An Expansion on the Concept of the Social Innovation Imperative
Please read this post in conjunction with About This Blog.
In my first post, I introduced the idea of an imperative, a necessity incumbent upon mankind, that we address the social problems of the world with ingenuity and focus—a concept I would call the Social Innovation Imperative. With this post, I want to expand on that idea to develop a framework for the content of this blog.
What Constitutes a “Social Problem”?
First, let’s define “social problem.” At some level, there seems to be a general understanding of the term; it readily brings to mind images of malnourished children or swaths of rainforest land reduced to stumps from clearcutting, among others. Indeed, according to the Stanford Social Innovation Review, there “tends to be [some degree of] consensus within societies about what constitutes a social need or problem and what kinds of social objectives are valuable (for example, justice, fairness, environmental preservation, improved health, arts and culture, and better education).”1 Still, it is helpful to understand the term at a deeper level than is apparent from its common usage in order to help us structure our thinking when we seek to address these issues.
Consider this definition from The Sociology of Social Problems, by Adam Jamrozik and Luisa Nocella:
The term ‘social problem’ applies to social conditions, processes, societal arrangements or attitudes that are commonly perceived to be undesirable, negative, and threatening [to] certain values or interests such as social cohesion, maintenance of law and order, moral standards, stability of social institutions, economic prosperity or individual freedoms.2
This definition helps to outline that social problems can have many manifestations and can be more than simply a condition (like the state of being in poverty or hunger). According to the authors, a social problem can also be a process, even an attitude. This is a more holistic view of the term that, broad as it is, helps us to attack social problems with focus.
Consider, for example, an organization that wishes to address the broad social problem of “hunger.” To be effective, the organization must understand which facet of the problem it will focus on. Its goal may be to alleviate hunger among those currently suffering from it or perhaps to seek change in the societal structures and processes that give rise to hunger. The organization’s work would be very different in each of these two cases. In the first, the organization might deliver food to those most in need of it. In the second, it might seek to influence policy or ignite economic development to reduce the number of people who cannot afford to buy food. Now, to fail to define the social problem well enough and to attempt to achieve large-scale societal changes by simply distributing food would not be effective. Similarly, working toward rearranging societal processes does not immediately alleviate the suffering for those who go without food each day. In all cases, an organization is not likely to make the best use of its resources if it does not clearly understand its goals. Thus, a definition that guides our thinking to recognize the various facets of social problems encourages us to be focused in our analysis, efforts, and resources.
Jamrozik and Nocella describe social problems as “negative residue,” or natural though unfortunate byproducts of society’s very pursuit of its values or goals, and the corresponding structural power arrangements and allocation of resources that result. This perspective sheds some light on how hunger can result from societal structures and processes, as in our prior example. Chronic hunger could be considered a byproduct of a markets-based system that results in the marginalization of those who do not have access to the resources needed to compete effectively, for instance. Society’s goal, in this case, is economic prosperity via a markets-based economy, and hunger is a “residue” that results from society’s pursuit of that goal. Now, my example is intentionally simplistic for the sake of illustration, and the authors clarify that “social problems do not always emerge in a simple cause–effect linkage; the linkages may be quite complex, giving rise to primary, secondary and tertiary problems.”3 Nevertheless, the example helps to underscore the key point—that social problems are byproducts of society.
This understanding is crucial because it leads to my argument that, to solve or even to simply alter social problems, we must seek to change the elements of society that lead to them. It helps us identify and focus on the source of the problem, which is often where our efforts can lead to the greatest impact. Take microcredit, for example. This social innovation developed with the realization that poverty in many areas resulted, in no insignificant way, from limited access to capital from the traditional financial system among poor entrepreneurs. To address this “negative byproduct,” microfinance institutions—banks that provide financial services (notably lending) to poor entrepreneurs—developed. Certain structures and processes of society were altered, and the world witnessed increased wealth and greater empowerment among its most marginalized populations. I argue that we must continue to find ways for society to pursue its goals in different ways so as to reduce or, ideally, to eliminate the social problems that result.
Why Address These Issues?
Working within Jamrozik and Nocella’s framework, society’s motivation to address social problems follows directly from our definition: if we define social problems as social phenomena that are generally recognized as threatening by society, it’s clear that, all else equal, society should be motivated to reduce the threat. For practical purposes, however, we want to understand the motivation on the part of the various elements of society—individuals, governments, businesses, and the third sector—to be concerned with social problems, particularly those that may not seem to affect them.
To analyze an individual’s motivations, we can extend Jamrozik and Nocella’s framework to allow for the idea of social problems as perceived by an individual. From this perspective, a person may be motivated to address a problem if it is threatening or offensive to his or her values. Many organizations in the third sector—those which are neither businesses nor government-affiliated—also operate based on what we might call organizational values. Gender inequality in its various manifestations, for example, is an issue many individuals and third-sector organizations would consider a social problem in need of attention. At some level, both governments and business also operate within the framework of a particular set of values. Both are guided by the values expounded in their founding documents as well as the values of their constituents and leaders. A values-based perspective on motivation naturally leads to a philosophical discussion of ethics, but I will deliberately avoid such a discussion here. Suffice it to say that individuals and third-sector organizations as well as governments and businesses are motivated to address social problems at least in part due to personal or organizational values.
In addition to any ethics-based rationale, I would argue that all sectors of society should be motivated to address certain social problems out of self-interest, as well. Climate change, population growth, wars fought over natural resources or ideology, and many other social problems will all have a major impact on the lives of people worldwide—in developed nations and otherwise—in the coming years. If we wish to continue to experience progress in or even to maintain our current standard of living, social problems cannot be ignored.
Indeed, we will soon see an upheaval in the way the world works, according to KR Sridhar, CEO of Bloom Energy. In a panel discussion called “The Role of Entrepreneurship in Solving World Problems,” part of Stanford University’s Entrepreneurial Thought Leaders Seminar Series, he points out that we are at a tipping point where “resources are beginning to trump money.” Soon, he says, scarce resources like fresh water will become invaluable, and no amount of money will be able to entice even a poor nation to sell its rights. When this happens, businesses, governments, individuals, and third-sector organizations will all be forced to think in a radically different manner.4 Carter Roberts, President of the World Wildlife Fund, argues in a similar vein that “climate change and the increased scarcity of resources will likely be one of the most disruptive forces in business since the industrial revolution, rivaling globalization and the information revolution, as a vehicle for sweeping change across sectors.”5 The same can be said of the impact on other sectors of society as well. Moreover, the story is the same whether we are talking about climate change, resource scarcity, disease epidemics, or war—social problems will have profound implications on our lives and we must handle them deliberately.
In a world that is increasingly interconnected, even social problems that seem remote to an individual can have far-reaching effects. At the time of this writing, a financial crisis that began in the United States and other developed nations has spread and has decimated the world economy. Even countries with seemingly little to do with the loose lending and complex financial instruments that led to the credit bubble have been affected because economies, financial systems, and even public sentiments around the world are so intertwined. In today’s world, even social problems that occur in geographically distant locations are not so distant after all.
Now, I must point out that I don’t intend to be a doomsday preacher with these comments. Rather, I hope to make the case for the significance of social problems—from an ethical and a practical standpoint and with respect to both public policy and private life—and to argue that they cannot be ignored.
Why Innovation is the Key
In a lecture at a Stanford Graduate School of Business event, Vinod Khosla, a venture capitalist focused on technologies with social as well as economic returns, poignantly stressed the gravity of the population growth situation as it relates to energy resources. By 2050, he pointed out, there will be nine billion people wanting the same lifestyle and the same energy consumption that five hundred million people in developed nations currently enjoy. “I suspect that in 2050 people won’t be turning down their thermostats as a way to survive [the massive energy demand],” he stressed. “We can’t conserve our way out of the problem.”6 In other words, a real solution to the problem will require more than simply incremental improvement; it will require revolutionary change through new technologies, new policies, and new methods of consumption. Again, he could have been talking about a number of other resources or other social problems. The essence of Khosla’s point: the threat posed by social problems demands innovative solutions to the problems.
Now, “innovation” is another term that is generally understood, but would also be well-served by definition to help us structure our thinking. Webster’s dictionary defines innovation roughly as “the act or process of introducing new methods, devices, etc.”7 A simpler, decidedly practical definition from Social Silicon Valleys: A Manifesto for Social Innovation is “new ideas that work.” Lead author Geoff Mulgan and his team differentiate innovation from “improvement,” which implies only incremental change, and from “creativity” or “invention,” which are vital to innovation but don’t encompass the implementation and diffusion involved in putting new ideas to work.8 The Stanford Social Innovation Review describes two key elements that allow a process or an outcome to be considered an innovation: 1) that it must be novel and 2) that it must represent an improvement—it must be either more effective or efficient than preexisting alternatives.9 Innovation, then, is at its core about new and better ideas implemented to achieve a goal. Furthermore, innovation can refer to the act or process of generating and implementing these new ideas as well as to the ideas or solutions themselves.
We are concerned, here, with innovation in the context of addressing social problems, or “social innovation.” The Stanford Social Innovation Review defines social innovation as "a novel solution to a social problem that is more effective, efficient, sustainable, or just than existing solutions and for which the value created accrues primarily to society as a whole rather than private individuals."10 By extension, social innovation can also refer to the act of developing such a solution. This definition adapts the concept of innovation for use in the social realm by adding the goals of justice and sustainability and the idea that society, not private interests, should be the primary beneficiary. The core of the idea—that innovation is about new and better ideas—remains.
One could argue that all of society’s progress can, at some level, be attributed to innovation. New forms of government, successful inventions like the computer or the car, the application of new understandings in science and math—all can be considered innovations because they represent new ideas aimed at achieving a goal. In a way, then, innovation can be viewed as the driver of progress.
Indeed, social innovations have been large contributors to the state of progress we currently enjoy. According to Social Silicon Valleys,
Looking back [in time] it is hard to find any field in which social innovation has not played an important role. The spread of the car, for example, depended not just on the technology of the internal combustion engine and modern production lines, but also on a host of associated social innovations: driving schools, road markings and protocols, garages, traffic wardens and speeding tickets, and more recently congestion charging systems.
Improvements in healthcare depended on innovations in medicine (including antibiotics) and surgery (from sterilization to keyhole surgery) but also on a host of other innovations including: public health systems to provide clean water and sewers; changing home habits to promote cleanliness in kitchens; new methods of measurement…; new organizational forms such as primary care practices and barefoot health services;…state regulation of food to promote safety, and more recently to cut sugar and salt contents; provision of meals to children in schools (which during some periods did more to advance health than any other single measure); national health services funded by taxpayers; [and] self help groups, and civil organizations for diseases such as Alzheimer’s…11
Social innovations that have built the world as we know it can be found in countless other areas as well, from the internet and related standards and protocols, to open source methods like Wikipedia, to water treatment technologies, to carbon credit markets.
Going forward, we must continue to strive for innovations like these—ones that restructure or aim to restructure elements of society in ways that reduce negative byproducts. At the outset of the manifesto, Social Silicon Valleys outlines the importance of the imperative for innovation, advancing the view that “the development of social innovation [is] an urgent task—one of the most urgent there is. There is a wide, and probably growing, gap between the scale of the problems we face and the scale of the solutions on offer.”12 Put another way, we need innovation to close this gap. Indeed, the Stanford Social Innovation Review holds that “ultimately, innovation is what creates social value.”13
Who, then, is responsible for social innovation? Initial reactions might be that social innovation happens mostly in non-profits/NGOs, but this is not true. Nor is it true that social innovation is the sole jurisdiction of enterprising individuals with new ideas and the passion to push them through. In fact, social innovation also occurs in areas like government programs, large and small businesses, academia, markets, and movements.14
Moreover, one of the keys to successful, large-scale change is collaboration, particularly between sectors. According to the Stanford Social Innovation Review,
We believe the most important implication [of our paper on social innovation] is the importance of recognizing the fundamental role of cross-sector dynamics: exchanging ideas and values, shifting roles and relationships, and blending public, philanthropic, and private resources…Most difficult and important social problems can’t be understood, let alone solved, without involving the nonprofit, public, and private sectors. We cannot even think about solving global warming, for example, [without involving companies] such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and BP p.l.c., national agencies such as the EPA and the Department of Energy, supranational governmental agencies such as the United Nations and the World Bank, and nonprofit groups such as Greenpeace and Environmental Defense…Interestingly, innovation blossoms where the sectors converge. At these intersections, the exchanges of ideas and values, shifts in roles and relationships, and the integration of private capital with public and philanthropic support generate new and better approaches to creating social value.”15
For these reasons, this blog will maintain a broad perspective of social innovation and will encourage a dialogue to facilitate the exchange of ideas that is so important.
Closing Thoughts
So far in this post (a “minifesto,” if you will), we have discussed what constitutes a social problem, why it is important that we solve these problems, and why innovation is crucial to developing sustainable solutions. Often, however, just as important as the development of solutions to problems, is the development of methods to mitigate the effects of the problems we seek to address. In our prior example of hunger, the world needs efforts to change the elements of society that give rise to hunger, but it also needs efforts to feed those in need of help in the meantime. While our discussion in this post may be predominantly phrased in the context of solutions to problems, the principle of social innovation applies to new and better methods of mitigation, as well.
Similarly, although our discussion thus far has framed our goals in terms of solutions to social problems, I would argue that, for practical purposes, it is also important to think in terms of “social opportunities.” There are many opportunities to create social value that we might overlook if we are too focused on searching for “problems.” Identifying a problem—both generally and within the framework of Jamrozik and Nocella’s definition—requires the identification of a situation or activity that is wrong or undesirable. Yet, some of the most beneficial innovations are revolutionary in the sense that they open peoples’ eyes to a reality that, previously, was not even conceived. Prior to the invention of the computer, for example, the fact that one couldn’t word process, browse the internet, send and receive email, edit digital photos, and play video games was not perceived as a problem because no one other than, perhaps, the most forward-thinking of visionaries had the slightest idea it was possible. The term “problem” is not an appropriate description of the status quo in these situations. Thinking in terms of “social opportunity,” on the other hand, opens the mind to possibilities above and beyond solutions to problems that are manifest. Keeping this in mind can help us drive social innovation.
The Think: Social Innovation Blog
We have developed, here, a framework for the perspective this blog will take with respect to the concept of social innovation. In subsequent posts, the purpose of this blog will be to share the inspiring ideas and helpful resources I encounter as I study and explore this field. My hope is that it will serve to facilitate the exchange of ideas that is so important to social innovation and that readers are inspired to internalize the motivation and mindset I would call the social innovation spirit. After all, “the world is already amply equipped to produce and disseminate ordinary innovations.” 16 We must improve, on the other hand, our ability to produce and disseminate social innovations. This is the Social Innovation Imperative.
1 James Phills Jr., Kriss Deiglmeier, and Dale Miller, "Rediscovering Social Innovation," Stanford Social Innovation Review Fall 2008, 12 Feb. 2009 (http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/rediscovering_social_innovation/).
2 Adam Jamrozik and Luisa Nocella, The Sociology of Social Problems: Theoretical Perspectives and Methods of Intervention, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press 1998, 14 Feb. 2009 (http://books.google.com/books?id=J5erJArq5gEC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Sociology+of+Social+Problems+jamrozik).
3 Jamrozik, et al.
4 KR Sridhar, “The Role of Entrepreneurship in Solving World Problems” Panel Discussion Podcast, Entrepreneurial Thought Leaders Seminar Series, 13 Feb. 2009 (http://www.spokenword.org/program/22056).
5 Carter Roberts, “Environmental Challenges & Profit Opportunities” Presentation Podcast, Social Innovation Conversations, 20 Feb. 2009 (http://www.spokenword.org/program/25321).
6 Vinod Khosla, “The Black Swans of Energy Invention” Presentation Podcast, Entrepreneurial Thought Leaders, 2 Feb. 2009 (http://www.spokenword.org/program/22017).
7 Michael Agnes, ed., Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition, Foster City: IDG Books Worldwide, Inc., 2001.
8 Geoff Mulgan, et al., Social Silicon Valleys: A Manifesto for Social Innovation, London: The Basingstoke Press, 2006. (Can be ordered here: http://www.youngfoundation.org/publications/reports/social-silicon-valleys).
9 Phills, et al.
10 Phills, et al.
11 Mulgan, et al.
12 Mulgan, et al.
13 Phills, et al.
14 Mulgan, et al.
15 Phills, et al.
16 Phills, et al.
