Résumés
Abstract
While a significant body of research examines how offline social enterprises scale social impact, research on scaling in the case of digital social innovations is limited. This is an important issue to address because digital social enterprises have different resources at their disposal, which may facilitate or hinder various scaling strategies used by social enterprises. Distinguishing between three scaling strategies (scaling out, scaling up, scaling deep), we develop indicators to account for scaling in digital social enterprises. Using these indicators, we carry out a clustering analysis on a dataset composed of 189 civic engagement platforms in Europe. Our research reveals three types of platforms in terms of their scaling orientations, which are grassroots, technology provision, and data-based.
Keywords:
- digital social innovation,
- civic engagement,
- societal problems,
- digital platforms,
- scaling social impact
Résumé
De nombreux travaux examinent comment les entreprises sociales hors ligne augmentent leur impact social, mais peu analysent comment les innovations sociales numériques accroissent leur impact. Cette question est importante car les entreprises sociales numériques disposent de ressources spécifiques pouvant faciliter ou entraver les stratégies de passage à l’échelle des entreprises sociales. Trois stratégies de passage à l’échelle (par le champ d’action, la portée, et l’enracinement) nous permettent de développer des indicateurs sur le passage à l’échelle des entreprises sociales numériques, qui nous amènent à analyser la concentration des données de 189 plateformes d’engagement civique en Europe. Nous identifions trois types de plateformes au passage à l’échelle spécifique : les plateformes communautaires, celles fournissant des technologies, et celles basées sur les données.
Mots-clés :
- innovations sociales numériques,
- engagement civique,
- problèmes sociétaux,
- plateformes numériques,
- passage à l’échelle de l’impact social
Resumen
Muchas investigaciones examinan cómo las empresas sociales offline amplían su impacto social, pero pocas investigan como escalan las innovaciones sociales digitales. Es una cuestión esencial porque las empresas sociales digitales disponen de recursos específicos que pueden facilitar o dificultar las estrategias de ampliación de empresas sociales. Distinguiendo entre tres estrategias para escalar (en términos de ámbito, alcance y raíces), desarrollamos indicadores para dar cuenta como escalan las empresas sociales digitales. Con estos indicadores llevamos a cabo un análisis de agrupación en datos sobre 189 plataformas de compromiso cívico en Europa. Nuestra investigación revela tres tipos de plataformas en términos de sus orientaciones de ampliación: de base, de provisión de tecnología, y las basadas en datos.
Palabras clave:
- innovaciones sociales digitales,
- compromiso cívico,
- problemas sociales,
- plataformas digitales,
- ampliación del impacto social
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Allen, D. & Light, J. (2015). Introduction. In D. Allen & J. Light (Eds.), From voice to influence, understanding citizenship in a digital age. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
- Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D. & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation: An exploratory study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(3), 260-282. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886304266847
- Andersson, F. O. (2020). A desire for growth? An exploratory study of growth aspirations among nascent nonprofit entrepreneurs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(4), 890-901. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020909146
- André, K. & Pache, A.-C. (2016). From caring entrepreneur to caring enterprise: Addressing the ethical challenges of scaling up social enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(4), 659-675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2445-8
- Arthur, B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Economic Journal, 394(99), 116-131. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234208
- Arolas, E., González-Ladrón-De-Guevara, F. (2012). Towards an integrated crowdsourcing definition. Journal of Information Science. 32(2), 189-200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551512437638
- Avelino, F. et al. (2017). Transformative social innovation and (dis)empowerment. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 195-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.002
- Ayob, N., Teasdale, S., & Fagan, K. (2016). How social innovation ‘came to be’: Tracing the evolution of a contested concept. Journal of Social Policy, 45(4), 635-653. https://doi.org/10.1017/S004727941600009X
- Baker, P., Hanson, J., & Hunsinger, J. (2013). Introduction. In Baker et al. (Eds.), The Unconnected. Peter Lang Publications. https://www.peterlang.com/document/1109350
- Bauwens, T., Huybrechts, B., & Dufays, F. (2020). Understanding the diverse scaling strategies of social enterprises as hybrid organizations: The case of renewable energy cooperatives. Organization & Environment, 33(2), 195-219. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026619837126
- Bennett, L., Chin, B., & Jones, B. (2015). Crowdfunding the future, media industries, ethics and digital society. Peter Lang, New York. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-1-4539-1546-2
- Bhatt, P., Ahmad, A. J., & Roomi, M. A. (2016). Social innovation with open source software: User engagement and development challenges in India. Technovation, 52, 28-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2016.01.004
- Bloom, P. N. & Chatterji, A. K. (2009). Scaling social entrepreneurial impact. California Management Review, 51(3), 114-133. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166496
- Bloom, P. N. & Smith, B. R. (2010). Identifying the drivers of social entrepreneurial impact: An exploratory empirical study. In P.N. Bloom & E. Skloot (Eds.), Scaling social impact: New thinking. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 11-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420670903458042
- Bolzan, L. M., Bitencourt, C. C., & Martins, B. V. (2019). Exploring the scalability process of social innovation. Innovation & Management Review, 16(3), 218-234. https://doi.org/10.1108/INMR-05-2018-0029
- Cantijoch, M., Galandini, S., & Gibson, R. (2015). ‘It’s not about me, it’s about my community’: A mixed-method study of civic websites and community efficacy. New Media & Society, 18(9), 1896-1915. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815616225
- Coleman, S. & Blumler, J. (2014). The wisdom of which crowd? On the pathology of a digital democracy initiative for a listening government. In M. Graham & W. Dutton (Eds.), Society and the internet: How networks of information and communication are changing our lives. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 195-208. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199661992.003.0013
- David, P. A. (1986). Understanding the economics of QWERTY: The necessity of history. In W. N. Parker (Ed.), Economic history and the modern economics. Blackwell Publishers, New York, p. 30-49.
- Davies, R. (2015). Four civic roles for crowdfunding. In L. Bennett et al. (Eds.), Crowdfunding the future. Peter Lang Publications, p. 83-98. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-1-4539-1546-2
- Dees, J. G., Anderson, B. B., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2004). Scaling social impact: Strategies for spreading social innovations. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 1, 24-32. https://doi.org/10.48558/cnnz-7276
- Desa, G. & Koch, J. L. (2014). Scaling social impact: Building sustainable social ventures at the base-of-the-pyramid. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 146-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2013.871325
- Eisenmann, T. R., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. (2009). Opening platforms: How, when and why? In A. Gawer (Ed.), Platforms, markets and innovation. Edward Elgar, p. 131-162. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849803311.00013
- Epstein, M. J. & Yuthas, K. (2012). Scaling effective education for the poor in developing countries: A report from the field. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31(1), 102-114. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.11.066
- Evans, D. S. & Schmalensee, R. (2016). Matchmakers: The new economics of multisided platforms. Harvard Business Review Press.
- Feld, S. L. (1981). The focused organization of social ties. American journal of sociology, 86(5), 1015‑1035. https://doi.org/10.1086/227352
- Franzoni, C. & Sauermann, H. (2014). Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects. Research Policy, 43(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.07.005
- Fung, A., Graham, M., & Weil, D. (2007). Full disclosure: The perils and promise of transparency. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/9780521699617
- Gawer, A. (2009). Platforms, markets and innovation. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849803311
- Geels, F. & J. Schot (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003
- Gümüsay, A. A., Raynard, M., Albu, O., Etter, M., & Roulet, T. (2022). Digital technology and voice: How platforms shape institutional processes through visibilization. In Gegenhuber, T., Logue, D., Hinings, C.R., & Barrett, M. (Eds.), Digital transformation and institutional theory. Emerald Publishing, Bingley, p. 57-85. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20220000083003
- Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society. Edward Elgar, p. 167-194. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262525374.003.0009
- Gilman, H. R. (2017). Civic tech for urban collaborative governance. PS: Political Science & Politics, 50(3), 744-750. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096517000531
- Gossart, C. & Ozman, M. (2020). The dynamics of knowledge flows in online communities: The case of digital social innovation. Paper presented at the 36th EGOS Colloquium (Organizing for a Sustainable Future: Responsibility, Renewal & Resistance), online. https://hal.science/hal-03126624
- Graham, M., Straumann R. K., & Hogan, B. (2015). Digital divisions of labor and informational magnetism: Mapping participation in Wikipedia. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 105(6), 1158-1178. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2015.1072791
- Hine, C. (2017). Digital ethnography. In B. S. Turner, The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Theory. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118430873.est0628
- Illeris, K. (2002). The three dimensions of learning: Contemporary learning theory in the tension field between the cognitive, the emotional and the social. Roskilde University Press, Roskilde.
- Islam, S. M. (2022). Social impact scaling strategies in social enterprises: A systematic review and research agenda. Australian Journal of Management, 47(2), 298-321. https://doi.org/10.1177/03128962211014931
- Kitchin, R. (2017). Thinking critically about and researching algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 14-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154087
- Lazarsfeld, P. F. & N. W. Henry (1968). Latent structure analysis. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
- Ling, M. (2012). Taken for grantedness: The embedding of mobile communication into society. MIT Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8445.001.0001
- Lyon, F., & Fernandez, H. (2012). Strategies for scaling up social enterprise: Lessons from early years providers. Social Enterprise Journal, 8(1), 63-77. https://doi.org/10.1108/17508611211226593
- Mair, J., Gegenhuber, T., Thäter, L., & Lührsen, R. (2023). Pathways and mechanisms for catalyzing social impact through Orchestration: Insights from an open social innovation project. Journal of Business Venturing Insights, 19, e00366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbvi.2022.e00366
- McCaughey, M., & Ayers, M. D. (2003). Introduction. In M. McCaughey & M. D. Ayers (Eds.), Cyberactivism: Online activism in theory and practice. Psychology Press, pp. 1-21. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203954317
- McIntyre, D. et al. (2021). Multisided platforms as new organizational forms. Academy of Management Perspectives, 35(4), 566-583. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2018.0018
- Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2020). Knowles’s andragogy, and models of adult learning by McClusky, Illeris, and Jarvis. In S.B. Merriam et al. (Eds.), Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide. John Wiley & Sons, p. 83-104.
- Möhlmann, M. (2015). Collaborative consumption: determinants of satisfaction and the likelihood of using a sharing economy option again. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14(3), 193-207. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1512
- Moore, M.-L., Riddell, D., & Vocisano, D. (2015). Scaling out, scaling up, scaling deep: Strategies of non-profits in advancing systemic social innovation. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 58, 67-84. http://www.jstor.org/stable/jcorpciti.58.67
- Moulaert, F. et al. (2005). Towards alternative model(s) of local innovation. Urban Studies, 42(11), 1969-1990. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43197218
- Mulgan, G. (2006). The process of social innovation. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 1(2), 145-162. https://doi.org/10.1162/itgg.2006.1.2.145
- Nardini, G. et al. (2022). Scaling social impact: Marketing to grow nonprofit solutions. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 41(3), 254-276. https://doi.org/10.1177/07439156221087997
- Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, Ba and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33(1), 5-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(99)00115-6
- Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(4), 535-569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396
- Odağ, Ö., Melis Uluğ, Ö., & Solak, N. (2016). Everyday I’m Çapuling. Journal of Media Psychology, 28(3), 148-159. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000202
- Ozman, M. & Gossart, C. (2017). What are digital social innovations? The Conversation, published online on 21/06/2017. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/what-are-digital-social-innovations-79066.
- Ozman, M. & Gossart, C. (2019). Digital Social Innovation: Exploring an emerging field. SSRN Working Papers, published online on 07/09/2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3434363
- Parker, G., Van Alstyne, M., and Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy. Norton Publishing, New York. https://dl.acm.org/doi/book/10.5555/3002873
- Pearce, W. et al. (2019). The social media life of climate change: Platforms, publics, and future imaginaries. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews: Climate change, 10(2), e569. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.569
- Piskorski, M. J. (2011). A social strategy. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400850020
- Puschmann, C., Bastos, M. T. & Schmidt, J-H. (2017). Birds of a feather petition together? Characterizing e-petitioning through the lens of platform data. Information, Communication & Society, 20(2), 203-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1162828
- Quan-Haase, A. et al. (2002). Capitalizing on the net: Social contact, civic engagement, and sense of community. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The internet in everyday life. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 291-324. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470774298.ch10
- Rochet, J. C. & J. Tirole (2003). Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association, 1(4), 990-1029. https://doi.org/10.1162/154247603322493212
- Rutten, R. (2016). Beyond proximities: The socio-spatial dynamics of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 41(2), 159-177. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132516629003
- Saldivar, J. et al. (2019). Civic technology for social innovation. Computer supported cooperative work, 28(1), 169-207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-018-9311-7
- Schenk, E. & Guittard, C. (2011). Towards a characterization of crowdsourcing practices. Journal of Innovation Economics & Management, 1(7), 93-107. https://doi.org/10.3917/jie.007.0093
- Schot, J. & Steinmueller, E. (2018). Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Research Policy, 47(9), 1554-1567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.011
- Schultz, P. W. et al. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological science, 18(5), 429-434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01917.x
- Servon, L. J. (2002). Bridging the digital divide. Blackwell, Malden. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470773529
- Seyfang, G. & Haxeltine, A. (2012). Growing grassroots innovations: Exploring the role of community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(3), 381-400. https://doi.org/10.1068/c10222
- Seyfang, G. & Smith, A. (2007). Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics, 16(4), 584-603. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010701419121
- Steiner, C. (2012). Automate this: How algorithms took over our markets, our jobs, and the world. Penguin. https://dl.acm.org/doi/book/10.5555/2564868
- Stern, P. C. (2000). New Environmental Theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/0022-4537.00175
- Stiver, A. et al. (2014). Civic crowdfunding research: Challenges, opportunities, and future agenda. New Media & Society, 17(2), 249-271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814558914
- Sutherland, W. & Jarrahi, M. H. (2018). The sharing economy and digital platforms: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 43, 328-341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.07.004
- Szulanski, G. (2003). Sticky Knowledge: Barriers to Knowing in the Firm. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446218761
- Thies, F., Wessel, M., & Benlian, A. (2018). Network effects on crowdfunding platforms: Exploring the implications of relaxing input control. Information Systems Journal, 28, 1239-1262. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12194
- Tracey, P., & Jarvis, O. (2007). Toward a theory of social venture franchising. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(5), 667-685. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00194.x
- UNDP (2020). The next frontier: Human development and the Anthropocene. https://hdr.undp.org/content/human-development-report-2020
- Uvin, P., Jain, P. S., & Brown, L. D. (2000). Think large and act small: Toward a new paradigm for NGO scaling up. World Development, 28(8), 1409-1419. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00037-1
- van Mierlo, B. & Beers, P. J. (2020). Understanding and governing learning in sustainability transitions: A review. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 34, 255-269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.11.001
- Vermunt, J. K. & Magidson, J. (2002). Latent class cluster analysis. In J. Hagenaars & A. McCutcheon, Applied latent class analysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 89-106.
- von Hippel, E. & von Krogh, G. (2003). Open source software and the ‘private-collective’ innovation model: Issues for organization science. Organization Science, 14(2), 209-223. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.2.209.14992
- Weber, C., Kröger, A., & Lambrich, K. (2012). Scaling social enterprises: A theoretically grounded framework. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 32(19), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2012.15804abstract
- Weller, B. E., Bowen, N. K., & Faubert, S. J. (2020). Latent class analysis: a guide to best practice. Journal of Black Psychology, 46(4), 287-311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798420930932
- Westley, F. & Antadze, N. (2010). Making a difference: Strategies for scaling social innovation for greater impact. Innovation Journal, 15(2), 1-19. https://innovation.cc/document/2010-15-2-2-making-a-difference-strategies-for-scaling-social-innovation-for-greater-impact/
- Westley, F. et al. (2014). Five configurations for scaling up social innovation: Case examples of nonprofit organizations from Canada. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(3), 234-260. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886314532945
- Wu Song, F. (2009). Virtual communities: Bowling alone, online together. Peter Lang. https://www.peterlang.com/document/1143705