Improving innovation and performance of Social Enterprises: Knowing what they know

Social Enterprises (SEs) are normally micro and small businesses that trade to tackle social problems, and to improve communities, people’s life chances, and the environment. Thus, their importance to society and economies is increasing. However, there is still a need for more understanding of how these organisations operate, perform, innovate and scale-up. This knowledge is crucial to design and provide accurate strategies to enhance the sector and increase its impact and coverage. Obtaining this understanding is the main driver of this paper, which follows the theoretical lens of the Knowledge-based View (KBV) theory to develop and assess empirically a novel model for knowledge management capabilities (KMCs) development that improves performance of SEs. The empirical assessment consisted of a quantitative study with 432 owners and senior members of SEs in UK, underpinned by 21 interviews. The findings demonstrate how particular organisational characteristics of SEs, the external conditions in which they operate, and informal knowledge management activities, have created overall improvements in their performance of up to 20%, based on a year-to-year comparison, including innovation and creation of social and environmental value. These findings elucidate new perspectives that can contribute not only to SEs and SE supporters, but also to other firms.

Third-mission policy goals and incentives from performance-based funding: Are they aligned?

In competitive knowledge-based economies, policymakers recognize the importance of universities’ engagement in third mission activities. This article investigates how a specific policy approach to encourage third mission engagement—the use of performance-based funding to reward universities’ success in this domain—aligns with the broader goals of third mission policy. Considering the case of the UK, the first country to have implemented a system of this kind, we analyse how the system has come into being and how it has evolved, and we discuss whether its implementation is likely to encourage universities to behave in ways that are aligned with the goals of third mission policy, as outlined in government documents. We argue that the system encourages universities to focus on a narrow range of income-producing third mission activities, and this is not well aligned with the policy goal to support a complex innovation ecosystem comprising universities with different third mission objectives and strategies. The article concludes by proposing possible avenues for achieving greater alignment between incentives and policy goals.