• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Contents

Introduction

This Briefing was prepared by EAPN’s Social Innovation Task Force (SITF), mandated by EAPN’s EU Inclusion Strategies Group, based on the recognized need of EAPN members to acquire better knowledge and understanding of social innovation. This is particularly important in a changing European social and policy context, with social innovation being promoted by the European Union as a source of remedies for increased social challenges (rising inequalities, poverty, social exclusion, social conflicts and social injustice), and where current approaches predominantly support austerity policies, thus undermining traditional welfare mechanisms, which previously effectively tackled these problems. Although social innovation became a popular catchword in the current EU economic and social policies relatively recently, it is not new for EAPN members.

Even without a new policy framework, organizations addressing poverty and social exclusion have been trying, for decades, to find new ways to provide support to different groups of vulnerable people, to find new solutions to old social problems, or to identify new social needs that were previously unmet. However, EAPN members recognized the need to develop a more systematic approach to social innovation within the current EU policy framework, in order to improve both activities directed to innovative social inclusion services, but also EAPN’s engagement in current debates on social innovation and advocacy actions, aiming at a better policy and institutional framework for social innovation.

In order to enable EAPN members to engage with such processes, it is important to agree within the network which kind of social innovation will be considered as desirable, beneficial and worthy of promotion and pursuit, as many kinds of social innovations could present the traps of reducing public services, undermining people’s wellbeing and social cohesion at all levels – from small local communities to the level of whole EU.

2 WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE BRIEFING?

The main objective of this briefing is to increase the knowledge/understanding base of EAPN members on the existing forms of social innovation policy and practices, as well as the opportunities and risks they involve, in order to enable them to 1) assess the current social innovation practices and resources in their own countries and at the EU level 2) engage pro- actively in debates on social innovation and identify networking opportunities; 3) apply more effectively for social innovation funding, and develop innovative practices in their social inclusion services, and 4) advocate for a better institutional and policy framework, which will be more favorable for the promotion of better and innovative services, that better suit the needs of a variety of groups at risk of poverty and exclusion and contributes to the inclusive development.

The purpose of briefing is to inform EAPN members about the possibilities to improve social inclusion across Europe, through various innovative social inclusion practices, and through European and national funding. It also aims to contribute to the debate about opportunities and risks related to social innovation, as it is being interpreted within the present framework of economic and social policies, at EU and national level. WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO EXPAND KNOWLEDGE AND CAPACITIES FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION?

Europe is currently facing a trend of increasing poverty and social exclusion, as well as worsening of living conditions, in many aspects and for many groups of population. Around 125 million of people are at risk of poverty or social exclusion in the EU, which is equivalent to 24.8% of the total population (Eurostat, 2014:27). In this respect, the EU is moving away from the Europe 2020 poverty reduction target, since there were about 6.2 million more people living at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2012 than two years before, when the target was adopted.

On the other hand, classic social protection tools of tackling the poverty and social exclusion have been increasingly undermined by austerity measures, while challenges were voiced about their effectiveness. Social innovation has become increasingly important in the policy framework of the EU, partly as a response to the austerity drive, as the interest of governments to restrict public debt and spending through increased privatization and liberalization of social services, and partly as awareness that new alternatives to old solutions (both market and government) are needed, and that grass-roots organizations are well placed to develop such approaches. The role of the corporate, academic, and third sectors should be taken into account, as very important stakeholders and potential partners in addressing poverty through social innovation initiatives.

“ The social sector needs more NGOs, partners, agencies and funders that are truly committed to undertaking the long-term and painstaking efforts solve and address complicated problems and issues. This will require unique and different collaborations, alignment among diverse (and sometimes unlikely) institutions,

3 less focus on competition for resources, and more focus on collective and sustained commitments to solve vexing social issues and challenges.”

Todd Reeve, Bonneville Environmental Foundation

Social innovation policy is recognized as a driver of growth, but also of social inclusion. Organizational solutions in the European Commission (EC) confirm this, as social innovation policies cross-cut two Directorate-Generals: Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, and Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion. However, it is important to note that social innovation is framed by the EC more as tool for economic development and employment, rather than for broader social inclusion and social cohesion. Stakeholders are stimulated to experiment and engage in social innovation, and for that purpose, various programmes and funds are established (see section below dedicated to EU policy for more information).

However, anti-poverty NGOs need to push for those social innovations that are promoting social inclusion and that contribute to the decrease of poverty. These organizations have to advocate for specific types of social innovation – defining and identifying which types are in line with EAPN’s agenda is exactly the task of this Briefing.

WHY SOCIAL INNOVATIONS ARE IMPORTANT TO EAPN?

EAPN, as well as other anti-poverty NGOs, need to understand not only what social innovation is or can be, but also the threats and opportunities offered by this new approach, and particularly see how best to argue for continued public investment, and how the new frame can be used to support NGO initiatives at grass-root level. Social economy is one of these areas of opportunity, in which there is the potential for improving service delivery and supporting grass- root NGO services through social innovation, due to the new forms of linking economic activities and social objectives. EAPN, however, will be very concerned to ensure that new support in this area is not used to undermine the large-scale commitment of the state to ensure social inclusion and universal provision. Unlike social reforms that include major changes of laws, institutions, and policies, social innovations should initially be small initiatives that can have “contagious effects”, and therefore, they are much more available to social actors and can potentially be spread and initiate changes on larger scale.

Developing a more systematic and clear position on social innovation is in line with the strategic objectives of EAPN, particularly those that are directing the work of EAPN members towards effective mainstreaming of social concerns in the European Union’s strategic framework, and that foresee a proactive role for EAPN members in public debates on anti-poverty and social inclusion policies.

Through better knowledge and understanding of social innovation, EAPN members can learn new ways how to engage with public institutions and local authorities, as well as other

4 interlocutors, in order to introduce new inclusive practices. This can contribute to their capacity and ability to create new forms of organization, and to motivate and mobilize individuals and groups to operate in new and more effective ways in the new context.

ABOUT THE BRIEFING AND PROCESS

The Social Innovation Task Force was mandated by EAPN’s EU Inclusion Strategies Group to contribute to the improvement of knowledge / understanding about social innovation among EAPN members. The Task Force will also identify a variety of innovative practices, and will facilitate the exchange of experience between EAPN members. By doing this, the Task Force would contribute to building the capacities of EAPN members to be able to engage better in national and EU debates on social innovation, to be better placed to apply for funding, to be more innovative in their service provision, to better suit the needs of their beneficiaries, or to act more as advocates for a better institutional and policy environment, which stimulates new forms of social inclusion services or values the innovation/quality of current services.

Besides drafting this Briefing, the Task Force was mandated to develop criteria of good examples of social innovation practices, and to map and present cases of good social innovation designed and implemented by EAPN members.

This Briefing consists of several sections. In the second section, key definitions and conceptual and policy approaches to social innovation are presented, with underlining what is the definition and approach accepted by EAPN. The third section is dedicated to the identification of opportunities and threats to using social innovation by EAPN members, while in the fourth section, criteria for good social innovation practices in line with EAPN approach are presented.

The Task Force consisted of 6 members, namely Marija Babović (EAPN Serbia – Chair), Slavomíra Mareková (EAPN Slovakia), Aivars Lasmanis (EAPN Latvia), Elena De La Hera (EAPN Spain), Loredana Giuglea (EAPN Romania), and Krisztina Jász (EAPN Hungary), with support from the EAPN Secretariat provided by Amana Ferro, Senior Policy Officer. The Task Force met three times (12 May, 8 September, 3 December 2015) in Brussels, and prepared a draft Briefing and Checklist, subsequently endorsed by the EU Inclusion Strategies Group at their meeting on 10 October 2015 in Brussels. Based on these, a mapping was launched within the EAPN membership, with the aim of collecting and sharing good innovation practices coming from EAPN’s National Networks and European Organisations. 11 countries provided 19 best practices, which are presented in the accompanying Mapping document.

Definitions and approaches to social innovation

Social innovation is the area much less investigated, discussed or exposed to policy intervention than the area of business or scientific innovation, and this lack of attention makes it so that many initiatives and good ideas are stillborn, blocked by vested interest, or otherwise marginalized (Mulgan et al, 2007).

5 WHAT IS SOCIAL INNOVATION?

In order to understand social innovation, it is important to answer two key questions:  How is the concept defined?  How it is generated?

How do leading authors define social innovation?

The definition of social innovation is widely disputed by academics and research institutions. There are many different definitions and a variety of interpretations, which can blur the meaning and, subsequently, render implementation ineffective. A group of authors connected to the Young Foundation defines social innovation as:

‘…innovative activities and services that are motivated by the goal of meeting a social need and that are predominantly developed and diffused through organizations whose primary purposes are social’ . (Mulgan et al, 2007: 8)

This definition differentiates social innovation from business innovations, by motivation and type of organization – the latter are motivated by profit maximization and diffused through organizations that are primarily motivated by the same interest.

A frequently quoted definition from Open Book on Social Innovation describes innovations as:

‘ new ideas (products, services and models) that simultaneously meet social needs and create new social relationships or collaborations’. (Murray et al., 2010)

In the OECD definition, improvement of welfare as a distinctive feature of social innovation is emphasized:

‘ … social innovation deals with improving the welfare of individuals and communities through employment, consumption and/or participation, its expressed purpose being to provide solutions for individual and community problems’. (OECD, 2011:20) The definition provided by the Project exploring Theoretical, Empirical and Policy Foundations to Social Innovation in Europe (TEPSIE), implemented by a Framework 7 project consortium made of universities and the Young Foundation, is important because it emphasizes the empowerment of beneficiaries:

6 ‘ Social innovations are new approaches to addressing social needs. They are social in their means and in their ends. They engage and mobilise the beneficiaries and help to transform social relations by improving beneficiaries’ access to power and resources.’ (TEPSIE, 2014)

Social innovation can have different forms. It can mean new services and products, new practices, processes, or rules and regulations (TEPSIE, 2014). New services and products could be created in order to satisfy unmet needs, newly emerged needs, or to address old needs in new ways (e.g. car-sharing, zero energy housing developments, BedZED in London, etc). New practices and processes include new services, which require new professional roles, or new relationships, but also generate new norms and values that are important for the reproduction of these practices (e.g., dispute resolution between citizens and state in Netherlands, participatory budgeting, fair trade, etc). New rules and regulations can be understood as means to introduce or support new products, services, practices, or processes. Many European Union documents, however, show that social innovation is not limited to issues of welfare and social inclusion, but may also be concerned with environmental protection and sustainable development (i.e. sustainable social work).

INNOVATION AS SYSTEMIC CHANGE The Canadian approach

Almost all current social welfare institutions were once upon a time a social innovation. According to Social Innovation Generation (SIG), social innovation is the “result of the intentional work of people trying to make positive change by addressing complex problems at the roots. Social innovation is a process, product, or program that profoundly changes the way system operates, changing it in a such a way that reduces vulnerability of the people and the environment”. As a consequence of implementing social innovations, many elements of the system become more resilient and better equipped to face future challenges. Some of the innovations that profoundly changed the system of providing protection from some forms of vulnerabilities in Canada were the Registered Disability Savings Plan, introduced in 2008, which enabled people living with disabilities to achieve financial independence well into old age. Another example is the Universal Health Care, introduced in 1966, which ensures free health care and insurance coverage for all citizens. These innovations are so entrenched into the Canadian culture that nobody perceives the greatness of the vision that created them. The Social Innovation Generation (SIG) itself represents an innovative approach to social change, joining the efforts of four Canadian institutions: J.W. McConnell Family Foundation, MRS Discovery District, the University of Waterloo, and the PLAN Institute. The purpose of this partnership is to “provide responses to the growing recognition that mounting social and environmental challenges needed to be met by Canadians capable of developing solutions at scale.”

7 How are social innovations generated?

Innovation becomes important when problems are getting worse, when systems are not working, or when institutions reflect past rather than present problems. An important driver of innovation is the awareness of a gap between what people need and what they are offered by governments, private firms, and NGOs (Mulligan et al, 2007).

Source: Murray et al, 2010: 11 In the Open Book of Social Innovation, which is influential also in shaping the EU framework for social innovation, six stages are identified in the process of generating social innovation (Murray et al, 2010).

1) Prompts, inspirations and diagnoses. The starting point for innovation is an awareness of a need that is not being met, and some idea of how it could be met. Situations such as the social and economic crisis, cuts in public spending, poor performance of services etc. can trigger the innovation process. In this stage, problems are diagnosed and unmet need recognized. 2) Proposals and ideas. This is the stage of idea generation. This can involve formal or informal methods. 3) Prototyping and pilots. Ideas are tested in practice. The majority of innovative practices fail on the first attempt. The process of testing ideas is particularly important in social economy, because only through iteration and trial and error can implementers gain expertise and solve conflicts (including battles with entrenched interests). 4) Sustaining. The idea becomes an established practice, which can be maintained and reproduced. 5) Scaling and diffusion. In this stage, small, limited, single case practices are grown and diffused, or – as it is often labeled – up scaled. However, this is not a necessary step, as some innovations can remain single cases, such as Mondragon in Spain. 6) Systemic change. Some social innovations are powerful drivers that bring the transformation of the system, which usually involves the interaction of many elements: social

8 movements, business models, laws and regulations, data and infrastructures, environmental change etc through the application of innovative approaches.

MONDRAGON

Mondragon is one of the most renowned social enterprises in the world. Organizationally, this is a federation of workers’ cooperatives. It was founded in 1956 in Mondragon, in the Basque region of Spain. Today, Mondragon is the tenth largest company in Spain in terms of assets turnover. At the end of 2014, it employed over 70 000 of people in 257 companies in four areas of activity: finance, manufacturing, retail trade, and knowledge. Mondragon cooperatives operate in accordance with the Statement of the Cooperative Identity, maintained by the International Cooperative Alliance. Innovation is one of the four key values incorporated in the business philosophy of Mondragon, together with participation, cooperation, and social responsibility.

WHAT IS THE OFFICIAL EU APPROACH TO SOCIAL INNOVATION?

Innovation has gained great significance in the current policy framework of the EU, driven by years of economic crisis and stagnation, as well as increasing social problems, manifested through growing income inequalities, poverty, exclusion and social conflicts, as well as high unemployment (particularly for young people). The European Commission strives to rebalance economic, employment and social policy, through a model of economic growth based on fairness and efficiency, and through integrated approaches, based on job creation and the modernizing of social protection systems, through investment, structural reform and fiscal responsibility. The Innovation Union, one of the seven Flagship Initiatives of the Europe 2020 Strategy for smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth. This initiative, however, is oriented mostly towards the objectives that should increase the international competitiveness of EU and economic growth, although social objectives are also included, such as maximizing social and territorial cohesion (EC, 2014). While, within the European Commission, DG Employment Social Affairs and Inclusion focuses on social innovation for social inclusion (see below), a separate strand, managed by DG Internal Market, focuses instead on innovation funding for small and medium enterprises.

DG Employment put forward its approach to social innovation in the Social Investment Package1 (SIP). According to this approach, social innovation “means developing new ideas,

1 Social investment is about investing in people in order to strengthen their skills and capacities and support them to participate fully in employment and social life. The Social Investment Package is an integrated policy framework, which takes account of the social, economic and budgetary divergences between Member States, and focuses on: ensuring that social protection systems respond to people’s needs at critical moments in their lives; simplified and better targeted social policies to provide adequate and sustainable social protection systems; upgrading Active Inclusion strategies in the Member States (affordable quality childcare and education, prevention of early school leaving, training and job-search assistance, housing support and accessible health care). See more here. You can also read EAPN’s comprehensive Response to the Social Inclusion Package here.

9 services and models to better address social issues. It invites input from public and private actors, including civil society, to improve social services” (European Commission). The Social Investment Package is based on a strategic social investment approach to modernization, which includes: - Social protection systems that prevent against risks, respond as early as possible to people’s needs throughout the lifecycle - Adequate benefits, activation and enabling services to support people’s inclusion in society and the labour market - More effective and efficient social spending, to ensure adequate and sustainable social protection.

DG Employment defines social innovation as ‘developing new ideas, services and models to better address social issues. It invites input from public and private actors, including civil society, to improve social services.2’ The mean vehicle for implementation is the so-called ‘social policy experimentation’. The principle of social experimentation in the EU policy framework is to test some policy initiative on small samples of the population (randomized control trials), in order to evaluate its effects before deciding if it should be scaled up (J-Pal Europe, 2011)3.

However, most of the initiatives currently funded under this strand of PROGRESS / EaSI are destined to trialing by Governments, rather than supporting bottom-up initiatives promoted by grass root organisations. For this purpose, Social Experimentation – A Methodological Guide for Policy Makers was put forward by DG Employment in 2011. Randomized control trials seem to be the method of choice recommended in this publication, further supported by the Guide on Testing Social Policy Innovation (2013).

The EU Programme for Employment and Social Innovation (EaSI) is a financing instrument at EU level, established with the purpose “to promote a high level of quality and sustainable employment, guaranteeing adequate and decent social protection, combating social exclusion and poverty and improving working conditions” (European Commission).

The review of key documents and internet presentations of the EC approach to social innovation reveals the impression of the strong and relatively narrow (or biased) focus on labour activation, which is consistent with overall EU strategic focus on growth and competitiveness. Although vulnerable groups and social protection are not omitted from the discourse, concrete measures and financial instruments indicate that these areas are welcomed mostly if they are related to the employment opportunities and consequently growth generation. However, nothing is mentioned about the accessibility of these jobs, particularly to those most excluded, or in disadvantaged regions, nor is the quality or sustainability of the jobs in question addressed.

2 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1022

3 Current EU policy development methodology relies on the methods of randomized experimentation in order to test impact of proposed policy changes.

10 The objectives of EaSI are: to strengthen ownership of EU objectives and coordination of action at EU and national levels in the areas of employment, social affairs and inclusion; support the development of adequate social protection systems and labour market policies; modernize EU legislation and ensure its effective application, promote geographical mobility and boost employment opportunities by developing an open labour market; increase the availability and accessibility of microfinance for vulnerable groups and micro-enterprises, and increase access to finance for social enterprises.

EaSI is managed directly by the EC, and it brings together three EU programmes managed separately during previous period 2007-2013 (PROGRESS, EURES and Progress Microfinance). EaSI with total budget of over EUR 919 million has three axes:  The modernization of employment and social policies  Job mobility  Access to micro-finance and social entrepreneurship

The first call for proposals took place in 2014, for “Social policy innovations supporting reforms in social services”. The funding line, worth 9.2 million euro, benefited from maximum cofounding under EU roles (80%) and financed more than 100 initiatives from 20 Member States, focusing on one stop shop approaches, personalized approaches to social services, and innovative partnerships.

The 2015 call closed on December 4th, and it features a budget of 10.800.000 euro (with grant requests between 750.000 and 2 million euro), available for consortia of stakeholders, involving public, private, or not-for-profit entities. The stated purpose of the call is clearly employment- only, which is a worrying trend, and it is defined as “to foster policy innovation in the organisation and delivery of social services aiming at the reintegration of service users in the labour market. Policy innovation should focus on the integrated delivery of this type of social services”

The European Commission is fostering networking in order to stimulate social innovations. For that purpose, in 2011 was launched the collaborative hub Social Innovation Europe, which enables the sharing of experience in social innovations across the Europe. The European Commission also organizes competitions with the aim to directly support promising innovations and to raise awareness on importance of social innovations.

Additionally, modernization of social security system currently occupies a prominent role in the European-level discourse, aimed mainly at reducing social spending on welfare benefits, disguised as social innovation. A brief, up-to-date EC guide for citizens to better understand social policy innovation is available here. The Commission seeks to ensure that social policy innovation plays a role in the modernization of social protection systems, and that it is taken up as a priority in ESF spending – through possibilities of a priority axis devoted to social innovation, and an increasing of 10% in the co-financing rate.

11 The position of the European Commission on social innovation is that it should be embedded in policy making and connected to social priorities, as well as mainstreamed in the implementation of Country-Specific Recommendations, and the use of the European Social Fund. This means that greater involvement of stakeholders, including civil society organisations, public authorities, service providers etc is needed, in order to effectively tackle social challenges and ensure better inclusion outcomes.

INNOVATING SYSTEMS OF NATIONAL ACCOUNTS

The main model for measuring wealth and welfare across the globe is the System of National Accounts (SNA), introduced over 70 years ago by the UN and applied across the world (including by organisations such as the IMF, the World Bank, OECD, and others). The system has been revised periodically in order to adjust to the changes, but basically relies on the same paradigm, which assumes that the wealth of countries, and the welfare related to it, are expressed by economic values created in the market and registered economic activities. Revision of the SNA in 2008 for the first time dedicated chapter to the informal sector, including household work and economic activity that escapes formal statistical measurement. The SNA was subject of many critical views, including those coming from feminist and ecologist perspectives. Feminist critics was focused on undervaluation of household work and care economy that is not counted in the national accounts, yet contributes significantly to the economic development and social welfare of the population. Adopting these views, some countries introduced ‘satellite national accounts’. Netherlands was among first countries that developed satellite account for environment, while Sweden was one of the forerunners in introducing satellite account for unpaid household work. Some initiatives go much further proposing new paradigm in national accounting and introducing National Accounts of Well- being. The NEF, one UK think-thank promoting social, economic and environmental justice proposed this system of national accounts as radically new way of measuring social progress based on the subjective well-being of the people.

WHAT IS THE EUROPEAN ORGANISATIONS’ APPROACH TO SOCIAL INNOVATION?

Civil society organizations have historically been social innovators. Even in the absence of a policy framework that is explicitly focused on social innovation, like it is in present EU, they were always finding ways to meet existential, economic, social or cultural needs of diverse social groups in order to improve their quality of life and integrate them better into society. Depending on the thematic focus of different CSOs, the definitions of social innovation have a different emphasis. For EAPN, as the organization dedicated to tackling poverty and improving social inclusion, ‘meaningful’ social innovation is one that contributes to the reduction of poverty and fosters social inclusion.

12 EAPN definition and approach to social innovation

According to EAPN views, social innovation should:

 CONTRIBUTE TO COMBATING POVERTY AND IMPROVING SOCIAL INCLUSION. Social innovation is meaningful only if it contributes to the decrease of poverty, improvement of wellbeing, and promotion of social inclusion, including by broadening the understanding of social exclusion and of the expectations of responsibilities the State and other actors have in relation to the tackling social problems. It brings awareness of collective responsibilities, particularly in the present context, burdened by numerous challenges.

 FEATURE NOVELTY in the satisfaction of social needs in one more of the following aspects: o content of needs satisfaction, which can be a product or service, and which answers to the question what is novel in needs satisfaction. o method of innovation, which can include new technologies, methods of delivery, new forms of organization with new responsibilities, new relations, which answers how is the need satisfied. o actors and agencies of innovation, which can include old and new actors, new cross- sectorial partnerships, new interdisciplinary approaches, new coalitions of those who provide needs satisfaction (linking private, public, civil sector), but also those whose needs are satisfied, which answers the question who provides and is being provided with social innovation services.

Novelty is understood in relative terms. A new product, service, practice, model or organization does not have to be entirely new, but new in the specific spatial or time context. However, the relativity of innovation should not be confused with the transfer of practices or models. There should be at least partly original novelty in the product, service, practice, model or organization, if they are copied and transferred from another context or another time.

 DRIVE SUSTAINABLE CHANGE. Social Innovation should bring about changes that are sustainable, either in the form of long-term practices, or as one-off interventions that produce durable effects (i.e. providing identification documents to Roma people or forced migrants).

 BE DRIVEN BY REAL SOCIAL NEEDS. The innovation provides answers to the real needs of people and communities – those that are newly emerged due to the contextual changes, those that were not previously met, or at least not adequately (while reinforcing human rights, increased wellbeing, and social inclusion).

 EMPOWER PEOPLE AND COMMUNITIES. Social innovation is meaningful only if it empowers people and not only directly – those who are clients, users or beneficiaries, but also indirectly – those who are part of the wider community where the intervention is taking place, therefore empowering communities as well.

13  BE A BOTTOM-UP PROCESS. Social innovation needs to be bottom-up – even if the initiative comes from above, its design, implementation and monitoring need to be done from the grass root level.

 SUPPORT, WITHOUT REPLACING, PUBLIC SERVICES. Social innovation should contribute to and not undermine or replace universal public service provision, which is the State’s responsibility.

EAPN holds that only under these criteria can innovations be considered as meaningful social innovations, and the EU and national policy frameworks should support initiatives that match this definition.

A LAUNDRETTE IN AUMÜHLE IN GERMANY

Aumühle is an institution for people with learning disabilities in Darmstadt in Germany. It is run by Mission Leben, a Protestant social enterprise. A series of sheltered workshops exist connected to a residential home, including a launderette which opened in 2007. Presently, there are 55 people with learning disabilities employed in the launderette, together with some additional staff. The service is provided for people living in residential, retirement or nursing homes, but also for work clothing. The launderette is operated through ICT and the work is organized in combination of ICT and manual work, in a way that enables easy use of high technology by persons with learning disabilities (the communication between employee and machine follows largely pictures, colors or symbols). Clothes are delivered already sorted and ready to put in the wardrobe. Working hours are flexible, organized in shifts and the employees have the opportunity to tailor the working rhythm to their needs. This experience of Aumühle shows that working with modern technology motivates employees with learning disabilities. This is an example of a successful social innovation, integrating people with learning disabilities into the labour market. It addresses their psychological needs (e.g. their sense of belonging, quality of life, dignity, etc.) and creates sustainable jobs in services industry (from TEPSIE, Doing Social Innovation, A Guide for Practitioners).

Definition of Social Innovation by other European CSOs

There are other important initiatives by European CSOs, aimed at defining social innovation and at advocating for a better framework for the promotion of such social innovations that are evaluated as ‘meaningful’ or desirable. Some definitions emphasize ownership over innovation among groups concerned: Social innovations are new concepts and measures to resolve societal challenges, adopted and utilized by social groups concerned’ ( Zentrum für Soziale Innovation).

14 Eurodiaconia has published a Toolkit on Social Innovation, Social Business International organized a conference entitled ‘Social enterprise innovation in services and creating ecosystems of support’, while a debate on social innovation was held at the European Parliament at the initiative of the Social Platform.

SOCIAL INNOVATION AS DEFINED BY THE SOCIAL PLATFORM

According to the Social Platforms’ position, social innovation is meaningful only if it ensures well-being of people and brings added social value. Nine criteria must be met in order for a social innovation to be considered ‘meaningful’ (Social Platform, 2013: 2-3):  Novelty. It can refer to the new social needs, existing practices, approaches or solutions that are applied to a new context or a new social need; new way of applying existing solutions.  Focus on unmet, inadequately met or new needs by reinforcing the implementation of human rights. The innovation clearly identifies a social need that needs to be met in a specific context and is backed up by an analysis showing that existing responses are lacking or insufficient and do not adequately include a rights-based approach.  Assessment sharing. The innovation contributes to gathering more evidence in an area where evidence is limited or lacking and it is shared with all relevant stakeholders.  Informs policy development. The social innovation should also help decision-makers to improve existing approaches, practices, services, or policies.  Potential for up-scaling. The social innovation could work, or be adapted, for different contexts (transferability) or on a larger scale and therefore could be mainstreamed. Scaling up does not necessarily mean transferring a social innovation from one country to another.  Participation and involvement of users, promotion and respect of users’ rights. The innovation promotes and respects users’ rights. Users are associated in the identification of the social need, in the design of responses, and in their implementation and evaluation.  Participation and involvement of all relevant actors in a specific context. The innovation involves a partnership of public authorities, civil society organizations, social economy actors and all the actors that may be relevant for the specific innovation (researchers, academics, trade unions, IT providers, etc.).  Goes beyond technological innovation for the benefit of users, is guided by criteria of public interest and promotes social progress. There should be evaluation showing that the innovation makes improvements for the users.  Has a bottom-up approach to innovation – meaning that starts at local level. Opportunities and threats to social innovation from EAPN’s perspective

Several EAPN members are already engaged in social innovation, and some have been for a long time. However, the current policy framework in the EU raises new challenges for EAPN members, requiring at the same time the necessity to be more systematic, whilst maintaining a cautious approach. Systematic, because new opportunities and better prospects to generate and replicate innovative solutions in poverty reduction and social inclusion can arise with good

15 planning and coherent action across EAPN members. Cautious, because acceptance and engagement in social innovation without a ‘broader picture’ of its role in the provision of universal public services and critical distance can bring many threats that can undermine not only the innovative initiatives of EAPN members, but, more harmfully, universal welfare systems and the wellbeing of people they represent and they support on much larger scale.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION

There are many opportunities to reduce poverty, improve social inclusion, advance wellbeing and social cohesion in local communities, national states and across the EU, through social innovation. From the perspective of EAPN and its members, some of the most important opportunities are:

1) Financial support for experimentation and innovation. Funds are available for assisting NGOs and social economy enterprises in initiating and engaging in new practices. Without specific financial means to dedicate efforts to new, risky activities, with relatively low efficiency at least during the initial phase, organizations do not have resources (time, people, space, means of work, etc.), or willingness (usually risk-avoiding behavior related to changes, or new start-ups in social economy) to innovate. With funds specifically dedicated to experimentation and innovation, NGOs can engage more readily and with better focus with trying new solutions in providing services, starting new activities in the area of social economy, or other. However, there is usually a hefty requirement for very robust evaluation (i.e. randomized control trials), which NGOs have insufficient resources to support.

2) New relations, new partnerships. Engaging in social innovation creates opportunities to develop new relationships, partnerships, coalitions. New partnerships at the local level bring new resources to the service or practice, and new approaches to the needs satisfaction or economic activity, if social enterprises are at stake. This increases the social capital of all engaged actors, and of the local community in which these partnerships are established. It empowers each of the partners engaged in new relationship, bringing them not only the opportunity to successfully introduce the concrete innovation that was the reason to establish the new working relations, but also enables them to recognize various common interests, and to expand the effects of collaboration beyond the concrete innovation.

3) Improved service/performance. Social innovation opens opportunities to improve outreach, particularly in overlooked communities, which have little support from other structures (i.e. expanding home care from urban to rural population areas). It helps to address the unmet needs of groups that were not previously supported (i.e. expansion of home care for the elderly to Roma communities, previously excluded from this services), or were supported only partially and not adequately enough. It helps to satisfy users’ needs in more qualitative and appropriate ways (i.e. from home care of elderly to combined home care and daily centers, which increases the beneficiaries’ social inclusion).

16 4) New perspectives and frontiers. Social innovation stimulates creativity, problem-solving, ‘thinking outside of the box’, offering alternative ways to solve problems / satisfy needs to sometimes rigid, ineffective, and bureaucratic approaches.

5) Empowerment of NGOs as innovators. Social innovations improve the visibility and reputation of leading NGOs, giving them a stronger voice and opening doors to having a more significant impact in advocating and promoting broader policy changes. This can stimulate the emergence of new leadership in civil society, as well as new alliances, and bring new social coalitions in an era lacking ‘big social movements’.

6) Strengthening and empowering EAPN. Through social innovation, partnerships can be strengthened among members of EAPN, which means that National Networks and European Organisations can be empowered, and cross country alliances and collaborations developed around particular social innovation initiatives. All of this can add new strength to EAPN at whole.

7) Raising visibility of actions and issues that otherwise get overlooked in policy agendas. Innovative practices in the field of poverty reduction and the fostering of social inclusion allow awareness raising and visibility for certain issues that were previously neglected or hidden. A successful, meaningful innovative practice for social inclusion can help start the debate on the broader unmet social need.

OBSTACLES AND THREATS TO SOCIAL INNOVATION

Social innovation also faces several important risks in contemporary European societies. These risks appear as major institutional and policy hazards that can endanger the current systems of welfare provision, replacing it with small scale, short-run, and small scope innovative initiatives:

1) The policy focus on social innovation can undermine the role of the State as universal service provider. If this is the case, then important social rights can be reduced, and the State absolved of its fundamental responsibility of granting these rights, as said responsibility is transferred to various actors with uncertain obligations.

2) The promotion of social innovation policy can be misused as justification for austerity cuts. The burden of cuts to services that have proved to work can be transferred to CSOs who should ‘experiment’ and find (cheaper) solutions, mostly by engaging vast amount of voluntary work. 3) Although the impetus for diverse actors from third, profit, and public sector to engage in innovation is basically positive, as well as opening markets for new social services and social enterprises, unmonitored liberalization and privatization of services can lead to the loss of certain services, and it can threaten their previous quality and affordability.

4) Another danger comes from the possibility that universal social services become replaced by targeted services, particularly in the era of austerity policies. The principle to better address

17 specific needs of certain groups can hide the trap of slow abandonment of universal service provision.

5) The social innovation agenda can be used to strengthen the justification for the shift from core funding for civil society organisations to project funding. By financing concrete actions defined in terms of experimentation, CSOs’ resources are captured in these project-oriented activities, and space for activism, broader perspective and engagement in policy lobbying and social action are severely undermined.

6) In addition to the previous point on funding, CSOs’ capacities to act as drivers of social change and promoters of solidarity and social cohesion are undermined strongly by encouraging competition for scare funding, instead of promoting cooperation and complementarity between organizations.

When thinking about engaging with or initiating a social innovation practice, EAPN members are equally encouraged to also be aware of potential threats. Some of the most important could be:

1) Lack of political or financial support, lack of clear legislative context for social economy. Even if there is strong innovation potential in the community, this potential will likely be wasted in the absence of adequate political or financial support. This is particularly an issue in communities/societies which are marked by broader lack of political support for a comprehensive welfare state, within which such innovative practices are being promoted, generated and disseminated. The problem is particularly the lack of funding for grass-root NGOs, and the priority given to profit-making companies or governments.

2) The danger that support to social innovation can reinforce the dominant paradigm, in which main objective is to achieve higher employment, productivity and growth, instead of introducing new ways of integrating people and satisfying their needs, while treating them with dignity and valuing them as more than mere production units.

3) Delayed efficiency can be an obstacle to acceptance of new service or practice. Innovative solutions often do not come with a high level of efficiency. They need to be tested, adjusted, modified, and this requires a certain loss of resources at the initial stages. Therefore, the evaluation of success should be conducted from a longer-term perspective, in order to give a chance to a new practice to deliver results. Contrary to that, project frameworks, or usual evaluation frameworks, are set for short-term, not tolerating such delays in efficiency.

4) Opposition of vested interests could represent a strong obstacle to social innovations, particularly in areas where certain services have a well-established history of provision, and some actors have traditional advantages in access to funds or other needed resources.

18 5) Old mindsets, particularly of people who decide on policies and funds, but also of people who are potential users, or service providers. Often, people stick to previous assumptions, values and norms, while innovative solutions require changes in these mindsets.

6) Poor follow-up for punctual initiatives, which often raise expectations in vain, leaving users and / or beneficiaries disappointed after the completion of project activities.

7) Unsuccessful up-scaling, due to the interference of vested interests, neglect of the specific context, or other reasons, which change the nature of the original service/practice significantly. Lack of involvement of users, detachment from users’ needs and interests are also factors that contribute to unsuccessful upscaling.

Criteria for good practices / Checklist

In order to avoid the risks and threats described, above EAPN proposes list of criteria for good social innovation, in accordance with its definition. The checklist of criteria represents the operationalized definition of social innovation, and therefore it includes same elements, in more detailed and practically defined ways. These criteria include, in EAPN’s view:

1. Effectively reducing poverty and improving social inclusion. The innovation practice contributes directly or indirectly to poverty reduction, improvement of wellbeing, exercise of human rights and life in dignity. The impact can be on the individual level, or at the level of the group, community or society.

2. Types and relativity of novelty. The innovative practice should introduce some novelty in one or more of the following aspects: a. Identification of a new need that was not previously met through services or products. b. Provision of a new product or service that satisfies real needs (individual, collective, community, new or old ones). c. New methods of doing things (producing, delivering services), which can include new technologies, or new forms of organization, or new relations. d. New actors are involved in innovation initiative, which were previously not engaged.

3. Empowering users. A good practice should support and stimulate empowerment while responding to users’ needs, rather than providing only passive support. In this sense, a good practice of social innovation should be feature a bottom-up approach, it should be guided by complete ownership of the people who initiated it, it should be participatory or at least responsive to users’ needs, it should be generated from ideas of CSOs or citizens or, if the practice is introduced ‘from above’ (by decision of the authorities), it needs to garner bottom- up ownership and support, adjusting to the needs and context of the community.

19 4. Strengthening communities. A meaningful social innovation practice should increase social capital – bring new actors to the scene, build new partnerships, alliances, transform social relations in a way that maximizes the participation of users/beneficiaries.

5. Empowering CSOs. A positive innovative practice should raise the reputation and influence of civil society organizations, improve their capacity, create new leaders, enable more power for CSOs to advocate for improved social policies overall.

6. Sustainability. Innovative practices should be sustainable, not one-off interventions with no follow-up, or actions with no permanent/long-term changes. Single actions that are finished after trial or after project funding runs out without having brought about durable change can be considered as experimentations, or pilot initiatives, but not innovation. Sustainability also means enduring organization, which is capable of generating the necessary resources in order to maintain the action over time. In the case of social enterprises, the good practice should demonstrate not only financial sustainability, but also a sustainable business model overall.

7. Transferability / adaptability. Good social innovation brings impacts beyond the single case where it was generated. It offers possibilities to be transferred, adjusted to other groups or contexts, and to create greater impact. Some practice should be enduring, by being reproduced in order to become innovation – however, the practice does not have to be reproduced in the same way as at the beginning, it can be transformed, changed in the scale, adapted, but the core novelty should be there.

8. Accountability. A good socially innovative practice should be transparent, with a high level of visibility in the community, with appropriate internal and external evaluation, end users’ feedback mechanisms, and impact assessment before and after the implementation.

9. Needs to contribute to positive changes in attitudes, mindsets, and values. Good practices increase awareness on social problems, on opportunities to improve inclusion, on benefits from increased wellbeing and better integration of vulnerable groups. It brings changes in values, norms, perceptions of others, decreasing the social distance between groups, while fostering solidarity and cohesion.

10. Complements, but does not replace, universal public services. Good practices in social innovation need not to substitute themselves to comprehensive and universal State service provision.

References

20 Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy (CSTP), Fostering Innovation to Address Social Challenges, OECD, Paris, 2011

Davies, A and Simon, J, (2013). Engaging Citizens in Social Innovation: A short guide to the research for policy makers and practitioners. A deliverable of the project: “The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe” (TEPSIE), European Commission – 7th Framework Programme, Brussels: European Commission, DG Research. Accessed on 16/06/2015 at http://www.tepsie.eu/ .

Eurodiaconia (2014) Toolkit on Social Innovation, Brussels. Accessed on 18/06/2015 at file:///C:/Marija%20poslovni/EAPN/SITF/Literature/innovationtoolkit.pdf

European Commission (2014) State of the Innovation Union. Taking stock 2010-2014. DG General for Research and Innovation, Brussels. Accessed on 18 June 2015 at http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/state-of-the- union/2013/state_of_the_innovation_union_report_2013.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none

J-Pal Europe (2011) Social Experimentation. A methodological guide for policy makers. European Commission, Brussels.

Hyde, Richard; Watson, Steve; Cheshire, Wendy; Thompson, Mark (2007), The Environmental Brief: Pathways for Green Design, Taylor and Francis, p. 44

Mulgan, G, With, S.T, Rushanara, A, Sanders, B. (2006) Social Innovation. What it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated. The Young Foundation, London. Accessed on 15/06/2015 at http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/ideas-impact/skoll/research/social-innovation-reports- resources/social-innovation-what-it-why-it-matters-how-it-can-be-accelerated

Murray, R, CAulier-Grice, J, Mulgan, G. (2010) The Open Book of Social Innovation, The Young Foundation, NESTA, London. Accessed on 19/06/2015, at http://youngfoundation.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/10/The-Open-Book-of-Social-Innovationg.pdf

OECD (2011) Fostering Innovation to Address Social Challenges, Workshop Proceedings, Accessed on 19/06.2015 at http://www.oecd.org/science/inno/47861327.pdf

Social Platform (2013) Social Platform’s position on social innovation, available at http://www.socialplatform.org/wp- content/uploads/2014/02/20131203_SocialPlatform_PositionPaper_social_innovation.pdf

TEPSIE, (2014) ‘Social Innovation Theory and Research: A Summary of the Findings from TEPSIE.’ A deliverable of the project: “The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe” (TEPSIE), European Commission – 7th Framework Programme, Brussels: European Commission, DG Research, accessed on 19/06/2015 at http://www.tepsie.eu/images/documents/research_report_final_web.pdf

21

Load more

  21

Copy Link