DESCRIPTIVE MODEL OF SUSTAINABLE ACTING FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION DEVELOPMENT

Modelo Descritivo de Atuação Sustentável para o Desenvolvimento de Inovações Sociais

ABSTRACT

Purpose:

The concept of social innovation as open, collaborative and social transformation process opens room to reinforce the need of legitimizing social impact businesses and of expanding partnerships for social change, as well as the urgency of establishing professional and more sustainable social innovation environments. Accordingly, we tried to answer the following research question: How can social business performance boost the development of social innovations?

Design/methodology/approach:

Therefore, we adopted the inductive approach of qualitative paradigm, based on the Grounded Theory, to investigate 24 social businesses. In addition, we adopted the Atlas.ti software for data organization and recovery.

Aggregate results allowed us to propose a descriptive model of sustainable performance for the development of social innovations in social business, based on the following propositions: sustainable performance in processes and social innovation, the prevalence of a cooperative environment to solve social issues, professional governance as causal factor to social innovation development, the development of actions focused on public interests as influencing conditions for social innovation development, technical and scientific evaluation of social impacts as strategy to measure the outcomes of developed innovations and the expansion of social impacts as the consequence of the self-negotiation of social affairs.

Originality/value:

A descriptive model of sustainable acting was proposed for the development of social innovations in social businesses.

Keywords:
Social Innovation; Social Business; Descriptive Model; Grounded Theory

RESUMO

Finalidade:

A concepção da inovação social como um processo aberto, colaborativo e gerador de transformação da sociedade reforça a necessidade da ampliação de parcerias e da legitimação dos negócios que promovem impacto e mudança social. Considerando esse contexto, buscou-se responder à seguinte questão de pesquisa: Como a atuação dos negócios sociais pode potencializar o desenvolvimento de inovações sociais?

Desenho / metodologia / abordagem:

Para tanto, foram adotados: a abordagem indutiva, fundamentada em dados empíricos (Grounded Theory), a partir do paradigma qualitativo, em uma investigação de 24 negócios sociais; e o software Atlas.ti, para a organização e a recuperação dos dados.

Constatações:

A agregação dos resultados possibilitou a elaboração de um modelo descritivo, de atuação sustentável, para o desenvolvimento de inovações em negócios sociais, a partir das seguintes proposições: (a) atuação sustentável tanto nos processos quanto na inovação social propriamente dita; (b) prevalência de um contexto cooperativo para resolver questões sociais; (c) governança profissionalizada, como condicionante causal à geração de inovações sociais; (d) desenvolvimento de ações de interesse público como condicionante interveniente à geração de inovações sociais; (e) avaliação técnica e científica do impacto social, como estratégia de mensuração dos resultados das inovações geradas; e (f) expansão do impacto social, como consequência da atuação autoescalável dos negócios sociais.

Originalidade / valor:

Foi proposto um modelo descritivo de atuação sustentável para o desenvolvimento de inovações sociais em negócios sociais.

Palavras-chave:
Inovação Social; Negócios Sociais; Modelo Descritivo; Grounded Theory

1 INTRODUCTION

Post-modern society demands the essential reflection about new forms of thinking and about the creation of structures, patterns and connections capable of adding value to all, based on a remarkable social transformation (Juliani, Juliani, Souza, & Harger, 2014). Therefore, it is necessary facing the challenge of building social relationship systems and regrouping resources accounting for their replication. It is possible talking about the latent need of social innovation since changes and innovations must alter processes, social relationships and pre-existing power structures (Sousa, Mendonça, Sousa, & Santos, 2014; Mulgan, Tucker, Ali, & Sanders, 2007).

The concept of innovation emerges in the social field as the factor boosting the construction of a new model to understand the demands of society; it must aim at promoting equal opportunities by respecting either diversity or human uniqueness. Social innovation can be defined as a set of processes, products and methodologies focused on improving quality of life and on diminishing inequalities, so far, in place (Farfus & Rocha, 2007).

The articulated concept of social innovation as an open and collaborative process, whose outcomes lead to social transformations, reinforces the need of legitimizing social negotiations and broadening partnerships, as well as highlights the urgency in establishing more sustainable and professional environments.

Accordingly, we aimed at answering the following research question: How can the performance of social negotiations potentiate social innovation development? Based on such problematic, we mainly aim at: (a) describing the general and relational performance of social negotiations; (b) explaining the sustainable dimensions of social negotiation performance; and (c) proposing a sustainable performance model to develop social innovation in social negotiations.

The investigation of 24 social negotiations seen as references in innovation development focused on society is a relevant aspect of the current study, since these references were nominated from 2010 to 2015 to the Social Entrepreneur Award, which is promoted by the newspaper “Folha de São Paulo” and by Schwab Foundation. The importance of social innovation as public policy topic is added to the aforementioned aspect. This theme is part of the agenda guiding discussions set among different social strata, given the suggestion of improving individuals’ quality of life and contributions to the generation of sustainable development.

The current research presented the methodological and theoretical relevance based on the academic context by applying the inductive approach, which is substantiated by empirical data (Grounded Theory). This approach derives from the qualitative paradigm and from the adoption of Atlas.ti software to organize and recover the collected data.

The present article was structured into 5 sections, as follows: Section 1, Introduction; Section 2, introduction of reflections about social innovations and sustainable performance; Section 3, indication of the adopted methodological aspects, including detailed method, data sources and technical analysis; Section 4, Results; and Section 5, synthesis of the main results, study limitations and the possibilities of further research.

2 THEORETICAL REFERENCES

Recently, a significant academic effort headed towards studies on innovation, as well as to studies on entrepreneurship and social business categories (Phillips, Lee, Ghobadian, O’Regan, & James, 2015; Shaw & De Bruin, 2013; Bignetti, 2011; Chell, Nicolopoulou, & Karataş-Özkan, 2010; Nicholls, 2010; Chell, 2007; Dees & Anderson, 2006). It is relevant taking into consideration that the social economy also gained room nowadays, given the inefficiency of many structures and policies focused on coping with social inequalities, climatic changes and global pandemics (Murray, Caulier-Grice, & Mulgan, 2010). Social innovation emerges as a feasible alternative to the future of human society due to the development of mechanisms to solve these, and many other, neglected issues (Santos, 2012; Bignetti, 2011; Mulgan et al, 2007; Moulaert, Martinelli, Swyngedouw, & Gonzalez, 2005; Dees, Anderson, & Wei-Skillem, 2004; Cloutier, 2003).

According to Bignetti (2011), social innovation takes place through participation and the cooperation of actors involved in knowledge application due to social needs. Such a participation leads to new and long-lasting solutions for social groups, communities or favors society as a whole. Moulaert et al. (2007), in his turn, stated that social innovation is an alternative instrument of social development, since it focuses on the satisfaction of human needs through transformations in community governance relationships. Accordingly, Mulgan et al. (2007) added to the discussion by advocating that social innovations are innovative activities and services mainly developed and outspread by organizations whose primary aim presents a social character.

According to Phills, Deiglmeier and Millert (2008), the aim of social innovation is to effectively, efficiently, sustainably and fairly solve society issues by creating social values that favor all, rather than just few individuals. Murray, Caulier-Grice and Mulgan (2010) complete this concept by pointing out that such an innovation covers the application of new ideas (products, services and models) that, in their turn, fulfil the needs of society and create new social relationships or collaborations. In other words, besides its positive outcomes, social innovation must potentiate the capacity of actions taken by the ones who are involved in it.

Dees, Anderson and Wei-Skillem (2004) highlight that social innovation embodies the features of an organization model (program and principles), when there are efficient structure of people and resources mobilization substantiated by common goals. Thus, social innovation can be replicated many times, since its outspread can also take place from an integrated set of projects and actions based on previously defined and articulated propositions that are incorporated to local, national and international reach programs. Thus, social innovations are also consolidated by principles and values whose aim is to solve social issues, so far, neglected. Figure 1 synthesizes the main features of social innovation.

Figure 1
Synthesis of the main features of social innovation

Social innovations, based on the approach by Cloutier (2003), are centered on the individual, i.e., on actions that lead to long-lasting changes in its life by giving it the necessary power to guide such transformations. Thus, social innovations are the outcome of personal initiatives of entrepreneurs who are encouraged by a social mission (Bessant & Tidd, 2009). Based on a second line of study conducted by Cloutier (2003), social innovations are also guided by social negotiations, since institutions are created or changed in order to improve the quality of life of communities and groups of individuals.

It is relevant pointing out that, in the next decades, non-governmental organizations will face a hard time maintaining their activities and projects exclusively through donations and subventions. Such a context has demanded managerial and strategic practices focused on professionalization and financial self-sustainability in order to give birth to social businesses that intentionally provide measurable solutions to social issues (Emerson & Twersky, 1996).

It is important highlighting that the strategies, structures, rules and values of social business performance are seen as innovation. The same happens in non-profitable organizations in a more voluntarist pro-social way, since they traditionally depend on donations and subventions (Dart, 2004). Therefore, the following general features of social business performance are outstanding: (a) it is structured based on needs and features of low-income populations; (b) it has the explicit mission of having social impact; (c) it is managed by social entrepreneurs; (d) it can broaden the reach of social innovations generated from the expansion of business itself through its replication in other regions by other actors and the outspread of elements inherent to innovation, as well as by other entrepreneurs, organizations and public policies; (e) it searches for financial self-sustainability (f) and providing high-impact social products or services is its main activity; and (g) it can distribute profits to stakeholders (Artemisia, 2016).

According to Dacin, Dacin and Matear (2010); Dacin, Dacin and Tracey (2011); Muñoz and Kibler (2016) and Phillips et al. (2015), social business must seek balance between social and economic values. Such an action is necessary because economic value is essential for the sustainability of social ventures and also for the innovative creation of social value. Austin, Stevenson and Wei-Skillern (2006) highlighted the following differentiation dimensions concerning companies exclusively focused on profit and social negotiations: (a) market flaw, which takes place when the private sector is not able to fulfil a certain need or when outcomes of economic agents are insufficient, configures opportunity for social business; (b) social business mission, which is substantiated by participatory management, social motivation and employees’ empowerment, a fact that does not apply to exclusively commercial companies; (c) resource mobilization, which means the generation of different outcomes because the reward system adopted by social businesses is different from that chosen by an exclusively commercial company - the non-pecuniary counterpart tends to overcome the financial one in case of social ventures -; (d) performance measurement, which is expressed as element differentiation, since the main aim of social business is the stakeholders, i.e., all those who influence or are influenced by the business.

The social business has established formal cooperative arrangements according to which individual purposes are aligned to collective ones based on differences observed in exclusively commercial companies. Therefore, new organization models are developed as attempts to boost new social relationships capable of potentiating processes focused on creating social knowledge and technologies (Barnard, 1968).

Social businesses take actions based on open innovation processes within collaborative environments that present slight and fluid limits among partners in order to share ideas, subjects and technologies (Leadbeater, 2009). These collaborative environments were substantially broadened by internet proliferation and by the establishment of virtual and open knowledge platforms aimed at generating the global trend of creative collaboration and of unprecedented co-creation. Accordingly, social business often uses collaborative co-creation, learning and planning (Healey, 1997; Hulgård & Ferrarini, 2010).

Mulgan (2007), Murray, Caulier-Grice and Mulgan (2010) point out the participatory aspects of open innovation and of their dependence on the collaborative learning dimension based on more integrated social innovations, given the social character of their ends or means - which results from the combination of process and outcome (Young, 2006).

Accordingly, it is possible noticing that legitimacy, development and professionalization are the essential conditions to social-business sustainability. However, despite the consensus about this need for reinforcements, there is no substantial agreement about how this move is designed.

Armani (2003) approached two scopes to fill this gap: (a) the managerial scope, which concerns business professionalization, including planning, monitoring system, evaluation (based on indicators, resource capture, marketing, administrative and financial management) and the technical qualification of human resources; as well as (b) the systemic scope, which assures integration between the managerial and socio-political dimensions of social businesses that involve the social basis and ability to provide high-impact social products and services.

Based on the managerial and systemic scopes, Armani (2003) established two vectors capable of promoting the sustainable development of social businesses: (1) the institutional development vector, and (b) the collective institutional development vector, whose details are shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2
Boosting vectors of sustainable development in social businesses

Finally, it is important highlighting that either the economic accumulation or the State and society functioning point towards the challenge of conceiving development as a social change process whose outcomes must be socially applied. Thus, social business must develop innovations to fulfil neglected needs in order to generate social value. Thus, it is relevant understanding the development of social innovations in social business based on the performance in prioritizing professionalization and sustainability.

3 METHODOLOGY

We opted for using the inductive approach - which is substantiated by empirical data (Grounded Theory) - based on the qualitative paradigm that, according to Richardson (2004), offers a detailed understanding of meanings and situational features presented by objects of investigation. Strauss and Corbin (2008) highlight that the Grounded Theory regards a methodology focused on creating substantive theories whose inductive analysis of empirical data is appropriated to assess issues not yet consolidated in the literature that demand contextual treatment (Frezatti, Nascimento, Junqueira, & Relvas, 2011).

Thus, it is possible noticing that the qualitative paradigm and the Grounded Theory are adherent to each other and present a naturalist perspective due to the analyzed subjective reality, since both result in interaction between participating actors (Furlanetti & Barros, 2013; Frezatti et al., 2011; Ahrens & Chapman, 2007; Berry & Otley, 2004; Baxter & Chua, 2003).

Straus and Corbin (2008) and Charmaz (2009) emphasize that the Grounded Theory requires critical thinking about the theorization process; thus, the researcher most put in place its ability to walk backwards to assess the scenario based on critical and reflexive actions, as well as to be sensitive to the words and actions of the investigated subjects. Accordingly, it is necessary using the open, axial and selective coding, because the Grounded Theory process concerns conceptualizing and reducing data; elaborating categories, in terms of their properties and dimensions; and relating them to each other based on propositions (Straus & Corbin, 2008).

According to Strauss and Corbin (2008), the open coding, also called substantive coding, demands examining gross data in details through micro-analysis applied to words, sentences or paragraphs, in order to identify previous codes (substantive codes) that compose its property and dimension (sub-categories) categories. Axial coding categories are related to their sub-categories; they are axial because they are found by an axis. They are used to formulate explications about phenomena through the integration of property (overall or specific category features that define and give meaning) and dimension (property location) categories.

Categories are compared, related and interconnected after they are built; they concern phenomenon, context, condition, action and interaction strategies, and consequences (Furlanetti & Barros, 2013; Dantas, Leite, Lima, & Stipp, 2009; Strauss & Corbin, 2008). The selective coding limits the central category based on the other categories and on their systematic relationships. Thus, we adopted a higher degree of data abstraction in order to integrate categories whose outcomes embodied the substantive-theory shape, as well as the descriptive model and the theoretical matrix.

The approach by Strauss and Corbin (2008) was adopted as research model, since both research question and theoretical reference were developed prior to study operationalization. Data were reduced by using commands of the Atlas.ti software, which, according to Lee and Esterhuizen (2000), allow organizing and recovering information related to ideas or concepts subjacent to the investigated phenomenon that are essential to the empirical structure and validate codes in the qualitative-data return process.

The study was operationalized in stages. The first stage addressed the life stories of entrepreneurs accountable for the investigated social businesses. All these stories were treated through the structuring of autobiographical narratives produced by social entrepreneurs themselves, in the scope of the “Social Entrepreneur” award. They reported their professional performance and life experience; therefore, these narratives can be considered precious autobiographical materials, since they reveal important tacit knowledge and reflect the non-separation between thought and action (Galvão, 2005).

Alberti (2004) states that the analysis of life stories help researchers to extract information and knowledge acquired by individuals; to reconstruct facts that are not recorded in other types of source; to identify elements of how people perform and elaborate their experiences; to relate learning situations to decision-making in order to understand how people and groups experience the past and interpret their daily actions; and to design the trajectory of life based on the object of study.

The second study operationalization stage was based on sustainable performance reports, social balances and on reports of the “Social Entrepreneur” award that are validated by social entrepreneurs and by actors who were favored by the performance of investigated businesses. Thus, data evaluation and validation procedures stand out in this stage, since these procedures are based on data concept and triangulation, which, subsequently, generate a selective coding, in other words, the construction of propositions and the articulation of a descriptive model.

Based on the “Social Entrepreneur” award from 2010 to 2015, which was organized by the newspaper “Folha de São Paulo” and by Schwab Foundation”, the investigated social businesses are references in the development of social innovations. Six businesses were selected at the first stage to operationalize the study and compose the substantive coding, namely: Cies, Cren, Educar, Geekie, Imaflora and Noos. The substantive coding of these six businesses was the basis for the axial coding that was developed for 24 social businesses in the second stage in order to broaden the focus of the study analysis, as described below (Figure 3).

Figure 3
Investigated social businesses and their entrepreneurs

The sequence of methodological procedures that can be adopted as parameter for study performance replication, or for its new application, is presented below (Figure 4).

Figure 4
Study design

4 RESULTS

Gross data of 6 social businesses were initially organized for result analysis purposes; next, they were subjected to substantive coding (Section 4.1 - Substantive Coding). Subsequently, the adopted axial coding and substantive codes gave birth to the property and dimension categories. Therefore, the conceptual triangulation was carried out and data of 24 social businesses were treated (Section 4.2 - Axial coding). Finally, the selective coding took place in order to limit the central category of the study; it allowed the construction of propositions and supported the articulation of the sustainable-performance descriptive model applied to the development of social innovations in social businesses (Section 4.3 - selective coding).

4.1 Substantive Coding

Initially, gross data (narratives of social entrepreneurs’ life stories) were organized in charts, based on the 6 investigated social businesses. Next, they were subjected to substantive coding. The charts depict the results that describe the substantive codes represented by Codes and Memos, which were adapted through the tool in the Atlas.ti software to generate Network.

Actually, social businesses Cies and Cren stood out in healthcare service performance. Cies was the pioneer in the country to provide specialized, humanized and high technology preventive healthcare to poor communities through the implementation of the mobile medical outpatient center, which reinforced the concepts by Farfus and Rocha (2007). Social innovation involves a set of processes, products and methodologies that improve individuals’ quality of life. The shared and self-sustainable finance management of Cies stood out for services provided by the public power; institutional public and private partners; the critical analysis of public performance to identify idleness and inoperative cores; the adoption of safety and quality processes established by inspection and accreditation organs; and, finally, the research and development of new social technologies to increase flexibility, impact and operational efficiency. Thus, it is noteworthy that this organizational performance corroborates the assumptions by Moulaert et al. (2007) about social development generated by innovation in governance relationships and by community partnership (Figure 5).

Cren, in its turn, was pioneer in the country in effectively recovering methodologies and practices and in the nutritional education of children and adolescents through evaluation and screening in poor communities, outpatient assistance, semi-hospitalization and nutrition workshops. These actions are in line with the reasoning by Mulgan et al. (2007) about the ability of social innovation to boost the development of viable solutions for neglected issues. The following factors stood out in Cren’s performance: elaboration of projects to capture resources, knowledge compilation and technical procedures by adopting scientific method rigor and scientific substantiation to measure and assess the qualitative and quantitative impacts of developed social innovations (Bignetti, 2011). This outcome points towards social innovation promoted by the participation and cooperation of actors involved in knowledge application due to social needs (Figure 5).

Figure 5
Substantive coding and gross data about the performance of Cies and Cren

Educar, Geekie and Noos stood out among the investigated social businesses for their action in the Education sector. It is worth mentioning that Educar was pioneer in the country in developing and outspreading the pedagogical methodology that has systematized integration between community local and cultural knowledge, and scholars and researchers. Educar stands out for the performance of its successor decision-making decentralization mechanisms, which is based on the articulation of a management council and on the conduction of training and regional debate about the generated social innovations. This method corroborated the reflections by Austin, Stevenson and Wei-Skillern (2006), according to whom, the generation of social innovations is supported by participatory management supported by social motivation and employees’ empowerment (Figure 6).

Geekie stood out for its national pioneering action in developing a platform of adaptive education capable of personalizing and providing autonomy to students and schools’ learning experience. It adopted digital management tools, hired experts, set a formal structure for human resources coordination and the autonomous large-scale replication management of social innovations in national locations. The performance of this organization is an example of the discussion by Phills, Deiglmeier and Millert (2008), who stated that the aim of social innovation lies on effectively, efficiently, sustainably and fairly solving social issues to create social value to society as a whole, rather than to individuals, in separate (Figure 6).

Noos was pioneer in the country in systematizing research methodologies and in preventing intra-family and gender violence. The establishment of partnerships with Brazilian and foreign social organizations, the social capture of public managers, and the outspread of technical and scientific knowledge publications stood out among some of the actions that have corroborated the findings by Leadbeater (2009), according to whom, social businesses conceive their actions based on open innovation processes within collaborative contexts. These contexts present thin and fluid limits between partners in order to share ideas, subjects and technologies (Figure 6).

Imaflora was in the mainstream of investigated social businesses acting in the environmental performance, because it has shown its pioneering action in the country about the elaboration and application of socio-environmental certification methodologies, about local participatory development and the creation of social funds to certify small farmers. The implementation of advisory, direction and fiscal councils; scientific fundamentals to measure and assess the qualitative and quantitative impacts of the generated social innovations are some its main methods. It also stood out for the elaboration of social balance, the direct performance in elaborating and implementing laws, and governmental programs that have socio-environmental impact. This balance reveals adherence to percepts by Barnard (1968), who advocated that social businesses establish formal cooperative arrangements and systematize new organization models in order to feed individuals and purposes (Figure 7).

Figure 6
Substantive coding and gross data about Educar, Geekie and Noos performance

Figure 7
Substantive coding and gross data of Imaflora performance

4.2 Axial Coding

We adopted the axial coding, in which the substantiated phases and codes gave birth to categories and to their properties and dimensions, based on the substantive coding (open) addressed in the previous section. Thus, we conducted a conceptual and data triangulation processed through crossed analysis commends in Atlas.ti: “code cooccurrence table” and “cluster quotations before calculating co-occurrence”, by using the 24 social businesses as reference. This procedure allowed visualizing (gray areas) the descriptive categories of the performance of the investigated social businesses, as well as their properties, which have influenced the adoption of social innovations based on incidence dimensions (high, moderate and low). The descriptive categories were, ways of reach, resource source diversification, governance, public interest actions, social impact evaluation and the expansion of social impact (Figure 8).

Figure 8
Categories and prosperities to social innovation generation in social businesses

Therefore, based on the Axial coding, it was possible representing (Figure 8) the categories and their respective descriptive properties of social innovation generation. In order to do so, the high and moderate incidence dimensions were taken into account. These descriptive properties essentially point out the focus of managerial institutional development described by Armani (2003) about resource capture based on partnerships and contracts with the public power, companies and associations; economic granting, donations, personal management; management digitalization, elaboration of accountability reports; internal development of activities that complete public-interest programs; social qualification of public managers; engagement to public discussions and councils; empirical substantiation for the definition of evaluation criteria and for the measurement of quantitative and qualitative impacts of the generated social innovations; systematization and outspread of technical and scientific knowledge based on publications; activity linked to social innovation replication personalized through systematized learning, face-to-face or distance follow-up; and regional training and discussions about the generated social innovations.

It is important highlighting that properties presenting low incidence dimensions have pointed out the emergence, although low, of professionalization and managerial, and socio-political integration of businesses in order to allow feeding the managerial and collective institutional vectors proposed by Armani (2003). It is also important emphasizing that, despite the low incidence of these properties in the 24 investigated businesses, they present great development potential; therefore, they are defined as low incidence properties, although emergent (Figure 8).

4.3 Selective coding

We conducted a selective coding (higher data abstraction degree to integrate the categories) based on the categories and on their systematic relationships presented in the previous section. It was done in order to articulate a descriptive model of sustainable performance for the development of social innovations in social businesses (Figure 9), which is supported by six propositions (P) and will be reported below.

(P₁) The main category of the present study is based on the sustainable performance either in processes and in social innovation itself as the way to potentiate social innovation generation in social businesses. We assume that this is an integration and sustainability phenomenon, in other words, a phenomenon of innovative and managerial development through sustainability and unicity. The product of innovation cannot be analyzed in separate; it must be understood based on how it was processed and managed.

(P₂) Prevalence of a cooperative context to solve social issues, with emphasis on the permanent bond and on intense cooperation among actors, in order to achieve long-lasting and impacting changes based on the diversification of resource sources, which include either usual (governmental granting, donations, partnerships and contracts with companies, public power, associations and social organizations) or emergent (own income source, resource capture projects and partnership with teaching institutions) practices.

(P₃) Professionalized governance as conditional cause of social-innovation generation in social businesses, including either the usual practices (hiring experts, team qualification, formal structuring of human resources departments, adoption of digital management tools and the systematized elaboration of accountability reports) or as emergent (financial self-sustainability, creation of successor mechanisms and of decision-making decentralization, implementation of advisory, direction and fiscal councils, and the elaboration of social balance) factors. Thus, assumingly, business professionalization is a causal condition of sustainability in social institutions, including monitoring system, resource capture, administrative and financial management, and technical qualification of human resources.

(P₄) The development of public-interest actions as influencing cause of social innovation generation in social businesses, including either usual (internal development of activities that complete public-interest programs; social qualification performance of public managers; engagement to local, regional and Federal public discussions; performance in advisory councils and associations that aim at public interests) or the emergent (performance in the elaboration and in the implementation of laws and environmental programs that have social impact and critical analysis of public performance in order to identify idleness and inoperative investment cores) practices. Thus, assumingly, a systemic socio-political integration based on business legitimacy, transference and autonomy, as well as on its partnership network and ability to provide high social-impact products and services.

(P₅) Technical and scientific evaluation of social impact as the strategy to measure the outcomes of generated innovations, including either usual (empirical fundamentals of assessment criteria and the subsequent measurement of quantitative and qualitative impacts of social innovations) or emergent (scientific fundamentals of assessment criteria for social innovations and the development of digital development tools and of the integration of quantitative and qualitative impacts of social innovations) practices. Thus, assumingly, social innovation outcomes are essentially intangible and associated with the concept of “service”; which makes it essential establishing criteria, either quantitative or qualitative, in measurement processes applied to the generated social impacts.

(P₆) Social impact expansion as the consequence of self-scaling performance of social businesses (managerial growth, autonomy and oneness), which exceeds the municipal, state and federal sphere based on usual (systematization and outspread of scientific and technical knowledge through publications; regional training and discussions about the generated social innovations; replication of personalized social innovations due to systematized learning and face-to-face and distance follow-up) and also emergent (social innovation outspread, moderate partnership with public power; research and development of new social technologies in order to improve operational flexibility, impact and efficiency; adoption of safety and quality established by inspection and accreditation bureaus; and replication of social innovations standardized through an autonomous and open way) practices. Therefore, assumingly, social businesses must intentionally provide scaling solution for social issues.

5 CONCLUSIONS

Added outcomes made it possible proposing a descriptive model of sustainable performance to develop social innovations in social businesses based on the following propositions: sustainable performance either in processes or in social innovation itself; prevalence of cooperative context to solve social issues; professional governance as causal condition to social innovation generation; development of public-interest actions as influencing condition for the generation of social innovations; evaluation of technical and scientific social impacts as strategy to measure the outcomes of generated innovations; and the expansion of social impact as the consequence of the self-scaling performance of social businesses.

We mainly observed that the performance of the investigated social businesses can be described based on institutional focus, mainly the managerial one, by considering social innovation generation as analysis context and the following categories as descriptive: ways of reach, resource source diversification, governance, public-interest actions, evaluation of social impact and of its expansion. However, we have observed that the incidence of systemic performance, and of managerial and socio-political integration, remains low in regard to social innovation generation in these businesses.

Finally, it is essential highlighting the need of future scientific research and also future institutional and governmental reasoning about the emerging professionalization of social businesses and the consequent need of implementing more integrated, sustainable and scaling practices.

We can highlight the need of carefully looking to the herein addressed situation, so it was not possible making generalizations about results explicitly related to the 24 investigated social businesses.

Figure 9
Sustainable performance model to develop social innovations

REFERENCES

• Artemisia(2016). Descrição de negócios de impacto social. [s. d.]. Disponível em: Disponível em: http://artemisia.org.br/conteudo/negocios/nosso-conceito.aspx Acesso em:15 fev. 2016.
  » http://artemisia.org.br/conteudo/negocios/nosso-conceito.aspx
• Ahrens, T; & Chapman, C. S. T. (2017). Doing qualitative field research in management accounting: positioning data to contribute to theory. In: Chapman, C; Hopwood, A. G; Shields, M. D. (org.). Handbook of management accounting research. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 299-318.
• Alberti, V. (2004). Ouvir contar: textos em história oral. Rio de Janeiro: FGV Editora.
• Armani, D. (2003). O desenvolvimento institucional como condição de sustentabilidade das ONG no Brasil. Disponível em: Disponível em: http://www.projeccia.com.br/images/download/organizacional/Domingos-Armani-O-desenvolvimento-institucional.pdf Acesso em: 15 fev. 2020.
  » http://www.projeccia.com.br/images/download/organizacional/Domingos-Armani-O-desenvolvimento-institucional.pdf
• Austin, J; Stevenson, H; & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same, different, or both?. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 30(1), 1-22.
• Barnard, C. (1968). The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge: Harvard Business Press.
• Baxter, J; & Chua, W. F. (2003). Alternative management accounting research-whence and whither.Accounting, organizations and society,28(2-3), 97-126.
• Berry, A. J; & Otley, D. T. (2004). Case-based research in accounting. In: Humprey, C; Lee, B. (org.) The real life guide to accounting research: a behind-the-scenes view of using qualitative research methods. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd.
• Bessant, J; & Tidd, J. (2009). Inovação e empreendedorismo. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
• Bignetti, L. P. (2011). As inovações sociais: uma incursão por ideias, tendências e focos de pesquisa.Ciências Sociais Unisinos,47(1), 3-14.
• Bouchard, C. (1997). L’innovation sociale existe-t-elle?.Interface,18(6), 41-42.
• Chambon, J. L, David, A; & Devevey, J. M. (1982). Les innovations sociales. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France (Coleção Que sais-je).
• Charmaz, K. (2009). A construção da teoria fundamentada: guia prático para análise qualitativa. Porto Alegre: Bookman Editora.
• Chell, E; Nicolopoulou, K; & Karataş-Özkan, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship and enterprise: International and innovation perspectives. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: An International Journal, 22(6), 485-493.
• Chell, E. (2007). Social enterprise and entrepreneurship: Towards a convergent theory of the entrepreneurial process.International small business journal,25(1), 5-26.
• Cloutier, J. (2003). Qu’est-ce que l’innovation sociale? Montreal, CA: Crises.
• Dacin, P. A; Dacin, M. T; & Matear, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t need a new theory and how we move forward from here.Academy of management perspectives,24 (3), 37-57.
• Dacin, M. T; Dacin, P. A; & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions.Organization science,22(5), 1203-1213.
• Dantas, C. D. C; Leite, J. L; Lima, S. B. S. D; & Stipp, M. A. C. (2009). Teoria fundamentada nos dados-aspectos conceituais e operacionais: metodologia possível de ser aplicada na pesquisa em enfermagem.Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem,17(4), 573-579.
• Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise.Nonprofit management and leadership,14(4), 411-424.
• Dees, J. G; Anderson, B. B; & Wei-Skillern, J. (2004). Scaling social impact.Stanford social innovation review, 1(4), 24-32.
• Gregory, D. J; & Anderson, B. B. (2006). Framing a theory of social entrepreneurship: Building on two schools of practice and thought.Research on social entrepreneurship, 39-66.
• Emerson, J; & Twersky, F. (1996). New social entrepreneurs: The success, challenge and lessons of non-profit enterprise creation. San Francisco/Los Angeles, CA: The Homeless Economic Fund, The Roberts Foundation.
• Farfus, D.; & Rocha, M. C. (2007). Inovação Social: um conceito em construção. In: Farfus, D. et al (org.). Inovações Sociais. Curitiba: SESI/SENAI/IEL/UNINDUS.
• Frezatti, F; do Nascimento, A. R; Junqueira, E; & Relvas, T. R. S. (2011). Processo orçamentário: uma aplicação da análise substantiva com utilização da grounded theory.Organizações & Sociedade,18(58).
• Furlanetti, M. R. R; & Barros, N. F. D. (2013). Construção da Teoria Fundamentada: guia prático para análise qualitativa.
• Galvão, C. (2005). Narrativas em educação.Ciência & Educação (Bauru),11(2), 327-345.
• Goldsmith, S. (2010). The power of social innovation: How civic entrepreneurs ignite community networks for good. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
• Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in fragmented societies. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, London: Macmillan Press Ltd.
• Heiskala, R. (2007). Social innovations: structural and power perspectives. In: Hamalainen, T. J; & Heiscala, R. (org.). Social Innovations, Institutional Change and Economic Performance: Making Sense of Structural Adjustment Process in Industrial Sectors, Regions and Societies. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, USA: Edward Elgar, 52-79.
• Hulgård, L; & Ferrarini, A. V. (2010). Inovação social: rumo a uma mudança experimental na política pública?.Ciências sociais unisinos,46(3), 256-263.
• Juliani, D. P; Juliani, J. P; Souza, J. A; & Harger, E. M. (2014). Inovação social: perspectivas e desafios.Revista ESPACIOS | Vol. 35 (Nº 5) Año 2014
• Leadbeater, C. (2009). We-think. London: Profile books Ltd..
• Lee, R. M; & Esterhuizen, L. (2000). Computer software and qualitative analysis: trends, issues and resources.International journal of social research methodology, 3(3), 231-243.
• Moulaert, F; Martinelli, F; González, S; & Swyngedouw, E. (2007). Introduction: Social innovation and governance in european cities urban development between path dependency and radical innovation. European Urban and Regional Studies, 14(3), 195-209.
• Moulaert, F; Martinelli, F; Swyngedouw, E; & Gonzalez, S. (2005). Towards alternative model (s) of local innovation.Urban studies,42(11), 1969-1990.
• Mulgan, G; Tucker, S; Ali, R; & Sanders, B. (2007). Social Innovation: what it is, why it matters, how it can be accelerated.
• Muñoz, P; & Kibler, E. (2016). Institutional complexity and social entrepreneurship: A fuzzy-set approach.Journal of Business Research,69(4), 1314-1318.
• Murray, R; Caulier-Grice, J; & Mulgan, G. (2010).The open book of social innovation(Vol. 24). London: Nesta.
• Nicholls, A. (2010). The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: Reflexive isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic field.Entrepreneurship theory and practice,34(4), 611-633.
• Phillips, W; Lee, H; Ghobadian, A; O’Regan, N; & James, P. (2015). Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: A systematic review.Group & Organization Management,40(3), 428-461.
• Phills, J. A; Deiglmeier, K; & Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering social innovation.Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4), 34-43.
• Richardson, R. J. (2004). Pesquisa Social: Métodos e Técnicas. Atlas: São Paulo.
• Rodrigues, A. L. (2006). Modelos de gestão e inovação social em organizações sem fins lucrativos: divergências e convergências entre Nonprofit Sector e Economia Social. In: ENCONTRO DA ANPAD, 30; 2006, Salvador, BA. Anais [...]. Rio de Janeiro: Anpad. 1 CD-ROM.
• Santos, F. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship.Journal of business ethics,111(3), 335-351.
• Shaw, E; & de Bruin, A. (2013). Reconsidering capitalism: the promise of social innovation and social entrepreneurship?.International Small Business Journal,31(7), 737-746.
• Sousa, G. E; Mendonça, J. M. B; de Sousa, M. G; & dos Santos, L. T. (2014). O Perfil do Empreendedor Social e Suas Dimensões de Atuação: Seis Casos no Município de Uberlândia-MG.Revista Interdisciplinar de Gestão Social, 3(1).
• Strauss, A; & Corbin, J. (2008). Técnicas e procedimentos para o desenvolvimento de teoria fundamentada.
• Young, R. (2006). For what it is worth: Social value and the future of social entrepreneurship.Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change,18(3), 56-73.

• Copyrights - ReA/UFSM owns the copyright to this content.
• Plagiarism Check - The ReA/UFSM maintains the practice of submitting all documents approved for publication to the plagiarism check, using specific tools, e.g.: CopySpider.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  16 July 2021
• Date of issue
  Apr-Jun 2021

History

• Received
  16 Aug 2018
• Accepted
  23 Apr 2020