Questioning the purely business-orientated, technology-centred use of the term ‘innovation’, research on social innovation has gained momentum in recent years. While significant progress has been made as regards the theoretical foundation of social innovation, the ‘ecosystem’ facilitating respective innovative activities remains rather vague and ambiguous. Most research informing our understanding draws on related but distinct concepts, such as Regional Innovation Systems (RIS). Following on from this debate, this article reflects on common features and differences between social innovation and other forms of innovation, and the resulting requirements for a Social Innovation Ecosystem (SIES). Drawing on data from the two European research projects, SIMPACT and SI-DRIVE, the article reflects on SIES from the perspective of RIS as an analytical framework, and strategic and management concept. It is argued that, due to a multiplicity of social innovation activities and their local embeddedness, no best solution for SIES exists. We posit that establishing a SIES necessitates (1) a mode of governance that integrates actors from civil society, and the social, economic and academic field; (2) social innovation hubs, labs and transfer centres as intermediaries that accelerate social innovation activities; and (3) the integration of different modes of innovation in transformational innovation strategies.

The innovation demand placed on both profit-driven and mission-driven organisations is steadily rising in the face of changing technological and social paradigms, set against a generalised atmosphere of fiscal austerity. Hence, mission-driven organisations have undergone a series of transformations in order to find new revenue streams and to better serve their beneficiaries. These transformations are apparent in the area of social innovation, which is characterized by its search for new ways of financing solutions to cope with societal challenges. As mission-driven organisations adopt profit-driven strategies and for-profit organisations adopt mission-driven strategies, they each take on new and sometimes borrowed characteristics, evolving into hybrid organisations. Social innovation research is increasingly devoted to distinguishing features of mission-driven and profit-driven organisations. In fact, we can learn more about mission-driven organisations by looking through the lens of social enterprise. This article contributes to the ongoing debate of mission-driven organisations by analysing how new forms of business models combining mission-driven and profit-driven logics and features are designed and shape organisational behaviour in the field of social innovation. Results illustrate that while mission-driven organisations are often prompted to use models, tools and logics coming from the for-profit sector, more emphasise should be placed on output-oriented models and tools that support the specificities of their business models.

For more than two decades, theories on regional clusters have inspired economic and structural policies at the European, national and regional levels. Based on the assumption that clusters generate innovation, policy-makers at all levels of governance have adopted instruments and mechanisms to stimulate, resource and sustain clusters. Despite the considerable attention paid to the clustering phenomenon, empirical evidence on to what extent firms’ innovation activities benefit from operating in clusters is scarce and inconclusive. This paper contributes to the micro-foundation of clustering effects by examining the characteristics and activities of cluster firms in relation to their innovativeness. Bridging innovation, management and cluster theories, it is argued that structural and relational embeddedness, relational capital and absorptive capacity influence clustered firms' innovativeness. Partial least-squares structural equation modelling of data from 104 firms in two software and information technology service sector clusters reveals that firms’ structural embeddedness (i.e. frequency of interactions) in clusters and external networks facilitates innovation cooperation. Firms’ absorptive capacity reinforces this positive effect of cluster-internal interactions on innovation cooperation. Results also suggest a substitution effect of trust as relational control mechanisms for formal control mechanisms within the cluster. However, the study finds no significant impact of firms’ innovation cooperation within the cluster (i.e. relational embeddedness) on their innovation success.

Mapping the Social Innovation Maps – The State of Research Practice across Europe

This article explores the complex relationship between migrant entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial ecosystems (EEs) with a focus on how migrant entrepreneurs are (dis-)connected (from) to EEs. Based on 23 semi-structured interviews with migrant entrepreneurs (MEs) in a German city, the research uncovers subtle intricacies in this relationship. Beyond the expected connectedness, data surprisingly suggests that MEs face disconnectedness in four forms: entrenched segregation, resource deficits, lack of representation and alienation. Furthermore, the study scrutinises causal relationships, highlighting how discrimination as a fifth form perpetuates these elements of disconnectedness. This exploration enriches theoretical understanding by providing a nuanced view of (dis-)connectedness of MEs within EEs and related factors, including causal relationships. The findings advocate for addressing disparities in entrepreneurial landscapes to create sensible environments for MEs and their entrepreneurial avenues.