rosenthal - 2009 - propelling csi creating opportunities for corporate social innovation

8/6/2019 Rosenthal - 2009 - Propelling CSI Creating Opportunities for Corporate Social Innovation

1/23

1


2/23

2

Abstract

Corporate Social Innovation (CSI) - business innovation that aims at generating both

profits and social value - gradually assumes the spotlight in innovation literature. As

managers start to think of how they can embark on such promising trend, this paperlooks at the experience of i-propeller, a young consultancy firm specialised in helping

large and established firms to develop social business innovations. The paper

investigates how opportunities for CSI can be most efficiently identified and

approved for further development. Drawing from the experiences of i-propellers

case study, we found that: (1) Working as a knowledge broker, i-propeller bridges a

structural hole in a network spanning both business and social needs expertise and

exploits this position to generate entrepreneurial ideas for CSI; (2) I-propeller

generates socially innovative ideas by leveraging factors commonly present in CSI

such as individuals intrinsic motivation to create a positive social impact; (3) Finally,

understanding the difficulty managers have in getting socially innovative ideas

accepted for further investment, i-propeller uses the following approach: It exploits

additional dimensions of pay-back for CSI and leverages internal networks to go

around the bureaucratic pathway ensuring that potential opportunities are screened

directly to internal decision makers.


3/23

3

1. Introduction

Over the past decade, the notion of corporate social innovation, that is, business

innovation that aims at generating not only profits, but also significant social value,

has been rapidly gaining fervour (See for instance special spotlight from HBR forSeptember 2009). This trend notably parallels the widespread emergence of social

enterprises who are effectively servicing unmet social needs using traditional

business tools (Nicholls, 2006; Elkington & Harditon, 2007; Prahalad, 2004). The

pioneering practices of Grameen Bank (Yunus, 2008) and the like are indeed giving

traditional firms a flavour of the opportunity space for corporate social innovation

(henceforth, referred to as CSI). Yet, for many firms, recognising which

entrepreneurial opportunities for CSI lie within its own reach is proving to be far

from a sinecure.

This paper investigates how opportunities for CSI can be most efficiently identified

and approved for further development. The practical experiences of i-propeller, a

consultancy firm that designs social business innovations for established firms, are

used as a significant case study. I-propeller is spearheading a new breed of

innovation intermediaries (Chesbrough, 2006) dedicated to stimulate CSI. To the

best of my knowledge, i-propeller is almost unique in the way it has built up (often

intuitively) an apparatus specifically to help its clients recognise opportunities for CSI

and also demonstrate their pay-back value.

Immersion in the case study data about i-propeller has revealed three important

insights. Firstly we observe that i-propeller bridges a structural hole (Burt, 1992) in a

network spanning both business and social needs expertise. In this sense, i-propeller

works as a knowledge broker (Verona et al, 2006) and exploits this position to

generate entrepreneurial ideas for CSI. Secondly i-propeller generates socially

innovative ideas by leveraging distinct factors present in CSI such as individuals

intrinsic motivation to cause a positive social impact. Third and lastly, in

understanding the difficulty agents have in getting socially innovative ideas accepted

for further investment, i-propeller makes use of a particular approach. It exploits the

additional dimensions of pay-back for CSI and makes use of storytelling and internal

networks to ensure that potentially good opportunities are bought in by the many

internal parties necessary for its effective deployment.

This paper contributes to literature on recognition of opportunities for CSI by

bringing a knowledge brokering and organisational memory perspectives.

Similarly to product development firms (Hargadon & Sutton, 1997), i-propeller

adopts an approach for generating ideas which is based on a Schumpeterian

innovation perspective (Schumpeter, 1934). This is based on the premises that


4/23

4

knowledge is unequally dispersed in society and is never found in a concentrated or

integral form so that we can make direct use of it (Hayek, 1945). Therefore, to solve

a particular problem such as the challenges on CSI, the necessary knowledge should

be scattered in what Hayek calls bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory

knowledge in different individuals (Hayek, 1945:519). These bits should becreatively recombined so innovative solutions for CSI can arise (Schumpeter, 1934;

Shalley & Gilson, 2004). Burt purports that individuals holding such knowledge tend

to cluster in subgroups which know one another, have access to the same kinds of

resources, are aware of the same opportunities and share the same perceptions

(Burt, 1983:180). This implies that, because of its different nature, business

knowledge and social needs knowledge (necessary for CSI solutions) are separated in

two clusters of individuals. CSI solutions therefore, rely on the recombination of

knowledge from both clusters which possess weaker or disconnected ties between

each other (Granovetter, 1973). What i-propeller does through its innovation

process is to select bits of this incomplete knowledge from both clusters and store

it in its internal memory. When necessary, it then retrieves these bits of knowledge,

adds externally specifically sourced knowledge and recombines them creatively for

an innovative outcome through brainstorming sessions and analogical thinking

(Hargadon & Sutton, 1997).

In addition, we contribute to CSI literature in starting a discussion on the factors

which seem to be more relevant for influencing idea generation processes for it. We

adopt a cognitive approach for entrepreneurial opportunity recognition (EOR) which

considers opportunities as a construction of pre-existing cognitive frameworks from

entrepreneurs (Baron, 2006). In this sense, opportunities are rather created than

simply identified (Hill & Birkinshaw, 2009) and individuals are therefore central for

the process. Indeed research on creativity highlights the importance of a long list of

influencing factors both at individual (such as personality traits) and contextual (such

as job design and organisational climate) levels, with varied supporting evidence and

different contextual research settings (Shalley & Gilson, 2004; Shalley et al, 2004;

Amabile, 1999). This paper begins to understand which of these factors seem to be

more relevant for more creative outcomes specifically for a CSI context. Through

observing i-propeller and relating to the aforementioned literature the importance

of intrinsic motivation (Amabile, 1999) and breadth of interests (Hill & Birkinshaw,

2009) are of worthy note and will be investigated.

In concluding the initial stages of CSI we appreciate that good opportunities are

often stuck in bottlenecks of scepticism, bureaucracy, poor management, lack of

company support and other hurdles which can easily kill potentially good

opportunities (Hansen & Birkinshaw, 2007; Kim & Maugborne, 2003). The need for

changing perceptions for understanding different sources of pay-back (Elkington &


5/23

5

Hartigan, 2008; Kanter, 2007) for CSI appears to be a key point in need for analysis.

We contribute for this literature in looking at different dimensions (such as return

on social value creation) used intuitively by i-propeller and already present in the

germane literature for strategic CSR (Porter & Kramer, 2003; Jones, 2000; Doorley &

Garcia, 2007). For i-propeller, overcoming these hurdles and getting the buy inmeans to be able to successfully convey the tacit realisation of the socially

entrepreneurial opportunities to individuals in the organisation-client (Nonaka,

2001) in such way that urges them to invest time and effort in developing it. For

such, storytelling (Sustainability, 2008; Nonaka, 2007; Siggelkow, 2007) and the use

of internal networks (Block & MacMillan, 1993) seems particularly relevant

shortcuts.

The remainder of the paper is organised as follows. While section two of this paper

will describe the methodology employed for this research, section three will analyse

how the above mentioned issues take place in i-propeller. Section four will briefly

discuss implications of the findings and make recommendations for CSI practice. This

paper finishes with a general conclusion, its limitations, and a few suggestions for

further study.

2. Research Methodology

2.1 Research Setting and Design

This case study analysis looks at i-propeller, a Belgian consultancy firm which

operates from Brussels, supporting its European clients to develop strategies for

their CSI activities. I-propeller is one of the very few innovation intermediaries

(Chesbrough, 2006) working exclusively with CSI. It was chosen for this case study

because of its particular experience in our focus of study, the initial stages of CSI

processes.

Since its establishment in 2007, I-propeller has worked on generating and developing

ideas of very different natures in a variety of industries (such as energy, banking and

telecom). This paper focuses on how i-propeller works on what it calls the Module

1 or the initial stages of its Social Innovation Process. The module 1 deals

specifically with our object of study: It starts with the generation of ideas for CSI and

ends with the approval of such idea (in a more developed stage) for business

modelling1.

1See a detailed diagram of Module 1 in the appendix 1 and a detailed explanation in section

3.1.1


6/23

6

2.2 Data gathering

Data was obtained in a variety of ways. The following methods were employed:

Semi structured in-depth interviews and informal conversationsThose were conducted with all founders and staff (five people, some of them at two

different stages of the research process) recorded, transcribed and reported back to

i-propeller as a written report and a presentation. I-propellers founders analysed

the interpretation of the Module 1 process and gave detailed feedback. In

addition, many informal conversations with all founders and other freelance

researchers who work closely with the company took place.

Materials about i-propeller

Access to relevant confidential documents, internal presentations and some of their

developed research has been granted for analysis.

Workshop on the action lab

A workshop has been conducted with the founders providing important insights on

their organisational architecture and their strengths and weaknesses for module 1.

The workshop also allowed for observations of the team working together in a

creative manner providing insights of their teamwork.

On-site observations

I have also worked in i-propellers research action lab in Brussels in two different

occasions, (for one week each) together with the founders, where I could observe

them working in their own environment and assess part of the tacit dimension of i-

propellers organisational culture, their work settings and some of their habits and

routines.

Other interviews and consultations

In order to have different views on the same topic I have also interviewed people

outside i-propeller including: a member of management of a relevant large and

established consulting organisation, academics of relevant fields (such as innovation,

idea generation and corporate entrepreneurship) among others.

2.3 Data Analysis

This research undertakes a multi-disciplinary and iterative approach of constantly

interviewing i-propellers staff and observing their methods and processes

(systematically or intuitively developed) towards the development of socially

entrepreneurial opportunities, comparing the observations with existing literature


7/23

7

on the fields of opportunity recognition, innovation and entrepreneurship. Other

relevant topics such as creativity and social entrepreneurship were also used in the

analysis.

3. Case study

3.1 The Propelling Machine

I-propeller works closely to its clients to develop solutions for CSI. Typically, clients

wishing to embark in CSI have a very limited understanding of what can be done with

their existing resources and capabilities for such end. After interviews with the client

and some research, i-propeller uses its internal knowledge base to start off its

machinery, generating ideas for socially innovative businesses. The many ideas

generated are then selected and presented to the client. If accepted, they receive

further investment and go up the innovation process for business modelling,

prototyping and deployment.

In one case, a bank wishing to invest in environmental sustainability asked for i-

propellers help. I-propellers staff combined their diverse backgrounds and their

knowledge on other societal trends to create a service for the elderly which allows

them to save money for the retirement of their grandchildren. The idea is simple:

grandparents invest part of their savings in a special fund which remains in the bank

for at least 50 years invested in green technology. The dual nature of benefits is

clear: Banks benefit from having the investment for at least 50 years and the elderly

feel that they contribute for the future of their grandchildren both financially and by

protecting the environment that they will live in.

3.1.1 Module 1

I-propeller steps within module 1 follow the evolution of an idea to a configuration

of an actual opportunity. Ideas for businesses constitute the initial stage of

opportunities (Singh, 2000) and are generated in high quantity through many

techniques (Bessant & Tidd, 2007). Once those ideas for businesses can realise an

improved source of value creation (tangible or intangible) they constitute what Hill &

Birkinshaw (2009) call an entrepreneurial idea. When the necessary resources for

such idea have a feasible potential to be mobilised for its deployment it is then

configured an entrepreneurial opportunity.

Following the above reasoning, an entrepreneurial opportunity does not constitute a

business plan or a prototype yet. The organisation must first want to develop it.

Because of the many difficulties involved in getting the entrepreneurial opportunity


8/23

8

further up to business modelling and prototyping (and its sometimes high cost), i-

propellers name for entrepreneurial opportunities is very adequate. It calls it a

challenge.

Appendix I shows a simplified version of i- propellers innovation process and adetailed illustration of module 1.

3.1.2 The networked machine

I-propeller works as a knowledge broker and as such, it benefits from its position in

the network to bridge structural holes (that is to connect gaps between two pools of

otherwise disconnected clusters of knowledge) and allow for complementary

knowledge combination towards innovative outcomes for CSI (Burt, 1992; Verona et

al, 2006; Hargadon & Sutton, 1997). In this sense i-propellers architecture can be

visually represented as in appendix II.

Building and maintaining the machine:

For successfully engaging in knowledge brokering, being in the right position of the

network is not enough. Organisational routines that make use of its architectural

characteristics are essential for its effectiveness (Hargadon & Sutton, 1997). In this

sense i-propeller engages in several activities not only to keep and build the

networks but also for constantly internalising knowledge coming from the

aforementioned clusters.

As knowledge is created by individuals (Nonaka, 2007), the routines and activities of

i-propeller towards knowledge creation involve its founders and all other individuals

who supply knowledge to it. In this sense, i-propellers networks are carefully

leveraged from their founders original social capital. Composed by a variety of

individuals and institutions, i-propellers direct network involves dozens of

relationships with primary contacts granting access to other few thousand

individuals (among social entrepreneurs, researchers, industry specialists, etc)

through weak ties (Granovetter, 1973). I-propellers founders are often travelling

to attend seminars and conferences, are attached to universities and attend to many

brainstorming sessions in a variety of fields (from applied nanotechnology to social

entrepreneurship and management). This is in line with Lemon & Sahota (2004) who

pose that this internal organisational memory must be continuously updated

through constant learning to avoid stagnation and path dependency.

Under specific stimuli (usually the definition of a clients problem) these

accumulated bits of knowledge in social issues and business are retrieved and reused


9/23

9

for different companies in different situations, industries and projects, recombined

with new knowledge (acquired many times in an ad hoc basis) in a novel manner. As

an illustration of a real case, an opportunity for investment in CSI developed by i-

propeller for a client wishing to implement a green internet, had some elements

from a previous green electricity not used idea.

Appendix 3 shows a process model for how innovation happens in i-propeller based

on Hargadon & Sutton (1997) process model for technology brokers.

3.2 People and context

Module 1 is developed within i-propeller, mostly by its founders, staff and close

knowledge suppliers (mostly researchers). Idea generation techniques (such as

brainstorming sessions) are essentially the same as traditional innovative efforts.

However, some influencing factors seem to be particularly important for CSI.

3.2.1 The I-propellers

Despite the absence of appropriate psychological evaluations (beyond the scope of

this paper) traits traditionally related to the recognition of opportunities and

creativity such as openness to experience (George & Zhou, 2001) and a

predisposition towards risk (Shalley & Gilson, 2004) seem to be present in most i-

propellers founders. As the majority of these factors are common to innovations of

any sort, this paper highlights two characteristics that caught my attention for being

directly related to the particularities of CSI.

Intrinsic Motivation is to be particularly noted. It could be felt from all interviews and

informal conversations the willingness to make a positive difference to the

worlds most pressing needs as they put. Amabile (1999) confirms the importance

of this internal passion to resolve problems , in leading to creative outcomes. This

factor becomes particular important for CSI as is constantly mentioned as one of the

key drivers for social entrepreneurs (Kanter, 2007; Bessand & Tidd, 2007; Light,

2008; Elkington & Hartigan, 2007; Sustainability, 2008). Social entrepreneurs bear

similar characteristics to transformational leaders by possessing the capabilities of

engaging others in important changes towards innovation acceptance (such as

mindset shift or paradigm breaking idea) through their values and vision (Schippers

et al., 2008). In this study, this factor seemed to play a crucial role in getting ideas

accepted for further development.

Education and breadth of interests - I-propellers are all educated to higher

education in internationally leading universities and have very diverse career paths


10/23

10

(including a bioengineer with a PhD in economics and a psychologist who has worked

for years in finance and accounting, for instance). This indicates a good breadth of

knowledge base which is positively associated with a good volume of ideas (Hill &

Birkinshaw, 2009) as long as a good depth of relevantknowledge which is positively

associated with the creation of more novel ideas (Hill & Birkinshaw, 2009). Theimportance of such factors to innovative ideas for CSI is in part because of the

increased range of knowledge that becomes accessible (McLeod & Lobel, 1992). In

this sense, i-propellers specific background on social issues and businesses make the

nature of their education an important component for their mission on CSI.

Work Context

In addition to the importance of individuals characteristics, the context within which

such individuals work also influences their creative outcomes (Hill & Birkinshaw,

2009; Shalley & Gilson, 2004). As an example, intrinsic motivation (mentioned above

as a key factor) is sensibly influenced by work context (Amabile, 1999).

Many factors which are found to favour creative outcomes can be identified in i-

propeller such as a strong sense of self-declared team work and the presence of a

shared mental model (Amabile, 1999; Shalley & Gilson, 2004; Shalley et al, 2004). In

addition, it is worth noting that i-propellers research lab installations were designed

to stimulate creative thinking. The work setting provides the stage for a flexible and

supportive team to work creatively. Because of the small size of team, work roles

boundaries are blurred and the flat organisational structure helps in not creating

problems when researchers must engage in sales pitch, for example. This also makes

the overall work at i-propeller complex enough to be challenging for all. Without a

more in depth observation of i-propellers culture, it becomes difficult to identify

factors specifically related to CSI that could affect individuals differently than those

from traditional firms. However, one could suppose that in addition to all contextual

conductive factors mentioned above, the simple fact of working for a firm which

strives for social value, therefore creating an alignment between organisation and

individuals values, boosts the team morale and intrinsic motivation which are also

conductive to creative outcomes (Amabile, 1999). But such proposition must be

made carefully as relations of causation and the consequences ofadded influencing

factors in creative performance would demand a more in depth and specific

analysis for contextual factors affecting creativity in a CSI environment.


11/23

11

3.3 Getting the buy in

A key point for i-propellers innovative process takes place when one or more

socially entrepreneurial opportunities are realised. As one of the founders remarked

all the efforts to generate ideas and transform those ideas into viable opportunitiesare in vain if these opportunities do not get the buy in of the organisation to move

forward to business modelling and subsequent piloting and deployment. In other

words, to get the buy in is a simple matter of (1) howto explain the (2) reasons for

investing in the innovation such that the organisation understands the opportunity

benefits, feels motivatedabout it, helps in convincing others inside the organisation

and mobilise their ownresources to achieve it (Kim & Maugborne, 2003). Once the

opportunity is realised by the client organisation, then it becomes an issue of

managerial willingness to invest in it or not (Singh, 2000).

3.3.1. The Reasons: Strategic fit, pay-back and feasibility

Johan Moyersoen, i-propellers general manager, explains that when selecting

socially entrepreneurial ideas for presenting to their clients, i-propeller looks at a

few important factors. These factors are similar to Block & MacMillans (1993)

prerequisites for an idea to become a reason for investment. Building on both

approaches, ideas must: (1) strategically fit the organisations goals, missions and

values; and its existing portfolio of services (2) there must be a clear potentialpay-

backwhich generates more value (both economic and social) than it costs; and (3) It

must be feasible (in terms of both economic resources and capabilities) for the

organisation to deploy it.

Strategic fit

Additionally to building on the organisations existing values as Moyersoen points

out, strategic fitentailsto abide to a few other factors. These include understanding

how long the factors which constitute the opportunity will be available,

characterising the size and nature of the market (and its potential to growth) and

what is the competitive advantage offered by the organisation, amongst other

factors (Block & MacMillan, 1993). It is beyond the scope of this paper to analyse

specific strategic factors for fit, but authors such as Porter & Kramer (2003) have

introduced a pioneering framework for managers to strategically invest and benefit

from their social value creation.


12/23

12

Pay-back

I-propellers commercial manager, Toon Diegenant, highlights the importance that

his clients naturally give to cash payback. Give me an idea that generates more

money than it costs me and you have my approval is the common tone of theconversation. However, as mentioned before, managers willing to invest in CSI must

change their mindset to understand that the pay-back for such innovations has

additional dimensions than simply cash. Andrew and Sirkin (2006) already point out

that for many new ventures in traditional business, the actual pay-back will not come

only in the direct and tangible form of cash but also through a series of intangible

benefits (increased knowledge, brand strengthening, organisational reputation and

networks enhancement). In the case of CSI, social value configures the additional

dimension of pay-back which, apart from strengthening aforementioned values, such

as reputation (Jones et al, 2000; Doorley & Garcia, 2007; Austin et al, 2006) can be

translated into a few extra factors identified in the table below. When well

strategically placed, CSI may indeed directly influence future cash revenues by open

ways to entering new markets (Porter & Kramer, 2003; Kanter, 1999; Prahalad,

2006), enhancing internal team morale because of the doing-good feeling also

affecting intrinsic motivation at work (see examples in Bornstein, 2007). In addition,

Jones et al, (2000) argue that investing in socially responsible activities creates a

reservoir of goodwill which shields organisations against situations of crises.

Managers must then be attentive for these dimensions of pay-back and craft their

CSI proposals around those benefits.

Table 1 Pay-back value configuration in CSI


13/23


14/23

14

agenda is poor in strategic alignment and effectiveness, provoking inertia or path

dependency.

Internally diffusing Socially Entrepreneurial Ideas (SEOs)

As Toon Diegenant, commercial manager at i-propellerasserts, in most companies

there is no Mr strategy. So, instead of using the normal bureaucratic paths which

only slow down the process, we always try to reach out for people that can

understand the nature of our ideas and help us to diffuse them in the organisation.

Johan Moyersoen confirms that Although reluctant in directly selling the idea, by

simply talking to other departments or simply arranging meetings for us, these

internal contacts are important for i-propeller to be heard by those who actually have

the power to decide.

Being an outsider i-propeller must first understand the internal pathways to the

decision makers, usually at the managerial top. According to their experience, it

seems to be equally important to get middle management also on board because it

is at their level that innovations are actually developed and things get done.

Andrew & Sirkin (2006) call those key individuals the innovation facilitators or

those who support and advocate for the idea inside the company. Mr Diegenant

explains that their nature is varied and their reasons for being an innovation

facilitator equally vary. From really caring about the social cause to simply wanting

to gain internal screening from the possible innovation success, he explains that it is

important to understand their reasons for support and seek to satisfy their needs to

get support too.

Generally, when a group of innovation facilitators is formed, the possibilities for

the idea to be spread in the internal network of the company increase and so do the

chances for successful implementation (Sustainability, 2008; Andrew & Sirkin, 2006;

Kim & Mauborgne, 2003). The importance of such synergy has also to do with the

fact that the same departments must join efforts for the actual implementation of

the product or service when it becomes part of the organisation core business

(Andrew & Sirkin, 2006).

4. Discussion and recommendations for practice

The experience of i-propeller as a knowledge broker helps us to understand the main

challenges that agents who wish to propose socially entrepreneurial ideas face. It

also points to some interesting insights of how those challenges may be tackled.

Drawing from the case study and from the literature presented throughout the

above chapters a few recommendations can be derived for managers and agents


15/23

15

willing to embark on CSI either doing it internally or by calling an innovation

intermediary such as i-propeller.

4.1 Doing it yourself

Designing an idea-maker machine for social business innovations

As seen from i-propeller experience, access to different knowledge and

organisational learning is of key importance for increasing innovation possibilities.

Open innovation scholars have been preaching the benefits of leveraging internal as

well as internal networks of knowledge in the past decade (Chesbrough, 2003;

Bessand & Tidd, 2007), and it is no different for CSI. Managers investing in CSI should

become aware of their position in the network of knowledge and attempt to

strategically bridge structural holes of knowledge (Burt, 1992) by increasing the

contact of the companys overall business and industry knowledge with relevant

knowledge from the social needs which it wishes to address.

Such contact can be done in a variety of ways. Drawing from the case study and

related literature recommendations comprise:

(1) Increase the organisations knowledge base by strategically developing

internal and external knowledge networks. This can be attained by partnering

with socially related organisations (such as NGOs, social enterprises or KBs

such as i-propeller) participating in (or creating) events which provide contact

between the two clusters of knowledge, investing in research on social trends

relevant to the firm and constantly scanning for new trends and updates in

CSI practice.

(2)Carefully craft organisational routines for knowledge storage, retrieval and

sharing. This can be done through the creation of internal reports, fostering

cross-departmental collaborations in idea generation, regular meetings and

frequent internal brainstorms (Hargadon & Sutton, 1997).

Generating your own opportunities

Managers have little influence in changing their staffs creative skills or traces on

their personality that are normally said to be related to creative outcomes (Amabile,

1999). However, as seen above, much can be done in positively influencing the social

and contextual factors within which such individuals work towards favouring creative

outcomes (Amabile, 1999; Shalley & Gilson, 2004; Shalley et al, 2004).


16/23

16

Recommendations for managers wishing to foster internal creativity towards

generating socially entrepreneurial ideas include:

(1) Feed intrinsic motivation. As one of the key factors for social entrepreneurs

(or indeed corporate social entrepreneurs) managers should be attentive totheir staff and be able to understand and give appropriate support to their

valuable ideas, motivations and goals, guiding them towards firms strategy

(Gilbon & Birkinshaw, 2004).

(2)When hiring new staff or training the existing ones, managers must consider

choosing to balance depth of knowledge with breadth of interest by hiring

individuals who understand (or are interested on) not only the core business

activities but also related societal trends (Hill & Birkinshaw, 2009; Shalley &

Gilson, 2004).

Getting the buy in of your own ideas

I-propeller experience demonstrates that even after conceiving a socially

entrepreneurial opportunity, managers still have a series of obstacles to overcome

before key necessary parties within the organisation decide to collaborate for its

deployment. For overcoming those for CSI efforts, managers should:

(1)Make sure that the presented ideas (1) strategically fit the organisation (2)

generate enough social and economic value and (3) are feasible to the

organisation (Block & MacMillan, 2003; Singh, 2000);

(2)Avoid the standard bureaucratic pathways and make use of internal networks

to reach decision makers in the top management and crucial departments for

the deployment of the innovation;

(3)When conveying the idea for others within the organisation managers must

be able to express the multiple nature of corporate social innovation pay-

back;

(4)Make appropriate use of storytelling (Sustainability, 2008; Siggelkow, 2007;

Nonaka, 2007; Nonaka, 2001) to communicate mindset-shifting ideas;

(5)Construct strong business cases for the idea so clear benefit from

innovations is realised without the need for persuasion (Sustainability, 2008).

4.2 Using an intermediary knowledge broker

Innovation intermediaries working with CSI, like i-propeller, are still rare. However,

the growing importance of the societal trends aforementioned should push for the

creation of more such organisations. There are three major advantages of using

these organisations:


17/23

17

(1)To have access to a broader wealth of knowledge, of which the organisation

is largely disconnected thus increasing idea generation capacity (Singh, 2000;

Arenius & De Clercq, 2005);

(2)To benefit from applying accumulated experience from different industries,in deploying socially innovative services with solutions tailored for the

specific hurdles of CSI (such as internal mindset shift, changing metrics for

evaluating the payback and etc);

(3)Test CSI without having to commit to redesigning the internal architecture to

sustain such searches (Chesbrough, 2006). Innovation intermediaries can

provide such architecture with a minor interference in internal structures.

In spite of these advantages, managers must be mindful when choosing

intermediaries. As we learned from i-propellers case study, for CSI to be effective

through knowledge brokers (KBs), a close relationship KB-client organisation seems

crucial. As outsiders, KBs need access to relevant internal knowledge and managers

must be able to express their problems with innovation, which is many times tacit

and thus difficult to access, thus making it a long process. Also managers must be

able to manage the trades-off of conveying sensitive internal knowledge so KBs can

better help (Chesbrough, 2006).

5. Conclusion

Just as CSI gradually becomes a new paradigm for business innovation (Kanter, 1999)

this paper makes use of a variety of literature in entrepreneurship, innovation, idea

generation and opportunity recognition to flesh out the initial stages of CSI

development at i-propeller, a social business innovation consultancy firm, in order to

understand what particular obstacles organisations may face whilst endeavouring to

invest in corporate social innovation. Using an iterative model of in-depth interviews,

practical observation and theoretical research this paper has been built around three

key issues at the initial stages of CSI development: I-propellers organisational

architecture, its processes for idea generation and its experience in getting ideas

accepted for further development.

In understanding i-propellers fluid functioning we conclude that i-propeller has

intuitively developed an organisational architecture that bridges the two almost

disconnected worlds of knowledge in business and the social needs. I-propeller

leverages its external networks of knowledge in both business and social needs to

build its internal knowledge base or its internal organisational memory. When

appropriately stimulated by a CSI challenge, i-propeller activates this architecture

and uses these networks as an extension of its own memory. Thus, by carefully


18/23

18

managing inflows and outflows of knowledge, and retrieving existing knowledge

from its own organisational memory, it recombines complementary bits of it

creating innovative solutions for both economic and social value. For such machine

to work propelling new business ideas, specific components must be in place and

appropriate supportive contextual conditions must be fulfilled. These components,individuals, are driven by intrinsic motivation (Sustainability, 2008; Bornstein, 2007)

and, in turn, propel the functioning of such machine which is fuelled by

knowledge (be it deep and specific or broad and diverse Hill & Birkinshaw, 2009).

In addition, it has been found that the context within which these individuals work

have an important influence in the final creative outcome for such idea generation

process (Shalley & Gilson, 2004).

When attempting to convey new ideas for social innovation, and get the buy in from

other individuals another knowledge exercise is put to proof and the same agents

must now attempt to share mental models with decision makers to transfer tacit

visualisations of opportunities (Nonaka, 2001) for the organisation. In order to do so,

we have identified here that the use of internal networks and storytelling allied to

strong business cases are powerful tools to gain the attention of decision makers and

get the buy in for the next steps of such innovations

Limitations

Albeit attempting to generate recommendations for large and established

businesses, i-propeller is an external innovation intermediary and there are

important issues that must be taken into account for internal processes of CSI. For

example, the role of the leadership in driving innovation within the organisation

plays a major role in driving social entrepreneurship (Bessand & Tidd, 2007; Light,

2008; Nicola et al, 2008; Rangan et al, 2007) and this research identifies the intrinsic

motivation factor as one of the leaders characteristics. However as such leaders are

internal to i-propellers clients, it was difficult to have access to them during the

research.

Another limiting point is the fact that this paper has relied on i-propellers

experiences to derive key important hurdles and solutions for CSI. These experiences

are however limited and cannot be taken as representative from all CSI issues. There

should be other important relevant factors which have not arisen from i-propellers

experience and perhaps some factors raised in this paper may not be as relevant to

other CSI contexts.


19/23

19

Further research

As a still embryonic field, CSI demands much further study and this paper aims at

having indicated important new avenues for research. Researchers could examinehow other factors in the three areas here studied will influence performance in

social business innovation. A few studies have started the discussion on new forms

of business models and organisational architecture for CSI outcomes (See for

instance Alter, 2006) and a few other studies have looked at the importance of

intrinsic motivation and of the social entrepreneur as key for driving CSI

(Sustainability, 2008; Nicola et al, 2008; Bessand & Tidd, 2007). However CSI could

benefit from more research on the performance of creative teams in contexts

particularly relevant to CSI so its more important influencing factors can be

identified. Also the relationship between depth and breadth of knowledge appointed

already by Hill & Birkinshaw (2009) could be further examined so scholars could

identify the best configurations of knowledge (or what proportion of social needs

knowledge against what proportion of business knowledge) organisations should aim

at building for combination. Finally more research would be desirable on how agents

pro-CSI can explore the different dimensions of CSI pay-back configured in this

paper, as getting the internal buy in is such a key point for getting ideas from the

paper to application.

General contributions for literature on CSI

This paper has not attempted to prescribe formulas for recognising opportunities in

CSI or to get CSI projects accepted by organisations. As mentioned before, it has

rather attempted to identify a few important issues that could be observed through

the experience of i-propeller which are particular to CSI such as the importance of

intrinsic motivation or the possibilities that a networked model for knowledge

management can bring to CSI. It has also attempted to initiate important discussions

on why such factors are important and how to bring in existing literature in

knowledge management, creativity and entrepreneurship to tackle such hurdles that

could stifle innovation and discourage managers to invest in CSI.


20/23

20

Bibliography

Alter, S. K., 2006. Social Enterprise Models and Their Mission and Money Relationships. In

Nicholl, A. (ed.) Social Entrepreneurship : New Models of Sustainable Social Change. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Amabile, T., 1998. How to kill creativity. In Harvard Business Review on Breakthrough

Thinking. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Andrew, J.P. & Sirkin, H.L., 2006. Payback: reaping the rewards of innovation, Boston:

Harvard Business School Press.

Arenius, P. & De Clercq, D. 2005.A network-based approach on opportunity recognition.

Small Business Economics, 24(3), pp. 249-265.

Austin E. J., Leonard, H.B., Reficco, E. & Wei-Skillern, J., 2006. Social Enterpreneurship: It is

for corporations too. In Nicholl, A. (ed.) Social Entrepreneurship : New Models of SustainableSocial Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bacon, N., Faizullah, N., Mulgan, G. & Woodcraft, S. 2008. Transformers: How local areas

innovate to address changing social needs. Research report: January 2008. Available at

http://www.nesta.org.uk/transformers/ [Accessed 15 August 2009].

Baron, R.A., 2006. Opportunity Recognition as Pattern Recognition: How Entrepreneurs

Connect the Dots to Identify New Business Opportunities. TheAcademy of Management

Perspectives, [Online], February 2006,pp. 104 - 119 Available at

http://journals.aomonline.org/amp/[Accessed 15 May 2009].

Bessant, J. R., Tidd, J., 2007. Innovation and entrepreneurship. West Sussex: John Wiley

&Sons.

Block, Z. & MacMillan, I.C., 1993. Corporate Venturing: Creating New Businesses Within the

Firm. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Bornstein, D., 2007. How to change the world: social entrepreneurs and the power of new

ideas. New York, Oxford University Press.

Burt, R.S., 1983. Applied Network Analysis: A Methodological Introduction. Beverly Hills, CA:

Sage

Burt, Ronald S., 1992. Structural holes : the social structure of competition. Boston: Harvard

University Press.

Chesbrough, H. W., 2003. Open innovation : the new imperative for creating and profiting

from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.

Chesbrough, H. W. 2006. Open business models : how to thrive in the new innovation

landscape; Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Doorley, J. & Garcia, H.F., 2007. Reputation Management: The Key to Successful PublicRelations and Communications. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
http://journals.aomonline.org/amp/http://journals.aomonline.org/amp/http://journals.aomonline.org/amp/


21/23


22/23

22

Lemon, M. & Sahota, P.,2004. Organizational culture as a knowledge repository for increased

innovative capacity. Technovation, 24, pp. 483498.

Light, P. Ch., 2008. Search for social entrepreneurship. Washington: Brookings Institution

Pres.

McLeod, P. L., & Lobel, S. A.,1992. The effects of ethnic diversity on idea generation in small

groups.Academy of ManagementBest Paper Proceedings pp. 227231.

Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C.K, & Rangaswami M.R., 2009. Why Sustainability Is Now the Key

Driver of Innovation, Harvard Business Review, September 2009

Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. & Byosiere, P., 2001. A theory of organizational knowledge creation:

Understanding the dynamic process of creating knowledge. In Dierkes, M. et al. (eds),

Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge. Oxford, NY: Oxford Univesrity Press.

Nonaka, I. 2007 The knowledge Creating Company, Harvard Business Review, July 2007, pp.

162 171.

Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R., 2003. The Competetive Advantage of Corporate Philantrophy,

in Harvard Business Review on Corporate Responsibility, Boston: Harvard Business School.

Prahalad, C.K. 2006. The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. NJ: Wharton School

Publishing.

Rangan, V. K. Quelch, J. A., Herrero, G., Barton, B., [eds] 2007. Business solutions for the

global poor: creating social and economic value . N.l: Jossey-Bass. A Wiley Imprint. Ch.18, 19&20.

Schippers, M. (2008), The role of transformational leadership in enhancing team

reflexivity. Human relations, Vol. 61, Issue 11, 1593-1616.

Shalley, C.E., Zhou, J. & Oldham, G.R., 2004. The Effects of Personal and Contextual

Characteristics on Creativity: Where Should We Go from Here?Journal of Management,

30(6), pp. 933-958.

Shalley, C.E. & Gilson, L.L., 2004. What leaders need to know: A review of social and

contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. Creativity, 15, pp. 33 53.

Siggelkow, N., 2007. Persuasion with case studies. The Academy of Management Journal,

50(1), 20-24.

Singh, R.P., 2000 Entrepreneurial opportunity recognition through social networks. New

York, N: Garland Publishing.

Sustainability, 2008. The Social Intrapreneur: A Field Guide for Corporate Changemakers.

[Online] Available at :

http://www.sustainability.com/downloads_public/TheSocialIntrapreneur.pdf[Assessed 15 June 2009]
http://www.sustainability.com/downloads_public/TheSocialIntrapreneur.pdfhttp://www.sustainability.com/downloads_public/TheSocialIntrapreneur.pdfhttp://www.sustainability.com/downloads_public/TheSocialIntrapreneur.pdf


23/23

Verona,G., Prandelli, E. & Sawhney, M., 2006. Innovation and Virtual Environments: Towards

Virtual Knowledge Brokers. Organization Studies, 27(6), pp.765-788.

Yunus, M., 2008. Creating a World Without Poverty: How Social Business Can Transform Our

Lives: Social Business and the Future of Capitalism. US:Public Affairs.

rosenthal - 2009 - propelling csi creating opportunities for corporate social innovation

Documents