ThisprojecthasreceivedfundingfromtheEuropeanUnion’sSeventhFrameworkProgramme(FP7)forresearch,technologicaldevelopmentanddemonstrationundergrantagreementno.613034.

IMPACT WORKING PAPER NO. 9/2015

(Social)InnovationImpact-ReviewofResearch

ImpactcoordinatorKarlHenrikSivesindAuthorsDanijelBaturinaGojkoBežovan

IMPACT

Recommendedcitationinformation:Baturina,D.,Bežovan,G.(2015)SocialInnovationImpact-reviewNo.9.SeventhFrameworkProgramme(grantagreement613034),EuropeanUnion.Brussels:ThirdSectorImpact

1 Introduction....................................................................................................................2

2WhatareSocialInnovations?............................................................................................3

3 SocialInnovationImpact–UnlitRoad............................................................................7

3.1.FramingSocialInnovationImpact.................................................................................7

3.2.Micro-levelImpact.......................................................................................................10

3.3.Meso-LevelImpact......................................................................................................11

3.4Macro-LevelImpact......................................................................................................13

4SocialInnovationImpact:MethodologicalandMeasurementDilemmas......................15

4.1MeasuringSocialInnovationImpact............................................................................15

4.2Metrics..........................................................................................................................18

4.3Indicators......................................................................................................................21

4.4ConditionsforSocialInnovationImpact.......................................................................24

5Conclusion.......................................................................................................................26

References..........................................................................................................................29

2

1 IntroductionTheeconomiccrisesthathavestrickenEurope inrecentyearshavepromptedmanydiscussionson the search for new paths, creating new approaches and concepts of social and economicpolicies(Crouch,2011).Thewelfarestateinthe21stcenturyisfacingthechallengesofachievingsocial cohesion in a societymarkedby deep transformations and the emergence of new socialrisks.Thenewsocialriskspeoplefacetodaythroughouttheir livesarearesultofeconomicandsocialchangesassociatedwiththetransitiontoapost-industrialsociety(EspingAnderson,etal.2002.;Taylor-Gooby2004).Changingtrendsthatincludedemographicchanges,changesinfamilystructures, climate change, changes in the labourmarket, rising inequality and big differencesbetweencitiesmakedemandsforsocialinnovations.The literature on new social risks (Talyor Gooby, 2004.; Bonnoli 2005, 2007) suggests that thewelfarestatesinEuropearenotonlychallengedbytheneedtorestructuresocialcosts,butalsoby thegrowingneeds thatarenotadequatelyaddressedby thecurrent socialprograms.Socialneedsaremorepressingnow.Theglobalcrisishasmadeitclearthatmostofthechallengeswefacetodayhavetakenonanincreasinglysocialdimension.Atatimewhenresourcesarelimited,newsolutionsmustbefound.Socialinnovationistodaydiscussedattheinternationallevel(BEPA,2010).Withthenotionoflookingfornewwaystocombatthemostchallengingsocialproblems,aconceptofsocialinnovationwasdeveloped.Somesocialscientistsseesignificantvalueintheconceptofsocialinnovationbecauseitidentifiesacriticaltypeofinnovation(Vale,2009).Thenotionofsocialinnovationisparticularlyappealingin light of the difficulties facing traditionalwelfare systems and,more broadly, a developmentmodel based essentially on only two actors (the market and the state) that is finding itincreasinglydifficulttomeetthegrowinganddiversifiedneedsofsociety(Borzaga,Bodini,2012).TheOECDhaspublishedamanualonmeasuringInnovationalongwithitsInnovationStrategyin2010, stressing the importanceof innovation in thepost-crisis economyand recording the factthat it is no longer only carried out in research laboratories or universities, but is in factincreasinglybecomingthedomainofcivilsocietyandindividualsaswell(OECD2010.a:3).In the background of social innovation are aspects of the same “zeitgeist” that inspires greatsocial reforms, such as debates within themeaning of key terms such as "from social welfaretowardsenabling state", "activatingwelfare state"with its "renewedemphasisonparticipationandactivationofcitizens"ordifferentconceptsof"socialinvestmentstate"(Evers,Ewert,2012:16.;Morel,Palier,Palma,2012;EuropeanCommission2013.c).That emphasized the roles of third sector organizations, which are an important source ofinnovation, pioneering innovations that governments and the market subsequently copy orsupport(BEPA,2010).Socialeconomyliteraturehasalsostressedthisroleofthirdsectorentities,

3

in their case mutuals, cooperatives, and social enterprises, as significant sources of socialinnovationandsocialchange.Theyarecontributinginnumerousofwaysindifferentareassuchas labourmarket integration, fighting social exclusion and poverty, creating social capital, anddeveloping new services andways to address the unmet social needs (Monzón, Chaves, 2012;Monzón,Chaves,2008).Thispaperwillexamine thestatusof social innovation, thenotionand thescopeof the impactwhichtheyproduceinthethirdsector,butalsothelimitationsofmeasuringtheimpactofsocialinnovations.Theworkingpaperwillhavethefollowingstructure.Thefirstpartwillexaminetheconceptofsocialinnovation,itsmeaningandcharacteristics.Thesecondpartwillbedevotedtoreviewing the status of knowledge and previous research about TS impact. To review, wewillpresent findings on the impacts of themicro (impact on citizens and users), meso (impact oncommunity and organizations) and the macro level (impact on society at large). They will bediscussedwithregardtohowsocialinnovationsmakeanimpactandwhatarepossibleobstaclesand methodological challenges in measuring that impact. It will also be discussed what arecurrentlydeveloped indicators formeasuring the impactof social innovation in the third sectorandwhether there are any reliable dataon that topic. Consequently, in the conclusionwewillhighlight the “way forward” in developing and measuring social innovations for a potentialpositiveimpactonthesocio-economicdevelopmentofEurope.

2WhatareSocialInnovations?

The concept of social innovation is not new1, as the writings of both Durkheim and Weberstressed the importance of social innovation in the creation of social order, especially in thecontextof socialand technological change.After that in1930s, JosephSchumpeter importantlypointedtothevalueofsocialinnovationinthepromotionofstructuralchangeinsociety(Baker,Mehmood,2015). Inrecenttime,thetermsocial innovationhasenteredthediscourseofsocialscientists with particular speed, but there is no consensus regarding its relevance or specificmeaninginthesocialsciencesandhumanities.The European Union puts a strong focus on social innovation in its policies. For example, theEurope2020StrategyislargelycountingonsocialInnovations.Aparticularlyimportantprogramisthe one for employment and social innovation2(EASI). Social Investment Package3(European

1MoreonhistoricaldevelopmentofnotionofsocialinnovationinGodin,2012.2http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=10813http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0083&from=EN2http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=10813http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0083&from=EN

4

Commission,2013.c)encourages innovationinsocialpolicybymeansoftryingnewapproaches.Social investment approach is in general prone to reforms (Kvist, 2015) that call for socialinnovations.Thenexusbetweenpolicy,social innovationandthethirdsector ismostevident inthe two flagship initiatives InnovationUnion andEuropeanPlatformagainst Poverty and SocialExclusion,where the third sector is beingexplicitly referred toas an important actor (Eriksson,Einarsson,Wijkström, 2014). There are currently several FP7 research projects4 that dealwithsocialinnovationfromvariousaspects,andtheyhavealsofoundtheirspaceinthenewprogramHorizon2020.Governmentdepartmentssupportingsocialinnovation,thethirdsectorandsocialenterpriseareappearinginmanystates5.Aroundtheworldincubators,networkhubsandsimilarinitiatives related to social innovation are opening. The Initiative Social Innovation Europe, asEurope´s largest social innovation community, was developed.6Therefore, regardless of thepossible ambiguity, the concept of social innovation is attractingmore attention in policy andresearchcircles.Someanalystsconsidersocialinnovationtobenomorethanabuzzwordorpassingfadthatistooimprecise to be usefully applied to academic scholarship. It should be noted that the socialinnovationsareviewedasaquasi-concept(Jensen,Harrison,2013,EuropeanCommission2013.a,BEPA,2014,Anheieretal.2014)which isviewedas relevant forempiricalanalysisand therebydeploying scientific methods, but simultaneously having an indeterminate quality, making itadaptabletoavarietyofsituationsandflexibleenoughtofollowthetwistsandturnsofpolicy.7The field of social innovation is broad and varied. Social innovation is a practice-led field. It iscontextual and as such has developed with ill-defined boundaries, meanings and definitions.Therehavebeennumerousattempts todefinesocial innovationandwestresssomethatshowmost relevance. The OECD LEED Forum on Social Innovationswas created in April 2000.8Thisforum adopted a relevant working definition, namely that (social innovation) “can concernconceptual,processorproductchange,organizationalchangeandchangesinfinancing,andcandeal with new relationships with stakeholders and territories.”9Social innovation seeks newanswerstosocialproblemsby:identifyinganddeliveringnewservicesthatimprovethequalityof4Moreinpublication:RESEARCHONSOCIALINNOVATIONInventoryofprojectsfundedundertheEUResearchFrameworkProgrammes.https://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/project_synopses/ssh-projects-fp7-5-6-social-innovation_en.pdf5ExamplesincludetheOfficeforCivilSocietyintheUK(previouslytheOfficeoftheThirdSector)and the Office of Social Innovation and Civic Participation in the USA. The Office of SocialInnovationandCivicParticipation(OSICP)wassetupbytheObamaAdministrationin20096https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/socialinnovationeurope/en7 A quasi-concept is characterised by its approximating character and inherent definitionallooseness,whichisbeneficialforaphenomenon’suseinaresearchandapolicycontext.8Withthemissiontofacilitatedisseminationandtransferofbestpoliciesandpracticesinsocialinnovation.9http://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/Forum-Social-Innovations.htm

5

lifeofindividualsandcommunities;identifyingandimplementingnewlabourmarketintegrationprocesses,newcompetencies,newjobs,andnewformsofparticipation,asdiverseelementsthateachcontributetoimprovingthepositionofindividualsintheworkforce(OECD,2011).Definitions of social innovations in years that followed became more theoretically elaborate.Social innovations can be defined as new ideas (products, services, and models) thatsimultaneously meet social needs (more effectively than alternatives) and create new socialrelationshipsor collaborations. Inotherwords, theyare innovations that arenotonly good forsociety, but also enhance society’s capacity to act (BEPA, 2010). They are some sort of ideas,turnedintopracticalapproachesthatarenewinthecontextwheretheyappear.StanfordSocialInnovation Review (Phills et al.2008) defines social innovation as “a novel solution to a socialproblemthatismoreeffective,efficient,sustainableorjustthancurrentsolutions,andforwhichthevaluecreatedaccruesprimarilytosocietyasawholeratherthanprivateindividuals.Asocialinnovationcanbeaproduct,productionprocess,ortechnology(muchlikeinnovationingeneral),but it can also be a principle, an idea, a piece of legislation, trends in governance, a socialmovement,anintervention,orsomecombinationofthem.Somecoreelementsarehighlighted.Thefirstisanovelty.Asocialinnovationneedstobenewinsomeway(eithernewtothefield,sector,region,marketoruser),ortobeappliedinanewway.A step from ideas to implementation must be taken, and therefore we make a distinctionbetween promising ideas (which may or may not become social innovations) and socialinnovations.Secondly,socialinnovationmeetsasocialneedandisexplicitlydesignedforthesepurposes.Themain goal is to find solutions to social problems: identifying and providing new services thatimprove the quality of life of individuals and communities, identifying and implementing theintegrationprocessinthelabourmarket,newskills,newjobsandnewformsofparticipation,aswellasvariouselementsthatcontributetoimprovingthesituationofindividuals(Pol,Ville,2007:880).Socialinnovationshouldbeeffective,atleastmoresothantheexistingsolutions.Intheend,itenhancessociety’scapacitytoactbyempoweringbeneficiaries,creatingnewrolesandrelationships,developingassetsandcapabilitiesand/orbetterusingofassetsandresources.They leave behind compelling new social relationships between previously separate individualsandgroupswhichmattergreatlytothepeopleinvolved(Mulgan,2007).Socialinnovationhasspecificprocessandlogicofdevelopment.Accordingto(Mulgan,2007a)theprocess of social innovation is composed of four main stages: 1) Generating ideas byunderstandingneedsandidentifyingpotentialsolutions,2)Developing,prototypingandpilotingideas,3)Assessingthenscalingupanddiffusingthegoodones, 4)Learningandevolving.BEPA(2010, 53) gives a similar framework for the process of social innovation. It goes from

6

identification the problem, developing ideas (and trialling them), establishing social innovationfollowedbyscalingupandmakingasystemicchange.Changes in social environmentalmade social innovations necessary in the areas of governancestructures,theeconomyandlabour,consumerbehaviour,thestyleandlevelofconsumption,useregimesandsystemsandtheassociateduser-orientedandefficientserviceandcomplexsysteminnovations (Howaldt, Schwarz, 2010: 45). Generally, the term is used to describe socialtransformation,modelorganizationalmanagement,socialentrepreneurship,anddevelopmentofnew products, services and programs, models of governance10, empowerment and capacitybuilding(Caulker-Grice,etal.2012a).Hough (2011) sums up some conditions which can be considered as conditions for socialinnovations: 1. In societies where there is a high disadvantage, inequality, and suffering, thedemand for social innovation will be high. 2. In societies where the institutional order is notcomplete,ornotfullyeffectiveandunwillingtosolveproblemsbecauseofpre-existingnormsandconstraints,opportunitiesforsocialinnovationwillbehigher.3.Legitimacyendorsesactionthatisdesirable,properandappropriate,andwhenasocietyvaluesandaccords legitimacytosocialinnovationwemightexpectmoresocialinnovation.4.Therateofdiffusionwillbeinfluencedbythecomplexityofthesocialinnovationandresourcesrequiredfordiffusion.Some common features of social innovation are that social innovation often comes from thebottom up, and is geographically dispersed and local (Caulier-Grice, et al., 2012a: 21-23). Theboundaries between producers and consumers are becoming increasingly blurred. The usersbecomeproducers,orprosumers.Thebasicidea,whichisoftenreferredtoasaco-production,isthatpeopleareavaluableresourceandthatservicesshouldnotignorethispotentiallyeffectiveresource.Theyareparticipatoryandempoweringcitizensandusers, insteadofbeingguidedbytheexperts inatop-downapproach. Itsmethodsarediverse,notrestrictedtostandardscienceand include “open innovation, user participation, cafés, ethnography, action research”, etc(Murrayetal.,2010inGodin,2012).Resources can come from academic research, political campaigns, civil society, public sector,socialentrepreneurship11,newtechnologiesandmanyotherdomains.Peopleandorganizations

10 Social innovation can transform governance by creating new mechanisms that have theresources, the new collective actors and ways of influencing decision making (Miquel, CabezaEizaguirreAnglada,2013:155).11Thereisaclearlinkbetweencivilsociety,socialinnovationandsocialentrepreneurship.Socialentrepreneurshipisoftenfoundasaninnovativeformofactivityofcivilsocietyorganizations,ontheotherhandsocialenterprisesalmostbydefinitiondevelopsocialinnovationinitsoperations.Social entrepreneurship and social innovation are seen as a part of the solution (OECD, 2010),

7

involvedinthemarediverse.Socialinnovationreliesontheinventivenessofcitizens,civilsociety,local communities, thebusiness sector andpublic servants, and the service sector. It opensupopportunitiesforthethirdsector,thepublicsectorandthemarketinordertoimproveproductsand services andbetter address theneedsof the individual and communityexpectations. Theyare often locally rooted and guided by demand, not supply, tailored towards individual needratherthanmassivelyproduced,becausemostsolutionsmustbeadaptedtolocalcircumstancesand individuals. In this respect they are "elementsof the social changes that createnew socialfacts,orinfluencethebehaviourofcitizensorofcertainsocialgroupsinarecognizablewaywithan orientation toward goals that are not primarily economicallymotivated“(Howaldt, Schwarz,2010:23).Theyoftenrecognizeandexploittheresourcesthatwouldotherwisebewasted,under-used or not used at all. Relevant stakeholders bring their knowledge, information, skills,experiences and resources. As a result, the produced outcomes of innovative processes arerelevant(Voorberg,Bekkers,Tummers,2013).However, in view of the high hopes that the area attracted, it must be stated that socialinnovationisnotapanaceaforresolvingsocialproblems,butifencouragedandvaluedtheycanbringimmediatesolutionstothepressingsocialissueswhichmanycitizensareconfrontedwith.Measuringtheproduction(impact)ofsocialinnovationisapriorityforpolicymaking,aswhatyoudonotmeasure,youdonotachieve.Whilemostofthedebateonsocialinnovationiscentredonthe outcome (“what” is social innovation, what types of new products or initiatives qualify associally innovative, andwhat their characteristics are), very little attention is being paid to thetwoaspectsthataremostimportantinordertoreallyunderstandthisphenomenon:theprocessthat leadstosocial innovation(“how”social innovationhappens),andthecharacteristicsof theactorsororganizationsthatcarryitout(“who”canbestdeliversocialinnovation)(Borzaga,Bodini2012:8).Unlike theoutcome, special attention is still givennot to impact - how is it produced,where, and on what level. Therefore in the next section we will further explore what is theobservable (but also potential) impact that social innovations have on European societies. Indoingso,werelyonthereviewofcurrentresearchesandevidencefrompractice,especiallycasestudiesofconcretesocialinnovativepractices.

3 SocialInnovationImpact–UnlitRoad3.1.FramingSocialInnovationImpactTheamountofresearch,projects,experiments,debates,documents,booksandeventsproducedonsocialinnovationsincethebeginningofthedecadeisimpressive(BEPA,2014),buttherewasonly scarce academic research focusing on social innovation policy and its connection to civil

because both aim to provide innovative solutions to unresolved social problems, putting thecreationofsocialvaluesatthecentreofitsmission.

8

society(Eriksson,Einarsson,Wijkström,2014),andgenerallythirdsector.Impactisquestionthatisjustcomingunderthe"magnifyingglass"ofexperts,practitionersandotherinterestedpublic.Measuringinnovationanditscontributiontogrowth,aswellasderivingpolicyimplicationsfromthisprocess,hasbeenontheagendaofvariousinternationalorganizationsandbodiessuchastheEU and the OECD for a couple of years now (Simsa, et al., 2014). Measuring the production(impact)ofsocial innovation isapriorityforpolicymakingas ‘whatyoudonotmeasure,youdonotachieve’.However,thevalueproduceddoesnoteasilytranslateintoquantifiablebenefits(BEPA,2010).Itmostoftenconsistsofmoresocial justice,moreempowermentandmoredemocracywhichwillmake for amore dynamic and productive society. This is not easily accountable in the formaleconomyunless it is proven to offermore effectiveways of delivering services and addressingsocialneeds(BEPA2010:55).Martin(inPol,Ville,2009:879)makesthepointthatsocialtestingisbeneficial to social innovation. They are expected to test the idea and, therefore, it is possiblethatmanywillnotproducetheeffect.So,itismoreimportanttofindmodalitiesforrecognitionthataresuccessfulinproducingapositivesocialimpact,inordertomoreclearlydemonstratetheimportance of their importance as carriers of new efficient solutions. A number of dilemmasaboutwhat represents the impact of social innovation have occurred and in particular how tomeasureit.Thiswillbethefocusoftherestofthepaper.Someoftheverydefinitionsofsocial innovationsimplicitlyemphasizetheimpactonindividualsandsociety.Apartfromthosealreadymentionedinthefirstpart,wewillspecifyafewdefinitionsthatarecontributingtotheprevailingattitudeonsocialinnovationhighlightingtheimpact.Social innovation should create a measurable improvement in terms of outcomes. This mightconcernquality,levelsofuser-satisfaction,andratesofadoptionorareductionincostsorhigherlevelimpactssuchasimprovedwellbeingorsocialcohesion(Caulier-Grice,etal.,2012.a).AnotherexampleisHochgerner(2009inHowaldt,Schwarz,2010)whostatesthat“socialinnovationsareelements of social change that create new social facts, namely impacting the behaviour ofindividual people or certain social groups in a recognizable way with an orientation towardsrecognizedobjectsthatarenotprimarilyeconomicallymotivated”.Lublecova,(2012:310)notesthat„socialinnovationscanbeunderstoodasadaptationstrategiestopermanentsocialchanges,which enable transformation of changing partial parameters into new arrangements andmodalities of actions bringing new solutions to people's current demands and thus improvingtheirlivingconditions(…)andconcludesthat"socialinnovationshavehugeimpactsonnationalandregionaleconomiesastheirsourcescomefromthecitizenlivinginspecificlocations.HowardandSchwarz(2010)bringanothervaluableissuestatingthat"socialinnovationsarenewconceptsandmeasures that are acceptedby impacted social groups andare applied toovercome socialchallenges."Socialinnovationsare,asthesedefinitionsdemonstrate,inextricablyconnectedwith

9

producing impact. The impact is reflected in the change and “improvement” which they areproducinginthelifeofindividuals,groups,andsociety.Impact isproducedinrespectofcertainfunctionsofthethirdsector,whichareassociatedwithsocial innovations. The underlying logic is that (Anheier et al. 2014) (1) one of themain socialimpactsofthethirdsectoristhecreationofsocialinnovation12;(2)thethirdsector’ssocialimpactarises from social innovation, i.e. social innovation is one of the primary mechanisms thatgeneratesocialimpact13.Wecanthereforeanalyseimpactbyspecificrolesthatthethirdsectorisassumedtoperform.Thethird sector is a significant source of social innovation in its most prominent roles: deliveringpublic services as complementary or substitution elements in the public (or market) servicesystemsandcampaigningandadvocacytoprotectoradvancethepositioninsocietyandwelfareofpeopleneedinghelp14(Anheieretal.,2014,Caulker-Grice,etal.2012.b.:7).The roles of the third sector, with regard to social innovations, can be observed from certaindomainsinwhichwecanexpectimpact.Moulaertet.al.(2005)statethreeofthem:satisfactionofhumanneedsthatarenotcurrentlysatisfied(contentdimension),changesinsocialrelations,especially with regard to governance, but also increase in the level of participation (processdimension), and increasing the socio-political capability and access to resources needed toenhance rights to satisfaction of human needs and participation (empowerment dimension).BEPA(2010:36-38)lookonimpactfrominasimilarwayhighlightingdimensions/perspectivesofsocial demand, the societal challenge, and the systemic changes. Social demand is orientatedtowards meeting the needs of vulnerable groups or communities. The societal challengeperspective takes sustainable development perspective, adding a new dimension to economicoutput. The focus is on sustainable systemic change by reshaping society through a process oforganizationaldevelopmentandchangesinrelationsbetweeninstitutionsandstakeholders.15Therefore, we must look at all three levels of impact together, the micro level in terms ofperspectiveimpactonusers,mezzolevelintermsofimpactonthecommunityandorganization,

12Althoughanotherimportantsocialimpactisrepresentedbybeingamajoremployer.13Thatalsocreatessocialimpactsviaothermorestandardroutes,suchasprovidingserviceswitha‘plus’,aswaspreviouslymentioned.14As sources of the third sector social innovations, the literature (Baker, Mehmood, 2015).highlightsthesatisfactionofbasicneedsandsituationsofcrisesastwomajordrivers.15Barroso(2011)expressedsocialinnovationimpactintheareasofnewwaysofmeetingpressingsocialneeds,creatingthebehaviouralchanges,whichareneededtotacklethemajorchallengesofsocieties;andempoweringcitizenstobecomeco-creators.

10

andmacroperspectiveintermsoftheimpactfocusingonsociety.Wewillshortlyaddressissuesrelatedtoimpactoneachofthelevels.3.2.Micro-levelImpactMicro-impactsocialinnovationismostoftenconnectedwiththeimpactonthequalityoflivingofthepeople.Thenotionofqualityof life isan integralpartofourdefinitionof social innovationand desirable social innovation is the one that, in fact, improves the macro-quality of life orextends lifeexpectancy(Pol,Ville,2009).Thefirstcharacteristicthatsocial innovationandthirdsector organizations have in common is their social needs orientation, which is, in fact, anindispensableprerequisite for theirwork (Nocketal., 2013 inAnheieretal. 2014)andprimaryimpact isonthewell-beingofthebeneficiaries,aswellastheactors involved.Thefulfilmentofneedsisseenasaforemostdriverofsocialinnovation,needsthatmayemergeasaconsequenceof deprivation, exploitation or other crisis mechanisms (Baker, Mehmood, 2015). Undertakenactions,mainlyatcommunity/local levels,aimtoincreasepeople’swellbeingandtomeetsomeneedsthatarenotmetbythepublicorthetraditionalprivatesectorsalone.Bydoingso,socialinnovationisalsopotentiallyanimportantsourceofemploymentandgrowth(INNOGRIPS2010).Associations or small co-operative type firms can help to secure the social inclusion16(Greffe,2003) and innovation-promoting measures may lead to new, innovative services in order toimproveintegration(Simsa,2014).Third sectororganizationsare innovative in that theymake itpossible toproducenewservicesthat themarketeconomyeither cannotordoesnotknowhowto introduce.Newservices thatmeettheneedsandenhancethequalityoflifearethemostimportantaspectofimpactonmicrolevel.WILCOprojectanalysedtheapproachesand instrumentsofsocial innovationsatthe locallevelidentifyingcommontraitsandcharacteristics.Mostofthestudiedsocialinnovationswereinthe area of service provision. The project found the impact of social innovations in thestrengthening of competence and self-confidence of people, investing in their skills and byproviding personalized support. The regulation of rights is also seen as the impact in thedevelopmentofcombinationsofindividualservicesandvariousfacilitiestocopewithnewsocialrisks(Evers,Ewert,2012;Evers,Ewert,Brandsen,2013;Brandsen,2014.a).Thirdsectorprojectsallhaveobjectiveswithregardtoemployment,buttheyalsoaddressawidevarietyofpotentialjob-creation mechanisms. Their impact can be in transforming new services into sustainablesourcesofemployment(Greffe,2003).

16Forexample(Greffe,2003)ofyoungpeoplethroughthedevelopmentofpublicworksprojects,suchastherestorationofoldbuildingsorhistoricalproperties.This“productionofsocialties”canacquireanevenmorecollective,oreventerritorial,dimension.

11

Butwhenwespeakofusers,itisimportanttonotethatinnovationsthatinvolvebeneficiariesindesignanddiffusionprocessesarebetterplacedtoaddresstheirneedsandproducepositiveandpotentiallysignificantimpactsontheirempowerment(BEPA,2010:57).Thefactthatthirdsectororganizations give voice tominority groups andpointout societal problems is constantlybeingemphasized. The change potential of the third sector stems onmicro level from its structurallocation:close to thegrassrootsand the local level, theiractorsareusually the first tobecomeaware of social problems of many kinds. In line with its grassroots nature, many sociallyinnovative initiatives emerge as direct and pragmatic responses to needs experienced byindividuals and groups in their daily life, bypassing slow and rigid bureaucratic procedures(Oosterlyncketal., 2013). Social innovationoftencountsonvolunteerwork.Volunteers canbemotivated to facilitate social innovation not only because they want to learn, but also bycommunicating changes inneedsamong thepopulation to serviceorganizations,byadvocatingtheir rights and interests, and by creating links to other organizations through social networks(Anheieretal.,2014.43).Social innovation in the third sector at the micro level can be seen as an important elementaffectingthesocio-economicdevelopmentofsocietiesbyhelpingindividualsinneed,enhancingtheircapabilitiesandpromotingtheirwellbeing.3.3.Meso-LevelImpactChanging the form of governance is one of the distinctive impacts of third sector socialinnovationsonthemesolevel.WILCOfoundafewmainmodalities likenetworkingbyfosteringunitsandtypesoforganizationthatoperate inmoreembeddedways,givingnewconcernsandgrouping a voice in the public domain and developing issue related coalitions by buildingpartnerships among plural stakeholders that work on ‘hot’ items (Evers, Ewert, 2012; Evers,Ewert, Brandsen, 2013). Often social innovation emerges at the local level from sharing andnetworkingbetweenawiderangeofactors.Hybridityasanewprincipleofinnovativeandadeptformoforganization,especiallypresentinthethirdsector,canitselfbeseenasdistinctiveimpact.AttheleveloforganizationtheWILCOprojectrecognizes,amongothers,theimpactofinnovationin mixed and extended work collectives in which forms of interdisciplinary teamwork wereestablished. The new type of professionalism that, through dialogue and involvement of users,combinedfragmentedknowledgewasalsowasfoundasanessentialelement(Evers,Ewert,2012;Evers, Ewert, Brandsen, 2013; Brandsen, 2014.a, Brandsen, 2014.b). All these aspects relate tohybridity thatmakes impact in changing the “wayof doing” things andpromotingnew typeofgovernance.The third sector can develop their own policy alternatives and start a dialogue with politicaldecision-makers (Osborne et al., 2005), which can be considered a social innovation in publicpolicy, and new kinds of action and governance. In mainstream views, public institutions and

12

socialinnovationareconsideredina“problematic”relationshipduetotheproceduralrigidityofthatkindof institutions.Thenatureoftheirbureaucraticorganizationopposes,orat least,doesnotpromoteinnovation(Wise,Wengrich,Lodge,2014).Publicadministrationusuallyexhibitsaninnovation deficit due to the incentives and internal characteristics (Anheier, Fliegnauf, 2013).Innovationisseenasawaytoovercomeinstitutionalblockagesandotherinstitutionalrigidities17.The third sector is seen in a sort of opposition to public institutions and the market, bothconsidered not completely able to satisfy all needs, demands and aspirations (Hirst, 2002 inOosterlyncketal.2013).Thirdsectorinnovationshaveadirecteffectontheefficiencyandqualityof work of the organization by providing a basis for the provision of better services and thedevelopment of better policies. Policy recommendations on social innovation (EuropeanCommission,2013.d)statethatresearchshouldbeconcentratedattheinstitutional(meso)level18analysis.Atthemeso-level,theirreviewfoundthattheusualfocusisontheroleofinstitutionsin encouraging or discouraging social innovation. 19 City administrations are learning tocollaborate.Theyarelearninghowtoworkacrosssilos,howtolistentotheircitizensandactasmatchmakers between local stakeholders. Social innovation is an opportunity to transform citygovernanceintonewandmoresharedgovernance(URBACTIIprogramme,2015)

The second type of innovation on a meso level is related to the development of localcommunities. In communities, the third sector plays a vital role in social innovation. Thesignificantimpactofsocialinnovationsisthattheywillchangethewayoffunctioningofthelocalcommunity.Thethirdsectorhasaspecialroletoplayinlocaldevelopmentinthatthecapacityforterritorial development or redevelopment is linked to howmuch account is taken of the long-term interests of a territory, the emergence of new services and the creation of social links(Greffe,2003).Studieshaveshownthatthirdsectororganizationscontainahighdegreeofsocial

17Social entrepreneurs also are important in third sector in producing of social innovationsbecause they are able to test much riskier and innovative approaches. Once these solutionsdemonstrate their effectiveness and deliver the “proof of concept,” other actors, including thepublic sector, can adopt them. Social entrepreneurship can thus achieve a potentially highdynamicimpactovertime(Anheieretal.,2014).18Andindividual(micro)levelsofanalysis,notthesocietallevel.19Areas that have been foundwhich looked at the impact of social innovation projects at themeso level (European Commission, 201.d) are the following: PERSE focused on a kind oforganizationinthethirdsector,thesocialenterprise,whileConciseexaminedtherelationshipsofboth cause and effect between a social pattern (social capital) and social enterprises as aninstitutional form (1). Cocops’ cut into the research was via new public management (NPM)strategies deployed by governments to reform services (2) while INNOSERV has launched ananalysis of several cases of innovation in service provision (3). ServPPIN also worked at theinstitutional levelofanalysisandonservices, its research focusbeingpublic–private innovationnetworks,treatedasorganisationaldevicesinwhichpublicandprivateservicesmightperformincomplementaryandsynergisticways.

13

capital20asa resultof civicengagement, andare, in thatway,describedas facilitatorsof sociallearningthatcanbepromptlyusedinlocalcommunities.Again,researchofWILCOprojectmaybeusefulforunderstandingsuchimpactonthislevel.Ithasfound the impact of innovation on the development of local social systems. This componentemphasizestheroleandresponsibilityofsocialpolicieswithrespecttotheresponsibilityof thelocalwelfarestate,civilsociety,market,communityandfamily.Thedevelopmentof localsocialsystem places emphasis on welfare mix, which relies on all sectors of the local social welfaresystem. Diversity aiming at the less standardized, more diverse and localized welfarearrangements is found, as well as rebalancing welfare systems by upgrading the communitycomponentinmixedwelfaresystems.Thelastelementofimpactinlocalcommunitiesconcernedintegration inbridgingeconomicandsocial logics,aswellaswelfareandurbanpolitics.A lotofinnovationswereconceivedandimplementedabovetheorganizationallevel,namelyinnovationsin local governance. 21 Beyond innovative services implemented by new instruments andincentives, often they had impact concerning the structures and routines of the local policysystemasawhole to renewpolicy-makingcircles22(Evers,Ewert,2012;Evers,Ewert,Brandsen,2013;Brandsen,2014.a).Meso-level impact, seen as the impact on organizational, community and governance level ismoredifficulttoobservefrominvolvedstakeholders’perspective,aswellasfromtheperspectiveoftimeinwhichchangesoccur.Also,there isacritical lackofmetricsformeasuringmeso-levelimpact,soitisimportanttoadvanceinmeasuringofthislevelofimpact.3.4Macro-LevelImpactAstheEuropeanexperiencehasshownovercenturiesofexperimentation,social innovationcanalsostemfromthemacro/policy level,whenpolicy-makers,publicadministrators,businessandopinion leadersoracademicsreflect,proposeand implementnewwaystoaddresssocial issues(Caulier-Grice, et al. 2012.b). New policy solutions are the first impact of third sector socialinnovationsonthemacrolevel.Today,societaltrendsareincreasinglyperceivedasopportunitiesfor innovation. Social innovations are in position to be macro-social innovations, such as newforms of social organization or networked approaches to addressing public problems. They

20Thatespeciallymaybethecaseinpost-socialistcountries(Bežovan,Matančević,J,Baturina,2014.a;2014.b),wherethethirdsectorcanbeasignificantgeneratorofsocialcapitalneededtodevelopinnovationandmakeachange.21Governancehasshownpotentialfordevelopingdifferenttypesofinnovations(Wise,Wengrich,Lodge,2014).22Localpolicyarenas,aswellasothers,areshapedbythosewhosetupthepoliticalagendaandwhose voices have an impact on political decisions, so third sector innovative initiatives wereimportantstakeholdersinpowerrelationsconnectedwithpolicychanges.

14

encourage the active participation of the third sector in the political process and enhancedemocraticlegitimacy.Theyareinherentlyaboutchangingthewaythingsaredoneandthewaysocial needs are conceptualized. In this sense, systemic change is the ultimate goal of socialinnovation.Atthislevel,thecrisiscanactasawindowofopportunityforsocietalchange.Many of the analytical lines relevant to the understanding of social innovation have beendevelopedasargumentswithinthedebateonthetransformational impactofsocietyconnectedwithsystemicchange.23Thisisparticularlythecasewithpoliticalscienceargumentsontheroleofcivil society in social change and the countercyclical role of social economy in the overallmacroeconomicdynamics(Moulaertetal.,2005).Social innovationputsforwardthecreationofgoodsandserviceswithincooperatives,mutualenterprises,socialenterprises,forprofit,aswellasnon-profitorganizationsasanewway tocreatewealthandredistribute it (Harrison, Jensen,2013),producinganimpact inthecreationofalternatemodelsofeconomicorganization.Socialinnovationscanbereferredtoaspartofsustainabledevelopment, inresponsetotheviewthateconomicactivityhasexpandedwithlittleornoregardforsustainableyieldsandtheyaretryingto solve the social problems that are associated with depleting natural resources, the loss ofbiodiversity,andachangingclimate(Lettice,Parekh,2010).Socialinnovations’biggestandmostlasting impacts are often not the result of organizational growth, but come from encouragingemulators, and transforming how societies think (with new concepts, arguments, and stories)(Mulganetal.,2007).Social innovationsareaddressing formsof socialexclusion thatareat least in theway theyareexperienced more individualized, in opposition to the group-based forms of exclusioncharacteristicforindustrialcapitalism,hencethestressofsocialinnovationonthetransformationof social relations through collective mobilization and social learning. Therefore, the secondimpactofthirdsectorsocialinnovationsonthemacrolevelischangingrelationsinsociety.Socialinnovation also takes in consideration that, apart from the need for redistribution, people inpovertyalsoneedrecognitionoftheircultural identityandpoliticalrepresentation(Oosterlynck,etal.,2013).Social innovationscanhavethe impact inchangingrolesandrelationshipbetweenthe third sector and the state. They are linked to empowerment, in the sense thatmicro- andmeso-level initiativescanbringpositive,macro-levelchangebyup-scaling,forexample,throughinstitutional leverage (Baker, Mehmood, 2015). In this way, marginalized groups becomeempowered through the creation of both shared community identities and socio-politicalcapabilitiesandstrengtheningofsocialcapital24(Moulaertetal.,2010).AsEuropean-scaleurban

23For example,many of the organizations thatMulgan et al (2007) have studied demonstratesocial innovations impact as the change in society. They embodied and promoted radicallydifferentideasliketheideaoflifelonglearning,theideaoftheverypoorbeingentrepreneurs,ortheideathateveryonecanproducetheirownmedia.24Although some of our research (Bežovan, Matančević, Baturina, 2014.a) have shown whenmiddleclassesareproducersofsocialinnovations,marginalizedgroupscanbeleftbehind.Middle

15

researchhasshown,theinitiativesoftenstartinsocialmovements,civicactiongroups,andsocialeconomyinitiatives(Gerometta,Haussermann,Longo,2005)andtheyhaveoftenprovedtohavesocially innovative impacts (Moulaert et al., 1997, 2000 in Gerometta, Haussermann, Longo,2005).Thethirdsectorhasbeencreditedwithachievingmacrotypesofinnovation(Greffe,2003)developing a new social organization matrix based on cooperation25and serving as a newinstrument for public management, where the third sector is often seen as a solution to theproblemsencounteredbythewelfareState.Socialinnovationsevokingsystemicchangebytransformingthewaysinwhichsocietiesthinkandbuilding new social relations aremain components ofmacro level impactof third sector socialinnovations.

4SocialInnovationImpact:MethodologicalandMeasurementDilemmas4.1MeasuringSocialInnovationImpact

Efforts tostrengthensocial cohesionandreducesocial inequalityareamong themajorpoliticalchallengesinEurope.Traditionalsocialpolicieshavealimitedimpactonthesocialvulnerability,while innovative policies have a positive impact, and reduce the likelihood of falling into avulnerableposition(Ranci,2011:1).Measuringsocial innovationimpactandfindingappropriatemetricstodosoisthereforeapriority.Metricsare important for three reasons: theyhelp tobuildaknowledgebasebyassessingandevaluatingwhatworks;theyguideinvestmentdecisions;andshapepublicpolicy.Reliablemetricsfor social innovation are therefore critical in developing the field. Effective metrics about thescale,scopeand impactofsocial innovationattheregionalandnational levelwouldhelpguidepolicymakersindevelopingtherightframeworkconditionsforsocialinnovation(Caulier-Grice,etal., 2012.c). BEPA (2014) finds four reasons for tackling the challenge of measuring socialinnovation.Firstly,thereisaneedtoprovethatsocial innovationisaneffectiveandsustainablewaytorespondtosocietalneeds.Secondly, justifyingtheallocationofpublicmoney,aswellasattractingothersourcesofpublicandprivatefinancing,requiresasharedunderstandingofwhat

classdonotrecognizetheirneedsandtheydonothavesufficientcapacitytoputitonthepublicagenda.25Forexample insituationsof:co-operationasameansofgoingbeyondrolespecialization:thefact that contemporary formsof the third system inEuropeemerged in thecourseof the19thcentury, primarily in the form of what is now termed the “social economy” and that “co-operatives”aimedatestablishingsolidaritynetworksbetweenproducersandconsumers.

16

the ‘positive and measurable social effects’ of social innovations are. Thirdly, evidence-basedpolicies require ex ante evidenceof theexpected impact of the actions involved. Finally, socialinnovations (seenasdrivers in the current transition) couldopen theway todevelopinganewcompetitive advantage for European economies, showing that social and environmental valuecreation is central to the human and ecological sustainability of societies. Bymeasuring socialinnovation impact, Europe and Member States would also monitor the overall level of socialinnovationactivitytakingplace,andanyparticularbarrierstoitsdissemination.Therefore, we want to see how social innovation, as an innovative element of policies, candemonstrateitsimpact.Thereisgoodreasontorelatesocialinnovationtothethirdsectorasitscorecontributiontosocio-economic impactandwhywepresumethatthethirdsector isbetterpositioned to stimulate, create, and develop social innovation than the market or the state26(Anheier et al., 2014). In the National stakeholders meeting of TSI project regarding impact(Fonović, 2014) very few impacts or ideas for impactmeasurement were concerning the thirdsector"innovation"domain.Althoughlittlediscussedandnotperceivedasofprimaryimportancefor experimenting models to generate data on, themes that have emerged as terrains ofinnovationfromthepointofviewofstakeholdersaremanifoldandfarreaching.Measuring the impactof thewhole sector isamajorchallenge forvarious reasons.Oftenmostinnovative projects are constantly moving targets (Evers, Ewert, 2012: 20) and their careersdependbothon theirowngoalsandstrategiesandon the impactof theenvironment theyareembedded in.Many forms of social innovation are “hidden” from traditionalways tomeasureinnovation,becausetheyconsistofchangesofwaysofworkingratherthantheintroductionofaspecifiedchunkofanewinvestment.Manystandardapproachestoassessinginnovation27arefarlessapplicabletothis issuethantoproductandtechnological innovation.Traditional innovationmetrics,whichfocusoninputsandoutputs,arelargelyunhelpfultothefieldofsocialinnovation,whereoutcomesandprocessesaremoreimportantandneedtobeassessed(Caulier-Griceetal.,2012.c).Suchmetricsareboundtobesubjecttorefinementandlearningamongthoseprovidingand requesting the data (Reeder et al., 2012). Kendall and Knapp conclude in relation to theirextendedthirdsectorperformanceframeworkthat“performancemeasurementmayhavetorelyon indirectmeasuresofactualeffects,or subjective impressionsof impact,orevensimply (butuninformative) measures of resources allocated to this activity” (Kendall, Knapp, 2000: 112).Thereisnosinglecriterionofperformanceintheviewofthemultiplestakeholdercontexts,andnosimplewaytoaggregateindicators.

26However,wehavealsoseenthat this reasoning is facedwithsomeexistentcritiqueandthatinsightsonparticularissuearestillquiteambiguous.27Such as the numbers of patents, numbers of citations, levels of research and developmentinvestment.

17

A lack of indicators often compounds difficulties since there are no useable data sets or timeseriestodrawontotesthypotheses(SocialinnovationEurope,2011).Socialinnovationhasbeenpart of the explicit objectives of only a few programmes, and while evaluation and impactassessmentistakenveryseriously,assessmentsofeffectivenessandefficiencyofspendingdonotnecessarily consider the longer-term qualitative results which are expected from innovativesolutionsandnewformsoforganisationandinteractionstorespondtosocialandsocietalissues(BEPA,2010:96).Various methodological dilemmas need to be addressed in measuring impact. The differentconcepts, such as impact, outcome, social return, social value and performance,which are notalways distinguished, are used and the very notion of impact has many different definitions(Maas,2008).It isimportanttodistinguishbetweentheimpactandoutcome.However,thereisno consensus on the issue. On the one hand, the outcome is defined as the effect achievedamongbeneficiariesandtheimpactasoveralleffects(Wainright,2002).Thisnotionissomewhatincompletebecauseitremainsunclearhowitcanrefertotheimpactsonotherstakeholderswhoare not beneficiaries. In terms of time, interventionmay cause short-term effects immediatelyafterimplementation.Buttherethemedium-termimpactcanalsobereached,aswellas,finally,long-termimpact.Theseeffectsaredifficulttomeasureandevaluate(Simsaetal.,2014).Effortstogaugetheimpactofthesectorsufferfromtwounresolvedchallenges:(1)thecausalityproblem,that is,thedifficultyoftrackingcausesandeffects inthecomplexsocialenvironment;(2)themeasurementproblemthat is,thechallengeofoperationalizationandmeasuring impactandoutcomesinvalidandreliableways(Anheieretal.,2014).Theattributiontothethirdsectoris even more problematic considering indicators for innovation. The third sector and itsinnovation potential have been neglected so far, although social innovation is being discussedintensively in the context of social entrepreneurship at themoment.An additional challenge isthemeasurementofthecounterfactual.Thistermdenotesthoseconsequencesthatwouldoccurinanycase, regardlessof theorganization'sactivities.Toestimate the real impactof the socialinnovations, theeffects achievedbyother sectors, suchas the stateorprivate sector,mustbeexcluded(Simsetal.,2014).Additionally,havingacomparisongroupcouldinmanysituationsbeseenasunethicalandinmanysituationsisimpossibletoorganize.28BEPA(2010:111-114)sumsafewoftheobviousproblems inmeasuring impact.Firstofall, thereal impactofsocial innovations ishardtoevaluate inquantitativeterms.Whenestimated,thenumbersofinitiativesandofparticipantsorbeneficiariesareused,butthesewillmostoftenbepoorindicatorsoftherealcontributionofasocialinnovationtoresolveaspecificsocialproblem

28MoredetailsonthecomplexityofmethodologyofmeasuringtheimpactinSimsa.et.al.2014

18

orrespondtoasocietalchallengeor,moredifficultstill,toproducechangesinbehaviours.29Thisisoftenduetotheverynatureofthephenomenainwhichtheinnovationisoccurring.Secondly,thereseemstobean insufficientcultureforex-postevaluation intheoperators involved intheimplementationofprojectsrelatedtosocial innovation.Wheresocial innovationisnotamongsttheexplicitobjectives,itwillnotbespecificallyevaluated.Social innovationsarehighlighting theneed fornewways tomeasure innovationperformance.Increasingly,traditionalinnovationmetricshavebeencriticisedforfailingtocapturethenewandchangingnatureofinnovation,andaswecanseetherearedifferentdilemmasshadowingeffortstomeasuretheimpactofthirdsectorsocialinnovations.4.2MetricsAt the project level, there is now a range of metrics, which capture social and environmentalimpactsaswellastraditionaleconomicmeasures.Thereisalsoarangeofmethodsformeasuringsocialimpactandsocialvalue.Metricscombinequalitativeaswellasquantitativedata.Sincethefirsthalfofthe1990s, interest inaccesstosocialaccountinghasincreased.Thestartingpoint isthe so-called "triple bottom line" (Elkington, 2004), which, apart from financial, provides ameasureofsocialandenvironmental impacts.Themostnotableexamples includeSocial ImpactAssessment,EnvironmentalImpactAssessment,SocialReturnonInvestmentandBlendedValue.Moreattentionisdrawntowardsdevelopmentofmoreintegratedandstandardizedapproaches.Measuring impact isalsodiscussedwithin theconceptof "social impactassessment".Themainpurpose is to lead to amore sustainable biophysical and human environment (Vanclay, 2003).Cost-minimisationanalysisisusedwhereoutcomesarecertainandsimilaracrossthealternativesto be evaluated, which is rare. In areas where there is an accepted generic measure that isthoughttocaptureallrelevanteffects,onecanemploycost-effectivenessanalysis(Anheieretal.,2014.).Theparticularformofcost-benefitanalyseshasevolvedfromthirdsectorpracticeandhasreceivedmuchpoliticalattention,namelytheSocialReturnonInvestment(SROI)analysis,whichhas an explicit focus on involving stakeholders and using monetary proxy-indicator with thespecific aims to value all benefits, including intangible ones. However, the SROI method lackssufficientlyrigoroustheoreticalfoundationssothatthewayvaluesarederivedcanappearratherarbitraryandsubjectto(unwantedandnotdisinterested)manipulation(Simsaetal.,2014).Someofthediscussedtoolsforcapturingimpact(atleastpartly)conflictwiththeveryessenceofthird sector organisations.We candetect a tendencymoving from standardperformance tools

29Thereasonswhysocialinnovationsaredifficulttomeasureareproportionaltotheirscope(i.e.the smaller the objective, the easier themeasurement). This is also explained by the fact thattheirsuccessreliesonfactorswhich,bytheirnature,aredifficulttoquantify,atleastintheshorttomediumterm.

19

such as the Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan, 2001) to (quasi-experimental) outcome and impactassessmentsthat includeafocusonmission-related impact,which iscentral totheexistenceofthirdsectororganisations(Simsa,etal.,2014)Randomisedevaluationsofsocialprogrammestaketimeandcanbecomplextoimplement.Othertechniquesalsocommonlyusedarereferredtoasnon-experimental or quasi-experimentalmethods. They are usually less complex to implementthanrandomizedevaluations,but theresults theydeliverarealso less reliable (BEPA,2014:25).But,muchof the evaluations related to impact are carriedout throughquestionnaires or cost-benefit analyses. While the first instrument requires extreme care in the drafting of thequestionnaire,thesecondoneleavesmuchspaceforsubjectivityintheanalysis.Also,inavarietyofdifferentapproachesused,anumberofresearchprojectstreatsocialinnovationasthelevelofchangeastheindependentvariable30(Harrison,Jensen,2013).SocialImpactBondsareafinancialtoolbeingdevelopedintheUK(bytheYoungFoundationandSocialFinance)toprovideanewwaytoinvestmoneyinsocialoutcomes.Theirkeyinnovationisto link three elements: investments (by commercial investors or foundations); a program ofactionstoimprovetheprospectsofagroupandcommitmentsbynationalgovernmentstomakepayments linked to outcomes achieved in improving the lives of the group (Caulier-Grice et al.2012.c).Theyaredirectlyfacingthemeasurementofoutcomesthatcangenerateimpact.Manyoftheseprogramsarejustthesocialinnovationsorientatedtoparticulargroup,i.e.newefficientsolutions.31The report adopted by the GECES (2014) makes a set of recommendations anddefines areaswhere follow-up is required. It underlines the benefits that a standard for socialimpactmeasurement, ideally agreedworldwide,would have. However, they recognise that nosingle set of indicators can be devised in a ‘top-down fashion’ tomeasure social impact in allcases. GECES advocates a process for social impact measurement. This process involves fivestages:1)identifyobjectives;2)identifystakeholders;3)setrelevantmeasurement;4)measure,validate and value; 5) report, learn and improve. This in away signifies amove towards socialimpact measurement, and notably towards a standardised, synthetic measurement process(OECD,2015).GECES(2014)andEVPA2013havesuggestedsomemetrics:ImpliedImpactModelandtheSocialStockExchange,butatthesametimehighlightingtheneedforflexibleapproachtailoredtoorganizationsgoalsandneeds.

30Agroupofprojects identifysocial innovation (howeverdefinedandwhether implementedbythepublic,privateorthirdsector)astheleverforimprovingthecircumstancesofspecificgroupsor populations, but not developing consistent overallmetrics or indicators. Thus they examineinnovative practices in education (INCLUDE-ED and LLL2010), in social services (INNOSERV),among marginalised youth (Citispyce and CSEYHP), for meeting social needs (Tepsie), fororganisingintegrationintoemployment(PERSE),forgeneratingeconomicgrowth(ServPPIN).31http://www.youngfoundation.org/social-innovation/tips/social-impact-bonds-and-social-value

20

A sound technique for measuring the impact of the social innovation is a prerequisite forfunding/financingsocialinnovation.Theproliferationoffunding/financingmechanismshasledtothe urgent need to further develop methods for measuring the social and economic benefits(BEPA,2014).YoungFoundationlookedatmethodsformeasuringvalueinthebuiltenvironmentand identified nearly 30 in use (Mulgan et, al., 2006). These approaches run the gamut frommethods using artificial neural networks and hedonic pricemodels to fuzzy logicmethods andtriple bottom line property appraisal methods. NESTA (2013) has developed standards ofevidence, which do not associate evidence with particular types of data or specific researchmethods.Theyare focusedonhighquality, robustandappropriateevidencethathelps identifythemostpromisinginnovations,andthentocontinuetogeneraterelevanttypesofevidencetoensuretheyareworking.InitiativeofSocialImpactScotland32providesinformationonarangeofmethodologies, tools and approaches to understanding and measuring social impact. It has asection designated to measuring social impact in the third sector, with methods and toolssuggestedtoorganizations.33The most consistent evaluation of the social innovation metrics was done by Krlev, Bund,Mildenberger (2014; also in Bund et al., 2013.a). Their systematic review had a goal to assessvarious existing (partly interrelated) measurement approaches at close proximity to socialinnovation. Itactivelyassessedmorethan45measurementapproaches34.Themainconclusionswere that regarding the research perspective, a significant number ofmethodologiesmeasurestructural features (e.g. financial figures or a number of employees), a little less focus is oninstitutional features (e.g. lawsor codesof conduct),but fewmethodologies showanormativeorientation. However, normative aspects are important to the field of measuring socialinnovation. Concerning the object of analysis, the biggest part of established innovation-basedmethodologies is focused on private sector activities. Innovationmetrics focusing on the thirdsectoranditscontributionstoinnovation,however,arerareamongtheexistingmethodologies.Among the reviewedmethodologies, theyhave foundanapproximatelyequaldistributionwithregardtothelevelofanalysisbetweenapproacheslookingattheorganizationalmeso-levelandthose looking at the national or regional macro-level. The largest proportion of the reviewedmethodologies combined both levels, in the sense that the data gathered through an

32www.socialimpactscotland.org.uk33Itsuggestssome14differenttools.Expectmentionedones,thereareTheoryofChange,LogicModels, Social IMPact measurement for Local Economies (SIMPLE), Third Sector PerformanceDashboard,SocialEnterpriseBalancedScoreCard,VolunteeringImpactAssessmentToolkit,LocalMultiplier 3 (LM3), Quality Evaluation,Measuring Environmental Impact, Consultant FacilitatedImpactAssessment,outcomeStarandTheRickterScale.34On the basis of a data set with over 1,500 variables contained in the 30 analysed indicatorapproaches, they have picked what they saw as the most suitable ones for measuring socialinnovation.

21

organizational survey was used to generate conclusions with regard to the national level. Theindividual (micro) level isoftenneglected,even though there is awell-establisheddiscourseontheroleof individualsocialentrepreneursandother individuals ingeneratingsocial innovations(Krlev,BundandMildenberger,2014,Bund,etal.,2013.a.;Bund,etal.,2013.b),andisdefinedasoneofthemaincharacteristicsofsocialinnovations.4.3IndicatorsRegarding indicators to measure innovation and social innovations, we find some attempts asrelevant. The macro level represents a more fruitful ground in terms of developing metrics,becauseindicatorsonthemacrolevelareusuallyofcomparativeandaggregatenature.Butthevery attempt of establishing metrics on the macro-level can be related to questions andinvestigationsofsocialimpactatandbeyondtheorganizationallevel.Theformerisgivinginsightsinto themechanismsandvariablesatplay,which influencethecapacity forsocial innovation inlargersystems,thelatterbeingmorefitforuncoveringtheprocessdimensionofsocialinnovation(Krlev, Bund,Mildenberger: 2014: 201). It is probably impossible to develop one outcome toolthatisabletocaptureallaspectsoflifethatmattertodifferentpeopleindifferentsituations.The attractiveness of employing the small range of generic measures presented above is thatresourceallocationdecisions canbemadewithindepartmentbudget.Nationaldata collectionsfor these outcome tools can possibly facilitate the identification of inequalities and otherdifferencesbetweenlocalities,togetherwithchangeswithinonelocality,therebyallowingearliergovernment intervention (Anheier et al., 2014.12).Methods, aswell as national surveys, oftenfocusonthemacro-andmeso-level,suchasexpenditureonR&D,HRindicatorsortheimpactofinnovation onGDP growth, on the one hand, and on firms and for-profit enterprises and theirdegree of and contribution to innovation on the other. Little attention has been paid to thequestion inwhichways the third sector canbea sourceoradriverof innovation (Simsaetal.,2014).Analysingindicatorsinabroadersense,theEuropeanUnionhasdevelopedtheInnovationUnionScoreboard,acomplexindexconsistingofseveralindicators.Theyaredividedintothethreemainareas of enablers, firm activities and outputs, where each again contains certain innovationdimensions,whichareagainmeasuredusingconcreteindicators(EuropeanCommission,2015).35

35The innovation dimensions of enablers are human resources, open, excellent and attractiveresearch systemsand financeand support. Indicatorsusedare i.e. thepercentageofdoctorateholdersofthepopulation,theamountofinternationalscientificco-publicationsorthepercentageofGDPspentonR&D.FirmactivitiesincludethedimensionsoffirminvestmentsinbothR&DandnonR&D-innovationexpenditure, linkagesandentrepreneurshipand intellectualassets,suchasthe amount of patent applications, community designs or trademarks. Within in the last

22

OECD (2010.a, 2010.b) recognize four areas important for innovation: empowering people toinnovate,which is capturedbyeducational andhuman resources related indicators,unleashinginnovation in firms, measured by indicators concerning the entry and exit of firms, policyenvironment as well as the existence and activities of young, innovative firms; investing ininnovation, where the importance of government funding is stressed and the ability to reapreturns from innovation,wheremeasurement is approached through thequantity of scientificcollaborations,knowledgeclusters,scienceandindustrylinkagesandthelike.There was also the proposal of prototyping a Social Innovation Scoreboard in recognizing theneed to strengthen the knowledge base on indicators for social innovation, including greaterconsistencyandendorsementamongstatisticiansofthedefinitionofsocialinnovation(Reederetal.,2012).In2013,theEuropeanCommissionlaunchedapilotEuropeanPublicSectorInnovationScoreboard(EPSIS)toimprovetheabilitytobenchmarktheinnovationperformanceofthepublicsectorinEurope.ThekeyresultsshowthatthepublicsectorinEuropeinnovates,butitstillfacedwithanumberofobstacles.36TheMEPINproject(MeasuringinnovationinthepublicsectorintheNordiccountries')developedasurveyquestionnaireforinnovationinthepublicsector.37Centralindicatorsare the shareoforganizationswith innovations,bothoverall and for individual types(Bloch,2011).EQUAL program evaluation captured the number of innovations per thematic field; type ofinnovationaccordingtoitsemergence(import,adaptationornewdevelopment),anddimension(goal-oriented, process-oriented, or context-oriented). Ex post evaluations of the 2000-2006programming period showed someweaknesses inmonitoring and evaluation, and problems incomparingoutcome.38Subsequently the2007-2013programmingperiod introducedaminimumset of common output indicators related to participant’s characteristics. However, data qualityremainsuneven,anddatacollectionmethodsvarygreatlyamongmemberstates.Greffe(2003)suggestsdifferentkindsofindicators.Conformityindicatorwasdevelopedinorderto seewhetherornot the innovation conductedby the third sectordiffers fromother sectors.This procedure sets out to isolate the innovative nature of the third sector usually in terms ofcontentsoftheservicesupplied.Thisanalysishasseveralpointstoaddress(Greffe,2003:2006):

dimension, outputs, the amount of and the employment generated by innovators as well asgeneraleconomiceffectsaremeasured(EuropeanCommission2014:10).36http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/policy/public-sector/index_en.htm37Maingoalsweretounderstandtherateanddegreeofinnovationinthepublicsector,aswellasitsincentives,processesandimpactanddevelopingameasurementframeworkforcollectinginternationallycomparabledataoninnovationinthepublicsector.38http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/equal_consolidated/data/document/EUWide%20final%20report%202010.pdf

23

innovation is not exactly theoppositeof conformity; thismethodof proceedingmay recogniseproduct innovations, but has greater difficulty in recognising innovation in terms of processes;innovationdoesnotnecessarilyimplyavisiblechangeinaproductorprocessanditwasassumedthat theseproblems couldbeovercomeand; an analysiswould still need tobemadeover thelong term to see whether the conformity convention holds up or not. Another two indicatorswere productivity indicator to measure the volume of services provided, the number of jobscreatedandtheproductionofvaluesorsocialcapitalaswellasthelifetimeindicator,whichlooksat the diversity of funding sources and thus how likely the organisation is to survive a sharpdeclineinoneofthesources.Theseareseenaskeyareasingeneral,butontheotherhandtheprojectINNOSERV(2012)definesareas,whichwecanalsoseeasappropriatetolookforimpactindicators effectiveness for the user39effectiveness for the service provider40, effectiveness forsociety41andwithinthatareaofsocialreturn42.Withinorganizingframeworkknownastheproductionofwelfareframework,KendallandKnapp(2000) dealt with the issue of measuring the performance of non-profit organizations. Theframeworkwas found tobeuseful inhelping to identify relevantevaluative criteria,which inawaycanbethebasefordevelopingconcreteindicators.Theyproposeamodelthatrecommendsasetofindicatorstomeasuretheperformanceofactivitiesofnon-profitorganizations.Theycanbe attributed to eight domains: economy, effectiveness (service provision), choice/pluralism,efficiency, equity, participation, advocacy, and innovation.43The authors describe theproposalsforsetsofindicatorsineacharea,butstressthattheymustbechosenaccordingtotheneedsofeach organization (Kendall, Knapp 2000: 120-121). In the area of innovations, indicators arereportedinnovations,barriersandopportunities.Simsaetal.(2015)conductedmeta-analysisofSROIstudiesandsuggestedstructureofthedomainsandfieldsofindicatorsthatcanbeused.In the systematic review (Krlev, Bund, Mildenberger, 2014, Bund et al., 2013.a., Bund et al.,2013.b) regarding indicator categories, itwas found thatmanymethodologiesuse indicators tomeasure activities at the firm level, but few indicator approaches include indirect societaloutcomeindicators.Thesekindsofindicatorsappearmostofteninthefieldofsustainabilityandinmeasuringenvironmentalperformance.However,societaloutcomeindicatorsareparticularlyrelevant for social innovation,becauseof their approximating character: they capturepotentialresultsofsocial innovationat thesocietal level, suchaschanges inwell-being.Apart fromthat,

39New jobs, reduction of risks, citizenship –social interaction, social protection: well being –qualityoflife,increasedaccesstocommunityservice40Capacitybuilding,costeffectiveness41Capacitybuilding,costeffectiveness42Employment,education,communitycohesion,transitioninstitutionaltocommunitybasedcare43The authors state that innovation is of relevance primarily to the extent that it impactsintermediateoutputsorfinaloutcomes,orimprovesefficiency,equityorsocialcapital.

24

there is a balanced distribution between the analysis of enabling conditions, organizationalactivities,andoutputindicatorsintheexistingapproaches.44The same authors proposed metrics with different data sources in several dimensions: socialinnovation resource framework, social innovation institutional framework, social innovationpoliticalframeworkandsocialinnovationsocialclimateframework.Indicatorsareproposedthatmightcapturehowsocialinnovationaffectssocietybyfosteringsocietalcohesionorwell-beingorhow it relates to field specific outcomes such as education achievement or tolerance towardsminority groups. But most of the proposed metrics is difficult to directly connect to socialinnovations,e.g.tosaythattheyarethereliabledatasourceforestimatingtheimpactofsocialinnovations.Theyare,atbest,significanteffortstoframetheareaandgiveabroadscopeofwhatcouldbedatasourcesandindicatorsdimensionconsideredwhenweanalysesocialinnovations.Taking all dilemmas in regard, a step-by-step approach would probably be most suitable fordeveloping indicators. It can, therefore, improve the effectiveness of the indicator system andhelp to establish reliable indicators of good quality rather than to create impact indicators ofquestionablevalue.4.4ConditionsforSocialInnovationImpactSocial innovation should not consist only of an isolated incident, but should be replicable andhave the potential to scale up in order to have a significant impact (Borzaga, Bodini, 2012). Itshould not be neglected that more incremental innovations, if aggregated, can have a higherimpact than more revolutionary and thus visible disruptive innovations (Christensen, 2000 inAnheier et al. 2014:22). But, social innovation should prepare social reforms through theprograms,pilotschemesandevaluationthatwouldalloworganizationsthatfailanewattemptat"better failure", which allows the learning of all stakeholders of social policy (Evers, Ewert,Brandsen,2013). Inaway, theyareseenasmessengers,withproposalsworthyofentering themainstreampolicies.Therefore,their impactcanbethatsocial innovationsarenewphenomenain socialpolicies thatdonotprepare reformsonly throughdiscussions,butprojectsare testinginnovativeideas45inpracticewhatcanbesignificantforthefurtherdevelopmentofthewelfarestate.

44In addition to this analysis, which has been crucial in compiling the indicator suite to followbelow, authors suggest that two models have prominently influenced the design of theframeworkmodel:theoneofNationalEndowmentforScience,TechnologyandtheArts(NESTA)andtheotherbytheDepartmentofInnovation,Industry,Science,andResearchoftheAustralianGovernment.45ButtheyneedspaceforthatonthenationalandEUlevel.Forexample,EASIprogrammeshaveprovidedfinancialsupporttotestsocialand labourmarketpolicy innovationsandcontributeto

25

Given the fact that social innovations are usually designed to fit a particular context anddeveloped through a unique set of relationships and collaborations, replicating is rarelystraightforward(Caulier-Grice,etal.,2012a),soinconsequenceawiderevidenceoftheirimpactis often unavailable. Themore reformistmovementsmay, in general, have had a longer life, awiderspatial impactorbroadersocialbenefits,but incontrast to themoregrassroots-basedorevenutopianexperiments, theyhavealsobeenmoreprone tobureaucratisationandhave losttouchwiththeiroriginalhungerforsocialinnovation(Moulaertetal.2005).Thatchangesthemas„target“ for measurement and requires closely tracking their impact in changing periods overtime. Experiences from FP7 project WILCO (Brandsen, 2014.a) in the study of local socialinnovationhaveshownthatmostsocialinnovationremainslocalandhaslimitedduration,whichcertainly limits their impact. Insodoing, themostsuccessfulonesaremore integrated intotheadministrationoflocalsocialsystems,oreveninitiatedbythelocalauthorities.In their case studiesMulgan et al. (2007) concluded that learning and adaptation is the key toensuring that the innovation achieves social impact, and will continue to do so as theenvironment around it changes. When these elements are all in sync, innovations achieveresonancewiththeirenvironmentandcometoappearnaturally.Therearedifferentdegreesofopennesstochangeandinnovationintheareasofwelfarepolicy.Significantsupportof"bridging"policiesinsituationswherethesocialinnovationactintimeandfinanciallylimitedpilotprogramshasprovedimportanttothesustainabilityofinnovations(Evers,Ewert,2012;Evers,Ewert,Brandsen,2013).Dissemination is actively providing information, and sometimes technical assistance to otherslooking to bring an innovation to their community (Dees, Anderson, Wei-Skillern, 2004).Dissemination indirectly helps measure the impact. For themore innovation is expanding andreplicating,themoredatawehavetoassessitsimpact,bothonthewayinwhichitisproducedand on the possible preconditions that stimulate or obstruct impact in different environments.Thepromotionofsocialinnovationinsocialpolicyimpliesadoptingtheperspectiveoftheneeds,expectationsandthepossibilitiesconsistentwiththelogicofinvestment,mobilizingawiderangeof actorswhose (non) action has an impact on social protection, inclusion, cohesion andwell-being, and combining skills, context and culture in delivering innovative answers (EuropeanCommission 2013.a: 17). Social innovation requires a favourable environment for theirdevelopment and demonstrating an impact. That depends on numerous factors, such ascharacteristicsofinnovationandinnovators,supportandfavourablepolicysurroundings.

building up themain actors’ capacity to design and implement social policy experimentations.(Europeancommission,2014.a)

26

5ConclusionSocial Innovationcauseschanges in thewelfare stateusually fromthebottomup.This isoftendonebyofferingsolutionstolocalproblemsorspecificgroups,orchangesincertainsub-systemsof social policy. Their innovative potential causes new ways of thinking that would be moreeffectiveinpreventingandeliminatingnewsocialrisks.Thepotentialcontributionofthirdsectorsocialinnovationscanbeseenondifferentlevels.Atthemicroleveltheyareanimportantelementaffectingthesocio-economicdevelopmentofsocietiesbyhelpingindividualsinneed,enhancingtheircapabilitiesandpromotingwellbeing.Changingtheformofgovernance,aswellasthedevelopmentoflocalcommunities,canbedistinctiveimpactsof third sector social innovations on themeso-level. Social innovations at themacro-level canprovetheirimpactinevokingsystemicchangebytransformingthewaysinwhichsocietythinks.Buildingnewsocialrelationsisalsoamaincomponentofthemacrolevel impactofthirdsectorsocialinnovations.Social innovation transcends sectors, levelsof analysis, andmethods todiscover theprocesses,the strategies, tactics, and theories of change that produce lasting impact (Phills, Deiglmeier,Miller, 2008). However, although they are achieving impact there is little systematic evidenceabout concrete measurement and evaluation of that impact. Knowledge about the impact ofsocial innovation is so far limited and scattered. Social innovations are difficult to measure ingeneral, and it is also difficult to separate the specific contribution of the third sector. Besidesstatedmethodologicalissues46,keyaspectsrelatedtothatare:socialinnovationdoesnothaveasingledefinition,although,intheirdefinitions,wefindanimplicitcriterionofproductionofsocialimpactasthedefiningcharacteristic;theyarenotsufficientlyrecognizedinthepolicycontext,butnonethelesstheyhavebecomepartofcertainpoliciesandprogramsoftheEU.Thatislinkedwiththe lack of evidence on their impact. Most innovations are small-scale and short in duration,whichhamperstheirdevelopment,aswellasassessmentoftheir long-termimpact.Theyareatriskof“dying”beforetheycanhaveanimpact.Although,therearesomeattempts,methodsformeasuring the impact of social innovations47have not been developed. The same goes forindicators,whichwouldbesuitableforobservingandanalysingsocial innovations.Therearenoglobaldatabasesthatmonitortheimpactofsocialinnovation;suchdirectdatabasesaresofarnotfoundonthenationallevels.Effective metrics about the scale, scope and impact of social innovation at the regional andnational levelwouldhelpguidepolicymakers indeveloping the right framework conditions forsocial innovation(Caulier-Grice,etal.,2012.c). Ontheotherhand insecure,short-termfunding

46Suchasdirectionofcausalityordeadweighteffect47Exceptforsometoolsattheprojectlevel

27

often alsomeans short-term reporting andmany individuals employed or volunteering in thirdsectorprogramshavelackedenthusiasmforperformancemeasurement,whichisperceivedasatime consuming burden imposed by governments (or donors) (Anheier et al., 2014). Theimprovementofknowledgeonsocialinnovationthroughresearch,platforms,hubsandnetworksof researchersand transformative tools toopenpolicyperspectives is increasingly supported invarious policy areas. But policy reforms are still insufficiently based on evidence as well asevaluationoftheirimpacts(EuropeanCommission,2013.a).The field of social innovation, both due to its emergent state and its proximity to establishedfields of research, represents the special and unprecedented opportunity of being explored bytheory and metrics in combination (Krlev, Bund, Mildenberger, 2014). The same authors arewarning that any narrow interpretation of performance measurement, in the sense of theimperativeof“onlywhatgetsmeasured,getsmanaged”coinedbyPeterDrucker, is likelytobeunhelpfulandcouldevenhaveadverseeffectsonthesectorifitchangesthewaythatthirdsectororganizations operate and disincentivises organizations to innovate. There is a clear need forpromotion of the design of new statistical methods and interdisciplinary approaches to datacollection and specificallymeasurement of innovation for social goals and of social impacts ofinnovation(OECD,2010.b).Datacollectionofthesemetricsatthenationallevelprovidesnewopportunitiestocreatemorevalid models and projections to predict demands and needs and can inform a more reliablebaselinebywhichwecancompareoutcomesandimpactsbeyondstationarymeasures(Anheieretal.2014:12).However, it isarguedinparticularattheEuropeanlevelthatmoreneedstobedonetorealizethefullpotentialofrelateddata(Stiglitzetal.,2009,p.3).Whiletheassessmentexercises are still straitjacketed in one-size-fits-all public spending control standards, social andenvironmentalpolicies, inparticular,are increasinglyadoptingscientificallybasedmethodssuchas social experimentation to test (and prove) the effectiveness of innovations in their sectorbefore theycanbescaledupand replicated.Social impactmeasurement isan issue,whichhasstirredupalivelydebateinmanycirclesandatmanylevels(BEPA,2014:28)andit isespeciallyimportantinsocialinnovationarea.Takinginregardthecurrentsituationofmeasuringtheimpactofthirdsectorsocialinnovations,therearesomepossibleapproachestothefurtherdevelopmentofmeasurement.Firstlyweneedtosetupasystemforidentifyingandtrackingsocialinnovations.Thismaybedonewiththehelpofgovernmentdepartmentsforsocialinnovation,asthereareexamplesinsomecountries,orbyresearchprojects48,institutionalefforts49,orsomesortofself-reportingsystem.

48Someprojects(especiallyfromSeventhFramework)havegoalofmappingofsocialinnovations

28

Itisrecognizedthatsocialinnovationshaveanimpactonthemicro-,meso-andmacro-level.Tocapturethisimpactweproposetakingadifferentapproachtoeachofthespheres.Atthemicro-levelmeasurementoftheimpactcouldrelyontheuseofreportingtoolsprimarilyinordertodemonstratetheimpactonthewell-beingofusers.Someofthemwementionedinthispaper and organizations are normally using them in their work, but a wider usage should beencouraged. These tools are considering the different types of organizations, their goals, andmodesofoperation;therefore,theyshouldbeflexibleandopenfororganizationstoadaptthemtotheirneeds.At themeso-level, it ispossible tograsp the impactof social innovationsbyusingcase studies,which will look at how organizations are impacting relations in society, the processes ofgovernanceandthelocalcommunity.Aggregationofthecasesandtheircomparisonwithothercontextswouldcertainlycontributetothegreatervalidityofthisapproachtomeasurement.Atthemacro-level,werecognizetwopossibleapproaches.Oneistodoin-depthcasestudiesofindividual countries trying to determine what changes were brought by third sector socialinnovations.Theresearchquestionishowtheyhavechangedthecultureofsocialpolicyorotheraspects of society.50Social innovations are impacting the bottom up changes, by the power oftheir example, and this relationship should be studied in depth. Putting it in a comparativecontextofother European countries can stimulatediscussiononaspectsof the impactof thirdsectorsocialinnovationinpolicyandsocialrelationsattheEuropeanlevel.Theseconddirectionis thedevelopmentofpossible indicatorsat thenational level.But the current situation is thatsuch indicators can be developed to identify the preconditions and the instigators of socialinnovationincountriesalotsoonerthanformeasuringpotentialimpact.Therefore,possiblyoneofthemainconclusionsofthispaperisthatafurtherstepinmeasuringtheimpactofsocialinnovationsisrequired.Thiscallsforspecificresearchfocusedontheimpactthatwilltryoutdifferentapproaches(ofwhichwehaveproposedsome)andindicatorstodetecttheirrelevance,usefulness,andvalidityinthecurrentearlystageofdevelopmentofframeworksandspecificindicatorsforcapturingsocialinnovationsimpact.

49One of themodelsmay be establishing observatory, somethingmodelled onObservatory ofPublic Sector Innovation (https://www.oecd.org/governance/observatory-public-sector-innovation/innovations/),butmoreelaborateanddeveloped.50Knowninnovationsfromthethirdsectorthathadthemacroimpactareforexampleimpactingon the introductionof the conceptof corporate social responsibility, or hybridorganizations insocietyenvironment.

29

Theshiftfromsocialinnovationasacharitablesolutiontoaproblemthathasanimmediatebutunsustainable impact to the transformative ambition to create long-lasting changes to solvesocietalproblemshasalsobeenareasontolookforafriendlymilieuandrespondtotheneedsofsocialinnovationsateverystageoftheirdevelopment(BEPA,2014).Byactivatingtheintelligenceof many, social innovation allows to make a very different impact (Bry, 2011). We need toinvestigatefurthertofindoutifthosekindsofchangesarehappeningandwhichkindofproducedsocialinnovationsimpactcanberecognizedandanalysed.Themostsuccessfulsocialinnovationsbuild on the optimum time and capitalize over the trajectory of social, economic and politicaltransformationthatisunderwayinsociety.Measuringimpactofthirdsectorsocialinnovationsisapressingissueforenhancingthesocio-economicdevelopmentofEurope.

29

ReferencesAnheier,H.K.,Fliegnauf,M.T.(2013).TheContributionofInnovationResearchtoUnderstanding

GovernanceInnovation:Areview.InAnheier,H.K.(Ed.)GovernanceChallenges&Innovations:FinancialandFiscalGovernance.Oxford,OxfordUniversityPress.

Anheier,H.K.;Krlev,G.;Preuss,S.;Mildenberger,G.;Bekkers,R.;Mensink,W.;Bauer,A.;Knapp,M.;Wistow,G.;Hernandez,A,Adelaja,B.,(2014).SocialInnovationasImpactoftheThirdSector.Adeliverableoftheproject:“ImpactoftheThirdSectorasSocialInnovation”(ITSSOIN),EuropeanCommission–7thFrameworkProgramme,Brussels:EuropeanCommission,DGResearch.

Baker,S.,Mehmood,M.(2015).Socialinnovationandthegovernanceofsustainableplaces.LocalEnvironment:TheInternationalJournalofJusticeandSustainability,20(3)pp.321-334.

Barroso,J.M.(2011)EuropeleadingsocialinnovationSPEECH/11/190.http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-11-190_en.htm?locale=en

BEPA(2010).Empoweringpeople,drivingchange.SocialinnovationinEuropeanunion.http://ec.europa.eu/bepa/pdf/publications_pdf/social_innovation.pdf

BEPA(2014).SocialInnovationADecadeofChanges.http://espas.eu/orbis/Bežovan,G.,Matančević,J.,Baturina,D.(2014.a).Zagreb.In:Evers,A.;Ewert,B.,Brandsen,T.(Ed.).

Socialinnovationsforsocialcohesion:transnationalpatternsandapproachesfrom20Europeancities.Liege.EMES.pp.31-47.

Bežovan,G.,Matančević,J.,Baturina,D.(2014.b).Varaždin.In:Evers,A.;Ewert,B.,Brandsen,T.(Ed.).Socialinnovationsforsocialcohesion:transnationalpatternsandapproachesfrom20Europeancities.Liege.EMES.pp.47-65.

Bloch.C.(2011).MeasuringPublicInnovationintheNordicCountries:CopenhagenManual.NORDEN.NordicInnovations.

Bonoli,G.(2005).Thepoliticsofthenewsocialpolicies:providingcoverageagainstnewsocialrisksinmaturewelfarestates,Policy&Politics.33(3),431–449.

Bonoli,G.(2007).TimeMattersPostindustrialization,NewSocialRisks,andWelfareStateAdaptationinAdvancedIndustrialDemocracies.ComparativePoliticalStudies,40(5),495-520.

BorzagaC.,BodiniR.(2012).Whattomakeofsocialinnovation?Towardsaframeworkforpolicydevelopment,EuricseWorkingPaper,N.036|12.

Brandsen,T.(2014.a).WILCOFinalReport.http://www.wilcoproject.eu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/WILCO-final-report_final.pdf

Brandsen,T.(2014.b).Innovationsinlocalwelfare:howgoodideasarespread(andhownot).Berlin:Conference:TowardsInclusiveEmploymentandWelfareSystems:ChallengesforaSocialEurope.

Brandsen,T.,Cattacin,S.,Evers,A.,Zimmer,A.(2015).SocialInnovation:ASympatheticandCriticalInterpretation.InBrandsen,T.,Cattacin,S.,Evers,A.,Zimmer,A.(Ed.),SocialInnovationsintheUrbanContext.Springer-Verlag,London(forthcoming).

Bry,N.(2011).Socialinnovation?let'sstartlivinginnovationasacollectiveadventure.TheInternationalJournalofOrganizationalInnovation.4(2).5-14.

30

Bund,E.;Hubrich,D-K;Schmitz,B.;Mildenberger,G;Krlev,G(2013.a)."ReportonInnovationMetrics-CapturingTheoretical,ConceptualandOperationalInsightsfortheMeasurementofSocialInnovation",adeliverableoftheproject:“Thetheoretical,empiricalandpolicyfoundationsforbuildingsocialinnovationinEurope”(TEPSIE),EuropeanCommission–7thFrameworkProgramme,Brussels:EuropeanCommission,DGResearch

Bund,E.;Hubrich,D-K;Schmitz,B.;Mildenberger,G;Krlev,G,(2013.b).Blueprintofsocialinnovationmetrics–contributionstoanunderstandingofopportunitiesandchallengesofsocialinnovationmeasurement.Adeliverableoftheproject:Thetheoretical,empiricalandpolicyfoundationsforbuildingsocialinnovationinEurope"(TEPSIE)EuropeanCommission–7thFrameworkProgramme,Brussels:EuropeanCommission,DGResearch.

Caulier-Grice,J.Davies,A.Patrick,R.Norman,W.(2012.a).DefiningSocialInnovation.Adeliverableoftheproject:Thetheoretical,empiricalandpolicyfoundationsforbuildingsocialinnovationinEurope(TEPSIE),EuropeanCommission–7thFrameworkProgramme,Brussels:EuropeanCommission,DGResearch.

Caulier-Grice,J.Davies,A.Patrick,R.Norman,W.(2012.b).SocialInnovationPracticesandTrends.Adeliverableoftheproject:Thetheoretical,empiricalandpolicyfoundationsforbuildingsocialinnovationinEurope(TEPSIE),EuropeanCommission–7thFrameworkProgramme,Brussels:EuropeanCommission,DGResearch.

Caulier-Grice,J.Davies,A.Patrick,R.Norman,W.(2012.c).SocialInnovationContextandResponses.Adeliverableoftheproject:Thetheoretical,empiricalandpolicyfoundationsforbuildingsocialinnovationinEurope(TEPSIE),EuropeanCommission–7thFrameworkProgramme,Brussels:EuropeanCommission,DGResearch.

Conger,S.(2003).AListofSocialInventions.TheInnovationJournalhttp://www.innovation.cc/books/conger_social_inventions1_09232009min.pdf

Crouch,C.(2011).TheStrangeNon-deathofNeoliberalism.Cambridge:PolityPress.Dees,G.Anderson,B.B.,Wei-Skillern,J.(2004)ScalingSocialImpactStrategiesforspreadingsocial

innovationsStanford.SocialInnovationReview.pp.24-32.Elkington,J.(2004).EntertheTripleBottomLine.In:HenriquesA.,Richardson,J.(Ed.):TheTriple

BottomLine.Doesitalladdup?London,NewYork:Earthscan.Eriksson,M.,Einarsson,T.,&Wijkström,F.(2014).ReportontheEuropeansocialinnovationpolicy

frameworkinlightofthirdsectorandcivilsocietyactors.Adeliverableoftheproject:‘ImpactoftheThirdSectorasSocialInnovation’(ITSSOIN),EuropeanCommission–7thFrameworkProgramme.Brussels:EuropeanCommission,DGResearch.

Esping-Andersen,G.,Gallie,D.,Hemerijck,A.&Myles,J.(2002).WhyWeNeedaNewWelfareState.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

EuropeanCommission(2013.a).GuideToSocialInnovationhttp://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/10157/47822/Guide%20to%20Social%20Innovation.pdf

EuropeanCommission(2013.b).StateoftheInnovationUnion-takingstock2010-2014.http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/state-of-the-union/2013/state_of_the_innovation_union_report_2013.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none

EuropeanCommission(2013.c).TowardsSocialInvestmentforGrowthandCohesion–includingimplementingtheEuropeanSocialFund2014-2020.http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013DC0083&from=EN

EuropeanCommission(2013.d).SocialinnovationresearchintheEuropeanUnionApproaches,findingsandfuturedirectionsPOLICYREVIEW.Luxembourg:PublicationsOfficeofthe

31

EuropeanUnionhttp://www.gppq.fct.pt/h2020/_docs/brochuras/society/social_innovation%20in%20the%20EU.pdf

Europeancommission(2014.a).ExecutivesummaryofEaSIPerformanceMonitoringReport2014.http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=7814&type=2&furtherPubs=yes

EuropeanCommission(2014.b).RESEARCHONSOCIALINNOVATIONInventoryofprojectsfundedundertheEUResearchFrameworkProgrammes.https://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/project_synopses/ssh-projects-fp7-5-6-social-innovation_en.pdf

EuropeanCommission(2015.b).InnovationUnionScoreboard2015.http://ec.europa.eu/growth/industry/innovation/facts-figures/scoreboards/files/ius-2015_en.pdf

Evers,A.,Ewert,B.(2012).ComparativeReport.ApproachesandInstrumentsinLocalWelfareSystems:Innovation,AdoptionandAdaptation.WILCOreport

Evers,A.,Ewert,B.,Brandsen,T.(Ed.),(2013).Socialinnovationsforsocialcohesion-Transnationalpatternsandapproachesfrom20Europeancities.Liege:Emes.

EVPA(2013).APracticalGuidetoMeasuringandManagingImpact.EuropeanVenturePhilanthropyAssociation.

Fonović,K.(2014).ThirdSectorNetworksIndicatePrioritiesforMeasuringImpact:ParticipationandWellbeing.http://thirdsectorimpact.eu/site/assets/uploads/documentations/first-tsi-stakeholder-engagement-report/TSI_ReportStakeholdersNational_Impacts11.pdf

GECESSub-grouponImpactMeasurement(2014).ProposedApproachestoSocialImpactMeasurementintheEuropeanCommissionlegislationandpracticerelatingto:EuSEFsandtheEaSI.GECESGroup.

Gerometta,J.Haussermann,H.,Longo,G.(2005).SocialInnovationandCivilSocietyinUrbanGovernance:StrategiesforanInclusiveCity.UrbanStudies.42(11).pp.2007–2021.

Gibson-Graham,J.K.,Roelvink,G.(2009).SocialInnovationforCommunityEconomies.In:Moulaert,F.(Ed.).SocialInnovationandTerritorialDevelopment.AshgatePublishing

Greffe,X.(2003).Innovation,ValueAddedandEvaluationintheThirdSystem:AEuropeanPerspective.In:OECD(Ed.)TheNon-profitSectorinaChangingEconomy.Paris,OECD.

Godin,B.(2012).SocialInnovation:UtopiasofInnovationfromc.1830tothePresent.ProjectontheIntellectualHistoryofInnovationWorkingPaperNo.11.

Harrison,D,Jensen,J.(2013).SocialinnovationresearchinEurope:Approaches,trendsandfuturedirections.PapercommissionedfortheEuropeanCommissionandtheWILCOproject

Howaldt,J.,Schwarz.(2010).SocialInnovation:Concepts,researchfieldsandinternationaltrends.Dortmund:Sozialforschungsstellehttp://www.sfs-dortmund.de/odb/Repository/Publication/Doc%5C1289%5CIMO_Trendstudie_Howaldt_Schwarz_englische_Version.pdf

Howaldt,J.,Butzin,A.,Domanski,D.,&Kaletka,C.(2014).TheoreticalApproachestoSocialInnovation-ACriticalLiteratureReview.Adeliverableoftheproject:SocialInnovation:DrivingForceofSocialChange(SI-DRIVE).Dortmund:Sozialforschungsstelle.

INNOGRIPS(2010).Socialinnovation.Mobilisingresourcesandpeople.AgendaoftheInnovation.PolicyWorkshop#625-26March2010,Brussels(report)

INNOSERV(2012).InnovativepracticesInEurope:INNOSERVProjectSelectionofInnovativePractices.

32

http://www.innoserv.eu/sites/default/files/WP3%20Report_Innovative%20practices%20INNOSERV_0.pdf

Kaplan,R.S.(2001).StrategicPerformanceMeasurementandManagementinNonprofitOrganizations.NonprofitManagementandLeadership11(3).pp.353-370.

Krlev,G.,Bund,E.Mildenberger,G.(2014)MeasuringWhatMatters—IndicatorsofSocialInnovativenessontheNationalLevel.InformationSystemsManagement.31(3).pp.200-224.

Kvist,J.(2015).SocialInvestmentReforms:Changingparadigms,PoliciesandInstitutions.ESPAnetconference“ThelostandtheNewWorldsofWelfare”,Odense,3-5-September2015.

Lettice,F.,Parekh,M.(2010).Thesocialinnovationprocess:themes,challengesandimplicationsforpractice.InternationalJournalofTechnologyManagement.51(1)pp.139-158.

Lublecova,G.(2012).SocialInnovationsintheContextofModernization;GlobalandLocalChallengesinSlovakia:SocialInnovationundertheEuropeanUnion'sInternationalization.Sociológia44(3).

Maas,K.(2008).Socialimpactmeasurement:Towardsaguidelineformanagers,U:Csutora,M.,Szerényi,Z.M.(ed.)SustainabilityandCorporateResponsibilityAccounting–measuringandmanagingbusinessbenefits.Budapest:EMAN-EU2008ConferenceProceeding.

Miquel,M.P.,Cabeza,M.G.,EizaguirreAnglada,S.(2013).TheorizingMulti-levelGovernanceinSocialInnovationDynamics.InMoulaert,F.,MacCallum,D.,Mehmood,A.,Hamdouch,A.(Ed.),TheInternationalHandbookonSocialInnovation:CollectiveAction,SocialLearningandTransdisciplinaryResearchCheltenham,UK,Northampton,MA,USA,EdwardElgar.

Monzón,J.L.,Chaves,R.(2008).TheEuropeanSocialEconomy:ConceptanddimensionsoftheThirdSector.AnnalsofPublicandCooperativeEconomics,79(3/4),pp.549-577.

Monzón,J.L.,Chaves,R.(2012).TheSocialEconomyintheEuropeanUnion.Brussels:EuropeanEconomicandSocialCommittee.

Moulaert,F.,MacCallum,D.,Mehmood,A.,Hamdouch,A.(2013)(Ed.),TheInternationalHandbookonSocialInnovation:CollectiveAction,SocialLearningandTransdisciplinaryResearch.Cheltenham,UK,Northampton,MA,USA:EdwardElgar.

Mulgan,G.etal.(2006).Mappingvalueinthebuiltenvironment.YoungFoundationMulgan,G.,Ali,R.,Halkett,R.,Sanders,B.(2007).Inandoutofsync,Researchreport2007,NESTA.Mulgan,G.(2007).SocialInnovation;Whatitis,whyitmattersandhowcanbeaccelerated.Skoll

CentreforSocialentrepreneurship:TheYoungFoundation.OECD(2010.a).MeasuringInnovation.ANewPerspective.OECDPublishing.OECD(2010b).MinisterialreportontheOECDInnovationStrategyInnovationtostrengthengrowth

andaddressglobalandsocialchallenges.KeyFindings.OECDPublishing.OECD(2010c).SMEs,EntrepreneurshipandInnovation.Paris:OECD.OECD(2011).FosteringInnovationtoAddressSocialChallenges.WORKSHOPPROCEEDINGS.OECD

Publishing.OECD(2015).PolicyBriefonSocialImpactMeasurementforSocialEnterprisesPoliciesforSocial

Entrepreneurship.Luxembourg:PublicationsOfficeoftheEuropeanUnion.Oosterlynck,S.,Y.Kazepov,A.Novy,P.Cools,E.Barberis,F.Wukovitsch,T.Sarius&B.Leubolt

(2013).Thebutterflyandtheelephant:localsocialinnovation,thewelfarestateandnewpovertydynamics.ImPRovEDiscussionPaperNo.13/03.Antwerp:HermanDeleeckCentreforSocialPolicy–UniversityofAntwerp.

Osburg,T.,Schmidpeter,R.(2013).(Ed.),SocialInnovations-SolutionsforaSustainableFutureHeidelberg:Springer.

33

Phills,J.A.Jr.,Deiglmeier,K,&Miller,D.T.(2008)RediscoveringSocialInnovation.StanfordSocialInnovationReview.6(4),pp.34-43.

Pol,E.,Ville,S.(2009).Socialinnovation:Buzzwordorenduringterm?TheJournalofSocio-Economics,38,878–885.

Reeder,Neil,O’Sullivan,C.,Tucker,Si.,Ramsden,P.,Mulgan,G.(2012).StrengtheningsocialinnovationinEurope:journeytoeffectiveassessmentandmetrics.EnterpriseandIndustry,EuropeanCommission,Brussels,Belgium.

Simsa,R.,Rauscher,O.,et.al.(2014).MethodologicalGuidelineForImpactAssessment,TSIWorkingPaperSeriesNo.1.SeventhFrameworkProgramme(grantagreement613034),EuropeanUnion.Brussels:ThirdSectorImpact.

Simsa,R.,Herndler,M.,Totter,M.(2015-fortcoming)Meta-AnalysisofSROIStudies-IndicatorsandProxies.TSIWorkingPaperSeriesNo.X.SeventhFrameworkProgramme(grantagreement613034),EuropeanUnion.Brussels:ThirdSectorImpact.

SocialinnovationEurope(2011)StrengtheningsocialinnovationinEurope:Road-mapforeffectiveassessment.DRAFT.SocialInnovationEurope.https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/socialinnovationeurope/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/Strengthing%20Social%20Innovation%20Metrics%20Gdynia.pdf

Stiglitz,J.E.,Sen,A.,Fitoussi,J.-P.(2009).ReportbytheCommissionontheMeasurementofEconomicPerformanceandSocialProgress.Retrievedfromwww.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr

Taylor-Gooby,P.(2004).NewRisks,NewWelfare:TheTransformationoftheEuropeanWelfareState.USA:OxfordUniversityPress.

Vale,A.(2009).AnewparadigmforSocialInterventioninSocialInnovation,SocialInnovation.Newperspective,Lisbon:SociedadeeTrabajoBooklets,(12).pp.3-13.

URBACTIIprogramme(2015).Socialinnovationincities.URBACTIIcapitalisation.Bialec,Nancy:URBACT.

Vanclay,F.(2003).InternationalPrinciplesforSocialimpactAssessmentAssessment.ImpactAssessmentandProjectAppraisal,21(1)pp.5-12.

Voorberg,W.,Bekkers,V.,Tummers,L.(2013)Co-creationandCo-productioninSocialInnovation:ASystematicReviewandFutureResearchAgenda.EGPA–conference,Edinburgh11September–13September2013.

Wainwright,S.(2002).Measuringimpact:Aguidetoresources.NCVOPublications.Wise,R.,Wengrich,K.,Lodge,M.(2014).GovernanceInnovations.In:HertieSchoolofGovernance.

TheGovernanceReport2014.Oxford,OxfordUniversityPress.

INTERNETSOURCES:http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1081http://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/Forum-Social-Innovations.htmhttps://www.oecd.org/governance/observatory-public-sector-innovation/innovations/https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/socialinnovationeurope/enhttp://www.youngfoundation.org/social-innovation/tips/social-impact-bonds-and-social-value

34