In the European Union and in the UK itself, despite austerity measures abounding, governments are providing serious money for ‘social innovation’. In Australia the concept is a catch all term used for change makers, social entrepreneurs, social enterprise and ‘doing good’.

It is the buzz-word (still) and looks like it will be for some time. However a number of us engaged in the Masters program in social innovation in Austria came to the realisation that there are literally more than fifty different definitions of social innovation in use by academics, policy makers, politicians, and practitioners. The apparent fact that nobody is quite sure what social innovation means has not inhibited numerous definitions being put forward and large sums of money being allocated to develop, define, scale it up, and mainstream it as a ‘solution’ to social challenges.

Three of us (a Mexican based in Mexico City and two Australians based in London) decided we needed to offer a distinctive and focused definition that challenged the broader definitions we found. This was partly in response to a school of thought that argued that all innovations from the washing machine to the mobile phone are ‘social innovations’. It was also partly in response to a warning implicit in another view suggesting the recent success of the notion and its mainstreaming in policy discourse has paradoxically emptied it of its innovative dimension, exposing it to the concrete danger of becoming hollow rhetoric.

We argued that definitions do matter, that definitions are political, that definitions are context specific and definitions are not value neutral. We looked for lessons from the broad fields of social entrepreneurship, social marketing, governance, democracy as well as postmodern theorising and critical theory, and finally asked how do we arrive at a definition of social innovation? Do we get one from theory or do we get one from practice or from both?

We figured that when we’re discussing something that is ‘social’ – that is in society and its organisation (as opposed to a laboratory or a library) – theory must have a ‘stomach’ and a definition must be grounded in lived human experience. And if a definition is derived from human experience, an experience where there are many men, women and children whose stomachs are empty while other stomachs are bloated with the excess of free market ideology, we can’t avoid the issues of ethics and values. To avoid engaging with the ethical responsibility of social innovation and to avoid engaging with values it can be argued (as indeed it is in many other academic disciplines) is a dereliction of duty.

We then agreed that if values and ethics matter in a world where children continue to die of starvation while other children are obese, that social innovations needed to be defined by their intentions and effects. That is, whose interests do they serve both at the idea stage (intention) and the outcomes or impact stage (effect).

We then concluded that a definition of social innovation needs to be distinctive and focused, and we have made the value judgment that social innovations are new approaches to social challenges that have the intent and effect of equality, justice and empowerment.

The words equality, justice, and empowerment were deliberately chosen and are value laden. We have not sought to complicate these terms, and have taken them at their most basic meaning as defined in the Oxford Dictionary of English:

Justice: just behavior or treatment; a concern for justice, peace and genuine respect for people; the quality of being fair and reasonable;

Empowerment: to make someone stronger and more confident, especially in controlling their life and claiming their rights; and

Equality: the state of being equal, especially in status, rights and opportunities.

We are aware that this definition will exclude a range of projects and activities that claim the title ‘social innovation’. Our intention is to ensure the term has a distinctive meaning and that it does not end up as mere rhetoric, a buzz-word bandied around by politicians and policy makers, and that in practice it achieves the best outcome for the good of society focused on those who suffer inequality, injustice and disempowerment. And despite many best efforts they continue to be the majority of people living on the planet today.

You can read the full paper in our Publications section.

We would love your thoughts – please share your views.