The role of social innovation and cross-sector collaboration in addressing wicked problems

The concept of social innovation has garnered considerable attention within the public and non-profit sectors over the last few decades. In contrast to the private sector, where innovation often revolves around product development and market expansion, social innovation refers to the process of developing and implementing novel solutions to address social challenges effectively. Social innovations are therefore particularly well-suited for addressing ‘wicked problems’ (Rittel and Webber 1973), defined as problems or issues that are difficult or even impossible to solve due to their complex and interconnected nature, ambiguities, and unintended consequences. Focusing on various issues such as renewable energy provision, healthcare, elderly care, community development, or the emergence of nanotechnologies, all seven articles in this open issue aim to advance our understanding of social innovation's contribution to tackling wicked problems.

One specificity of these problems is that they cannot be solved by just one sector (private, public, or third sector), but generaly require cross-sector collaborations, namely, long-term partnerships between at least two of these sectors (Clarke and Crane 2018, 303). As stated by Becker and Smith (2018, 2), ‘we’re seeing the rise of cross-sector collaboration—alliances of individuals and organizations from the nonprofit, government, philanthropic, and business sectors that use their diverse perspectives and resources to jointly solve a societal problem and achieve a shared goal’. While focusing on public and/or non-profit organizations, all contributions in this open issue understand social innovation as a ‘collaborative concept’ (Ziegler 2017) and corroborate the importance of cross-sector collaborations for the successful development, implementation, and sustainability of social innovations. Furthermore, they focus on specific aspects contributing to the effectiveness and success of such innovative processes, such as leadership, goal formulation, the role of place and identity, among others.

The various articles gathered in this open issue also shed light on the great diversity of social innovations, ranging from policy reforms, alternative forms of organizations (such as cooperatives), and service delivery enhancements to community engagement initiatives and co-creative and deliberative processes. It brings together a diverse array of scholarly contributions that delve into theoretical discussions on social innovation, both in terms of operationalization and further developments. By critically examining existing literature and theoretical models, these contributions offer insights into the drivers, processes, barriers, and outcomes of social innovations. Relying mainly on qualitative case study designs, this set of articles also reports on various experiences of social innovations that have been implemented in different national, sectoral, and cultural contexts, contributing both to the already existing stock of empirical knowledge and to the development of new learning and practical recommendations.

As an introductory article, ‘Social innovation in non-profit organizations: a measurement scale’ by Sanzo-Pérez et al. aims to address the lack of comprehensive instruments for measuring social innovations in non-profit organizations. Relying on a literature review and a quantitative analysis of non-profit organizations, the authors contribute to the discussion on how to operationalize social innovations and propose a scale for measuring the extent to which various NPOs’ activities can be considered as social innovations.

In the second article called ‘Social Innovation for a New Energy Model, from Theory to Action: Contributions from the Social and Solidarity Economy in the Basque Country’, Morandeira-Arca et al. investigate the contributions of three Basque organizations in the field of energy provision. Bringing together the frameworks of Social and Solidarity Economy and Social Innovation, the authors analyze how such community energy projects integrate social innovative elements. Additionally, the article discusses the benefits of these initiatives, such as promoting energy democracy, efficiency, and community welfare.

In their article, ‘Together for the Greater Goods: Legitimizing Social Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Field’, Kleinhout-Vliek et al. emphasize the importance of goal formulation in establishing and contesting the legitimacy of social innovations. They investigate two Dutch social innovation initiatives in the healthcare sector, involving diverse actors from both the public and non-profit sectors. According to their findings, goal formulation emerges as a central activity for social innovators, crucial for ensuring their longevity by navigating consensus and managing differences with other actors in the field. Their analysis identifies various forms of goal formulation, including ‘(1) combining, (2) balancing, and (3) decoupling goals, as well as (4) suspending judgement on goals, and (5) challenging goals’.

In the article ‘How does co-creation influence healthcare regulations? An analysis of co-creation in social innovation’, Pascal Tschumi and Heike Mayer aim to address the overlooked issue of how co-creation – defined as ‘the collaboration of two or more public and/or private actors who deliberately apply and share their knowledge and skills’ – in social-innovations can influence regulation. Relying on the method of innovation biographies, they delve into the field of healthcare and analyse three cases of social innovations in Switzerland, which all aim to maintain the quality of healthcare provision. Their study provides a better understanding of co-creation in social innovations by shedding light on the co-creation actors involved in social innovation processes and how these actors can influence regulations.

In ‘The Sufficiency Economy Philosophy as an Approach to Social Innovation: Case Studies of Local Governments in Thailand’, Prayukvong et al. explore how Sufficiency Economy Philosophy as a method of social innovation can improve the delivery of public services. In carrying out three exploratory case studies of local administrations in Thailand working on local sustainable community development projects, the authors demonstrate the benefits of applying such a philosophy in practice. In each of the three cases, the projects were driven by entrepreneurial mayors who collaborated with residents, local communities, and further stakeholders, all focusing on ‘interdependent happiness’.

Which factors facilitate and/or hinder the transnational diffusion of Western social innovations to a Chinese context? This is the question Minna van Gerven & René Torenvlied address in their paper titled ‘What Matters in the Local Adaptation of Western Social Innovation to China: Deep Core Beliefs, Institutional Boundary Conditions, or Managerial Practices?’. Drawing upon the work on new institutionalism and focusing on the diffusion and localization of a Dutch elderly home-care model to China, the authors demonstrate how isomorphism processes influence the transnational diffusion and adoption of social innovations.

The last article by Rob Schields and Kevin Jones, ‘Place and community responses to opportunity: an example from nanoscience innovation’, diverges somewhat from the other articles in this issue as it examines an emerging technological innovation (nanotechnology) being debated by the local community. In other words, it focuses more on how innovation is integrated into a specific social context than on a social innovation per se. Analyzing focus groups and a citizen summit on nanoscience in Edmonton, the authors illustrate how people naturally collaborate through informal networks to co-produce innovations. Hence, their article provides a better insight into the role of place and identity in shaping innovation processes.

In continuity with previous open issues of this journal (Vadrot 2020; Wedel 2020), the articles presented here greatly advance our understanding of social innovation and cross-sector collaboration, offering valuable insights into the mechanisms, challenges, and opportunities for addressing complex societal issues. Additionally, they provide recommendations and inspiration for scientists, policymakers, practitioners, and stakeholders keen to address pressing social challenges and create positive societal impact.