who completed the self-assessment questionnaire, and therefore the number of profile descriptions that were subject to content analyses totals 42 as well. The sample is confined to these countries because applying the concept of responsible innovation as an a priori framework becomes problematic beyond the global north (Macnaghten et al. 2014; Wong 2016).

The average length of a profile description is 2177 words³ (SD = 515), and they were analysed with Atlas.ti software package that involved both inductive and deductive coding methods. The EU Treaty and EUCFR were used as an initial coding scheme for deductive coding of quotations that indicated whether a certain right, principle or freedom was integrated into an innovative solution, such as the rights of the elderly or non-discrimination (the coding scheme is presented in Table A1 in Appendix). During the analyses, we observed that social entrepreneurs do not develop a single innovation, instead they provide systems-shaping solutions that consist of several underlying and interrelated innovations (e.g. new financial products, skills-building activities, or medical treatments). These underlying innovations were deductively coded using the coding scheme of social entrepreneurship actions that is developed and tested in Mair, Battilana, and Cardenas (2012, 370). Inductive coding took place to map different aspects that shape these innovations or that are shaped by these innovations (e.g. quotes related to scaling of the innovation, piloting/testing the innovation, or accessibility of the innovation). Mair, Battilana, and Cardenas (2012, 371) also provide a coding scheme for deductive coding of the principles for justification of the innovation (e.g. enhances efficiency, productivity, creativity, market mechanisms or enhances problem awareness). These coding schemes can be found in their original forms in Appendix (Tables A2 and A3).

As opposed to Chandra and Shang (2017), we did not use stratified sampling method of Ashoka profiles. Nevertheless, each of the six fields of work that Ashoka uses to classify their fellows is represented in our sample. The entrepreneurs in our sample focused predominantly on civic engagement (n = 11), economic development (n = 9), learning/education (n = 8), health (n = 8), human rights (n = 3) and environmental issues (n = 3). Also, Mair, Battilana, and Cardenas (2012) conducted a random sampling of Ashoka profiles and included all entrepreneurs of the Schwab Foundation. Their sample ended up with a bias towards civic engagement and economic development. Compared to Mair, Battilana, and Cardenas (2012), our sample has relatively a high share of entrepreneurs working in the fields of learning/education and health, whereas the fields of human rights and environmental issues are relatively underrepresented. The study by Meyskens et al. (2010) is also based on Ashoka profile descriptions, yet they focused on the two most represented fields of work, which were economic development and learning/education. To conclude, the social entrepreneurs in our sample are heterogeneous with regard to the sectors in which they operate and the solutions provided.

Visual representation of the relationships between the codes was created for each individual case to better understand the relationships between the solutions provided, their implications, and how they relate to the right impacts for innovation. After a number of discussions with the researchers, the decision was made to first provide descriptive data of the rights, principles and freedoms behind the values addressed. This subsequently leaves room for a more detailed explanation of how the most encountered normative substantive values are integrated into the innovation outcomes, and to describe the strategies followed to develop de facto responsible innovations. This is done for the most encountered values (and the rights, principles and freedoms that substantiate these values) and the findings are accompanied by exemplary quotes.

Results

Most of the social enterprises (35 out of 42) in our sample integrate more than one right, principle or freedom into their innovation. Furthermore, these rights, principles or freedoms can span multiple categories of the EU Treaty and its Charter of Fundamental Rights. In the presentation of the results, HOFR serves as an exemplary case to show how this can be understood in practice.

[HOFR] pioneers a diagnostically superior, personal, low-cost breast examination method by training blind people as skilled diagnosticians. [Its] approach integrates them into the primary health care infrastructure, while enhancing women’s health care experience and opening an entirely new professional path to a differently-abled constituency.

The right to preventive health care (categorised under Solidarity in the EUCFR) is integrated into its solution as the enterprise proposes a superior, personal and low-cost solution in the form of preventive health care. This solution was initiated in response to deteriorating conditions for early diagnostics in Germany. Moreover, this solution also embeds other rights, principles and freedoms. For example, the right to integration of people with disabilities (categorised under Equality) is integrated as the company works with visually impaired women who perform manual breast examinations. Furthermore, HOFR integrated the right to fair and just working conditions (categorised under Solidarity) as they ‘designed a standardized system of orientation for breast examiners based on braille strips. This mapping system is an innovative solution on its own’. This innovative solution therefore integrates multiple rights that are part of two categories of the EUCFR, namely solidarity and equality.

HOFR is among many other social enterprises that integrate a variety of rights, principles and freedoms, which are part of multiple overarching categories (30 out of 42 cases). The categories that are most often addressed in the solutions of the social enterprises are solidarity (n = 28), freedom (n = 21) and equality (n = 18). Each of these categories is presented respectively, and tables are provided that show how their underlying rights, principles and freedoms are integrated into innovations. Figure 2 shows how often a category is addressed by solutions of the social enterprises.

Figure 2. Occurrence of values embedded in innovations by the social enterprises.

Solidarity

The right that is most often integrated into the solutions of social enterprises is the right to have access to preventive health care, medical treatment and human health protection (n = 12). Each of these social enterprises identified a different opportunity to realise its vision to strengthen the right to health care. For example, KEJO aims to improve emergency care for populations in rural areas, HOFR champions affordable breast examinations and BLBR fosters repurposing of drugs for debilitating and rare diseases. Another frequently encountered right is the right to social security and social assistance (n = 7) that is integrated into solutions that for example combat poverty, or provide services to elderly or homeless people who are dependent on others. With regard to family and professional life (n = 5), innovative solutions are provided that enhance work-family balance, that provide farming opportunities for families, or that provide income opportunities for underprivileged families. An overview of all rights, principles and freedoms that are part of the category Solidarity can be found in Figure 3.

Figure 3. The occurrence of rights, principles and freedoms that are part of ‘Solidarity’, and are integrated in the solutions by the social enterprises.

None of the social enterprises work in isolation on their solution. They either work with the target beneficiaries or with other stakeholders in the innovation system. Social enterprises are true networking enterprises as their solutions depend upon a large network of stakeholders who often carry responsibility for a part of the solution. For example, KEJO is a social enterprise that connects general practitioners, specialists, firemen, and local councils to create communities who together provide emergency care in rural areas. The company is acting as a coordinator and provides them with ‘infrastructure development, intensive bespoke training, and communication strategies to ensure that volunteers are organized and enabled to respond to medical emergency calls quickly and succinctly’. While the company is responsible for its own revenues, each emergency community is responsible for raising theirs (but the social enterprise helps in coordinating this fundraising) and a university is responsible for scaling the training of personnel. KEJO is therefore an exemplary case of a social enterprise that does not provide the care itself. Instead, they create a stakeholder network around the solution and coordinate its collective action. This is a common strategy among many social enterprises in our sample.

Social enterprises do not only create communities of previously disconnected stakeholders, but they also employ more standardised approaches to empower communities for impact. For example, RINO first develops trust-relationships with the impoverished communities and aims to develop a movement that is capable of solving their own problems. The services that are provided by RINO (and LEIS too) focus on creating a movement, providing them with the tools to create the necessary change themselves, and to take care of themselves. More detailed descriptions of how KEJO, RINO and LEIS integrate values into their solutions can be found in Table 1.

Table 1. Overview of descriptions how the most common rights, principles or freedoms of Solidarity are integrated into innovations.

Right, principle or Freedom addressed	Description how the right, principle or freedom is integrated into innovation
The right health care,	KEJO creates care systems for patients in rural areas, which improves survival rates for time-urgent medical issues and saving lives. […] It is bringing the Emergency Rescue out to the patients [by] building a network of highly trained volunteer emergency medical personnel who can provide near-intensive care level treatment in life threatening circumstances in order to stabilize lives […] [KEJO’s] model builds a powerful current of community demand, creating local associations that allow rural areas to support their own medical care, fundraise locally, and dramatically improve their own safety in times of emergency.
Social security and assistance	RINO works to break the cycle of chronic entrenched poverty that has devastated rural populations and marginalized communities. Based on a collective community process it transforms the habits, attitudes, practices and understanding of people and institutions who traditionally do not collaborate. Its strategy offers three types of services: crisis management, trainings, and small-scale crafts and work for income generation and self-sustainability.
Family and professional life	LEIS is bringing women and men together to create a new economy, one that values work-life balance and diverse management practices, and thus reinvents what it means to be successful at work and in the home. It identifies and empowers role models and champions [to] pursue corporate culture change and to legitimise them within their own companies. By recruiting and giving tools to a broad-based network of professional women, [LEIS] exponentially grows the number of female middle managers who have the tools, networks, and self-confidence to change their self-image and promote their own style of leadership.

Freedom

The right to education is most often integrated into the solutions developed by social enterprises (n = 8). This involves solutions that enhance access to (proper) education, solutions that improve the education system, or focus on specific competencies that education should develop. The freedom to conduct a business (n = 4) is most often integrated into solutions that provide the resources (human, social, and economic capital) to start a business. An overview of all rights, principles and freedoms that are part of Freedom can be found in Figure 4.

Figure 4. The occurrence of rights, principles and freedoms that are part of ‘Freedom’, and are integrated in the solutions by the social enterprises.

Some of the social enterprises address challenges related to learning and education (n = 8), others changed entire education systems (n = 2). For example, SLZD is ‘empowering both schools and citizens to transform their education system from within. To do this, [it] repositions schools as centers of community life and incentivizes parents, experts, businesses and communities to become stakeholders in education’. Others integrated missing elements into already existing education curricula (n = 3) or focused on empowering the teachers in the education system (n = 2). Social enterprises in all cases develop a network of involved practitioners and provide training to teachers so they are able to provide quality education. The principles behind their solutions involve logics of collaboration, either between the different stakeholders involved in education or as in participatory learning for students. Furthermore, the solutions in our sample aim to enhance for example creativity, non-conformity and imagination, which can be achieved by engaging in arts, games and other ways to enhance and exploit their creativity. Their education programmes require the commitment of the schools and other stakeholders involved, while the social enterprise acts as a coordinator of the activities.

There are different ways in which the social enterprises integrate the freedom to conduct a business into a solution. One way is to act as an incubator, and hence provide expertise, finances and a supporting peer-network to help nascent entrepreneurs to start their enterprise. Another way is to focus on institutional change and create legislation for work integration social enterprises (see the case description of DUCH in Table 2). And VOAT aims to improve the position of insolvent entrepreneurs and to strengthen their rights to start an enterprise again (see the case description of VOAT in Table 2). Not only VOAT, but also other social enterprises are making use of peer support groups that include their target beneficiaries, who can subsequently help each other out. For example, DRJE is a social enterprise that aims to realise freedom of expression and information and stimulates peer support of journalists in countries where independent journalism is under threat (see Table 2).

Table 2. Overview of descriptions how the most common rights, principles or freedoms of the category freedom are integrated into innovations.

Right, principle or Freedom addressed	Description how the right, principle or freedom is integrated into the innovation
The right to education	OGTE has transformed the Polish education system by introducing alternative forms of preschool education […] so that every child has equal access to educational facilities and the chance to participate in diverse learning opportunities. [It] has done this by creating flexible and inexpensive community-based programs for children’s growth, that respond to the economic situations of rural and provincial areas in Poland.
The freedom to conduct a business	In Germany and throughout Europe, insolvency dooms one’s condition financially and also socially. Using the spirit, engagement, and skill of insolvent micro-entrepreneurs in a peer help group, VOAT empowers, destigmatizes and lobbies for insolvent peoples’ ability to restart their entrepreneurial lives.
Freedom of expression and information:	DRJE is developing the foundations for professional journalism in […] Central Asia, where independent journalism is constantly under threat, and Central Europe, where there is a strong need for industry standards. This is done by: (1) Creating a space for local reporters to uphold core industry standards while educating them in new media techniques to keep the flame of independent and professional journalism alive in some of the most repressive places. (2) Functioning as a ‘home’ and enabling platform for talented journalists frustrated with state-dominated media or commercial media, empowering them to have much greater impact than they would without support. And (3) raising international awareness around topics that local journalists believe are important and deserve direct action, [neglected] by mainstream media outlets.
Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work	DUCH has introduced a nation-wide approach to connect some of the most excluded people to the labour market by addressing the challenges created by the Swiss government. It demonstrates the power of innovation and experimentation to address social challenges, and builds multi-sector networks across traditional siloes. [This] has resulted in the federation and professionalization of social organizations, the establishment of the social enterprise as a viable structure, and the engagement of all sectors of Swiss society in driving change.

Equality

The principle to recognise cultural, religious, or linguistic diversity is often integrated into innovative solutions (n = 7). For example, FIKR offers mental health care in multiple languages to prevent the exclusion of people who or not proficient in the official language. Another interesting example of linguistic diversity comes from NEMI, which developed a code language for colour blind people. This enterprise has a normative view that this code language becomes as ‘mainstream’ language like braille (see Table 3). The right to non-discrimination (n = 6) is integrated into solutions that aim to change the public’s opinion of marginalised, stigmatised or underprivileged communities (e.g. disabled, minorities, or rural population). This is often accompanied by an aim to empower these communities at the same time (n = 5), to subsequently foster their inclusion into society. The right to integration of people with disabilities (n = 6) is apparent in solutions where disabled people are integrated into work. JAAR, for example, aims to develop a business case for work integration social enterprises, whereas DUCH aims to create an enabling institutional environment for such enterprises. An overview of all rights, principles and freedoms that are part of Equality can be found in Figure 5.

Figure 5. The occurrence of rights, principles and freedoms that are part of ‘Equality’, and are integrated in the solutions by the social enterprises.

Table 3. Overview of descriptions how the most common rights, principles or freedoms of equality are integrated into innovations.

Right, principle or Freedom addressed	Description how the right, principle or freedom is integrated into the innovation
Respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity	NEMI has created a code for colour blindness designed with multiple applications. As an augmentative tool, the code substitutes the role of colour in communication. Guided by the motto ‘Colours for All,’ NEMI combines the efficiency of a simple, attractive and scalable method for raising awareness around colour blindness with a dynamic process of implementation that assimilates the users’ inputs and needs. The implementation of the code has been developed and piloted with different methodologies and tailored to different industry or sector standards […] to guarantee an effective adoption of the code and allow it to become a mainstream language.
Non-discrimination	FOHA wants to empower Roma communities by developing sustainable solutions for their urgent needs, challenging the negative prejudices forced onto them and actively driving policies and plans that affect their common future. It […] brings together principles of community organizing with Roma culture, helping Roma identify and mobilize around social challenges, develop strategies, leverage resources and organize related stakeholders to launch new interventions, projects and organizations.
Right to integration of people with disabilities	JAAR wants to: (1) address the dependency of the disabled on state employment centres, (2) the dependency of these centres on government funding, and (3) change the stigma that the centres and the disabled. JAAR is convinced that disabled people need nothing different from what average people need. The organisation built a new system of transactions that exposes the work centres to the market forces in a cooperative way, [thereby] changing the perception of the disabled, and ensuring […] that its products are purchased out of need and desire, not pity.

NEMI is an interesting case as it is one of the few social enterprises that developed a single innovation (i.e. a colour code) and serves as an exemplary case for scaling. Scaling is in this case at least as important as the innovation itself for realising the impact. The social enterprise focuses on scaling-out by implementing the colour language in education (since the colour is important in textbooks), the health sector (e.g. for drug and pharmaceutical labels) and transport sector (e.g. for orientation signals). Moreover, it focuses on scaling-up by designing a national law for implementation of the colour code. Another example comes from FIKR; this social enterprise integrates linguistic diversity into its mental health care solution as the company provides its care in nine different languages, because vulnerable communities may not speak the official language well.

Three social enterprises respond to human rights issues and their solutions respect the right to non-discrimination, integration of people with disabilities and cultural, religious and linguistic diversity. Different strategies are put in place to foster this, which revolve around creating a network of previously disconnected stakeholders, providing counselling services for these overlooked communities, and changing the opinion that the public holds of these communities. Furthermore, these organisations are inclined to engage in policy making and lobbying. Together, these efforts aim to strengthen the position of the marginalised in society.

Synthesis of strategies to develop, implement and scale socio-ethical innovations

Added socio-ethical value

The social enterprises develop solutions for grand challenges that create direct socio-ethical value for the target beneficiaries, which are predominantly vulnerable and marginalised communities in society. The socio-ethical value is created by integrating the rights, principles and freedoms of the EUCFR in the innovative solution, in ways that are previously presented. The solutions that create socio-ethical value are a response to a violated right, principle or freedom (e.g. alternative breast examinations in response to the deteriorating right to preventive health care) or they further enhance the created socio-ethical value (e.g. providing mental health care in nine languages).

The solutions that are developed and implemented are systems-shaping solutions that consist of an interconnected set of innovations that influence each other and interrelate with the larger systems-shaping solution. For example, the systems-shaping solution of HOFR consists among others of a manual breast examination by visually impaired women (process innovation) that is accompanied by braille strips for coordination (product innovation). Likewise, the KEJO provides emergency care in rural areas which require new medical devices (product innovations) and new approaches to delivering emergency care in rural areas (process innovation).

Another design characteristic that comes with socio-ethical value creation for the target beneficiary is to enhance availability, accessibility, and acceptability of the solution. For example, social enterprises find ways to integrate affordability and accessibility as a design factor for the solution. FIKR is an exemplary case as it wants to make mental health care available to all. It, for example, engages in price differentiation to stimulate availability to all. People who cannot afford it get mental health care for free or for reduced fees, while the full fee is still half of the market rate. It also focuses on accessibility as the staff does not only have face-to-face sessions but also offers online programmes. Furthermore, they make sure that the setting is welcoming and discreet, and that it does not appear to be ‘medical’, which stimulates acceptability of their clients. These design characteristics are all developed to break down the barriers to access mental health care.

Bottom-up innovation

The main strategy to create socio-ethical value is by working closely with the target beneficiaries who are stimulated to be involved in the search for a solution. In other words, their solutions are developed at a grassroots level and as bottom-up innovation processes. This fosters empowerment of communities who then play an important role in strengthening their own position in society. For example, in the case of FOHA, ‘Roma people are co-creating solutions to their mutual problems’, and she helps them in identifying problems, organise resources, and developing and following a roadmap for change.

However, the target beneficiaries are not the only stakeholders who are involved in the development or implementation of the solution. For example, teachers are involved to improve or embed education-related solutions, while local authorities collaborate with social enterprises in community initiatives, and universities are involved by social enterprises to provide missing knowledge or to assess the impact of the solution. Other (civil society) organisations are also involved to implement and provide the solution, since all social enterprises that initiated the solution are either micro- , small- or medium-sized enterprises with limited resources. These social enterprises therefore predominantly act as coordinators of collective action in response to a grand challenge.

Radical incrementalism

The solutions and their underlying innovations result from multiple rounds of iterations. Together with the target beneficiaries and other stakeholders, social enterprises pilot, experiment and improve their idea to end up with a solution that works in a specific setting. It appears to be vital for social enterprises to pilot and validate their solutions (n = 17), for example, because it provides more legitimacy to operate. Once they know that their proposed solution works, they look for strategies to scale the solution. This is, for example, the case for OGTE, which developed a successful ‘consult, prototype, verify and spread’ approach and uses its proven approach for new types of needs.

Learning and innovating to develop a working solution is a necessary but not sufficient condition for creating socio-ethical value. It needs to be complemented with implementation and marketing of the solution, which is where scaling comes into play. However, it is a balancing act to find out when to stop innovating and start scaling, as both require the allocation of sufficient resources. The innovation can be developed, improved and validated in small community settings, and subsequently, it can be scaled for impact. When the right strategies for scaling are applied, it can have a profound impact on communities in other settings too, or even for larger societies. The incremental innovations in small community settings can therefore result in radical change in society in this way.

One way to scale the solution is by sharing the idea and encouraging other organisations to replicate the solutions in other settings. This scaling across is a strategy used by HOFR as it ‘is spreading the Discovering Hands® method through a newly found non-profit organization to all other German occupational schools, which then will be licensed to instruct MTEs on the standardized training curricula’. NEMI is scaling up by applying the colour code in new areas (e.g. transportation, education, fashion industry) to reach new target beneficiaries, while at the same time it is scaling deep by continuously improving its colour code. The previous example of OGTE, which uses its innovative approach for newly identified needs, is an example of diversification as a scaling strategy. These strategies for scaling are not only important for the growth of the venture, but it is also maximising social impact and thereby also its socio-ethical value creation. In the end, social enterprises may influence policy making or actually be involved in policy making within their specific field, thereby maximising social impact by sharing their expertise.

Engaging institutional support

Not all solutions are only the result of bottom-up processes. There are also successful ways of top-down approaches, or social enterprises involved in top-down and bottom-up processes of developing and scaling the solution. This is evident from the fact that a large share of social enterprises are engaged in policy making and lobbying activities (n = 15). For example, DUCH was involved in policy making and legislation to achieve a legal form of social enterprises in its country, with a specific focus on work-integration social enterprises. Sometimes social enterprises are invited to participate in policy making as they gained legitimacy through their work and became expert organisations with regard to the social problem that they address. This is, for example, likely when the social enterprise responded to a problem that the government did not recognise or failed to (properly) address. Another strategy for systems change is to engage in public communication activities to inform the public or more specific audiences, about the urgency of the social problem or neglected social needs. This can create awareness by the targeted audience for the problem, which is an important first step for subsequently creating systems-change. Other ways to gain legitimacy is through strategic partnering with well-regarded organisations, operating in transparent ways, and having third-party validation of the solution.

Overall, social enterprises create socio-ethical values for their target beneficiaries that require the involvement of a wide variety of stakeholders, who engage in collective coordinated action. These predominantly bottom-up innovative approaches are piloted and tested to become structured and validated approaches to social change, which are subsequently scaled for impact. In the end, this bottom-up process can be combined with higher-level institutional support, either because the social enterprise is invited to participate in policy making or through lobbying and media activities of the social enterprise.

Figure 6 is a graphical representation of the interrelated strategies to develop responsible systems-shaping solutions. This starts at a small scale with an innovation that responds to a neglected social problem or unaddressed pressing needs, which can be directly linked to a right, principle or freedom that is violated or needs to be strengthened. Social enterprises integrate these rights, principles and freedoms in their solutions and thereby create direct socio-ethical value for their target beneficiaries. The development and implementation of their solution requires the involvement of a wide variety of stakeholders who engage in coordinated collective action. Subsequently, the final solution crystallises when pilots have taken place, and the impact of the solution is validated. This is followed by multiple strategies for scaling that are vital for enhancing socio-ethical value. In other words, they engage in radical incrementalism. Ultimately, social enterprises act as change agents in society by lobbying, creating public awareness, or taking part in policy making activities to develop supportive institutional change. These four interrelated layers of strategies can therefore be seen as an integrated approach of responsible innovation in a business setting, based on a synthesis of social enterprise cases in which different activities were performed and solutions provided.

Figure 6. Graphical representation of the iterative process to develop systems-shaping solutions, from bottom-up innovation to scaling systems-shaping solutions.

Conclusions and discussion

This article aims to obtain a better understanding of de facto responsible innovation in the business community of social enterprises and explores how substantive values for responsible innovation are embedded in the product dimension of innovations. Additionally, empirically informed strategies are proposed to develop, implement and scale de facto responsible innovations in a business context. The conclusion can be drawn that social enterprises integrate multiple rights, principles and freedoms that cover multiple categories within the EUCFR. The findings indicate that social enterprises address a neglected social problem or pressing social needs that can be directly related to a violated right, principle or freedom, or that need to be strengthened. Additionally, they integrate other rights, principles and freedoms as well, and thereby creating even more socio-ethical value for their target beneficiaries.

This article proposes a new approach to responsible innovation in a business context based on a synthesis of empirically informed strategies. The business logic that is present in social enterprises stresses the importance of implementing and scaling innovation. First, because the founders of social enterprises often have a disposition to identify an opportunity for creating socio-ethical value directly for the target beneficiary, which is in line with the findings by Chandra and Shang (2017). Socio-ethical value is created by providing solutions for social problems or pressing social needs while integrating important rights, principles and freedoms. Second, social enterprises often break down barriers to adopt the innovation, for example by price differentiation based on income or by providing the solution in multiple languages. The example of the solution provided by FIKR (see the section ‘Added socio-ethical value’) is exemplary for breaking down barriers to access the solution. Third, social enterprises coordinate collective action of a wide variety of stakeholders who are gathered around their vision. This stakeholder involvement is not only important for the development of the innovation, but also for its implementation and subsequent scaling. This, for example, becomes clear in the role that teachers play for social innovations in education or the Roma minorities who’s collective action is coordinated by FOHA (see the section ‘Bottom-up innovation’) The focus on implementing innovation that is present in business logics can therefore be an added value for the current notion of responsible innovation that focuses predominantly on stakeholder engagement and deliberation during the development of innovation (e.g. Stilgoe, Owen, and Macnaghten (2013)).

Subsequently, the small scale and bottom-up solutions of social enterprises are often validated before scaling takes place. This strategy can be related to the idea of radical incrementalism, where it is also described in more detail. Radical incrementalism is understood as a focused evaluation of new small-scale incremental solutions that can subsequently be strategically scaled for generating large societal impact. For example, Goldstein, Hazy, and Silberstang (2010) also found that social entrepreneurs who first operate on a small scale develop solutions that have a profound impact on society in the future. The model is completed with the search for institutional support, which is achieved by lobbying for institutional change or when social enterprises become involved in policy making. Social enterprises can therefore play a role as signalling actors in society, since through their work they may alert members of society of the neglected social problem that they address, and the effective solutions that exist (Santos 2012). Responsible innovation is not only about innovating with society but also for society (Owen, Macnaghten, and Stilgoe 2012). However, value for society is only created when innovation is implemented, and value creation is boosted with the scaling of innovation. The synthesis of strategies to develop, implement and scale responsible innovations in a business context can therefore serve as an opportunity to advance the current notion of responsible innovation.

It needs to be acknowledged that bringing innovation to the market and scaling for impact are positively portrayed in this article, and these are indeed crucial stages for creating socio-ethical value, besides the development of the innovation itself. However, scaling innovative solutions is not inherently good, just as innovations in general are not inherently good. Research by André and Pache (2016) showed that scaling social innovation and realising growth of the enterprise can create tensions with the original aim of social enterprises, which is to provide care. However, such tensions within the firm may lead, for example, to mission drift, i.e. moving away from the core mission of the firm. Scaling may not only be a source of tensions for the firm but also for the innovation itself. For example, scaling across means that the innovation is disseminated among other actors who subsequently implement it in new contexts. This raises, for example, the questions: who is responsible for the consequences of the innovation. And how can one make sure that it will yield similar impacts? HOFR for example chose to license its innovative solution, by doing so it ensures that other actors cannot deviate from the approach and that the innovation is properly replicated. We therefore suggest to advance the concept of responsible innovation by not only focusing on socio-ethical considerations for the development of innovation, but also to prove its value by informing how implementing and scaling innovation can be done in a responsible manner. This will benefit socio-ethical value creation as it will scale for impact while at the same time it responds to social and ethical tensions that can come with scaling. We argue that this is a vital step for responsible innovation if it wants to live up to its ambition.

The previous sections included the results of this study, and the insights that were obtained from the analyses, which resulted in an empirically informed strategy for responsible innovation in a business context. This is based on profile descriptions of best practice social enterprises, which can be used as a window into human experience (Meyskens et al. 2010). They are best practice social enterprises because they went through a meticulous selection process. This brings us to the first limitation of this study, which is the representativeness of these well-established social enterprises and their profile descriptions. The selection process of Ashoka makes sure that only well-established social enterprises that developed and implemented systems-changing solutions become Ashoka fellows. Yet, Zahra et al. (2009) argue that there are also social enterprises remain to work on atomic problems and develop small-scale solutions without subsequently looking for opportunities to scale for impact. The systems-changing solutions and subsequent scaling for impact that emerged from the empirical cases are therefore not representative for all manifestations of social entrepreneurship. This means that the process of radical incrementalism and engaging in institutional support are expected to be less prevalent in the works by social enterprises looking at atomistic problems and solutions. Also, the social enterprises in this sample predominantly operate in the third sector, which is representative for social entrepreneurship (Kerlin 2006; Santos 2012). However, social enterprises that are operating in sectors with competition of profit-oriented enterprises may have less space to focus on socio-ethical value creation and may be forced to focus on economic value capturing. Future research could therefore investigate how social enterprises in such competitive environments develop their systems-shaping solutions and scale for impact.

The second limitation comes from the fact that Ashoka is a supportive organisation for social entrepreneurship, and therefore it cannot be ruled out that the profile descriptions contain a more positive portrayal of social entrepreneurship than it actually is in practice. For example, information with regard to trade-offs that had to be made, conflicting values or other problems are only scarcely mentioned. However, the added value of the profile descriptions outweighs its limitations since the aim of this article is to identify successful strategies to integrate the values into innovative solutions. Combined with the fact that the case study descriptions are comparable as they have identical structures, it allows us to provide a valid stylisation of strategies to integrate values into solutions. Which is also why Mair, Battilana, and Cardenas (2012) used Ashoka profile descriptions in their research as well, to describe how social entrepreneurs create change for the benefit of society.

The third limitation of this study is the fact that social enterprises do not focus on science practices nor on technological development. Therefore, we cannot assure that the findings of this article can be translated directly into trajectories of science and technological development that are often the phenomenon under study in the field of responsible innovation. However, technological solutions are not the panacea of grand challenges (Godin 2015) and other solutions have to be taken into account as well. The profile descriptions show that social innovations can be an interesting avenue to look for solutions that respond to grand challenges. Furthermore, non-technological innovation can have a profound impact on society as well, both of desirable and detrimental nature. Therefore, responsible innovation should not only be confined to science and technological development, and should broaden its narrow scope of innovation by including other forms of innovation as well, like social innovation. This article can thus be considered as one of the first efforts to include other forms of innovation as well, and provides a new approach to develop, implement, and scale responsible innovation based on empirical investigations of business practices.

Acknowledgements

The EIT is a European Union body whose mission is to create sustainable growth.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Rob Lubberink is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Business Management and Organisation group of the Wageningen University. Rob started his PhD after graduating in Management, Economics and Consumer studies at the Wageningen University in 2013. His PhD research focused on Responsible Innovation in the context of Social Entrepreneurship. His current research focuses on entrepreneurship and innovation by marginalised smallholders in developing- and emerging economies.

Vincent Blok is associate professor in Business Ethics and Responsible Innovation at the Business Management and Organisation Group, and associate professor in Philosophy of Management, Technology & Innovation at the Philosophy Group, Wageningen University, Netherlands. Blok’s research group is involved in several (European) research projects at the crossroads of business, philosophy and innovation. Blok’s work has appeared in Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Cleaner Production, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics and Journal of Responsible Innovation and other journals. See www.vincentblok.nl for more information about his current research.

Johan van Ophem is associate professor at the Urban Economics group of the Wageningen University. His teaching and research relate to the field of consumer behaviour, lifestyles, health economics and household economics. He has published in these fields and he has edited several publications in the field of economics and sociology of the household. He is (co)-organiser of various scientific conferences and an active member of European university networks.

Onno Omta graduated in biology in 1978 and after a management career he defended his PhD thesis on the management of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry in 1995 (both at the University of Groningen). In 2000 he was appointed as chaired professor in Business Administration at Wageningen University. He is (co-)author of many scientific articles on innovation management. His current research interest encompasses entrepreneurship and innovation in chains and networks in the life sciences.

ORCID

Rob Lubberink http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8940-5471

Vincent Blok http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9086-4544

Additional information

Funding

This work is supported by Climate-KiC, which is one of three Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) created in 2010 by the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT).

Notes

1 As a matter of fact, Ruggiu (2015) uses the term ‘socio-empirical’ approach, which is actually similar to the procedural approach that, for example, Pellé (2016) and Oudheusden (2014) talk about. For consistent use throughout the chapter there is chosen to use the term ‘procedural’ approach as it is more common in the discourse on responsible innovation.

2 These are the number of email recipients to whom the questionnaire was sent. However, some social enterprises were founded by two or more entrepreneurs. In other cases, other emails were suggested by the secretaries to get in direct contact with the founder. Therefore, the actual number of enterprises contacted was lower than 270.

3 2177 words is equivalent to approximately 5.5 pages, Font: Times New Roman, size 12, single line spacing.

Appendix

Table A1. The coding scheme that shows the category of the EUCFR, the underlying rights, principles and freedoms, and exemplary quotes that address these rights, principles and freedoms.

Category	code	Description	Example quotation
Dignity	Right to the integrity of the person	1. Everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical and mental integrity.	By fostering social awareness through outreach and advocacy, ABAB seeks to change the traditional stereotypes and social stigmas common in Arab society toward the blind. Through his MyMind program, FIKR has created a movement for community-based mental health services, driven by a revenue-generating combination of paid and pro bono therapists and practitioners to make mental health care available and affordable without stigma. He uses both in-person and web-based support services to build his system for multi-layered support.
	Prohibition of slavery and forced labour	No one shall be held in slavery or servitude. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour. Trafficking in human beings is prohibited.	Recognizing that truckers were largely unaware of the phenomenon of forced-prostitution, let alone that they could do something about it, PAKE is reversing the approach of the past by helping truckers reimagine the positive role their industry can play in tackling the issue. […] PAKE is also in the early stages of thinking through how Truckers Against Trafficking (TAT) might play an instrumental role in ensuring that similar anti-trafficking protocols be implemented across every mode of transportation in the US.
Freedom	Right to liberty and security	Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.	For security guards, IDR teaches how to maintain order and cleanliness in a station or a park with people who have little access to water, toilets, and showers, and how to manage possible confrontations between the homeless and passengers.
	Respect for private and family life And Protection of personal data	Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications, and the right to the protection of one’s personal data. This processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned. Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified. This is subject to control by an independent authority.	Systematic impact evaluation of crime prevention is limited due to data and privacy restrictions. […] Most impact from GHJ is reported through positive feedback both from teachers and pedagogues, who state that working with the delinquents is much easier after they have completed the GHJ program.
	Freedom of expression and information	1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the right hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference.	Under the ROMFO umbrella, Turkey’s Roma people are co-creating solutions to their mutual problems, getting empowered by practicing changemaking first-hand, and consequently, challenging the stereotypes forced onto them. ROMFO is also acting as a platform to effectively plan Roma people’s future and communicate with decision makers, helping realize the potential of Roma NGOs to cause systematic change for Turkey’s most underserved populations.
		2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.	TOL has multiple levels of impact. First, through creating a space for local reporters to uphold core industry standards while educating them in new media techniques, DRJE and his team are keeping alive the flame of independent and professional journalism in some of the most repressive places.
	Freedom of assembly and of association	1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association at all levels, in particular in political, trade union and civic matters, which implies the right of everyone to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his or her interests.	Designed and led by young people, CAJE builds large-scale collective action to bring about a collective shift toward changemaking.
Freedom	Right to education	Everyone has the right to education and to have access to vocational and continuing training, including the possibility to receive free compulsory education. 2. The freedom to found educational establishments with due respect for democratic principles and the right of parents to ensure the education and teaching of their children in conformity with their religious, philosophical and pedagogical convictions shall be respected	OGTE has transformed the Polish education system by introducing alternative forms of preschool education. OGTE has done this by creating flexible and inexpensive community-based programs for children’s growth, that respond to the economic situations of rural and provincial areas in Poland. […] She has focused efforts on transforming the early education sector so that every child has equal access to educational facilities and the chance to participate in diverse learning opportunities.
	Freedom to choose an occupation and right to engage in work	1. Everyone has the right to engage in work and to pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation, and can seek employment, to work, to exercise the right of establishment and to provide services in any Member State.	Gelecek Daha Net empowers and encourages youth self-determination with the ability to make informed education, career choices and life choices. This results in lower high school, university and job dropout rates, fulfilled personal lives and a more productive economy and society.
	Freedom to conduct a business	The freedom to conduct a business in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices is recognised.	In Germany and throughout Europe, insolvency dooms one’s condition financially and also socially. Using the spirit, engagement, and skill of insolvent micro-entrepreneurs in a peer help group, VOAT empowers, destigmatizes and lobbies for insolvent peoples’ ability to restart their entrepreneurial lives.
	Right to property	1. Everyone has the right to own, use, dispose of and bequeath his or her lawfully acquired possessions. No one may be deprived of his or her possessions, except in the public interest and in the cases and under the conditions provided for by law, subject to fair compensation being paid in good time for their loss. The use of property may be regulated by law in so far as is necessary for the general interest.	YOCH's new idea is on a trajectory towards correcting the flawed infrastructures of financing, land leasing and ownership that perpetuates the continuing decline of the North American family farmer.
Equality	Equality before the law	Everyone is equal before the law.	In addition to outreach and support, ABAB and his colleagues advocate through the Israeli court system to ensure equal access and the protection of inalienable rights.
	Non-discrimination And Equality between women and men	1. Any discrimination based on any ground such as nationality, sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited. 2. Equality between women and men must be ensured in all areas, including employment, work and pay; but this principle of equality shall not prevent the maintenance or adoption of measures providing for specific advantages in favour of the under-represented sex.	At the national level, RINO works on influencing the public opinion and the policy making process to combat social exclusion and eliminate stigma. She is part of various national committees such as the Antidiscrimination Roundtable. RINO has been central in generating a society-wide discourse in Hungary challenging stereotypes around marginalized kids and communities by using the multiplication effect of her media strategy drawing on her blog, a network of journalists, social media channels and movies.
	Cultural, religious and linguistic diversity	The organisation shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity.	The identification of problems, resources and strategies happen in traditional community meeting settings where [FOHA] facilitates the first meeting and passes on the role of the facilitator to others. […] She guides a unique process that brings together principles of community organizing with Roma culture, helping Roma identify and mobilize around social challenges, develop strategies, leverage resources and organize related stakeholders to launch new interventions, projects and organizations.
	The rights of the child	1. Children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being. They may express their views freely, which are taken into account in accordance with their age and maturity. 2. In all actions relating to children, the child's best interests must be a primary consideration. 3. Every child shall have the right to maintain in direct personal contact with both his or her parents	By opening up venues and spaces where children can directly participate and be active agents in decision-making processes at their schools, neighborhoods, cities or parliament, KIEM's Agenda Children seeks to do exactly what the name entails: to put children’s will and issues on Turkey’s busy agenda
Equality	The rights of the elderly	The organisation recognises and respects the rights of the elderly to lead a life of dignity and independence and to participate in social and cultural life.	KOLO is humanizing long-term care for the elderly in Norway by placing activity and social interaction at the center of the care regimens in nursing homes and empowering their occupants to play active roles in designing those regimens and reclaiming their rights as senior citizens.
	Integration of persons with disabilities	The organisation recognises and respects the right of persons with disabilities to benefit from measures designed to ensure their independence, social and occupational integration and participation in the life of the community.	NEMI is transforming visual communication through a simple, universal and inclusive code that represents colors. Through ColorADD, NEMI is building a world where the social inclusion of color blind people becomes the norm.
Solidarity	Fair and just working conditions	1. Every worker has the right to working conditions which respect his or her health, safety and dignity. And a limitation of maximum working hours, to daily and weekly rest periods and to an annual period of paid leave.	JAAR is convinced that disabled people need nothing different from what average people need. They crave rewarding jobs and respect. Even those severely disabled want to feel needed and respected, even if they cannot perform to the same degree as people who are less severely disabled or not disabled at all. Aron’s aim is to ensure that every person employed in the work centers is driven to perform the best they can.
	Family and professional life	1. The family shall enjoy legal, economic and social protection. They are protected from dismissal due to maternity. And shall enjoy maternity leave after birth or adoption of a child. This to reconcile family and professional life.	While mainstream gender equality thinking focuses on equal pay for equal work, and of fairly shared responsibilities at home, LEIS shifts the debate to empower both men and women to embrace their true aspirations for personal and professional success, and then shows how this ultimately advances the economy.
	Social security and social assistance	The organisation provides social security benefits and social services providing protection in cases such as maternity, illness, industrial accidents, dependency or old age, and in the case of loss of employment. And/or the organisation combats social exclusion and poverty, and assistance for those who lack sufficient resources	Real Pearl’s complete engagement strategy offers three types of services: crisis management (provision of food, housing, clothing, debt management, contraception, drug prescriptions, etc.), training in literacy, technical and other traditional skills (designed with self-efficacy in mind) and specific work related training opportunities for local business initiatives. The Foundation provides small scale work and crafts activities to introduce parents to the labor market and give opportunities for easy wins. These ventures are for income generation and self-sustainability.
Solidarity	Health care	Everyone has the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices. A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all the Union's policies and activities.	Dr. BLBR has pioneered a way to improve patients’ lives quickly and safely by repurposing existing drugs, treatments and medical devices. Rather than waiting for elusive scientific breakthroughs, BLBR brings researchers, clinicians and philanthropic partners together to speed promising research into patient care to improve quality and length of life for patients with debilitating, but often rare, diseases.
	Access to services of general economic interest	The Union recognises and respects access to services of general economic interest as provided for in national laws and practices, in accordance with the Treaties, in order to promote the social and territorial cohesion of the Union.	Key to each concept is the combination of (i) food supply (ii) services (iii) welfare offers like social and medical consultations and (iv) communication/community dialogue and (v) cultural offers – a combination that differentiates DORV from all other local (food) supply initiatives in Germany. This is, next to the local ownership, one of the main success factors.
	Environmental protection	A high level of environmental protection and the improvement of the quality of the environment must be integrated into the policies of the Union and ensured in accordance with the principle of sustainable development.	Since 1950, 20 percent of sea species have disappeared and the rate of extinction of marine species has been accelerating so fast that there could be few wild fish left by 2050. To reverse this situation, NOCL is building a collaborative research community that enables and pushes companies, citizen organizations (COs), and governments to change every step in how the world deals with the oceans. With her organization, Bloom, NOCL is enjoying early species preservation successes.
	Consumer protection	Union policies shall ensure a high level of consumer protection.	In parallel, still relying on scientific proof, NOCL denounces those who refuse to act and builds consumer and citizen sector pressure to incentivize them to change. For example, the unsustainable practices of supermarket chains have been one of her major battles. She has notably identified and revealed how a well-known supermarket chain was misleading consumers.
Citizens’ rights	Right to good administration And access to documents	1. Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the [company]. This right includes: (a) the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken; (b) the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy; (c) the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions. 2. Any citizen, has a right of access to documents of the company	Athletes are also provided an infrastructure that helps them identify impactful, professional and transparent NGO projects which also takes care of the administrative issues related to fundraising and grantmaking. On the other hand, NGOAthletes are also provided an infrastructure that helps them identify impactful, professional and transparent NGO projects which also takes care of the administrative issues related to fundraising and grantmaking. On the other hand, NGOs are able to publicize their work and projects, are coached to implement their project professionally and report on them transparently while also encouraged to learn from other Adım Adım beneficiaries. While the donated funds go directly to research, the research institution contributes 10% of the research cost to cover P4C’s administrative costs. This contribution ensures quality and efficiency of the research, since the institution is equally invested. P4C stays very involved throughout the process to ensure business rigor to compress timelines, leverage investments, report widely and provide complete transparency. Especially within small disease communities, news of successes spreads rapidly, through medical journals and disease-specific support groups.
	Freedom of movement and of residence	1. Every citizen has the right to move and reside freely	FRKA is introducing a creative approach to public transit that helps members plan for and navigate the transition from driving to riding. She mobilizes volunteer drivers and their vehicles and redirects private money that is already getting spent on transportation (car ownership, insurance, and fuel) for use in a shared solution.
Justice	Principles of legality	An explicit focus on developing, implementing or scaling an innovative solution that stays within the legal boundaries	The second element is ensuring a transparent, agile and rigorous management model that guarantees effective coordination from the organ donation until the transplant. Every time a donation is authorized, more than 100 people have to activate and coordinate for the process to successfully take place. For this, the coordination network is accompanied by a management system that addresses with the utmost quality and transparency challenges such as transportation, legal matters or coordination between teams and hospitals.

Table A2. Actions.

Category	Definition	Codes	Example
Educating	SEO provides educational services or encourages schooling	Educating, schooling, provide education, curriculum, teaching,	… to educate people on the dangers of drugs and bring into the open taboo subjects like premarital sex and conflicts between the older generation and the young (Theater Group)
Training	SEO emphasizes activities to build skills of actors	Training, skill building activities, providing vocational services, building capabilities	Swayam organizes training in types of work where there is demand for workers, including sectors that have traditionally been reserved for men such as electrical services, plumbing and horticulture (Swayam)
Networking	SEO applies methods to connect people and organizations	Networking, interlocking, linking, connecting, bridging, build relationships, exchange programs, facilitate meeting, forums, summits	With just US$ 250,000 a year, he has been able to organize five World Summits that have brought together around 400 participants from 25 countries (World Toilet Organization)
Counseling	SEO advises and guides actors	Counseling, advising	The services Fenestra offers include crisis assistance and consultancy, counseling, legal advice and advocacy (Fenestra ZZZ)
Organizing	SEO develops management services	Managing, organizing	Gram Vikas works with the villagers to create and manage a ‘village corpus,’ a fund that draws cash and in-kind contributions from all families based on ability to pay (Gram Vikas)
Lending	SEO provides loans and financial services	Lending, provide financial services, credits, loans, financing	The mission of BASIX is to promote a critical mass of opportunities for the rural poor and attract commercial funding by proving that lending to the poor can be a viable business (BASIX)
Treating medically	SEO provides healthcare services	Health services, provide healthcare, medical treatment	CEGIN SRL is a completely self-financed and profitable company, which offers accessibly priced health services to mothers, their children and women in poor rural areas (Centro Ginecológico Integral – CEGIN SRL)
Supplying	SEO supplies or commercializes products	Supplying, buying, selling	To date, Freeplay Energy has sold more than 4.5 million products worldwide, the largest markets by far being North America and Europe (Freeplay Energy)
Lodging	SEO provides shelter or lodgings to actors	Lodging, provide shelter	To gain access to these women – a difficult problem, given their very long workdays and scattered housing – she has decided to create a series of selfsustaining safe residential hostels (Nari Uddug Kendra – NUK)
Employing	SEO employs actors or provides jobs	Hiring, employing, provide jobs	Each year, Job Factory offers 250 unemployed young people a six-month internship in one of 15 divisions (Job Factory)
Others	Those actions performed in <2% of the sample	Certifying, building houses, provide security services, provide translation, editing services, collecting waste materials	They recognize demonstrated growth in student achievement with RISE Rewards, certificates that teachers can redeem for a wide range of classroom supplies (Resources for Indispensable Schools and Educators – RISE)

Note: Reprinted from 'Organizing for Society: A Typology of Social Entrepreneuring Models' by Mair, J., J. Battilana, and J. Cardenas, 2012. Journal of Business Ethics 1: 370.

Table A3. Principles.

Principles	Worth	Typical Behavior	Relationship	Expressions	Key Words
Civic	Collective interest	Mobilizing people for a collective action	Common interest, solidarity	Cooperatives, federations, assemblies	Citizenship, collaboration, Community approach, Cooperative, Participatory, Representative, Unity: cohesion
Domestic	Trust and respect for tradition, hierarchy and kinship	Preserving and reproducing	Kinship, face-to-face	Household, customs, habits	Culture, Family: home, Stability, Tradition
Fame	Public opinion, opinion of others	Influencing, sensitizing and achieving signs of public esteem	Recognition	Press conferences, media campaigns	Campaign dissemination, Media, Public opinion, Publishing, Raise awareness
Industrial	Efficiency, productivity and operational effectiveness	Implementing tools, methods and plans	Functional, standardized, measurable	Organization	Efficiency, Experts, Functional, Method: standardize, Organization: management, Productive, Professionalize
Inspired	Creativeness, nonconformity	Dreaming, imagining and rebelling	Emotional, passion	Arts	Arts, Dreams, Games, Innovation: creativity, Wealth: profits, Valuable: salable
Market	Mediation of scarce goods and services; price serves as a mechanism to evaluate these scarce goods	Competing and spotting market opportunities	Exchange, competitive	Salable and marketable things	Commercial, Competitive, Income-generation, Ownership

Note: Reprinted from ‘Organizing for Society: A Typology of Social Entrepreneuring Models’ by Mair, J., J. Battilana, and J. Cardenas, 2012. Journal of Business Ethics 1: 371.

Note 2: ‘Boltanski and Thévenot (2006, pp. 159–210) argue that there is a plurality of modes of justification. People justify situations appealing to principles or “orders of worth”. Justifications fall into these six main principles’ (Mair, Battilana, and Cardenas 2012, 371).