Abstract
Introduction
Social enterprises combine business logic and social goals, which distinguishes them from traditional for-profit or non-profit entities [1, 2]. Social enterprises tackle persistent societal problems such as social exclusion, environmental issues, injustice and poverty. Social enterprises attempt to solve problems that traditional private, public, voluntary or community organisations have not been able to solve despite their efforts [3]. Brouard and Larivet [4] define a social enterprise as “a business dedicated to a social mission, or earning a profit for the financial furtherance of a social mission”. Dacin et al. [5] show that a social enterprise can play a key role in addressing social challenges by fostering employee and community well-being while generating financial benefits. Mair and Martí [6, p. 37] highlight the process nature of social enterprises as “[A] process involving the innovative use and combination of resources to pursue opportunities to catalyse social change and/or address social needs”. Traditionally, in business the focus has been on the heroic individual, the social entrepreneur, rather than the larger society.
According to the Social enterprise research network EMES, the social criteria that define social enterprises are (1) an explicit aim to benefit the community; (2) an initiative launched by a group of citizens; (3) decision-making power not based on capital ownership; (4) a participatory nature involving the various parties affected by the activity; and (5) limited profit distribution. Important characteristics of social enterprises are representation and participation of users or customers, stakeholder influence on decision-making and participative management. In many cases, an aim of social enterprises is to further democracy at the local level through economic activity [7]. The importance of social entrepreneurship is constantly growing; new “social” start-ups are emerging at a faster rate than more conventional ventures, according to the European Commission [8].
The purpose of this paper is to examine the participatory design of one social enterprise, focusing in particular on the first phases of the process: the initiation phase and the development phase. We analyse the innovation practices that the nascent social enterprise embraced and the effects of those practices. We argue that such processes are still poorly understood and largely overlooked in the literature. Establishing a social enterprise does not necessarily differ from establishing a traditional enterprise, but the process can be much different. Among social enterprises there are many variations; for instance, procedures related to employing people and initiation of the establishment process often vary.
Literature and theory
The understanding of basic terms and concepts such as social enterprise, social innovation and participatory design varies in the literature and between national or international contexts and the public and private sectors. For example, social enterprise has different definitions in the literature and its legal and political meaning changes depending on the country, greatly influencing how these enterprises are set up and funded and affecting how social enterprises may be evaluated or compared to one another. In the academic literature, there is no consistent usage of the terms social enterprise or social entrepreneurship [9; see also 5]. Social entrepreneurship covers a broad range of activities that fall along a continuum, including non-conventional entrepreneurial initiatives [10]. Social enterprise is considered to be distinct from classical business and traditional non-profit activity, combining elements of social purpose, market orientation and financial-performance standards, each to different extents than traditional business [11].
Forms of social enterprise found in Finland include work integration social enterprises that offer employment to individuals with disabilities and the long-term unemployed and are provided for by law, and organisations which have adopted a social enterprise business model and are therefore eligible for the “Social Enterprise Mark”. Facilitating a viable ecosystem for social enterprises is integral to their success; it requires, inter alia, development of business expertise, funding and investments, advisory services and publicity, and increasing demand through public procurement and corporate social responsibility programmes [12].
Social innovation describes the processes of invention, diffusion and adoption of new services or organisational models. This term also has many interpretations. Well-structured ideas about social innovation are expected by many [13, 14]. Nussbaumer and Moulaert [15] noted that “social innovations can be macro or micro, structural or local, they are introduced by an entrepreneurial spirit and through solidarity, either to improve the functioning of the organisation or to transform the organisation into a social enterprise, an enterprise with social objectives, an organisation pursuing social objectives or to empower it with a more participatory governance system”. In the present study, social innovation is an umbrella concept for examining the participatory design process of a new social enterprise. Social enterprises have been acknowledged as major producers or “laboratories” of social innovation, especially at the local or community levels [8].
The end use of a social innovation may be different from the one that was originally envisaged; sometimes action precedes understanding and sometimes taking action crystallises the idea. True innovations are more like multiple spirals than straight lines [16]. There is a consensus on the need to perform empirical research on social innovation to observe how current realities develop. A process dimension of social innovation has evolved which stresses that an important aspect of social innovation is the process of social interactionsbetween individuals to reach certain outcomes. This evolution is consistent with the many other recent developments in the field of business innovation that emphasize open, collaborative, participatory and non-linear characteristics [17].
As for participatory design, Sanders [18, p. 3] presented different ways to learn from people (Fig. 1), noting that “Discovering what people think and know provides us with their perceptions of experience. Understanding how people feel gives us the ability to empathize with them. [... ] Seeing and appreciating what people dream shows us how their future could change for the better.” According to Sanders, special tools are needed to access users’ ability to express deeper levels of their experience; she encourages the use of “emotional toolkits” that enable people to make artifacts such as collages or diaries to describe stories and dreams. Such tools are especially effective in accessing people’s unspoken feelings and emotional states. Social innovation and participatory design have much in common, but they originate from different scientific fields. In this study, they are combined through focusing on the process dimension of social innovation and our understanding of emotional tools (see Fig. 2).
Data and methods
The case study
This paper is a case study of the participatory design process for a new social enterprise in the Lahti (Päijät-Häme) Region, Finland. Päijät-Häme Social Psychiatry Foundation and its three partner organisations were in the process of establishing a social enterprise to employ mental health and substance abuse rehabilitees. The starting point of the design process, in 2012, was that there were many people with entrepreneurial interests and diverse competencies and skills, although the business plan had not been drafted yet and there was a lack of concrete business ideas. It was decided by the managers of the Foundation that an innovation process would be implemented in collaboration between the organisations and university researchers/facilitators. Business ideas would be collected through co-creation and co-learning – with the help of interactive methods – to discover which services and products the social enterprise could offer its customers. The process was called the “Bee of Communal Economy” (Fig. 3). Practice-based innovation [19] was the background philosophy of the action-oriented research; in addition to gathering business ideas, the goal was to establish competence in both innovation and creative methods in the nascent enterprise.
The data consist of: Original materials produced at six half-day workshops organized in the autumn of 2012. Participants (i.e., rehabilitees, some of their relatives, and social workers), were from the four partner organisations. Four workshops were targeted at anyone interested and two at the preliminary board. Altogether 114 persons participated in the workshops, including 104 rehabilitees and 10 social workers. Field notes recorded by workshop facilitators (the researchers). After each workshop, evaluations were conducted by Päijät-Häme Social Psychiatry Foundation and its three partner organisations in a meeting with the facilitators. In addition, the facilitators discussed and validated the observations from this evaluative meeting and the workshops. Observation data collected during follow-up work with the four organisations. The researchers participated in the meetings of the preliminary board during 2013–2014 and provided business advice and support to the Foundation staff members. Field notes were taken. A two-hour evaluation interview with the Foundation staff members in late 2014.
The qualitative data were analysed with the help of content analysis.
The interactive, participatory methods
Playfulness, improvisation and meditative methods were used as tools for co-creation and participatory design. The philosophies of improvisational theatre in addition to playfulness and meditation awareness were used as methods in the Bee of Communal Economy workshops. This combination of philosophies was chosen for their emphasis on removing the pressure from the brainstorming process and forming ideas collectively in a dialogue. The methods were specifically designed to enhance collaboration and the collective spirit. Because it was also important to take into account every idea delivered in the workshops and during the project, individual ideas were collected in advance from participants, who independently completed an “Idea Form” or wrote their ideas on sticky notes and stuck them on the “Wall of Ideas”. The workshops were devoted to collective and dialogical creation, although the participants may have had many ideas of their own to start with.
Playfulness was one starting point of the workshops, functioning as a warmup for collaborative thinking and emphasising that knowledge can be formed in many ways. As Heikkinen [20] notes, the form of action may be playful but the significance is completely truthful and serious. The facilitators pointed out that presence, meditation, fun and games can provide important information about the participants and their meaningful thoughts for business ideas. Participants were encouraged to produce preferences for and mental images of meaningful work as the starting point of knowledge creation (Figs. 4 and 5).
The main improvisational philosophy that formed the basis of the workshops was the philosophy of accepting [21]. Accepting means that every idea or thought (called an offer in improvisational terms) should be accepted. To study this principle, we used a technique called “Yes, and ... ” that teaches participants to approve their own and others’ ideas systematically by saying “Yes, and ... (adding one’s own idea to develop the story further). Thistechnique helps to collectively formulate comprehensive creations, usually a story or a scene, but in this context ideas and future visions. “Yes, and ... ” sounds simple, yet participants’ mind-sets and attitudes toward the creative process can cause certain challenges. Creation is often seen as difficult, requiring some kind of special talent, or ideas are believed to arrive as an epiphany, rather than produced in everyone’s mind all the time. This challenge was encountered during the workshops; rehabilitees were used to criticising themselves to the extent that they found it difficult to commence with their own thoughts and ideas. Deepening the skills of acceptance could be useful for countering this mind-set.
It is recognised that supportive and encouraging attitudes towards rehabilitees from professionals’ side have a positive effect on empowerment [22], but less attention has been directed towards supportive and encouraging attitudes towards oneself as important healing forces. Acceptance could also function as an important theme in vocational rehabilitation, when the empowerment of the rehabilitees is of concern, and especially as a tool to overcome lack of vision, to make plans for the future and foster ability to be successful [23]. Acceptance is not only a tool but also an attitude and a skill that requires a lot of training; the lack of this skill can act as a major obstacle for empowerment.
Another new approach for the workshop participants was the experience of “presencing”. In this context, presencing had two meanings: first, achieving through body awareness the combination of sensing and being present, or being connected with the inner source of one’s own potential and bringing it into the present [24]; and second, a flexible state of mind (mindfulness) in which people are actively engaged in the present and notice (and accept) new experiences [25]. To apply this meditation to workshops, participants began by silencing their minds and observing their emotions. Then, participants were guided into finding and returning to their private memories of so-called “meaningful doings”; for example, to the place and situation when they felt connected to their work. The sticky notes written after this exercise were the idea embryos for the business ideas that the participants collaboratively developed in groups. More than 100 business ideas were created. The process of developing these ideas continued in 2013, and the new enterprise, established on the basis of one business idea, was planned to start in late 2013 (Fig. 6 in the Appendix).
Results
“But there are crazy people and alcoholics and even some social entrepreneurship – help, what’s that?”. (A staff member in an interview giving examples of outsiders’ usual prejudice)
Suitability of the methods
In the business development process, a lot of focus was placed on how and where the development process began and how the ideas for the business were gathered. This case study differed from the process of establishing a traditional enterprise in that the initiator was not an entrepreneur with a business idea, and such a person was not sought. Instead, hundreds of mental health rehabilitees were invited to join in and produce ideas concerning the kind of enterprise they could create together. Unusual work and ideation methods were needed to generate, share and refine the ideas of the large and heterogeneous group. The results indicate that the interactive, participatory methods helped the participants escape the traditional “spinning” of ideas in one’s own head, leading to new perspectives and a state of collective ideation. The whole life experience belongs in ideation, including emotions and feelings, and especially experiences of meaningfulness. During the workshops, the aim was to call forth the participants’ experience of where, when and why they felt like they were doing something meaningful. It became evident that this was also a good way to strengthen the process of discovering one’s own internal potential, as business opportunities are strongly linked to a person’s life and experiences. Mental health rehabilitees often have negative experiences of working life and low self-confidence, and traditional brainstorming methods and business advice do not seem relevant to them. The workshop process made it clear that the rehabilitees needed more time and different types of encouragement to open their minds. This kind of a process could be one useful practical response to the need to improve corporate culture in relation to mental health problems and employment [26].
The methods in the workshops guided the participants to acknowledge their own strengths and preferences for their possible future work. Participants’ visions of the future were the foundation for creating meaningful knowledge according to how they currently see or would like to see themselves. This is a unique basis for establishing a social enterprise, and participants in the business idea co-creation started to commit to the project at an early stage. Intangible assets are the first – and often the most important – capital of companies. In this case, these assets were formed through social empowerment of the participants/future employees of the socialenterprise.
Concrete fulfilment of the objectives
The results show that the objectives of the Bee of Communal Economy were fulfilled and the outcomes were even better than hoped for. In two years, the ideation and piloting of a new social enterprise were implemented, and the new enterprise now has one important institutional client. More clients have committed themselves to join in 2015, and the employees will be paid “a real salary”. A lot of new information was gained from piloting this process which can be used in future planning. Sufficient time for piloting and development was vital to the successful establishment of the new enterprise. The service model that is based on peer instructors and experience instructors for mental health rehabilitees is still open in the sense that changes can easily be made if needed. The whole process has been open, transparent and natural.
Lessons learned from one year of piloting this process will be studied carefully. The two present leaders of the new social enterprise should not shoulder too much of the burden, but there is no hurry to make changes; it is crucial that visions for the future and current actions show participants how to proceed, in people’s pay and funding issues and in general business. Experience will teach. There have been unexpected setbacks during the piloting, but despite those, the group’s business activities turned into a positive routine in which participants have already acted in a novel, increasingly goal-oriented way. It is necessary to continue with participatory, interactive methods to help clarify the objectives of the process, which are likely to be forgotten when daily life becomes hectic. Participants have successfully coped at work because issues are openly discussed and if someone cannot cope, rapid actions are taken so that larger problems do not arise.
In general, individual freedom to take actions produces good results. Openness and transparency have been safeguarded for the new enterprise’s activities, although assistive strategies have also been developed (e.g., training for experience instructors, supervision practices and learning to regard customers as customers of the group rather than “your individual customers”). Significantly, in this social enterprise, mistakes are seen as catalysts for learning. During the business development process, many types of knowledge and new competencies (skills, methods, attitudes) were gained that have not been tested or achieved elsewhere. The process and its description are thus seen as valuable and will be refined and developed further so that others can benefit, too.
The collaboration between the case organisations and the university was seen by the participants as fruitful and necessary. Also in the future, the new enterprise will need support in maintaining “process courage”. The interest of universities and researchers is helpful for open and non-traditional development, as in this case study; however, “the multi-coloured character involving crazy people and alcoholics and even some bizarre social entrepreneurship often causes research organisations to refuse collaboration in search of faster and more goal-oriented results”, as expressed by an interviewee. Yet, when the business development process does not have “obligatory objectives”, there is a lot of space for new innovations, as long as there is sufficient time to engage with innovation at the practical and developmental levels. The process surpassed expectations, thanks to the brave people who became engaged in the working life and entrepreneurship. A manager noted: “The initial aim that was often repeated about three years ago – that the most important thing is that we are still alive and friends after this – has come true. Mightily.”
Discussion
The customer- and employee-driven nature lies at the core of social enterprises, by definition. The methods utilised in this case study allowed the focus to remain on the positive aspects of the enterprise, and the participants were truly enthusiastic about being able to do meaningful work in the future. The number of business ideas was overwhelming. The process could indeed be seen as a practical example of Nussbaumer and Moulaert’s [15] definition of social innovation and Hudson’s [17] process dimension. Understanding social innovation and social enterprise as synonyms, as many do, appears much too narrow and even contradictory to the societal value that they have – separately or together.
As is often the case, this success also depended on unprejudiced individuals who initiated this process, especially from the Foundation’s side. There are many ways to design social enterprises, not all embracing social innovation, but on the basis of this case study, we propose that methods of social innovation and participatory design are especially relevant and effective for work integration social enterprises. Such methods need to be tailored for each case, and they could provide new viewpoints for the development of any enterprise. This study is not without its limitations, the most noteworthy of which is the single study location. Despite that, the results of this study contribute to our current research and practical knowledge of opportunities for people who may have difficulty in securing and maintaining a job. A future study may be suggested where Finnish cases and similar enterprises from other countries could be studied together.
Social enterprises are often seen as a source of new and innovative solutions to persistent societal problems, and a means to promote increased inclusion of employees and customers. This study clarifies how a social enterprise can function as a laboratory of social innovation at the local and community levels. Social enterprises still suffer from numerous deficiencies, such as poor understanding of their functioning; poor visibility of their local, domestic and international roles; inadequate access to resources; and inappropriate legal environments [8, 13]. These deficiencies prevent social enterprises from realising their full potential, but the results of this study may be helpful for practical policy development efforts in this field. New skills and new approaches are clearly needed.
Innovation involves risk–the risk that a concept may be innovative but either does not address extant social or economic needs or does not address them appropriately [27]. This challenge is critical when considering social innovation and social enterprises. It is necessary to surpass simple innovation “recipes” and examine the configurations, contingencies and complexities that social innovation requires. The risks are more likely to be avoided if truly empowering, bottom-up, inclusive approaches to innovation and enterprise design are implemented, such as the ones examined in this case study.
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to report.
Footnotes
Appendix
Acknowledgments
We thank Päijät-Häme Social Psychiatry Foundation, its three partner organisations and the workshop participants as well as the funders of the research, Tekes – the Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation (the “Social Entrepreneurship in Innovative Value Creation” project, 2013–2014), and European Regional Development Fund, the Regional Council of Päijät-Häme and the City of Lahti (the “Päijät-Häme as the Leading Area of Practice-Based Innovation Activities” project, 2011–2014), all of whom made it possible to gather such rich data in collaboration for this study.