Social Innovation and Civic Engagement

Final Report Summary - ITSSOIN (Social Innovation and Civic Engagement)

Executive Summary:
The ITSSOIN project has set out to examine the impact of the third sector on social innovation. This focus has been chosen, because we think that the third sector’s principal contribution to and main impact on socio-economic development lies in the creation of social innovation. We believe that this is at least equally important as the sector’s other, mostly economic, benefits such as revenues, employment, etc., which are not only more easily recognised but also (partly due to this very circumstance) much better studied.
Our main hypothesis is that the third sector is better equipped to foster social innovation than business firms or public agencies. It forms the underlying foundation for deriving a set of testable hypotheses on organisational characteristics, individual actors (with a particular focus on volunteers), and surrounding frameworks for social innovation, including policy, citizen perceptions, and the media.
A combined quantitative and qualitative research strategy drawing on original and survey data was used to examine framework conditions, while case studies were performed to trace major ‘social innovation streams’ of the past years in order to identify enabling and hindering factors. The seven fields studied across nine European countries are: (1) arts & culture; (2) social services & health; (3) environmental sustainability & consumer protection in finance; (4) work integration & community development.

Project Context and Objectives:
Objectives WP1 – Impact of the Third Sector as Social Innovation
WP1 had the aim to specify the conceptual foundations of performance and impact measurement as well as types and patterns of social innovation in contrast to other types of innovation. As part of this objective, relevant processes, third sector structures, and volunteering with a special emphasis on interrelations were reflected. These considerations provided conceptual underpinnings that guided the development of the other work packages. Finally, these first work steps supported the aim to develop testable hypotheses that can in the following be implemented in the various work packages.
Objectives WP2 – Mapping the field
The second work package was conducted with the aim to connect theoretical approaches with existing empirical profiles of the third sector and volunteering. Further, a data update of relevant data on the third sector in 9 European countries was undertaken. To understand the empirical contours of the third sector, we analysed policies, media reporting and citizen perceptions relating to social innovation and the third sector. On that basis another objective was to identify relevant knowledge gaps with reference to the third sector and volunteering based on hypotheses from WP1. Furthermore, a country selection for WP4-7 was performed.
Objectives WP3 – The impact of volunteering on volunteers and on society at large
In order to gain insights on the impact of volunteering on volunteers and on society, first of all methods to estimate the impact of participation in third sector activities on the welfare of participants and the associated effects on society had to be developed. To understand context conditions of volunteering, further knowledge on the hindrances and facilitators of participation in third sector activities across Europe was provided. Lastly, hypotheses on the impact of participation in third sector activities on participants and the meso-level conditions in organisations and macro-level conditions in countries that influence the impact were tested.
Objectives WP4, WP5, WP6, WP7
The empirical field work in all seven fields (WP4 arts & culture, WP5 social services & health, WP6 environmental sustainability & consumer protection in finance, WP7 work integration & community development) had basically the same three objectives:
The central objective in these work packages was to test the hypotheses developed in WP1 for the field level by providing case-based, qualitative, and quantitative data. Therefore, the empirical field work aimed at developing an understanding of the role and the impact of the third sector in terms of social innovation in a comparative cross-national way on some recent and far reaching social innovations. A related goal was to comprehend the relationships between institutional factors, surrounding conditions, and wider societal effects at a state, regional, and organisational level that affect social innovations.
Objectives WP8 – Research and Policy
In WP8, the central findings of the previous work packages were synthesized. Based on the background of the Third Sector as the conceptual driver (WP1), insights from the case work (WP4-7) as well as theoretical and knowledge stemming from WP2 & 3 were merged into a comparative assessment of the role of the Third Sector as a driver for social innovation.

Objectives WP9 – Dissemination
The dissemination of ITSSOIN results is designed to meet high academic standards; at the same time it should inform multiple audiences. Therefore, dissemination activities in different formats were undertaken. With this approach, the goal is to contribute to and develop further ongoing debates on impact, social innovation, third sector organisations, civil society, and volunteering.
Objectives WP10 – Management
WP 10 assured a smooth and productive coordination of the research and communication efforts in ITSSOIN and comprised the following aspects:

• Contract management
• Administrative and financial monitoring
• Implementing and supervising knowledge management and intellectual property rights
• Mediation of decision-making process
• Coordination of deliverables and reporting
• Risk mitigation
• Quality assurance and supervision through feedback loops and by means of advisory board control

Project Results:
Main overview

The ITSSOIN project was divided into ten workpackages, two organising (WP9 & WP10) and eight scientific workpackages (WP1 – WP8).

Starting with an intensive literature review and development of hypotheses, WP1 also gave insights on the structure of Third Sector as social innovation. Furthermore, policy frameworks of the Third Sector as well as perception of Third Sector activities were elaborated. With reference to these deliverables, the ITSSOIN hypotheses were developed and tested in workpackages 4 – 8. Furthermore, in workpackage 2 the media framing of Third Sector activities as well as an empirical analysis of citizen perceptions of the Third Sector were done. Simultaneously, WP3 investigated the role of volunteering and its impact on social innovation. While WP2 was conducted on the macro-level, insights from WP3 refer to the micro-level of the analysis. The results of WP1as well as the main findings of WP2 & WP3 were used for the case studies in WP4-7. In those workpackages, the different fields (WP4 arts & culture, WP5 social services & health, WP6 environmental sustainability & consumer protection in finance, WP7 work integration & community development) were described in detail, both with reference to size and scope of social innovativeness. After a process of selection, the case studies were performed.

Within WP 10, all activities related to management and coordination were combined. Reports and deliverables were submitted on time, according to the revised schedule reflecting the amendment process and in close coordination with the EC. Project meetings and conferences were organised, all issues with dealing with payment and distribution were fulfilled. The communication and everyday work kept the project smoothly running and supported effective and prosperous research and cooperation among partners.

Dissemination activities were undertaken in WP9. The ITSSOIN homepage, templates, leaflets, blog posts and press releases were provided. In addition to six consortium meetings, two conferences (mid-term conference and final conference) and three workshops with external stakeholders were organized.

The specific activities will be described in the appropriate chapters of this report in detail.

WP1: Impact as Social Innovation

Objectives of WP1
WP1 aimed at reconciling the conceptual foundations of performance and impact measurement with the assessment of innovation, specifically social innovation, as a way to define socio-economic and socio-political impact. It further aimed at establishing a link between social innovation and the third sector as an organisational infrastructure for social innovation and volunteers as its individual agents. Altogether, WP1 laid the conceptual foundation for all other ITSSOIN project work efforts, not least by means of developing a set of testable hypotheses.
Work done and results of WP1

Firstly, in WP1 an exhaustive literature review (D 1.1) that merged the strands of (economic) performance measurement, innovation, and third sector research was performed. The result was a significant conceptual basis for the development of project hypotheses (D 1.4) and the empirical work to follow. The conceptual report’s contribution was as follows:
• We have laid out the ITSSOIN project’s main argument for its focus on the investigation of social innovation as one of the key impacts of the third sector. This has been done by illustrating how current attempts of performance measurement, that is impact and outcome measurement, are limited in their capacity to fathom the value created by the third sector.
• We thoroughly screened the commonalities and fundamental differences between classical (predominantly technological) innovation research and the newly emerged interest in social innovation. This has been supported by emphasising (1) the motivational character, (2) the image of innovation, and (3) the primary impact (its postulated main goal) of the different types of innovation.
• We have shown why we can assume third sector organisations to be characterised by a particular potential for social innovation by drawing on the quintessential traits of the third sector’s organisations. These traits have been directly linked to the traits of social innovation, as has been shown in other recent EU projects (TEPSIE, INNOSERV, SELUSI, etc.).
• We have focused on volunteers as individual agents playing a supposedly marked role in those organisations which promote, create, and lever social innovation.

However, WP1 did not only focus on the organisational actors of social innovation but also on its surrounding frameworks, whose importance for a social innovation ecosystem has been underlined by research in the TEPSIE project. In response to the EU’s call for project proposals concerning the socio-economic and socio-political impacts of the third sector ITSSOIN has particularly taken two constituent groups into account: citizens and policy makers.
In D 1.2 we have comprehensively analysed how social innovation is dealt with in current political discourse in order to detect: (1) the overall prominence of the subject, (2) the propelling political agents, (3) the policy connection between different types of innovation, (4) the supposed main actors of social innovation, and (5) the assumed main fields of social innovation. This analysis was based on an online search and generic analysis of relevant policy documents in all nine ITSSOIN countries. It has illustrated marked discrepancies across the ITSSOIN member countries as regards genuine attention for the subject, ranging from a clear recognition (for instance in the UK) to only little mention (for instance in the Czech Republic). Overall, we have detected a significantly underdeveloped policy prominence of the theme and undifferentiated images of the causes, agents, and connections of social innovation to other societal phenomena in national policies, which stands in contrast to the broadened and increasingly more common use of the term at the EU level. Beyond this immediate effect, the research has built the basis for the selection of five key documents per country which were subsequently analysed in depth as regards the above illustrated issues (D 2.2).
In D 1.3 we have provided conceptual arguments for the significance of studying citizen and media perceptions for grasping social innovation in general and third sector involvement in particular. The conceptual report shows that the study of perceptions as regards the third sector, both in terms of citizens’ and media attitudes, is still at a very early stage and to date we lack a clear understanding of how the third sector is perceived and how that might be related to the presence or absence of innovative capacity. This status quo of the research based on a literature review has been used to derive the design for the empirical work on both accounts within the ITSSOIN project. It has enabled a comparative and original media framing analysis across all nine member countries. It has also enabled a descriptive comparative analysis of data sets on citizen perceptions extracted from Eurobarometer and the World Value Survey (both cross-sectional) and the Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey (longitudinal) (see D 2.3 for both).
The previous deliverables together with the conceptual work of WP2 (in D 2.1) culminated in the formulation of a set of hypotheses (D 1.4) on the relation between social innovation and (1) organisational properties, (2) volunteering, (3) institutional frameworks (welfare regimes and variances of capitalist economies), and (4) citizen perceptions and media influence. In particular, the hypotheses on organisational traits were formulated in a way so as not to presuppose a dominance of third sector organisations in social innovation, but rather so as to enable an open analysis of the characteristics of all and any organisations involved in social innovation, which, as the project assumes, will most markedly be displayed by third sector organisations.
A research brief (D 1.5) was provided to inform both policy makers and scholars of the conceptual key pillars and propositions of the ITSSOIN project, mainly in relation to the proposed project hypotheses. In relation to the latter the research brief also more specifically spelled out the research strategy and methods the project has used or intends to use to examine the project hypotheses. The main components of the research strategy include (1) process tracing from social innovation streams to involved actors and (2) strategic action fields to decipher agent constellations involved in social innovation, both of which are essential to the compilation of comprehensive in-depth case studies of clearly recognised social innovation trends; (3) original analysis of existing documents (policy analysis, D 2.2) or original compilation of data sets (media analysis, D 2.3); (4) cross-sectional and panel data analyses, in particular on volunteering and citizen perceptions (D 2.3 and D 3.3); (5) qualitative comparative analysis for condensing the conditions necessary for social innovation, as they derive from the preceding empirical research.
Impact on other workpackages

WP1 had a major impact on other workpackages. Besides the fact that it was used to build the theoretical framework of the ITSSOIN projects, its outcome contributed to the additional workpackages as follows:
• Based on results of WP1, in WP2 the different theoretical approaches were discussed in more detail, trying to match them with empirical data. The focus lied on surrounding frameworks of social innovation, in particular with regard to media, policy, and citizen perceptions. The results of WP1 were also used for developing theoretical frameworks in WP2.
• The results of WP1, especially the hypotheses, matched in the empirical analysis of the case studies in WP4-7. Here, the main findings of WP1 were tested on an empirical basis, taking the results of literature screening and framework conditions into account.
• Furthermore, WP1 had an impact on WP8 in the sense that the hypotheses were tested in a comparative way by using methods of QCA. The Third Sector and its innovative capacity was tested empirically on basis of the case studies, taking the pre-work of WP1 into account.

WP2: Mapping the field
Objectives of WP2
WP2 aimed at discussing different theoretical approaches to the third sector and at matching them with empirical data on the third sector’s state in the ITSSOIN countries. A further aim of WP2 was to shed light on the surrounding frameworks of social innovation and the third sector, specifically with regard to policy, citizen perceptions, and media.
Work done and results in WP2
Firstly, in a combined theoretical and empirical effort we provided three distinct images on the state of the third sector in the nine ITSSOIN member countries and related this to social innovation (D 2.1). The approaches used for classification were (1) welfare regimes, (2) social origins theory, and (3) varieties of capitalism. Guided by the specific implications of these classifications and a localisation of all countries within each frame and based on empirical data gathered by the ITSSOIN partners, we have estimated each of these approaches’ potential for social innovation. The estimations vary as to which countries can be expected to have a higher and which are likely to have a lower social innovation potential, yet with some being quite consistently located at the forefront and others at lower levels. It remains to be tested in the empirical case work of WP 4-7 and the qualitative comparative analysis (WP8) whether these estimations will be proved or disproved. At any rate the classifying exercise proved useful not only for obtaining an updated picture of third sector profiles but also for developing a rationale, that is testable hypotheses as part of D 1.4 on how countries’ socio-economic and socio-political traits affect social innovation potential.
Secondly, with recourse to the policy screening in D 1.2 we performed an empirical in-depth analysis of approximately five central policy documents per ITSSOIN country and at EU level as to the specifics of policy discourse (D 2.2). The analysis of the documents was objectified and aided by a detailed quasi-quantitative coding guide used to capture, for instance, the prominence of social innovation as a general subject or its relation to other types of innovation by word count. The analysis was complemented by a qualitative dimension, describing more broadly the vast hopes pinned on social innovation, the involved actors, and the affected policy levels. All of the latter form a fuzzy set of elements and relations that could hardly be compared across countries. This makes clear that a systematisation and a more informed policy dialogue are needed. In turn, the quantitative analysis has, for instance, revealed the main political actors propelling social innovation, amongst which most often ministries dealing with economic, labour, and social affairs, i.e. national level bodies, can be found. As mentioned in policy documents, ‘Social services’ and ‘healthcare’ have been identified as the most prominent fields of social innovation. We have also performed a cautious hypothesis testing of those expectations relating to criteria of the national states and their policies. This testing has to be informed further by the country-specific and comparative in-depth case studies, which can reveal national or regional differences in contributions to social innovation.
D 2.3 provided an empirical account of media attention as well as an analysis of cross-sectional and longitudinal data of citizen perceptions of the third sector. Within the framework of the media analysis reporting in two national and two regional newspapers in each of the nine partner countries, i.e. in 36 newspapers overall, was considered, whereby the frequency of keywords between 2003 and 2013 was quantitatively analysed and a qualitative account of articles from 2013 provided. This resulted in four key findings: (1) press framing of the third sector is more positive on the local than on the national level, (2) other third sector activities are more pronounced than its contribution to social innovation, (3) the contents of press reporting and policy documents are largely in line, (4) advocacy and service provision are the main roles of the third sector, as reported in the press, but there are huge variances across countries as to where the main emphasis lies. Despite the effort of combining three data sources (Eurobarometer, World Value Survey, and Giving in the Netherlands), there was still a lack of data on citizen perceptions. Based on the data we can still put forth some significant insights. For instance, trust in third sector organisations is generally high in the population, specifically amongst younger people as compared to older ones and volunteers as compared to non-volunteers. It is also perceived to have an impact in a wide range of fields (from health care to employment) and volunteering is considered as benefitting a range of higher level outcomes (e.g. social cohesion, self-fulfilment, etc.). However, based on current accounts it is difficult or even impossible to link these insights on citizen perceptions (back) to social innovation.
In D 2.4 the final country-field selection for the comparative, cross-national case work of WP 4-7 was performed. The selection was predominantly based on two elements: First and foremost, all seven ITSSOIN fields of activity as specified in the grant proposal in all of the ITSSOIN countries were screened to identify the presence or absence of dynamics in the fields and the prominence of social innovation as a relevant subject. This was done to identify the most informative combinations as regards the identification of concrete social innovation streams and to find those country-field combinations which might serve as a counterfactual, i.e. country-field combinations with no or little innovation incidents. Secondly, we tried to perform the selection under consideration of the different classifications performed in D 2.1 so as to obtain a balanced set as regards socio-economic and socio-political country characteristics. We also made sure that the consortium partners’ specific expertise was brought to bear upon the case work.
The insights of the WP were condensed in a policy brief (D 2.5) which resulted in a set of recommendations, of which the following are the most salient in each of the four areas national innovativeness, policy, media, and citizen attitudes: There is a need to (1) enhance the process dimension in studying social innovation to understand it more comprehensively than is currently possible on the basis of mostly static accounts, (2) communicate more clearly the hopes and expectations regarding social innovation and how policies are to be transferred from the EU to the national contexts, (3) resume and resolve mediated controversies concerning the functions of the third sector with regard to social innovation, (4) obtain by means of targeted survey data a clearer image of what citizens think about social innovation.
Impact on other workpackages

Potential Impact:
Main S&T results/foreground
Overview

The ITSSOIN project was divided into ten work packages, two organising (WP9 & WP10) and eight scientific work packages (WP1 – WP8).

Starting with an intensive literature review and development of hypotheses, WP1 also gave insights on the structure of Third Sector as social innovation. Furthermore, policy frameworks of the Third Sector as well as perception of Third Sector activities were elaborated. With reference to these deliverables, the ITSSOIN hypotheses were developed and tested in work packages 4 – 7. Furthermore, in work package 2 the media framing of Third Sector activities as well as an empirical analysis of citizen perceptions of the Third Sector were done. Simultaneously, WP3 investigated the role of volunteering and its impact on social innovation. While WP2 was conducted on the macro-level, insights from WP3 refer to the micro-level. The results of WP1as well as the main findings of WP2 & WP3 were used to inform the case studies in WPs 4-7. In those work packages, the different fields (WP4 arts & culture, WP5 social services & health, WP6 environmental sustainability & consumer protection in finance, WP7 work integration & community development) were described in detail, both with reference to size and scope of social innovativeness. After a process of selection, the case studies were performed with a view on organisational characteristics and institutional structures enabling or disabling the evolvement of social innovation processes that were ‘traced’ systematically after being identified in a iterative consultation process with international experts.

Within WP 10, all activities related to management and coordination were combined. Reports and deliverables were submitted on time, according to the revised schedule reflecting the amendment process and in close coordination with the EC. Project meetings and conferences were organised, all issues dealing with payment and distribution were fulfilled. The communication and everyday work kept the project smoothly running and supported effective and prosperous research and cooperation among partners.

Dissemination activities were undertaken in WP9. The ITSSOIN website, templates, leaflets, blog posts and press releases were provided. In addition to six consortium meetings, two conferences (mid-term conference and final conference) and six workshops with external stakeholders were organized.

The specific activities will be described in the appropriate chapters of this report in detail.

WP1: Impact as Social Innovation
Objectives of WP1
WP1 aimed at reconciling the conceptual foundations of performance and impact measurement with the assessment of innovation, specifically social innovation, as a way to define socio-economic and socio-political impact. It further aimed at establishing a link between social innovation and the third sector as an organisational infrastructure for social innovation and volunteers as its individual agents. Altogether, WP1 laid the conceptual foundation for all other ITSSOIN project work efforts, not least by means of developing a set of testable hypotheses.
Work done and results of WP1
Firstly, in WP1 an exhaustive literature review (D 1.1) that merged the strands of (economic) performance measurement, innovation, and third sector research was performed. The result was a significant conceptual basis for the development of project hypotheses (D 1.4) and the empirical work to follow. The conceptual report’s contribution was as follows:
• We have laid out the ITSSOIN project’s main argument for its focus on the investigation of social innovation as one of the key impacts of the third sector. This has been done by illustrating how current attempts of performance measurement, that is impact and outcome measurement, are limited in their capacity to fathom the value created by the third sector.
• We thoroughly screened the commonalities and fundamental differences between classical (predominantly technological) innovation research and the newly emerged interest in social innovation. This has been supported by emphasising (1) the motivational character, (2) the image of innovation, and (3) the primary impact (its postulated main goal) of the different types of innovation.
• We have shown why we can assume third sector organisations to be characterised by a particular potential for social innovation by drawing on the quintessential traits of the third sector’s organisations. These traits have been directly linked to the traits of social innovation, as has been shown in other recent EU projects (TEPSIE, INNOSERV, SELUSI, etc.).
• We have focused on volunteers as individual agents playing a supposedly marked role in those organisations which promote, create, and lever social innovation.

However, WP1 did not only focus on the organisational actors of social innovation but also on its surrounding frameworks, whose importance for a social innovation ecosystem has been underlined by research in the TEPSIE project. In response to the EU’s call for project proposals concerning the socio-economic and socio-political impacts of the third sector ITSSOIN has particularly taken two constituent groups into account: citizens and policy makers.
In D 1.2 we have comprehensively analysed how social innovation is dealt with in current political discourse in order to detect: (1) the overall prominence of the subject, (2) the propelling political agents, (3) the policy connection between different types of innovation, (4) the supposed main actors of social innovation, and (5) the assumed main fields of social innovation. This analysis was based on an online search and generic analysis of relevant policy documents in all nine ITSSOIN countries. It has illustrated marked discrepancies across the ITSSOIN member countries as regards genuine attention for the subject, ranging from a clear recognition (for instance in the UK) to only little mention (for instance in the Czech Republic). Overall, we have detected a significantly underdeveloped policy prominence of the theme and undifferentiated images of the causes, agents, and connections of social innovation to other societal phenomena in national policies, which stands in contrast to the broadened and increasingly more common use of the term at the EU level. Beyond this immediate effect, the research has built the basis for the selection of five key documents per country which were subsequently analysed in depth as regards the above illustrated issues (D 2.2).
In D 1.3 we have provided conceptual arguments for the significance of studying citizen and media perceptions for grasping social innovation in general and third sector involvement in particular. The conceptual report shows that the study of perceptions as regards the third sector, both in terms of citizens’ and media attitudes, is still at a very early stage and to date we lack a clear understanding of how the third sector is perceived and how that might be related to the presence or absence of innovative capacity. This status quo of the research based on a literature review has been used to derive the design for the empirical work on both accounts within the ITSSOIN project. It has enabled a comparative and original media framing analysis across all nine member countries. It has also enabled a descriptive comparative analysis of data sets on citizen perceptions extracted from Eurobarometer and the World Value Survey (both cross-sectional) and the Giving in the Netherlands Panel Survey (longitudinal) (see D 2.3 for both).
The previous deliverables together with the conceptual work of WP2 (in D 2.1) culminated in the formulation of a set of hypotheses (D 1.4) on the relation between social innovation and (1) organisational properties, (2) volunteering, (3) institutional frameworks (welfare regimes and variances of capitalist economies), and (4) citizen perceptions and media influence. In particular, the hypotheses on organisational traits were formulated in a way so as not to presuppose a dominance of third sector organisations in social innovation, but rather so as to enable an open analysis of the characteristics of all and any organisations involved in social innovation, which, as the project assumes, will most markedly be displayed by third sector organisations. The formulated hypotheses were to be tested against one ‘social innovation stream’ (recognised and major innovations that have affected a field for at least 5 years back from today) each in seven predefined fields of activity: culture & arts; social services; health care; environmental sustainability; consumer protection; work integration; and community development.
A research brief (D 1.5) was provided to inform both policy makers and scholars of the conceptual key pillars and propositions of the ITSSOIN project, mainly in relation to the proposed project hypotheses. In relation to the latter the research brief also more specifically spelled out the research strategy and methods the project has used or intends to use to examine the project hypotheses. The main components of the research strategy include (1) process tracing from social innovation streams to involved actors and (2) strategic action fields to decipher agent constellations involved in social innovation, both of which are essential to the compilation of comprehensive in-depth case studies of clearly recognised social innovation trends; (3) original analysis of existing documents (policy analysis, D 2.2) or original compilation of data sets (media analysis, D 2.3); (4) cross-sectional and panel data analyses, in particular on volunteering and citizen perceptions (D 2.3 and D 3.3); (5) qualitative comparative analysis for condensing the conditions necessary for social innovation, as they derive from the preceding empirical research.
Impact on other work packages
WP1 had a major impact on other work packages. Besides the fact that it was used to build the theoretical framework of the ITSSOIN projects, its outcome contributed to the additional work packages as follows:
• Based on results of WP1, in WP2 the different theoretical approaches were discussed in more detail, trying to match them with empirical data. The focus lied on surrounding frameworks of social innovation, in particular with regard to media, policy, and citizen perceptions. The results of WP1 were also used for developing theoretical frameworks in WP2.
• The results of WP1, especially the hypotheses, matched in the empirical analysis of the case studies in WP4-7. Here, the main findings of WP1 were tested on an empirical basis, taking the results of literature screening and framework conditions into account.
• Furthermore, WP1 had an impact on WP8 in the sense that the hypotheses were tested in a comparative way by using methods of QCA. The Third Sector and its innovative capacity was tested empirically on the basis of the case studies, taking the pre-work of WP1 into account.

WP2: Mapping the field
Objectives of WP2
WP2 aimed at discussing different theoretical approaches to the third sector and at matching them with empirical data on the third sector’s state in the ITSSOIN countries. A further aim of WP2 was to shed light on the surrounding frameworks of social innovation and the third sector, specifically with regard to policy, citizen perceptions, and media.
Work done and results in WP2
Firstly, in a combined theoretical and empirical effort we provided three distinct images on the state of the third sector in the nine ITSSOIN member countries and related this to social innovation (D 2.1). The approaches used for classification were (1) welfare regimes, (2) social origins theory, and (3) varieties of capitalism. Guided by the specific implications of these classifications and a localisation of all countries within each frame and based on empirical data, we have estimated each of these approaches’ potential for social innovation. The estimations vary as to which countries can be expected to have a higher and which are likely to have a lower social innovation potential, yet with some being quite consistently located at the forefront and others at lower levels. The classifying exercise proved useful not only for obtaining an updated picture of third sector profiles but also for developing a rationale, that is testable hypotheses as part of D 1.4 on how countries’ socio-economic and socio-political traits affect social innovation potential.
Secondly, with recourse to the policy screening in D 1.2 we performed an empirical in-depth analysis of approximately five central policy documents per ITSSOIN country and at EU level as to the specifics of policy discourse (D 2.2). The analysis of the documents was objectified and aided by a detailed quasi-quantitative coding guide used to capture, for instance, the prominence of social innovation as a general subject or its relation to other types of innovation by word count. The analysis was complemented by a qualitative dimension, describing more broadly the vast hopes pinned on social innovation, the involved actors, and the affected policy levels. All of the latter form a fuzzy set of elements and relations that could hardly be compared across countries. This makes clear that a systematisation and a more informed policy dialogue are needed. In turn, the quantitative analysis has, for instance, revealed the main political actors propelling social innovation, amongst which most often ministries dealing with economic, labour, and social affairs, i.e. national level bodies, can be found. As mentioned in policy documents, ‘Social services’ and ‘healthcare’ have been identified as the most prominent fields of social innovation.
D 2.3 provided an empirical account of media attention as well as an analysis of cross-sectional and longitudinal data of citizen perceptions of the third sector. Within the framework of the media analysis reporting in two national and two regional newspapers in each of the nine partner countries, i.e. in 36 newspapers overall, was considered, whereby the frequency of keywords between 2003 and 2013 was quantitatively analysed and a qualitative account of articles from 2013 provided. This resulted in four key findings: (1) press framing of the third sector is more positive on the local than on the national level, (2) other third sector activities are more pronounced than its contribution to social innovation, (3) the contents of press reporting and policy documents are largely in line, (4) advocacy and service provision are the main roles of the third sector, as reported in the press, but there are huge variances across countries as to where the main emphasis lies.
Despite the effort of combining three data sources (Eurobarometer, World Value Survey, and Giving in the Netherlands), there was still a lack of data on citizen perceptions. Based on the data we can still put forth some significant insights. For instance, trust in third sector organisations is generally high in the population, specifically amongst younger people as compared to older ones and volunteers as compared to non-volunteers. It is also perceived to have an impact in a wide range of fields (from health care to employment) and volunteering is considered as benefitting a range of higher level outcomes (e.g. social cohesion, self-fulfilment, etc.). However, based on current accounts it is difficult or even impossible to link these insights on citizen perceptions (back) to social innovation.
In D 2.4 the final country-field selection for the comparative, cross-national case work of WP 4-7 was performed. The selection was predominantly based on two elements: First and foremost, all seven ITSSOIN fields of activity as specified in the grant proposal in all of the ITSSOIN countries were screened to identify the presence or absence of dynamics in the fields and the prominence of social innovation as a relevant subject. This was done to identify the most informative combinations as regards the identification of concrete social innovation streams and to find those country-field combinations which might serve as a counterfactual, i.e. country-field combinations with no or little innovation incidents. Secondly, we tried to perform the selection under consideration of the different classifications performed in D 2.1 so as to obtain a balanced set as regards socio-economic and socio-political country characteristics. We also made sure that the consortium partners’ specific expertise was brought to bear upon the case work. Table 1 illustrates the final allocation of fields and countries in which the ITSSOIN case studies were carried out.
Table 1 Overview country selection for empirical case studies in accordance with country vignettes
Field
WP4 WP5 WP6 WP7
A&C Soc. S. Health Env. Sus. Cons. P. Work I. Comm. Sum
Czech Rep. 1 1 1 1 1
Denmark 1 1 1
France 1 1 1
Germany 1 1
Italy 1 1 1 1
Netherlands 1 1
Spain 1 1 1 1
Sweden 1
UK 1 1 1
Sum of Cases 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 27
Sum of cases per WP 4 8 7 8
The insights of the WP were condensed in a policy brief (D 2.5) which resulted in a set of recommendations, of which the following are the most salient in each of the four areas national innovativeness, policy, media, and citizen attitudes: There is a need to (1) enhance the process dimension in studying social innovation to understand it more comprehensively than is currently possible on the basis of mostly static accounts, (2) communicate more clearly the hopes and expectations regarding social innovation and how policies are to be transferred from the EU to the national contexts, (3) resume and resolve mediated controversies concerning the functions of the third sector with regard to social innovation, (4) obtain by means of targeted survey data a clearer image of what citizens think about social innovation.
Impact on other work packages
WP2 had several functions for the following WPs:
• It structured the ITSSOIN countries according to three different classification criteria (Social origins, Welfare states, Varieties in political economies) to enable a sampling in WPs 4-7 that best matched the variety of country types in Europe.
• It provided us with an up to date state of relevant factors affecting social innovation on the macro level, which were built upon in the case-based analysis of WPs 4-7, but most directly in the synthesis of project results in WP8.
• It complemented our research perspective otherwise directed at institutional and organisational structures by exploring the discourse-based and perceptive dimension of social innovation through studying policies, the media, and citizen perceptions.

WP3: The impact of volunteering
Objectives
WP3 aimed at (1) providing knowledge on hindrances and facilitators of participation in third sector activities across Europe, (2) developing methods to estimate the impact of participation in third sector activities on the welfare of participants, and (3) at testing hypotheses on the impact of participation in third sector activities on participants. Throughout this work package one specific form of participation is examined: volunteering defined as unpaid voluntary work in third sector organisations.
Work done and results
Foundational review of the literature. The foundation for the work in WP3 is an overview of the state of the art of research on the dynamics of voluntary work and the mechanisms behind it. In D3.1 an elaborate review of academic and non-academic literature was provided. This review also serves a wider audience of researchers interested in the third sector and practitioners working with volunteers. The review consists of two parts. The first part was written by the coordinating team at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VUA), based on academic publications. The intensity of participation and the societal goals served by third sector organisations and the sources of variance in volunteer choices are discussed. Next, a dynamic model of volunteer choices was developed, distinguishing eight groups of volunteers characterised by their choices in processes of selection, mobility, and socialisation in volunteering. As to the mechanisms behind volunteering, we proposed that the model of eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving can be applied to volunteering, since both activities are forms of prosocial behaviour and are governed by similar mechanisms.
Although explanations of giving and volunteering might be different, we proposed that these mechanisms offer a good starting point for further theoretical and empirical work. Furthermore, we summarised the state of knowledge in the academic literature on characteristics of volunteers and third sector organisations. For the second part of the deliverable, all ITSSOIN partners contributed by searching and summarising non-academic and non-English publications in the ‘grey literature’. VUA collected the input and translated it into an overview of similarities and differences in the conceptualisation of voluntary work, factors that help and hinder volunteering, commonly used organisational strategies, and perceptions of volunteering and the third sector. Although differences exist in the definition of what is perceived as voluntary work, many mechanisms appear to be similar across Europe.
Methodological review. In D3.2 a methodological discussion on how to measure the impact of third sector activities on participants was presented. We started with a basic model of impact, which we further refined. Next we discussed how impact can be measured. We distinguished the source of the measure (reported by the participant or someone else), the dimension of the measure (a change or a current state), and the level of analysis (between or within participants) as important aspects of the kind of estimate used to estimate the impact. We concluded that different ways of estimating differ in the possibilities for causal inference. By systematically collecting and comparing previous empirical studies, we have classified the quality of evidence of the impact of volunteering on different outcome variables. We have concluded that there is considerable scope for improvement. Relatively few publications have used the best available methods.
The impact of volunteering on participants. Building on the conclusions from the methodological discussion in D3.2 in D3.3 we determined our empirical strategy to estimate the impact of third sector activities on participants. Using longitudinal panel survey data from Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and a multi-country panel survey among older adults in Europe, we examined the change over time in four indicators of welfare: self-perceived health, subjective well-being, career status, and social networks. The analyses tested hypotheses from D1.4 using 845,723 observations from 154,970 respondents.
We found that volunteering has the predicted positive effects on health, well-being, and networks, but that the changes are small. The typical size of effect on health and well-being is about 1%. The effects on career outcomes are more complex. There is a vast body of literature on the dynamics between paid work and volunteering, and further research is needed to disentangle the mechanisms at play. The different panel studies offer quite different measures of social networks, varying from the satisfaction with social life to the number of ‘good friends’. Despite these differences we believe that volunteering is beneficial for both the scope and quality of one’s network.
The impact of third sector organisations on volunteers. If volunteering is beneficial for social innovation and the welfare of participants, what can organisations do to enhance voluntary contributions? D3.4 contains the results of qualitative interviews with organisational representatives, volunteers, and former volunteers. We conducted two interviews with volunteer managers of large third sector organisations in the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, France, Spain, Germany, and the Czech Republic. Two organisations were chosen: one in the field of social services that mainly focuses on service delivery and one in the field of environmental protection that mainly focuses on advocacy.
Additionally, in-depth analyses were carried out on refugee organisations in the Netherlands (carried out by NLNA) and sports organisations in Sweden (carried out by SIR). Although sports is not one of the ITSSOIN fields, it offers important insights as one of the largest voluntary sectors. Due to time constraints and the reluctance of organisational representatives to participate, the data contains no interviews from Italy and only one interview was conducted in the UK. The results show that the existence of a central volunteer policy largely depends on the organisational structure. Decentralised organisations provide ample opportunities for local groups to develop strategies and to come up with bottom-up innovations. Although volunteers are important in facilitating social innovation, most innovations are initiated by professionals. Organisations with more voluntary engagement and less ‘unengaged’ forms of volunteering are not more innovative, contrary to the hypotheses formulated in D1.4.
Policy brief. The policy brief (D3.5) summarises the conclusions and offers our recommendations. Although volunteering is a desirable and beneficial activity, its impact should not be overestimated. In the third sector, decentralised forms of organisation can help to encourage bottom-up innovations that rely on volunteers.
Impact on other work packages
Although WP3 was built as a standalone work package, its results had an impact of the upcoming work done in WP4-8. In particular it provided guidance to the aspects of volunteering implemented and tested through expert interviews in WPs 4-7. It also informed the inclusion of the latter aspects into the concluding analysis in WP 8.

WPs4-7: Case studies
The work packages WP4-7 encompass the empirical field work in the fields of arts & culture (WP4), social services and health (WP5), environmental sustainability and consumer protection in finance (WP6), work integration and community development (WP7). The empirical field work has the aim to develop an understanding of the role and the impact of the third sector in terms of social innovation in a comparative cross-national way on some far reaching ‘social innovation streams’. A related goal is to comprehend the relationships between institutional factors, surrounding conditions, and wider societal effects at a state, regional, and organisational level that affect social innovations. The social innovation streams we studied have been identified in a two-step, cross-national expert consultation process. To ensure a good selection of countries analysed in each field, a country selection (D2.4) had been pre-conducted. Table 2 summarises the social innovation streams and the fields and countries in which they were studied.
Table 2 ITSSOIN social innovation streams and country settings
Field
SI stream Countries
Arts & Culture Arts for spatial rejuvenation Italy, France, Spain, The Netherlands
Social Services New governance arrangements to reach marginalized groups Italy, Spain, Sweden, UK
Health The recovery approach to mental health Czech Republic, Denmark, France, UK
Environmental Sustainability Promotion of bicycle use in urban contexts Czech Republic, Denmark Germany, Italy
Consumer Protection Online financial education Czech Republic, Denmark, Spain
Work Integration Cross-sector partnerships Czech Republic, France, Germany, Spain
Community development Self-organized integration of refugees Czech Republic, Italy, UK, The Netherlands

The process tracing performed in WPs 4-7 was led by a set of hypotheses derived from the literatures on social and business innovation (D 1.4). We collected qualitative data, mainly by means of interviews, on more than 15 hypotheses located across three categories: (1) organisational behaviour; (2) organisational resources; (3) organisational structure. We started with describing the state the social innovation stream is in at present and traced back to its origins, spotting critical junctions, actors and other moderating factors on the way. We generated in-depth, qualitative data on each stream, but also condensed results in a quantitative analysis. The results were specific actor traits and field conditions that enabled the social innovation to occur.
In addition to a cross-country comparison of results in each field, in WP8 ITSSOIN also aims at a comparative analysis of research results across all analysed country-field combinations. To allow for a comparability of the country-field analysis, a general case study framework for the field work has been developed. This framework provided guidance for the empirical work in each field by elaborating the general outline and work steps for the three deliverables in WP4-7: the field description, the case selection, and the actual case study. Thus, while the work in each WP 4-7 is unique, all of them share a common strategic research approach.
WP4: Social innovation in Arts & Culture
Objectives in the field
WP4 aims at testing the hypotheses developed in WP1, which concern the field of culture and arts. In order to reach this objective, case-based, qualitative and quantitative data were used. Moreover, it aims at understanding, through cross-national comparisons, what has been the role and impact of the third sector in terms of social innovation over the last five years and how institutional factors, surrounding conditions, and wider societal effects interact with one another at different levels, namely the state, regional, and organisational level.
As remarked above WP 4-7 all follow the same approach, which is composed of several sub-steps that become sufficiently clear when explained once. Therefore the first parts of the description of WP4 (marked in italics) shall serve as a model for WP5, 6, 7. The latter will focus on the generated insights exclusively.
Work done and results in the field of arts & culture
Based on the general guidelines on the case study framework provided by UHEI, the WP leader defined structured guidelines for the participating partners, in order to both better coordinate the work for the final output and to develop an in-depth analysis within their field. First, all partners prepared country vignettes on the general state of the respective field in their country, with a particular emphasis on innovative developments (D 4.1). Based on an expert consultation all partners together then selected a specific ‘social innovation stream’ among the identified trends (D 4.2).
These two pre-steps presented the grounding for the main task to be fulfilled, namely the ‘process tracing’ of the selected social innovation stream. It started with the state of the innovation as of today and then traced it back to spot critical milestones and actor involvement in its evolvement. These were identified by means of literature review, desktop research, semi-structured expert interviews (about 30-60 organisational and independent experts in each investigated field), and partly questionnaires that the WP leader developed in accordance with a general investigation framework provided by UHEI. The latter was composed so as to make sure that the gathered data would be suitable for the quasi-quantitative testing by means of QCA in WP 8 and generate in-depth qualitative insights for a detailed case discussion within the WPs at the same time.
While the results of the QCA, which aims at testing the detailed hypotheses on organisational traits and context conditions developed in D 1.4 are reported in the section on WP 8, the summary of results provided here (and in WPs 5-7) focuses on the qualitative in-depth insights generated. These insights cover organisational types and interplays and well as the traits exhibited by the actors. They also briefly sketch the evolvement of the respective social innovation stream. All of this is performed with a particular emphasis on cross-national differences.
The main results of the examination of the development of the social innovation stream “social cohesion in contexts of culture-led place rejuvenation” in Italy, Spain, France and the Netherlands are twofold:
First, different paths of development characterize the evolution of the stream in the different countries under study.
In Italy and the Netherlands the evolution of the stream has predominantly focused on bottom-up initiatives initiated and managed by third sector organisations. In both countries, private organisations (e.g. private grant making organisations) and the local public administration are playing an important role in promoting cultural entrepreneurship initiatives with social vocation by increasing their support to these organisations in terms of visibility, legitimacy and technical assistance and by facilitating the development of their projects through effective urban regeneration policies (in particular in the Italian case). In Spain and in France, both bottom-up and top down logics characterize the development of the stream. Specifically, in Spain, the social innovation stream emerged and developed as a cross-sector partnership between public and third sector organisations that cooperated in the co-creation and co-development of cultural initiatives with a strong social vocation. Whereas the social innovation has come mainly from the public sphere (a provincial museum and civil servants), the local social community and third sector organisations have been really strong since the early stages of evolution of the stream and are an essential component of the social innovation.
The evolution of the stream is also characterized by different degrees of disruptiveness with respect to previous place regeneration initiatives in the different countries involved in the study. In Spain and France the innovation stream has evolved slowly as a ‘soft’ revolution while in Italy the innovation brought a more radical departure compared with previous place rejuvenation activities. This radical transformation concerns the type of cultural activities or genres proposed to bring social cohesion in contexts of urban regeneration, the social objectives pursued as well as the process through which these activities are conducted.
As for the stage of evolution of the stream, in Italy, in France and in the Netherlands organisations have tested cultural initiatives aimed at social cohesion in contexts of regeneration but are still striving to make their models economically and technically sustainable on a long term basis to scale up their initiatives. In this respect, additional resources are needed to further sustain and expand the innovation stream. By contrast, in Spain, the stream is in an advanced stage of development, which corresponds to the scaling phase.
Second, the main results of this study show the great ability of nonprofit organisations to pursue social cohesion outcomes through cultural initiatives in contexts of place rejuvenation.
In Italy and in the Netherlands non-profit organisations provide the highest contribution to the stream, outperforming the commercial sector in this regard. Similarly, in Spain and in France the contribution of these organisations to the stream is relevant. In the Spanish and French cases, however, public organisations give an important contribution to the stream as well by creating and developing cultural initiatives aimed at social cohesion in contexts of place rejuvenation, sometimes in partnership with third sector organisations (as it happens in Spain). The contribution of nonprofit organisations to the stream is facilitated by the development of a huge web of relationships with different kind of actors from various sectors (public, for profit and nonprofit) that support and facilitate their actions. Sometimes these actors become co-creators or co-designers of the nonprofit organisations’ initiatives.
A high attention to social needs, pro-social values and a high social capital are the most important characteristics exhibited by the nonprofit organisations that contributed the most to the stream. These organisations are also able to develop and maintain diverse and high quality relationships with different actors and organisations that support their ability to produce social innovation in the form of social cohesion in contexts of culture-led place rejuvenation. In this respect, the creation and maintenance of high-quality relationships with the residents of the communities where they operate are important for these organisations to gain knowledge of the economic, social and cultural traits of those communities, which is essential to identify and better satisfy their social needs. At the same time, a diverse network of cooperative relationships with different public and private nonprofit organisations provides them with access to different flows of resources (reputational, technical, financial, relational and brokerage access) that are essential for these organisations to achieve social cohesion outcomes through cultural initiatives and to further develop their activities over time.
Impact on other work packages
Applicable to all other WPs 4-7: This WP unfolds its full potential only in conjunction with the other corresponding WPs, since only in their entirety are the empirical studies able to highlight whether there are shared conditions (organisational and institutional) that contribute to social innovation; and also whether there are others that are highly context dependent. This synthesis is performed in WP 8. Each WP, however, of course also has a high value as individual outputs of the research.

WP5: Social innovation in Health & Social Services
Objectives in the fields (shared by all WPs 4-7)
WP5 (subfields: health & social services) aims at testing the hypotheses developed in WP1, which concern the field of culture and arts. In order to reach this objective, case-based, qualitative and quantitative data were used. Moreover, it aims at understanding, through cross-national comparisons, what has been the role and impact of the third sector in terms of social innovation over the last five years and how institutional factors, surrounding conditions, and wider societal effects interact with one another at different levels, namely the state, regional, and organisational level.
Work done and results in the field of health
The ‘recovery approach’ is an important social movement, which led to a wide range of important innovative practices and activities in the mental health field. In line with the principles of the social model of disability (and opposing those of the medical model) it is focused on person’s ambitions rather than their illness. We investigated the recovery approach across four European countries: Czech Republic, Denmark, France and United Kingdom (with a focus on England). In each of the four countries we examined the role of individuals, organisations and sectors over time and identified important milestones (legislation, policies, events, developments in practice, publications).
In all four countries the recovery approach could be traced as a social movement although it was more difficult in France where the recovery approach was not as developed (yet). The important role of the third sector in influencing mental health policy at the national level was evident in all four countries. Furthermore, bottom-up developments of innovations were often third-sector led or they were reliant on a third sector infrastructure. The private sector did not have a role in driving the recovery approach in any of the countries. Cross sector partnerships between the third and public sector were important facilitators of the recovery approach at local, regional and national levels. The formation of such partnerships took different shapes within each country setting. National service-user led organisations, think tanks and research centres played an important role in driving policy change at a national level in all four countries.
In some countries government funded bodies were dedicated to promote the recovery approach or some of the principles of the recovery approach. The recovery approach was incorporated into national policy in two of the four countries but occurred in form of practice developments in all four countries. In those countries in which the recovery approach had been included into national policy, experts were more likely to report that the recovery approach had reached the scaling stage. National and international legislation on disability and on mental health had an important but more indirect role in enabling changes.
It was difficult to derive conclusions about levels and impact of (de-)commodification and stratification across countries. It appeared that the recovery approach was in some countries in potential conflict with social protection and welfare ideologies. The recovery approach had the potential to lead to commodification of certain types of skills and support that were not part of the traditional welfare offer. In regards to stratification, the recovery approach was likely to lead to the inclusion of groups of people that had been marginalised before.
Organisations that were driving the implementation of the recovery approach locally had in common that they were highly value-driven and supported stigmatised and vulnerable groups. The engagement of volunteers – who often offered peer support or expertise from their experience as service user – was an essential part of their work. Most third sector organisations operated openly internally and externally: For example, some them employed shared decision making processes or they actively supported the flexible transition between roles (for example from service use to volunteer and from volunteer to staff).
Most third sector organisations (including those contracted by government) spent considerable time promoting the benefits of what they were doing or of the recovery approach more generally to public sector providers and to communities more widely. This form of ‘advocacy’ allowed them to secure funding. Advocacy and service provision was thus seen as going hand in hand. Working with the community was an important part of their work. Third sector organisations, in particular those that provided support to individuals, had close links with their local communities. Third sector organisations were more likely to report to be able to act independently of political or media pressures than public sector organisations. They were more likely to report financial challenges as a hindering factor in their ability to innovate.
Overall, it was interesting to note that changes could be traced to the efforts of individuals (moreso than organisations) who shared similar values and acted as pioneers at the national level and as social entrepreneurs at the local or regional level. Future research should shed light on the roles of such pioneers and social entrepreneurs in innovation processes and explore country differences.
Work done and results in the field of social services
The social innovation stream chosen in this field was a rather broad one pointing at ‘new governance arrangements to reach marginalised groups’. It comprised telecare services in Spain and the UK as well as new forms of investment in Italy (social impact investment) and volunteer centres in Sweden. Across the countries, the evolution of the social innovation can be considered to be struggling to meet the sustaining stage. What we can actually appreciate is that there are feedbacks and loops between different evolutionary stages and also a certain degree of overlapping between prototyping and pilots where (new, additional) solutions are being tested and refined, and sustaining the social innovation with steady funding and supporting legislation and regulations. There are differences and specificities of the evolution with regard to countries, organisational actors and even the different particular aspects of the social innovation stream. However, overall and from an all-embracing perspective, this seems to be the most accurate placing of the social innovation.
In Spain for instance telecare was introduced as a technological innovation some 25 years ago. But only recently a true social service has developed, new governance arrangements have emerged to further evolve it, there is supporting legislation, public funding is largely secured, quality standards and certification processes have been established, telecare is well-known by the population and demand exists, there are many providers, and the service has been largely mainstreamed. However, incremental innovations are constantly being tried out (new profiles of end-users, new services, new products, etc.) and not all of these have reached broad acceptance or have been implemented beyond local or specific contexts.
And though it is true that beneficiaries have needs that are attended to by the collaborative action of actors in different sectors, they are still far from being empowered as citizens who participate in decision making regarding telecare services designed to improve their own independency. In the best case scenario, beneficiaries are only informed or consulted about existing alternatives. Although the objective patent in the discourse of most of the involved organisations is to empower them, this has been achieved to a limited extent.
In regards to the actors involved, the third sector is a key organisational actor for the social innovation in Spain, introducing the social innovation and leading changes to improve it (although as service provider it faces fierce competition from business organisations). In Italy, the business sector seems to take a predominant role as main investor but hybrid third sector organisations are the ones being promoted as the best actors. In UK it is interesting to note the relevance of researchers and research organisations. What is interesting to note is that the social innovation seems to move forward where there is state support; that is, where the state provides a favourable regulatory and financing framework for the social innovation. At the same time, when state intervention moves beyond supporting or facilitating, and towards taking over the social innovation, it risks hindering it.
The analysis of the evidence collected does not allow for unequivocal conclusions about which socioeconomic sector contribute the most to social innovation. What the evidence suggests is that it depends more on the role played by the different actors, than on the socioeconomic sector they belong to. Despite the limitations evoked by studying different specific innovations under one umbrella, the present investigation advances knowledge in regards to the types of innovations, the types of partnerships and the objectives and level of citizen empowerment as attempts to govern social services systems in order to try to bridge the gap between demand and supply in a context of an increased concern about (financial) sustainability of social services systems.
Impact on other work packages (shared by all WPs 4-7)
Applicable to all other WPs 4-7: This WP unfolds its full potential only in conjunction with the other corresponding WPs, since only in their entirety are the empirical studies able to highlight whether there are shared conditions (organisational and institutional) that contribute to social innovation; and also whether there are others that are highly context dependent. This synthesis is performed in WP 8. Each WP, however, of course also has a high value as individual outputs of the research.

WP6: Social innovation in Consumer Protection & Environmental Sustainability
Objectives in the fields (shared by all WPs 4-7)
WP6 (subfields: consumer protection & environmental sustainability) aims at testing the hypotheses developed in WP1, which concern the field of culture and arts. In order to reach this objective, case-based, qualitative and quantitative data were used. Moreover, it aims at understanding, through cross-national comparisons, what has been the role and impact of the third sector in terms of social innovation over the last five years and how institutional factors, surrounding conditions, and wider societal effects interact with one another at different levels, namely the state, regional, and organisational level.
Work done and results in the field of consumer protection in finance
The social innovation stream investigated in consumer protection is ‘online financial education for alternative financial services’ (AFS). The considerably ambivalent phenomenon of AFS can be understood as both representing a socially more embedded and responsible alternative to the traditional banking system (which is during crisis less accessible for lower-income consumers), and as well as potentially threatening concept for those socially vulnerable groups. The field of AFS has become very dynamic during the Great Recession (2007 – 2009); it gained a new momentum in the last decade also thanks to its shift towards online forms of service provision. Our unit of analysis is an online educational project - a website specializing in education and awareness-raising of any potentially vulnerable social groups (ethnic minorities, elderly citizens, children and students etc.).
Based on desk research, expert interviews and media analysis, the SI projects, as units of analysis, were selected. In the next step, an online network analysis was conducted in order to map the strategic action field (a particular unit of collective action in the society defined by its primary focus) in order to depict the set of key actors in the area of our focus and their relations. Finally, all generated online projects were coded (for their organizer, target group, method of education, main sponsor and age) and hierarchical cluster analysis was applied in order to select two platforms representing most different groups of projects in each country. Subsequently, two core SI projects per country were chosen.
Country field comparison can be briefly summarized as follows. The gradual transition of educational projects from offline to online formats can be traced both in the Czech Republic and Spain, in a limited way also in Denmark. Online format thus actually represents an innovation enabling broader impact on a wider audience. A common feature of all three compared systems is the partnership principle. However, the partnership takes different shapes within individual national settings in terms of the leadership and level of participation. In the Danish context, consumer protection is driven by partnerships among the government, municipalities and various civil society organizations. Spain is typical by the crucial role of wide cooperative networks of actors with the emphasis on alternative and solidarity economy principles. On the contrary, in the Czech Republic, business is very often one of the pillars of the innovation process, while other sectors do not play such significant role. The type of the partnership is reflected also in the field dynamism which has been both top down and bottom up, representing broader trends within the national contexts.
The financial and economic crisis influenced the national systems in different ways. In Denmark, the direct impact on consumers may be evaluated as moderate. In the Czech Republic, the financial crisis worsened the availability of bank loans, especially for people with lower incomes while in Spain, economic crisis resulted in a general distrust towards the traditional banking system and financial markets with several substantial institutional consequences.
We identified the innovation as rather radical in the Czech case, more incremental in the case of Spain and rather incremental in the case of Denmark. In terms of timing, the innovation was earliest in Spain and evolved rather moderately, emerged later in the Czech case but was more extensive. The last country hit by this innovation was Denmark, which also witnessed the least extensive evolution of this innovation. In terms of quality or scope of the innovation in selected countries, some differences may be also identified and different patterns were observed in the originality of the social innovation, too.
As a notable by-product of the research, identifying the different roles of business actors can be named. In Denmark, business is employed in a „non-profit“ manner, building on prosocial values, while in Spain we can identify significant element of social entrepreneurship and extensive cooperating networks. On the other hand, almost strictly for-profit motives of the Czech private actors have been found, although in a form of CSR, when business is very often one of the pillars of the innovation process, while other sectors do not play such significant role.
Voluntary engagement appeared to be a relevant factor in Spain and Denmark, while it is relatively minor in the Czech model which is given by the leading role of business in the examined partnerships. As far as country differences are considered, we can identify a similar degree of organizational culture openness in major actors in Denmark and Spain. The Czech Republic represents an exception, since characteristics of internal organizational culture varies significantly between organizations under the study. High external organisational openness is a key attribute of all actors, contributing to the selected SI activities across all three countries.
Work done and results in the field of environmental sustainability
The stream of innovation identified in the area of Sustainability in Cities is ‘sharing space in cities for bicycle mobility’. Promotion of bicycle use and sharing space for bicycle mobility in cities play a strong part in contemporary international policy narratives about sustainable cities. The empirical work compares four pre-selected cities Copenhagen, Brno, Milan and Frankfurt.
The research resulted in the development of a thick story for each city, tracing the evolution of the stream of innovation, and identifying moments of contention, the influence of the actors and the type of narratives and their evolution over time. The deep interview analysis was based on the coded responses according to three categories of influence from the actors in interplay: political, socio cultural and strategic-material-infrastructural. The city comparison identifies different contributions of actors, in context, over time, and in greater of lesser degrees for the three areas of influence that helped in gaining further understanding about the relative strength and significance of contextual factors and the actors’ contributions.
In the comparative analysis, Copenhagen emerged as the city with the most vibrant stream of innovation in sharing space for bicycling of the four cities. Copenhagen demonstrates effectively that the more narratives and claims presented and sustained by actors in their interplay, the greater the infusion of life and value creation by the stream of innovation. The other three cities, Frankfurt, Milan and Brno illustrate streams of innovation exhibiting circulation and presence of fewer narratives. The comparison between cities indicates the strength of the dynamic relationship among actors, and the way in which their interplay over time, progresses and contributes to the formation of a shared value system for using the space for bicycling.
Copenhagen most vividly exemplifies the existence of multiple plausible links and positive feedback loops re-enforcing a value system for sharing space for bicycles. Here, the value created reproduces and induces high innovativeness from all actors, in a permanent display of new possibilities added to the stream of innovation, many with potential to enhance the overall system performance. As a downside to this the fact is that, within Denmark, this high level of stream innovativeness is proving to be hard to reproduce, to the same degree. This is because Copenhagen in this area has become a magnet of social innovation in this sector, attracting the most talented and energetic individuals, businesses and political leadership in Denmark; all of them greatly contributing to finding ways of sharing space for bicycling, as bike users, innovators, entrepreneurs, or politically minded individuals.
In Frankfurt, the social innovativeness impact has produced also a strong and well-developed value system, but one that is less rich in narratives than Copenhagen. The innovativeness in the field in Frankfurt is advanced more directly with active involvement of state. The innovativeness is geared toward creating a safe system of bike lanes, parking spaces, inter-connectedness of bike lanes, parking and public transport, etc. All that is demonstrated in the Frankfurt model has a great chance of replication across Germany and elsewhere, for its practical approach, however the attractiveness to users is still mild and increases in bike ridership has recently stagnated.
In Milan, the value system of innovativeness for sharing space for bike use is led by interventions from a new elected Municipal government working in cooperation with the private market sector. Together they have put out ideas commercializing a brand that targets bicycle use as fashionable part of youth culture. Milan has the market and the state as the primary innovating actors in the field; however, safe conditions for increasing bicycle use volumes are still limited or even not available as compared with the previous two cities. Milan’s creative state/market interaction and innovativeness in this area has a good chance to be replicated in other cities in Italy, but the lack of infrastructure conditions for safe bicycling in the city means that sharing space for bike ridership is not bound to spread to all people equally, and therefore it can be expected only to exhibit weak advances under these circumstances.
In Brno, the value system for sharing space for bicycling is challenged by the force of a strong narrative questioning what can be the meaning of sharing in a society that has been transitioning from post-socialism to market. People here feel they are ready to buy and use automobiles if they can afford them. An additional challenge is the physical/geographic conditions which may limit the spread of bicycle use by people of all ages and physical conditions in levels that are possible in flatter cities. The stream of innovativeness in Brno is the most incipient of the four cities and is led by the state, with mixing degrees of support from civil society and market. The business sector in Brno although incipient is ready to capitalize and make inroads replicating innovative approaches from cities like Prague and Vienna, but is counting on a less than supportive and sometimes quite opposed environment from the general population and organized civil society organizations.
Impact on other work packages (shared by all WPs 4-7)
Applicable to all other WPs 4-7: This WP unfolds its full potential only in conjunction with the other corresponding WPs, since only in their entirety are the empirical studies able to highlight whether there are shared conditions (organisational and institutional) that contribute to social innovation; and also whether there are others that are highly context dependent. This synthesis is performed in WP 8. Each WP, however, of course also has a high value as individual outputs of the research.

WP7: Social innovation in Community Development & Work Integration
Objectives in the fields (shared by all WPs 4-7)
WP7 (subfields: work integration & community development) aims at testing the hypotheses developed in WP1, which concern the field of culture and arts. In order to reach this objective, case-based, qualitative and quantitative data were used. Moreover, it aims at understanding, through cross-national comparisons, what has been the role and impact of the third sector in terms of social innovation over the last five years and how institutional factors, surrounding conditions, and wider societal effects interact with one another at different levels, namely the state, regional, and organisational level.
Work done and results in the field of community development
We studied ‘self-organized community development with refugees’ as a social innovation. Preliminary investigations by the research team suggested that a novel development is that bottom-up initiatives are increasingly recognized as legitimate stakeholders in community development processes. The report applies a ‘minimal definition’ of community development: local activities to establish and strengthen durable relations between refugees and members of the host society, allowing for processes of shared decision-making. We take self-organization to refer to both ‘refugee self-organizations’ and to ‘grassroots initiatives of members of the host society for or with refugees’. The empirical work was carried out in four European cities: Utrecht (the Netherlands), Milan (Italy), Birmingham (United Kingdom) and Brno (Czech Republic).
The Dutch case is characterized by a tendency to move from initiatives for refugees to initiatives with refugees (here referred to as co-production). In spite of this, earlier-founded self-organizations of refugees are less recognized as relevant players with respect to community development. Utrecht is a city with a generally generous attitude toward helping refugee integration, not only by the third sector, but also by the local government. In the Italian case, community development is not the prime objective in dealing with refugees: a substantial part of all refugees does not intend to stay. Therefore, the study reports on a ‘counter case’ in Milan: the ‘Migrants Hub’ in the central train station, an innovation in refugee transit management. The Hub is supported by a wide network of organizations, including commercial firms. The English case is characterized by a ten year-effort to move toward a refugee community support infrastructure in Birmingham at a time when government funding has dried up. Nevertheless, Birmingham is a City of Sanctuary, in which many volunteers work hard on developing communities. The Czech case is characterized by making the shift from being a transition country to becoming an arrival country. Self-organized community development with refugees is still in its relatively early stages. Like in Milan, but unlike in Utrecht and Birmingham, the organizations that were interviewed do not focus exclusively on refugees.
Even though the countries differ in the extent to which they work on community development with refugees, communities (as a support base) and networking (as an instrument) are generally important across all cases, at least for recruiting support and developing new, local networked ways of working with refugees. Bottom-up initiative both reflects the desire of people to be involved in addressing social issues, and a need to cope with heavily restricted public services. Despite the appreciation of the efforts of volunteers, there is a feeling that a larger role for the third sector may not be an innovation, but a mere substitution of public services.
Refugee self-organizations and grass roots initiatives of citizens step in when public institutions in the asylum system are unable or unwilling to cope with sudden changes in the number of new arrivals (often due to negative public opinion). Restrictive policies have limited public facilities for community development with refugees since the turn of the century. Bottom-up initiatives (and other NGOs) have attempted to fill this gap, often advocating for more generous public support. Some initiatives strive after local impact, other after impact on the national level.
The organizations and initiatives we investigated are generally highly oriented toward social needs. They are rather oriented towards service delivery than to advocacy. Advocacy often happens cautiously, through indirect channels, although some (British) organizations have argued that it can be very beneficial to link it to service delivery. They work on the basis of values like trust, tolerance, human rights or respect for diversity and hospitality. Collaboration between organizations with different values is often possible if the shared intention is to support refugees. Organizations generally seem to be fairly open, both in terms of having a non-hierarchical organizational structure, and in terms of being open to collaboration for specific shared concerns. Sharing a neighborhood is not a prime factor for organizations to collaboration, but a new refugee shelter in the area can be a cause for new initiatives and collaborative efforts.
What relations do these entities establish within their local contexts? In all four cities, the local government is supportive and seeks cooperation with the third sector. Cities are often in conflict with their national governments. Companies are not dominant in ‘self-organized community development with refugees’. The organizations and initiatives studied generally operate in loose networks around particular themes or focal points.
Work done and results in the field of work integration
As a result of a cross-country comparative characterisation of social innovation in the field we observed that in each of the countries (Spain, Czech Republic, Germany, France) five interesting phenomena were identified: WISEs (Work Integration Social Enterprises), cross-sector partnerships, work integration initiatives that try to scale their social impact, quality management in work integration initiatives, and integrative approaches to disadvantaged people.
‘Cross-sector partnerships’ were selected as the most promising new avenue by a cross-national panel of experts. We will further narrow down our focus by looking at work integration programs through transitional initiatives, organizations or programs which target disadvantaged persons, meaning long-term unemployed people (people whose time unemployed exceeds one year) with low qualification. The aim of a transitional occupation is to give a work experience to these disadvantaged people with the purpose of achieving their integration in the open labour market.
In each country, some representative cross-sector partnerships were identified:
• Spain: `Together for the employment of the most vulnerable people´ (Juntos por el empleo de los más vulnerables) is a big cross-sector partnership federating more than 1,000 organisations.
• Czech Republic: Change is possible is a cross-sector partnership between the Vinařice Prison and A-Giga, a private firm, specialised in telemarketing to develop the work of prisoners through a job in a call-center.
• Germany: ‘Arrivo’ is a project operating in Berlin, which focuses on the work integration of refugees. ‘Rock Your Company!’ is a cross-sector partnership run nationwide whose goal is the work integration of the young people and more recently of refugees.
• France: Les jardins de Cocagne de Limon is an initiative of organic vegetables production by people in work integration. Id’ées Interim is a partnership between Group’Idées, a WISE, and Adecco to achieve the economic inclusion of disadvantaged people.
We notice a substantial diversity across countries that remains largely inexplicable. Some exogenous events in some countries seems to have a strong effect on the dynamic of the cross sector partnerships (the refugee crisis in Germany and the economic crisis Spain) when it seems to be more endogenous in Czech Republic and France.
The examination of organisational-level data does not throw up much light on the drivers of social innovation. We were not able to discern any relationship between the list of variables that we tested and the contribution of these organisations to the social innovation stream described above, for example, social needs orientation, organisational openness and independence from external pressures. This is in itself is a notable finding from this work package, and it deserves careful verification.

One result is of particular note given the central hypothesis of the ITSSOIN project (the third sector as the key actor for social innovativeness), is the lack of a relationship between sector orientation and social innovativeness. No sector led the drive towards cross-sector partnerships, neither in country nor across country. If we can discern the inklings of a pattern, it is that the state is less often present as a partner in a CSP. Yet, this does not necessarily imply that the state plays a less important role. Indeed, in France, the state never appears as a partner in our sample. Yet, the state acts as a catalyst, providing a legal framework, subsidies that encourage cooperation, and a forum, which, amongst other things, gave rise to cross-sector encounters.
Whilst substantial differences emerge as to organisational form across countries, a more coherent picture arises as to the extent and the evolution of the social innovation stream. In no country has the social innovation been identified as being disruptive. Nor has it yet achieved scale. Rather, in all countries it has been incremental. We hypothesise that this might be inherent to the social innovation stream that we study, since no two partnerships are alike. Each time a partnership forms, new accords, new working relationships and new methodologies need to be invented. The fact that imitation is not fully possible here limits growth possibilities.
Impact on other work packages (shared by all WPs 4-7)
Applicable to all other WPs 4-7: This WP unfolds its full potential only in conjunction with the other corresponding WPs, since only in their entirety are the empirical studies able to highlight whether there are shared conditions (organisational and institutional) that contribute to social innovation; and also whether there are others that are highly context dependent. This synthesis is performed in WP 8. Each WP, however, of course also has a high value as individual outputs of the research.

WP8: Research & Policy
Objectives
The aim of WP 8 was to synthesize all previous WPs’ findings on the background of the conceptual drivers of the ITSSOIN work (WP1), the case-based work (WP4-7) and the empirical as well as theoretical update and extension (WP2). It was to assess the links between Third Sector traits, volunteering and social innovation and derive the socio-economic impact of the Third Sector more broadly, against this background. It was also to provide practice and policy recommendations on the fostering of social innovation potential.
Remark: Since the field-based insights have been summarised in the preceding chapters, the following summary of results focuses on the insights that were gained through the aggregated testing of the data we gathered rather than on case specific learnings. The implications for practice and policy are spelled out in the section on “Impact and main dissemination activities” to avoid overlap.
Work done and results
The in-depth insights generated in the process tracing of WPs 4-7 were condensed into quantitative data to test for (combinations of) necessary and sufficient conditions enabling a contribution to social innovation stream by means of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). In the coding of data, that is the transformation of qualitative information into a fuzzy set score, we gave regard to those organisational characteristics that have been found most telling in the analysis of the data, namely: social needs orientation, pro-social value sets, external organisational openness (all organisational behaviour); volunteering, local embeddedness (organisational resources); and organisational age and length of engagement in a particular field (organisational structure). In addition we explored field conditions on the dimensions of: sector prevalence in the field, the presence of civic engagement, and the level of cross-sector collaboration among others (see also D 8.1).
Organisational traits
In contrast to our initial assumption we weren’t able to aggregate findings about organisational and field traits across fields of activity, since the conditional combinations proved too specific, which is our first major research finding. However, there are some characteristics that markedly occur in many or all fields in similar ways. Our testing resulted in the following table, which we interpret below by enriching it with qualitative insights. The table is a condensed version of the one used in D 8.1 the original numbering of hypotheses has, however, been preserved.

While social needs orientation is indispensable for social innovation, pro-social values are not always needed, and if so they represent a necessary condition. In arts-based spatial rejuvenation for instance the intention of doing good for those supposed to use and populate formerly run-down places did not suffice (D 4.3). Organisations acting in this area had to understand the needs of the potential users of the spaces, almost in parallel to satisfying customer needs although the studied activities were much more informal than a standard service.
External organisational openness had an overwhelming importance across all fields and types of organisations. It was found to be a sufficient condition even in fields that are ‘dominated’ by the state or the market. One example is the SI stream of promoting bike use in urban contexts that depends heavily on traffic planning, which lies in the authority of the state (D 6.4). Another one can be found in cross-sector partnerships in the work integration field, in which firms by definition act as gatekeepers, since they need to employ those typically excluded from the labour market. Still it was only through cross-sector collaboration, informal exchange mechanisms and a combination of different sets of expertise which enabled the innovation (D 7.4).
Local embeddedness matters, even in contexts where activities are not locally restricted. But the ‘outfit’ of local embeddedness varies. Our SI stream in consumer protection for example was an online service, but involved actors still needed local grounding, mainly to establish legitimacy (D 6.5). Our stream of self-organised community development for refugees in turn revealed that local embeddedness was important, but in particular that boundary spanning contacts across localities spurred innovation through exchange (D 7.5).
The significance of volunteering varied in occurrence and sometimes differed across countries, even within one field. ‘Lived experience’ and volunteer involvement were crucial for the thriving of the recovery approach in mental health treatment in the UK. In contrast the domination of the field by the psychiatric profession in France and a general reluctance to embrace Anglo-American practices hindered its evolvement and that of voluntary engagement (D 5.5).
In contrast to conditions of organisational behaviour and organisational resources the two structural conditions of age and experience mattered much less and where they occurred, they usually did so in a non-uniform way, meaning that there were some cases in which they mattered and some in which they didn’t.
The conditions discussed above have also proved more relevant as compared to a number of other traits assessed, including resource diversity, internal organisational culture, ability to combine advocacy and service provision, independence from external pressures.
Field conditions
In addition to organisational traits some field conditions emerged as indicative of social innovation. First and foremost, cross-sector collaboration was identified as an enabler of social innovation. In our social services SI stream it was incorporated as an element of the innovation, although the latter originally only focussed on new governance arrangements to reach the most vulnerable (D 5.4).
Another factor that only fully emerged in the qualitative analysis were exogenous shocks that had a catalyst function in some fields, most prominently the refugee crisis, both on our SI streams in work integration and community development.
Finally we found that sector prevalence in the investigated fields of activity is a good indicator of social innovation, with third sector and state prevalence creating more favourable conditions than market environments. In addition to this and by the mere number of actors identified across the three sectors, we see that third sector organisations have a major influence. In our process tracing we came across 60 percent of third sector organisations, compared to 20 percent of state agencies and 20 percent of firms.

The Third Sector and social innovation
ITSSOIN has also produced insights and spotted gaps in our knowledge outside its original research framework.
One of the two major themes is on (cross-sector) networks in the governance of social innovation, from its emergence to its diffusion. Third sector organisations seem to take two distinct roles within these networks: (1) they are particularly active in paving the way for social innovation, being the ones not only who care about social needs but actively try to tackle them in new ways. However, they often need other actors, with distinct capabilities, to come in at later stages; (2) even more so than ‘collective’ action, third sector organisations perform ‘connective’ actions, bringing formerly detached or isolated actors together and establishing a link to target groups.
The second major theme is about the impact of austerity and crises on social innovation. While the latter can help free resources and push actors towards fulfilling their social responsibilities, as for instance demanded in public discourse, the former often had stymieing effects on social innovation. We often encountered reluctance with innovators to call their actions innovations, motivated by the fear that this would block their incorporation into standard provision by the state. I recurrent theme was that social innovation should not be used as a reason to substitute state welfare. More needs to be understood about these dynamics.
What we see is that ITSSOIN has not only advanced our knowledge on the third sector, social innovation and wider socio-economic impact significantly, but also that it has produced a set of guiding questions that need targeted exploration in the future.
Impact on other work packages
WP 8 draws extensively on WP 1 (in particular the hypotheses formulated in D 1.4) as well as the case work of WPs 4-7 and represents the culmination of the main body of knowledge produced by ITSSOIN.

List of Websites:
Website and Contacts
The ITSSOIN website can be found at the following link:
http://itssoin.eu/
Coordination:
The project is co-ordinated by the University of Heidelberg, Centre for Social Investment (CSI)
Helmut K. Anheier
University of Heidelberg, Centre for Social Investment
Bergheimerstraße 58, 69115 Heidelberg
Germany Phone +49 (0)6221 / 54-119-73, E-Mail helmut.anheier@csi.uni-heidelberg.de

Final Report Summary - ITSSOIN (Social Innovation and Civic Engagement)

Related documents

Share this page

Download