This document discusses social innovation and the plurality of stakeholders involved. It makes several key points: 1. Social innovation involves new ideas that meet social needs more effectively and create new social relationships. There are many stakeholders with different perspectives and values. 2. The diffusion of social innovations is often conflictual as it can create conflicts between stakeholders' interests and values. An innovation's consequences depend on many agents, not just the promoters. 3. Studies of social innovation should analyze disruptive processes led by social movements, not just organizations. This would provide a more comprehensive understanding of innovation processes and their unintended impacts.

1. Social innovation value chain:
Governance and intermediaries
SIC Summer School
Tilburg, 2016, September 21th
Javier Echeverria (jecheverria@sinnergiak.org)
Sinnergiak Social Innovation, University of the Basque Country

2. 8
SI: Plurality of agents and values
A definition of SI:
“Social Innovations are innovations that are social in both their ends and their means –
new ideas (products, services and models) that simultaneously meet social needs (more
effectively than alternatives) and create new social relationships or collaborations. They
are innovations that are not only good for society but also enhance society’s capacity to
act. Social innovations take place across boundaries between the public sector, the
private sector, the third sector and the household”
(http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/social-innovation/index_en.htm).
1.- It is based on the notion of social needs, which is too restrictive. We prefer talking
about social problems, as the Social Innovation Center of Stanford University does
(Phills, Deiglmeier, & Miller 2008). Even better: just in case we prefer the expression
“social demands” (J. Castro, Sinnergiak). It implies social knowledge of problems and
needs, because they generate explicit social demands.
2.- Social innovators: plurality of stakeholders with different perspectives, interests and
values. Disruptive social innovations produce always conflicts of values.
3.- Axiological approach:
Social ends should be justified by social values.
Social innovations generate social value.
Diverse stakeholders accept different social values.

3. 1
The axiological approach to SI studies
(J. Echeverria, Innovation and Values: A European
Perspective. Reno, NV, UNR/CBS, 2014)
Def. 4: Innovations are interactive processes that create
value in generating and diffusing something new in
particular environments (Echeverria 2014, 288).
Social innovations are interactive processes that
create social value in generating and diffusing
something new in social (familiar, local, regional…)
environments
Different kinds of innovation, diverse types of values
Def. 5 (briefly): (Social) Innovations are interactive
processes that generate something new and (socially)
valuable in particular (social) environments (Ibid., 291).
Def. 6: Novations are the results of these innovations
(Ibid., 291).

4. 1
Social Innovation and social value creation
(Stanford University, Center for Social Innovation)
- Social innovation: “the process of inventing, securing
support for, and implementing novel solutions to social
needs and problems” (James A. Phills Jr., Kris
Deiglmeier, & Dale T. Miller (2008), “Rediscovering
Social Innovation”, Stanford Social Innovation Review,
Fall 2008, p. 1).
- “Ultimately, social innovation is what creates social value”
(Ibid., p. 2).
- They distinguished clearly between social innovation,
social entrepreneurship and corporative social
responsability.
- However, they have only considered four values: “social
innovation should be more effective, efficient,
sustainable and just than existing solutions and for which

5. 1
Social Innovation and social value creation
(Stanford University, Center for Social Innovation)
- Comments to the Stanford’ definition:
1) There are more social values, for example social inclusion.
2) Social innovations can beneficiate social groups, not only
“society as a whole”
3) There are societies, not one society. There are intersocial
innovations.
4) Social innovations create and destroy social value
5) Social innovations should be innovations, not only social
changes: even so disruptive social innovations.
6) Social innovation agents: individuals, organizations and social
movements.
7) European social innovation studies are focused on
organizations. What about social movements?

6. 1
Who does Social Innovation?
(G. Mulgan, Young Foundation 2007, chapter 3)
- Individuals, Movements and Organizations.
- British individuals innovators: Robert Owen (18th
Century), Octavia Hill (19th Centrury), Michael Young
(XXth Century)
- Others (Muhamad Yunus –Grameen-, Wangari
Maathai, Saul Alinsky, Abbé Pierre, etc.).
- Movements: feminism, environmentalism…
- “Like individual change-makers these movements
have their roots in ideas grown from discontent” ...
“but their histories look very different;
environmentalism, for example, grew from many
different sources” (p. 15). ”Feminism too grew out of
many different currents” (Ibid.).
- Organizations: Priority, because scaling of SI

7. 1
Who does Social Innovation?
(G. Mulgan, Young Foundation 2007, chapter 3)
“Environmentalism has spawned a huge range of social innovations,
from urban recycling to community owned wind farms. Today
environmentalism is as much part of big business culture” (p. 15)
“As in the case of environmentalism, thousands of social innovations
grew out of the (feminist) movement: from clubs and networks to
promote women in particular professions, to integrated childcare
centres, abortion rights, equitable divorce laws, protections against
rape and sexual harassment, maternity leave and skills programmes
for mothers returning to the labour market” … “Many of its
ideas were crystallised through legislation” (Ibid.)
“All of these movements have also emphasised empowerment
– enabling people to solve their own problems rather than waiting for
the state, or heroic leaders, to solve problems for them” (p. 16).

8. 2
Main characteristics of innovative social movements
1) Plurality of sources of social innovation processes.
2) Plurality of stakeholders, coming from the three sectors: civil society,
business and administrations.
3) Each kind of agent has different interests and values.
4) There are always opositors to social innovation’s proposals:
5) The diffusion of social innovations is usually conflictive, because there
emerge conflicts of interests and values among stakeholders.
Axiological perspective:
An innovation’ process involves many staheholders with different systems of
values and different positions at a (non linear) value chain.
Social value is generated, but also destroyed. If not, we can speak of social
change, but not of social innovation.
Main social innovations are disruptive: they transform social relations and
values.
Innovation studies should analyse social movements, not only innovative
organizations.

9. 2
Plurality of stakeholders and consequences
A process of innovation produces not only specific results (novations). It has
also later consequences, which do not depend just on the people promoting
the innovation, but on other agents as well (stakeholders). Some of these
consequences can generate unexpected and even undesirable effects.
Consequently, not only benefits but also dammages (social dammages) should
be considered and evaluated.
Consequentialist and pluralistic approach to innovation studies, focusing on
social movements.

10. 2
Plurality of stakeholders and consequences
A process of innovation produces not only specific results (novations), but it
also has later consequences, which do not depend just on the people
promoting the innovation, but on other agents as well (stakeholders). Some of
these consequences can generate unexpected and even undesirable effects.
Consequently, not only benefits but also dammages (social dammages) should
be considered and evaluated, if possible.
The systemic character of innovation processes demands a
consequentialistic approach of the innovation studies, based not only on
the initial evaluation of its promotor, but also of its adopters and refusers.
The emergence of unexpected effects derives from the conditions of
uncertainty in which processes of innovation are developed.

11. 3
Diffusion of social innovations
Revisiting Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 1962
“The newness means that some degree of uncertainty is involved in diffusion”
(Rogers, 1962, p. 6).
Situated View: “The same innovation may be desirable for one adopter in one
situation, but undesirable for another potential adopter in a different situation”
(Ibid., p. 12)
These claims are specially adequate for social innovations
Imitation, adoption and appropiation of social innovations
Different evaluations of the same innovation (positive, negative,
mixed)
Adopters (and refusers) of social innovations have different needs,
demands and systems of values.
Measuring degrees of acceptation (reject) and appropiation of SIs.
Diffusion is the core in generating, increasing or destroying social value for any
kind of innovation, especially for social innovations. The process of diffusion
involves always different stakeholders (chains of social value).

12. 4
Social diffusion of social innovations
Social innovation can arise from civil society (Goldenberg, 2004; Mulgan,
2007), but it can also originate from the private and public sector (Murray,
Caulier-Grice and Mulgan, 2010). Social innovation processes are normally
local, and they can appear in small, medium or large scales.
In these processes several agents always intervene, adding complexity and
variety to the process (Phills, Deiglmeier and Miller, 2008). Therefore, the
uncertainty of social innovation is even more significant than the uncertainty of
technological innovation.
In particular, replication of social innovations in other contexts is never
guaranteed, precisely because it’s always context dependant and socially
located.
There are social perspectives and values, not only individual ones.
Shared values as a key notion for social innovation policies.

13. 5
Complexity of the processes of social innovation
There are several reasons for the bigger uncertainty and complexity of social
innovation in comparison to technological innovation.
Firstly, it involves a much bigger diversity of stakeholders and agents (third,
private, and public sectors) (Freeman et al., 2010). As we have just said, the
processes of social diffusion are always multiagent.
Secondly, it’s sometimes promoted by social agents that don’t always plan their
actions and strategies, nor even calculate the possible consequences.
Thirdly, it’s based on social knowledge, which involves greater uncertainties
and difficulties to be measured than the scientific knowledge.
Fourthly, it doesn’t have a guarantee for stable funding, which makes any
prediction of final results very difficult to anticipate.
Methodological conclusion: measuring social innovations requires surveying
different stakeholders, not just one, as it is usual in the OECD’s methodology
(Oslo Handbook).

14. 7
Policies of (Social) Innovation and Data
Policies of innovation (and social innovation) must be based on empirical
information and reliable data.
OECD: “Measurement of innovation is crucial for policy
making” (OECD, 2010, Foreword).
NESTA: “Measuring innovation effectively is important because policy
is affected by how we measure results. Lord Kelvin’s adage “if you
cannot measure it, you cannot improve it” has an important
implication: if something needs to be improved, it must first be
measured correctly” (NESTA, Innovation Index, 2009, p. 6).
Innovation studies should provide data related to different stakeholders, not
only to the social innovation’s promotor, agent or entrepreneur.
Especially, user’s evaluation is required. Users’innovation (von Hippel 1988,
2005) should be considered and analysed, because it’s a very important kind of
social innovation.
When designing policies or strategies of social innovation, if there is a lack of
data, the eventual undesirable effects are certain.

15. 17
Enhanced studies of social innovation: a main example
• We should analyse disruptive processes of social innovation promoted by
social movements, not only by organizations.
• A major case in the European Union: the migrant’s movement coming
from Syria, Lybia, etc. It’s a good example of inter-social innovation.
– Migratory movements are always innovative and disruptive for
migrant people, because they move to a new country and their
internal and external relationships are deeply modified. They create a
new Lebenswelt: sometimes a better world of life, sometimes not.
– Migratory movements can be disruptive also for the receivers’ groups
and the absorbers’ societies, which become social stakeholders.
– Example: migrant’s maffias are also stakeholders and should be
analysed by researchers on social innovation processes. Even so
movements of volonteers and political agents, of course.
• There are inter- or trans-social innovations with different chains of values.

16. 1
Inter-social innovations: consequences
Role of public policies in the case of social innovative movements:
a) Support (and study) social innovation processes, including disruptive ones.
b) Create a legal context eliminating social innovation barriers.
c) Improve social absorptive capacity of inter-social innovations: open societies.
d) Fostering social innovation infrastructures: inter-social innovation clusters, such as SIC.
There are always barriers to social innovation: promotion of social innovation means
also elimination of this kind of barriers.
During a process of social innovation can arise new social demands and services, and
even so new social values. Especially in the case of disruptive social innovations.
The diffusion of a social innovation is a long process, in which various social agents
are usually involved. Each stakeholder should be analyzed, together with its links with
other social agents.
Uncertainty, unintended consequences of social innovation

17. 9
Final Suggestions
1.- We should expand the systemic model (Lundvall, Nelson) to social
innovation studies.
2.- Identifying the potential stakeholders it is a very complex task, which can
only be done at the local and regional level. It requires a deep analysis of the
relations (links) among agents and stakeholders within the social value chain
(or social value network: the linear model in unadequate in SI’ studies).
3.- One of the biggest uncertainties in the study of social innovation derives
from the unavailability of a reliable census and data of the potential innovative
actors and stakeholders.
Provocative proposal: the degree of oposition to a social innovation
initiative should be considered as an indicator of SI.
5.- We should analyse disruptive processes of social innovation promoted by
social movements, not only by organizations.

18. References 1
• Bakhshi, H., Freeman, A. y J. Potts (2011), State Uncertainty: Innovation Policy
through Experimentation, London, NESTA, Provocation 14. April 2011.
• Castro, J., Echeverria, J. and Unceta, A. (eds.) (2016): Hidden Innovation. Concepts,
Sectors and Case Studies. San Sebastián, Sinnergiak Social Innovation.
• Echeverria, J. (2014), Innovation and Values: a European Perspective, Reno, NV,
UNR/CBS.
• European Commission. (2011), Empowering people, driving change Social
Innovation in the European Union, Bureau of European Policy Advisers, Luxemburg.
• European Union. (2010), This is European Social Innovation, Luxemburg, EC,
disponible en http://www.youngfoundation.org/publications/reports/this-
european-social-innovation-december-2010.
• European Union. (2012), Financing Social Impact Funding social innovation in
Europe – mapping the way forward, Luxemburg, EC, disponible en:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/_getdocument.cfm?doc_id=7048
(pp. 2-60).
• Freeman, R.E., Harrison, J.S., Wicks, A.C. (2010), Stakeholder Theory. The State of
the Art, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Gurrutxaga, A, and Echeverria, J. (2012), La luz de la luciérnaga: diálogos de
innovación social, Madrid, Plaza y Valdés.

19. References 2
• Jalonen, H. (2012), The Uncertainty of Innovation: A Systematic Review of
Literature, Journal of Management Research 4: 1, pp. 1-47.
• Mulgan, G. (2007), Social Innovation: what is it, why it matters, how it can be
accelerated, London, Young Foundation, Basingstoke Press.
• Murray, R., J. Caulier-Grice and G. Mulgan (2010), The Open Book of Social
Innovation, London, Young Foundation and NESTA.
• OECD/European Communities (2005), Oslo Manual: Guideliness for Collecting and
Interpreting Innovation Data, 3d. ed., Paris, OECD/EC.
• OECD (2010a), The OECD Innovation Strategy, Getting a Head Start on Tomorrow,
Paris, OECD.
• OECD (2010b), Measuring Innovation: a New Perspective, Paris, OECD.
• OECD (2010c), The New Nature of Innovation, Paris, OECD.
• James A. Phills Jr., Kris Deiglmeier, & Dale T. Miller (2008), “Rediscovering Social
Innovation”, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall 2008.
• Rogers, E. K. (1962), Diffusion of Innovations, New York, The Free Press, 4th
edition, 1995.
• SIX and Young Foundation (2010), Study on Social Innovation, European
Union/Young Foundation 2010.

20. THANK YOU