1 Introduction

The study on social innovation has been gaining, over the recent years, interest from researchers, governments, entrepreneurs and the community in general, and its complexity has been acknowledged (Dias and Partidário 2019). This interest may be explained by the positive results obtained by different initiatives, mainly in Europe and the United States of America, resulting in increased enthusiasm for social innovation as the main theme in the theorization of human development and emancipation, as well as in local development strategies (Hillier et al. 2004). Research on innovation has, generally, accepted the process of social innovation as social action (Hellström 2004) and, from the process perspective, professionals need to learn how to produce more and better innovations, policy-makers and investors how to design contexts that support innovation, and the community in general how to anticipate what innovations will be successful (Phills et al. 2008). Although the contribution of previous studies on innovation is recognized, the particularities of social innovation require new paradigms and new theoretical perspectives to advance for further knowledge.

Social innovation refers to changes in the cultural, normative or regulatory structure of societies; to increases in resources of collective power and improvements on economic and social performance (Hämäläinen and Heiskala 2007). The results of social innovation can be varied: new institutions, new social movements, new social practices or different structures of collaborative work (Mumford 2002) and the processes of innovation have an impact on the strategic behavior and dynamics of entrepreneurial culture, contributing to intra and interorganizational learning (Moulaert and Nussbaumer 2005). Social innovation also refers to innovation in social relations. Within a locality, a community, a city, or even a region, there are various types of social relations, namely governance relations (between voters and local authorities), autonomy relations and collaborative governance) (Moulaert and Nussbaumer 2005). Thus, research on social innovation allows to understand how innovation is related to issues such as self-management, ecological production, corporate influence in international trade policies or international organizations (Moulaert et al. 2005). At the same time, the study on the impacts of social innovation refer to several factors that may limit social entrepreneurship, such as economic, social, institutional and cultural barriers (Sanzo-Perez et al. 2015). Social economy initiatives live within the civil society life cycle that can be exhausted due to social conflicts, political pressures, among others (Moulaert et al. 2005). Thus, innovation opportunities are different from other types of opportunities because they are highly influenced by the social and institutional structures of markets and communities. Social innovation is not only a process by which social problems are solved using entrepreneurial strategies, but also a process of avoiding social and institutional barriers to markets and communities by entrepreneurs. Through innovation, social entrepreneurs are able to find opportunities in areas and circumstances they understand. It allows the existence of interactions between personal experiences and professionals that meet the characteristics of the market and the community, and can enter the system in a continuous and comprehensive way.

Based on existing research (Austin et al. 2006; Howaldt and Schwarz 2010; Mair and Martí 2006; Moulaert and Nussbaumer 2005; Mumford 2002; Pol and Ville 2009) our study results from a generalized proposal by several authors who focused their research on the systematic literature review (Blanco-Ariza et al. 2019; Dias and Partidário 2019; Mulgan et al. 2007; Phills et al. 2008; Seyfang and Smith 2007) and that point out to the need of practice-oriented studies, in order to understand how social innovation influences governance / capital mechanisms (Anderson and Dees 2006; Boschee et al. 2000; Coaffee and Healey 2003; HM Governmen 2005; Howaldt and Schwarz 2010; Lemke 2002; Moulaert et al. 2005; Moulaert and Nussbaumer 2005; Mulgan 2006; Schmitter 2002; Seyfang and Smith 2007). Therefore, our study was based on the analysis of a dimension focused on the main drivers of social innovation projects and equated issues related to capital, particularly the sources of funding and the sustainability of projects.

A multi- case study was used (Eisenhardt 1989), and semi-structured interviews were conducted in order to compare (Mair and Martí 2006) five social innovation projects to allow confirming concepts, theories or hypotheses. The content analysis of the interviews was done through NVivo 12 software in order to identify and better understand the effect that our dimension assumes in social innovation projects. Our study aims to contribute to the advance of research in social sciences and social innovation progress, to support decision making in the innovation process and to undertake a theory-to-practice approach aiming to understand and improve innovation processes, adding to the scarce literature on this particular topic.

The paper is organized in four parts. The first one provides the theoretical framework that elaborates on the concepts required for the study of social innovation, reviewing the literature, based on a sample of international and national scientific articles that are part of the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) published between 1970 and 2017. The second part presents the adopted methodology, describing the sample and the data collection process, the data collection instrument and the methods for data analysis. The third part presents the results, starting with a brief characterization of the interviewees and the projects, followed by the comparative analysis of the results obtained in the interviews and the theory. Finally, conclusions and future research perspectives are presented, summarizing the most relevant aspects of theory and the conclusions obtained through the qualitative analysis.

2 Theoretical framework

Social innovation, as a field of study, does not have a long tradition in social sciences; however, it is a phenomenon that has had a presence in the evolution of human societies Fagerberg (2003) considers that it is as old as humanity. Although the concept of social innovation has, recently, been included within the scope of social sciences, it may be associated with several factors, among them, the popularity of the project that, in 1976, resulted as an engine of social change and established new ways to respond to the needs of communities - The Grameen Bank. It was founded by Muhammad Yunus and it operates as a microfinance organization, providing microcredit loans to people with low economic resources, with no guarantees required. The bank was created based on the idea that one is able to fight poverty providing financial services to people in poverty and helping them establishing profitable business (Cajaiba-Santana 2014).

Based on extant research, one can consider social innovation as polysemous and has evolved over time. Its first definition was in 1970, provided by Taylor, who defines social innovation as perfected forms of action, new ways of doing things, new social inventions. Later, in 1998, Porter considers innovation as the main responsible for the creation and maintenance of entrepreneurial competitive advantages, also ensuring their continuity and sustainability. Since 2002, there is a growing interest in understanding the processes of social innovation and new definitions of the concept emerge. Mumford (2002) considers social innovation as the emergence and implementation of new ideas about how people should organize interpersonal activities, or social interactions to meet one or more common goals. According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Eurostat (2005), social innovation is the key factor for corporate performance, not only for productivity growth, but also to raise efficiency and quality of increasing demand and profit margins. Social innovation is, thus, considered as innovation in social relations (Moulaert and Nussbaumer 2005), dealing with a response to needs that are not being met by other actors, such as the State or the market (Young 2006). It is also considered a tool for urban development (Moulaert et al. 2007) that assumes the purpose of creating new solutions to respond to social problems, being more effective, efficient, and sustainable than previous solutions (Phills et al. 2008) and contributing for common wellbeing. According to Mulgan et al. (2007), social innovation progresses through the creation of ideas and the experiences that have been gaining from practice play a fundamental and decisive role in innovation, and nowadays innovation seems to play a decisive role in social progress, contributing to economic development and the evolution of a number of areas such as health, education, new technologies and business. Social innovation is the best way to understand - and produce - lasting social change (Phills et al. 2008). In an organizational point of view, one can consider social innovation as a process of change and unique contribution to certain contexts, using a social perspective that is prepared to respond to the problems and necessities that arise in specific socio-cultural environments, resulting from the responsible management of organizations (Blanco-Ariza et al. 2019).

From a bibliometric analysis, whose topic of analysis was “Social Innovation” and based on 444 articles, published in the Web of Science database, between 1970 and 2017, one produced a cluster dendrogram, below, with the variables related to social innovation (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Dendrogram of clusters generated in the NVivo 12 software on Social Innovation

Full size image

Based on Fig. 1 and the literature review (Dias and Partidário 2019), one can consider that two clusters emerge, one focused on governance issues and the other one focused on innovation processes (technology, models of activity and change). The first cluster (the basis for this study) relates politics and government and networked work of institutions, as a way of administering the development from relations and partnerships, is equated. In relation to the second cluster, it relates technology as a strategy to sustain systems and design products, recognizing research as a fundamental strategy for the process of innovation, management and maintenance of social innovation projects, also valuing the relationship between services provided, the community, change and upscaling practices. Such results show that it is increasingly necessary to foster innovation governance structures, politics, institutions, economy, work and consumer behavior (Howaldt and Schwarz 2010).

Such literature recalled with the necessity to deepen the research carried out by different authors and their study proposals, which consider that social entrepreneurship research falls for short of practice (Santos 2012). In this sense, our study will be based on practice-oriented examples, focusing on research as an effective strategy to understand some of the factors that underlie social innovation processes.

The current innovative forms of non-public governance fostered inclusive development processes (Swyngedouw 2005). This governance, refers to the emergence of actors who take on a role in politics through the creation, administration and implementation of actions that were exclusively provided or organized by governments (Slee 2019). Another aspect that has contributed to the development of innovative governance processes, as mentioned by Moulaert et al. (2005), are new forms of institutional intervention involving economic organizations and the civil society. Therefore, the first dimension of analysis of this study aims to understand how capital, new forms of governance and financing can contribute to the emergence of new projects of social innovation.

The literature refers that innovation can be driven by politics, governments, the market, social movements, education, as well as by social enterprises (Mulgan et al. 2007). And these new forms of intervention are promising because they generate ideas that can trigger greater openness, inclusion and empowerment of previously excluded or marginalized social groups (Moulaert and Nussbaumer 2005; Scoppetta and Geyer 2019).

The process of social innovation gained increased visibility as nonprofits, corporations, and governments were no longer isolated. Nongovernmental and government leaders nowadays learn management, entrepreneurship, performance measurement, and earnings management from firms, and, accordingly, social innovations to emerge. The emergence and increased impact of social innovation was also pushed by the recent shift of roles and relationships between firms, governments and nonprofit organizations (Blanco-Ariza et al. 2019; Popov et al. 2017).

Governance is a method / mechanism to deal with a wide range of problems / conflicts in which actors regularly arrive at mutually satisfactory and binding decisions, negotiating among themselves and cooperating in the implementation of these decisions (Schmitter 2002). Therefore Moulaert et al. (2014) consider that governance should contribute to the transformation of relations and strengthening experiences, and that the State should foster collective agreements between civil society organizations (local, national and European public policy); focus on socially active initiatives and to seek support for them; establish networks of innovation initiatives and create direct and eased access points in national and European agencies for civil society initiatives. Governments have, finally, moved away from the antagonistic functions of regulator and fiscal administration, to a more collaborative role as partner and supporter (Phills et al. 2008). The governance debate continues to promote local and regional development with more flexible and innovative support to find solutions with greater benefit (Seyfang and Haxeltine 2012). Thus, if governments can design and implement smarter standards and regulations, smart regulation can become an engine for innovation.

Social innovation is a promising tool for solving specific problems, but it must be seen as a complement rather than a substitute for processes of governance and decision-making. Social entrepreneurs should see the public sector as a potential partner and seek to establish partnerships and other resources that enable innovation. In fact, social innovation is dependent on self-sustaining financial opportunities, as well as on subsidies from partners (Austin et al. 2006). Innovation processes, typically, depend on a variety of funding sources, including individual contributions, charity, customer utilization rates, and governmental investments. In these funding sources, investment is expected to be profitable and financial returns are expected, which may not be the case for community-centered actions (Newth and Woods 2014).

Mulgan (2006) conducted research on the implications of governments for funding innovative initiatives. Austin et al. (2006) suggest studies to understand: (i) the main drivers of philanthropic capital markets, (ii) how the structure of such capitals is determined, (iii) how a social entrepreneur determines the ideal mix of funding sources for the social enterprise, (iv) which forms the actions of enterprises/projects create tension with the mission or with the organizational values and (v) what new financial instruments may overcome the difficulties of this sector. Anderson and Dees (2006) consider fundamental to understand how the mix of funding sources can affect financial sustainability. Boschee and McClurg (2003) question whether we should consider income earned as intrinsic to the sector in social innovation. Hughes and Luksetich (2004) focused on understanding the causes associated with tensions between nonprofits and commercial markets. Boschee et al. (2000) point out that it is critical to explore how organizations deal with earned income and their ability to manage them. Letts, Ryan, and Grossman (1997) point to the need for more research on the motivations, expectations, and behavior of funders and social investors. Seyfang and Smith (2007) considers that scientific research and policies that contribute to the creation of various grassroots innovations and devise a variety of sustainable practices are required.

Having this line of orientation for the investigation the following proposition was formulated:

  • P1: New forms of governance and funding have contributed to the emergence of new social innovation projects.

Taking into account the literature review, as well as the objective and the defined proposition, the conceptual research model proposed for this research is exposed in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Research conceptual model

Full size image

3 Methodology

Compared to business or commercial innovation, little is known about social innovation, with a lack of studies and scientific investment in this area (Mulgan et al. 2007). Thus, qualitative assessment of the topic is required. The selection of case study as research strategy was because it focuses on the interest of understanding a given dynamics, which may involve single or multiple cases and numerous levels of analysis (Yin 2003).

3.1 Sample and data collection

Our study approaches social innovation, aiming to contribute to the scientific research and, simultaneously, to the awareness of the social innovation, investors, governments, innovators and the general community of the potential of social innovation. In addition, in order to understand the factors that are associated with the emergence of social innovation, this study aims to understand the influences underlying the process of social innovation at the level of governance / capital.

Using analytical models proposed by several authors (Table 1), qualitative research was conducted in, with a comparative study of five cases, projects integrated in the Map of Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship in Portugal - a project that aims to list the most innovative and high potential entrepreneurship initiatives in Portugal. The project was developed by the Social Business School (IES) and the Instituto Padre António Vieira (IPAV) and it is funded by the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, the EDP Foundation and the Operational Competitiveness Program - Compete. The national partners include IAPMEI - Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation, I.P. and RH+, and international partners the SIX - Social Innovation Exchange and the Euclid Network.

Table 1 Dimension of analysis, proposition, questions and theoretical bases of the study
Full size table

3.2 Characterization of the data collection instrument

In qualitative research, interviewing remains the most common method for collecting data since it allows studying relatively unexplored topics, identifying patterns and themes from a participants’ perspective, and developing an analytical framework for a phenomenon (George and Bennett 2005). After selecting the interview as a data collection instrument, a semi-structured interview was constructed focusing on specific aspects and objectives and exploratory issues of broad themes in order to deepen the information. Considering the research objectives, the interview script included questions inspired in the literature review on the subject under study. Table 1 presents the analysis dimension, the proposition, the questions of the script and the theoretical bases of the study.

Other data were collected from interviewees in order to characterize the participants and their projects. Data were collected from the interviewees, such as age, academic and training background, their role and history in the organization. With regard to the generic information of the organization or the project, data were collected on start-up date, founder / entrepreneur, location of the head office, geographic area, legal typology, predominant area(s) of activity, number of volunteers, beneficiaries, main sources of financial resources and distinctions at national and / or international level attributed to the organisation or to the project.

3.3 Methods of data analysis

The data presented in this research is qualitative and descriptive (Yin 2003) resulting from the administration of interviews that were transcribed and analyzed using the Nvivo 12 software, which allowed to store, retrieve, categorize and encode text. The analysis focused on the interviewee’s words, and sentences to gain an in-depth understanding of the dimensions of research analysis. Each interview was analysed individually and the data was transcribed and coded, which allowed to detect patterns in the data and understand the meaning (Sandelowski 2000). In the content analysis, data were compared with the existing literature (Eisenhardt 1989). Such comparison allowed to connect concepts, theories or hypotheses and to outlook the contribution of this research.

4 Results

4.1 Brief characterization of interviewees and projects

The Map of Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship is a research project aimed at promoting Portugal as a pioneer country in the European Union in the recognition, study, and dissemination of innovative, sustainable, replicable business models with a strong social, economic and environmental impact (IES - Social Business School) e IPAV (Instituto Padre António Vieira) 2015) Based on the survey of high potential social entrepreneurship initiatives, a case study of five initiatives (out of 134 identified as ES + Initiatives) was carried out. The selection of the initiatives was constrained by the willingness and interest shown by their representatives to participate in this study in a timely manner. Five interviews were carried out, with a maximum duration of 2 h, between September and October 2018, with four interviews taking place in the work place / headquarters of the project and one interview via Skype. The gender distribution of participants is relatively similar, with three male and two female managers of initiatives ranging between 1 year to 10 years of operation. Within all participants one is graduate, four had a master degree, and one attending a PhD course. Tables 2 and 3 presents a brief description of the participants, who are identified with numbers, in order to respect their anonymity, as much as in the quotes in order to avoid their identification.

Table 2 Characterization of interviewees
Full size table
Table 3 Projects description
Full size table

The projects were created between 2005 and 2017, and they operate on several areas of social intervention and vary from local, to national and international scope. The heterogeneity of the projects allows to draw comparisons, and to understand the process associated to the different evolution stages of innovation initiatives.

4.2 Results

4.2.1 Capital

In order to explore how new forms of governance and financing have contributed to the development of social innovation projects, one began by understanding who are the main drivers of social innovation projects.

Respondents consider that social innovation projects come from people who have ideas and are attentive to the needs of the community.

"[...] people have the ideas." (Interviewee A)

"[...] are people who are also very attentive […] to society and the problems of society." (Interview E)

In some cases, the projects result from the stimulus that organizations leaders provide to their staff members.

“[…] "... the issue of innovation, creativity, the development of new projects, the search for new solutions to problems […] this responsibility comes very much from the board of directors and from the management team promoting all issues related to innovation, creativity and even to promote this organizational culture. "(Interviewee B)

This results in the staff members initiating projects.

“[…] the wish of a staff member, in this case, of a technique, of an educator [...] ended up being the great promoter of the project […] staff makes the difference. "(Interviewee B)

In other situations, the projects arise emerge from existing financing governmental programs, with policy being increasingly focused on the social economy as a source of transformation, sustainability, active citizenship and public service (HM Governmen 2005).

"[...] we are applying for a project [...] of partnerships for impact." (Interviewee C)

Through low-cost structures and more efficient distribution channels, social innovations can mobilize public or philanthropic financial support (Phills et al. 2008) allowing them to create sustainability,

"[...] someone who is constantly looking for organizational sustainability..." (Interviewee E)

"[...] we realized that we would never achieve stability by constantly depending on financing and, therefore, we had to be financially self-sustained." (Interviewee B)

Autonomy,

"... for years we have been testing a model [...], realizing how we could be sustainable, independent [...]" (Interviewee C)

To be consistent,

"[...] a project that is based on constant funding is not a business, so it was what I said earlier, I feel we should display a consistent discourse. So it would not make sense for me to charge you for something for which I am paid anyway, if I want you to buy [...], I have to say that there was a cost [...] I think that more and more what is demanded in the business world is to realize the impact of our actions and to realize that, fortunately, the society no longer accepts the profit at any cost. So, it's not just the question of what we can do to make as much money as possible, there is profit, of course, but we have to figure out how to make that profit. "(Interviewee A)

And to generate benefits for partners.

"... it was four years to test the project, to test the solution, to realize the impact it could have on companies and the benefit it could bring to companies [...]" (Interviewee C)

These social innovation projects depend on a variety of funding sources, including individual contributions, donations, customer utilization rates, and government investment (Austin et al. 2006).

"For many years we depended on prizes, [...] cooperatives, private support, foundations, always searching for program application opportunities, requests for support, requests for partnerships." (Interviewee E)

Government programs are highlighted as one of the main sources of funding,

"[...] we have partnerships [...] with ministries [...], government partnerships. (Interviewee C)

"In the beginning [...] there were community funds to help." (Interviewee D)

Municipalities also play a key role in financing these projects.

"[...] a financial part that is guaranteed by the municipality." (Interviewee B)

"[...] the way we have to work with local authorities is through subsidies or donations." (Interviewee E)

Projects can still find funding through collaboration with companies,

"[...] It collaborated with the social project and, therefore, ends up being also a responsibility of the business sector. It ends up being linked here to a social cause that is not [...] giving a donation so that it does not know what is going to be reinvested, here it knows that it is applying this money in a project that will generate employment, that will qualify people. "(Interviewee B)

"... we keep a series of materials as equipment [...] they donate us and then we try to make money out of it for the projects as it is necessary ... donations in kind." (Interviewee E)

Collaboration with organizations,

"[...] we have partnerships with several entities. (Interviewee C)

"... we always try to have support from the Camões Institute, ... some foundations [...] Santa Casa da Misericórdia ..." (Interviewee E)

Personal investment,

"[...] the whole investment ... was personal." (Interviewee C)

Investment by partners,

"... all the investment ... was ... the partners only, basically... to guarantee social capital and all the growth was organic ..." (Interviewer C)

Prizes,

"We have already received a [...] prize of thirty thousand euros for the project." (Interviewee D).

"At the moment, that project [...] was a prize resulting from an application [...] and there is a support, there was actually financial support." (Interviewee E)

And through the payment of the product or service by the users or beneficiaries of the project,

"[...] is taken to people through products." (Interviewee C)

"[...] online shop [...] at fairs ...". (Interviewee E).

In fact, the viability of the projects depends, to a large extent, on the various sources of financing that allow creating sustainability and to make investments. With the access to the different financing sources, the sustainability of the projects becomes viable,

"... it allows us here to create a different type of stability to the project ... we will make the project grow and be sustainable." (Interviewee B)

To hiring labour,

"[...] hiring human resources." (Interviewee B)

"[...] who are remunerated." (Interviewee E)

The acquisition of equipment,

“This is also used for the project, to buy more machinery. "(Interviewee B)

Restructure the project,

"... we received this support ... which provided us with fresh air to the project here, renew, restructure and create this response." (Interviewee E)

Increase responsiveness,

"[...] increase the company." (Interviewee D)

Create autonomy,

"Now there is a path and as such, this path will continue to be walked, but here I bet very much on the autonomy of the project itself and therefore, I think that here whatever the difficulties think it is up to us to find solutions for them. "(Interviewee A)

And stability,

"[...] create another type of stability for the project." (Interviewee B)

Just like accessing to new customers and new partners,

"[...] we are looking forward to growing and we see, for example, the people with whom I work and we see, for example, general satisfaction from our partners/clients." (Interviewee A).

The key to sustainability is governed by the combination of low costs with efficiency, quality and profitability (Mair 2006; Mair and Martí 2006). In this regard, projects should pay special attention to new financial instruments that they can use and / or create in order to achieve more positive, long-term and sustainable results. As a strategy to attract investments, it is fundamental that social entrepreneurs have a clear understanding of the change and results that their company is achieving, having the ability to reason adequately together the participants, the contributions that the company is having at a social value level and the social change caused (Austin et al. 2006; Blanco-Ariza et al. 2019).

Figure 3 shows the occurrence count of the most relevant words given by interviewees about the new financial resources that can be generated to allow the sustainability and performance of social innovation projects.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Word cloud generated in NVivo12 software on new financial instruments of social innovation projects

Full size image

Considering the information presented in Fig. 3, the new financial instruments may involve submitting applications to financing programs, outlining strategies for attracting investors and creating new products and / or services.

"[...] a model and a process of attracting investors ... I want to provide them with return ... I want to give them compensation for their investment, I think it is essential for them to believe even more in this social area [...]. "(Interviewee C)

The recent collaboration between governments, market and civil society generates new forms of innovative governance (Moulaert et al. 2005), which are seen as strengthening more effective democracy (Swyngedouw 2005), implying a transformation of both institutions and mechanisms participation, negotiation and intermediation of conflicts (Scandelius and Cohen 2016).

Governments assumes a critical role in promoting programs that encourage discussion and the creation of social innovation projects. By conducting a more descriptive analysis of the collected data respondents recognize a greater governmental sensitivity in the promotion and debate of social innovation and plays a fundamental role in restructuring policies and programs that allow strengthening such new social responses.

"The State has ... the legal capacity, political, financial, economic and social power ... for the figure it represents and the capacity to create funds and lines of financing to support these institutions that are in the field and, as such, directly support people. "(Interviewee E)

At initial stages of institutions development, governments provide a very positive contribution.

"[...] at a more embryonic stage, we may also find some leverage here to get our business going, but I think that's part of the whole process. For me, it makes sense to have initiatives that are aimed at developing and creating more initiatives that increase the impact of social and economic transformation, so obviously they make sense and we, as a society, should be grateful. (Interviewee A)

Allowing broadening the scope of the project.

"[...] we are under a financial support, Portugal 2020, [...] in line with the typology 3.33 referring impact partnerships [...] that are related to Portugal Social Innovation, we are having this financial support that began in 2017 and will end on June 30th, 2019. [...] Improving conditions [...] was a commitment that we assumed from having achieved certain results and all this is being supported by Portugal 2020 by 70% [...] "(Interviewee E).

However, partnerships should be more structured, proposing more local governance, in line with the innovation of global, national and social security governance (Hillier et al. 2004; Slee 2019).

"[...] the partnership should be more structured; it should be more combined. [...] in a more local, more central government that can then follow in a more direct way. "(Interviewee E)

Various social innovations appear when a good or service that civil society is looking for is absent, so there may be no other system of provision to be disrupted (Slee 2019). The free market economy will not produce the ideal social quantity of pure social innovations (Pol and Ville 2009), and it is up to the government to correct this market failure. In recent years, the Portuguese Government has fostered the emergence of new social actors that complement the functions of the State, which has allowed a transformation and renewal between the fundamental values of the State and civil society (Kerlin 2010). The State has transferred to the institutions the legitimacy of responding to the needs of the community by creating comprehensive responses.

"I think we have the ability to reach out to people because we are on the ground. The government cannot do everything. And so I think there must be a match of forces [...] and each one does its best. "(Interviewee E)

In this process of power transfer, the responsibility of both parties is a relevant factor.

"[...] there is a responsibility on the part of ... to hold people accountability, the government ... there is no undisclosed financing, because, many times, later one does not know what has happened to the money. [...] it's good to be picky and it's good to demand a demonstration of the return on the investment I'm making. "(Interviewee E)

Although all respondents recognize the roles and contribution of governments in promoting and financing social innovation initiatives, funding programs are often short-term, often linked to restrictive goals, bureaucracy and requirements, leaving little room for development (Seyfang and Smith 2007). A clear example is the criteria for applications for accessing funding:

"And more and more we feel that we have to find an alternative because these supports are increasingly demanding with what they ask us, every time they ask us for more impact indicators, results, that the project has continuity, that the project has sustainability and this is not easy and institutions have to adapt. "(Interviewee E)

Another constraint is the delays in financial support,

"Institutions nowadays also have to be able to work ... and this is often not the case ... I am speaking in the case [...] of the institutions that we are aware of and that have social security support and that security months to pay, this is not sustainable. [...] many times it is where governments fail [...] not providing support for a long time, not responding for a long time, because it has a great responsibility and cannot handle everything. (Interviewee E)

Social projects recognize the need for support from the government,

"[...] we depend on governmental funding that does not cover all the necessary expenses." (Interviewee B)

However, they are increasingly concerned about finding other financing and sustainability strategies for projects and their organizations.

"[...] I don’t think that social institutions are dependent on subsidies. This is not the question... that is why I speak on these issues [...] we reinvent ourselves." (Interviewee E)

One aspect to consider is that funding is more careful with results than products (Mulgan 2006). Equally important is to invest in funds to create ideas, spaces that encourage experimentation and incubators that focus on the creation of new techniques of action avoiding the use of the social virtues by some organisms.

"[...] I consider, with all caution, what greenwashing is, because in fact [...] there are also many social profit-makers [...]" (Interviewee C)

The fact that there are different agents involved in financing sources which, in turn, have clear motivations and interests, can create a certain strategic rigidity in terms of operations since a project is linked to a concrete need and/or problem and one cannot constantly be changing products or markets as it may interfere with the ability to motivate and attract the trust of funders (Austin et al. 2006; Slee 2019). In their study, an attempt was made to understand the main impositions from funders and how they could interfere in the management of the project’s mission (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Dendrogram of clusters generated in the software NVivo 12 - Main demands of social innovation projects’ funders

Full size image

The dendrogram suggests two clusters regarding the main impositions of social innovation projects’ funders. The first cluster indicates that funders request the donation receipt for fiscal purposes.

"[...] the question of the donation receipt ... is an advantage." (Interviewee B)

"... we, as a social institution, are able to provide funders with the receipt of a donation ... and [...] companies can have tax benefits." (Interviewee E)

And the second cluster points to the request of strategies to disseminate the logos of the programs or partner institutions, in social networks, facilities or merchandising of the project.

"[...] the company may, exclusively for institutional purposes, disseminate, associate or use the name of the company logo in the presentation and promotion of the initiative [...]" (Interviewee B)

"[...] put their logo on our website, thanking on Facebook, use our logo on their website, although it is more common the other way around, therefore, we have on our website companies sponsoring us, that helps us, who supported us, our sponsor. [...] and advertising can be in a variety of ways, from posting their logo on the wall, to having a badge that includes their logo, on posters, on flyers. [...] everything that comes out of communication from the project has to have those logos all. "(Interviewee E)

Concerning the compatibility of funders’ interests with the project’s mission, funding structures are often imposed by funders rather than respond to beneficiary development (Seyfang and Smith 2007). Asked about the compatibility of the mission management with the interests of the different stakeholders, the interviewees consider that there is a complementarity between the project and the funders.

"[...] I strongly believe in the complementarity of society. [...] I want to believe in all clients we had, because he believes in the mission and because he wants to share that mission as well. "(Interviewee A)

By conducting a more descriptive analysis of the collected data, respondents reported what they expect from the funders that allow them to achieve their personal or business goals.

"[...] when companies help and support, I think they have a sense of what they are really doing and it is so, there are always those issues associated to the counterparts, companies and supporters always look for something in return. [...] in the council of [...] this project was a political flag ... you receive a lot of votes and […] support, thanks to this response and it's not a problem at all because he's to invest in an response that is for the good of the population ... we are not talking about [...] other things ... superfluous or so ... "(Interviewee E)

Interviewees identify risks that may interfere with the project’s mission, namely the inexperience and the competitive and ambitious stimulus created by the market.

"[...] the Startups … they need some time to consolidate the process." (Interviewee C)

"[...] Obviously we could have a totally different market logic where there are higher cost cuts than internally, but this would not be compatible with our everyday mission and I am very coherent, so I cannot be saying something and then in practice I do something completely different, and we cannot be in an association that wants to work the individual and the empowerment of the individual and want that individual to autotomize in decent and self-sustaining conditions and then we do not have these practices in-house. "(Interviewee A)

Information and practical support, as well as charity or equity donations, are made available to individuals and organizations that have a clear social mission and require a number of funds to realize it (Maclean et al. 2012). Creating profit, wealth and serving the needs of clients are the means to a social end, not the end in itself (Dees and Backman 1994). Therefore, with this study one can verify that organizations seem to be aware of the importance of clarifying the mission of social enterprise to identify goals and returns from the beginning (Newth and Woods 2014). The mission is thus the first step in the process of developing entrepreneurial opportunities (Anderson and Dees 2006) followed by the definition of an appropriate business model (Mair and Martí 2006) and allowing the project to gain sustainability and viability. Therefore, it is critical to recognize the position and role of civil society, relating the dynamics of other elements of society, i.e., the government and the economy (Swyngedouw 2005). Although the government plays a leading role in the promotion and financing of social innovation initiatives, the social entrepreneurs interviewed recognize that projects cannot be totally dependent on their support, thus outlining other sources of funding that involve the establishment of partnerships, requests for donations and marketing of products and/or services. The evidence points to the confirmation of the proposition (P1) of this study, since the new forms of governance and financing have contributed to the emergence of new social innovation projects. However, there are other factors that have contributed to the advancement of innovation, such as the established collaboration with companies and other organizations, personal and partner investment and prizes awarding.

5 Conclusions and research perspectives

Our study aimed to understand how governance/capital interferes in the process of social innovation and enhances the creation of social value for the community. Through qualitative research methodologies, a case study was carried out on five social innovation projects recognized as ES+ Initiatives by the Map of Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship, being projects of innovative value, replicable and with strong social, economic and environmental impact. The data was collected through semi-structured interviews between September and October 2018, with five interviewees who coordinate and manage projects.

The government assumes a critical role in promoting programs that encourage discussion and the creation of social innovation projects. It is recognized that the creation of funding programs by the government contributes to the emergence of innovative projects; however, the requirements defined for these projects enjoy the support and bureaucracy associated with the entire application, implementation and evaluation process and, the constant delays in the allocation of financial support, are a constraint. These are time-consuming processes and, generally, these projects do not have this response on time (Mulgan 2006). The needs of the community are emerging and the need for immediate intervention is felt. Another aspect that should be reflected to the government are social and economic policies that are not adjusted to the changes and needs of the sector (Mulgan 2010). It is also proposed the design of a local governance, in line with the innovation of global, national and social security governance (Moulaert et al. 2007). The government has already done some work in this direction, transferring to institutions the legitimacy of responding to the needs of the community, creating a comprehensive response. In this process of power transfer, the responsibility of both parties is a relevant factor, proposing that financing is based on the results rather than products (Mulgan 2006). Equally important, is to invest in funds to create ideas, spaces that encourage experimentation and incubators that focus on the creation of new forms of action, avoiding the use of the social virtues by some organisms.

Recognizing the dependence that social organizations have on public funding, it is considered that the methods used by these projects can allow to fill the financial constraints. The establishment of collaboration protocols with companies and/or organizations, partners investment, creation of low cost structures and more efficient distribution channels, international search, application for programs and/or prizes, payment of product or projects can create sustainability, stability and autonomy, generate benefits for partners, hire human resources, acquire equipment, restructure the project, increase responsiveness and access customers and new partners. So, social innovation comprises governance changes, frequently involving a greater role for civil society, acting collaboratively, often with other forms of stakeholders to address societal challenges (Slee 2019). New financial instruments may also be created, which may include submitting applications for funding programs, outlining strategies for attracting investors and creating new products and / or services.

The fact that there are different agents involved in funding sources, which in turn have clear motivations and interests, can create a certain strategic rigidity regarding operations (Austin et al. 2006; Scoppetta and Geyer 2019). According to the interviewees, the donation receipt and the dissemination of the logos of the partner programs or companies in social networks, installations or merchandising instruments of the project are their main demands. They also recognize risks that may interfere with the mission of the project, namely the inexperience and the competitive and ambitious stimulus of the market.

Our study presents some limitations. The sample is small and does not allow generalizing the profile of the social innovation projects that are being carried out. Thus, this study results as a model of analysis for future research projects, presenting a proposal that allows researchers to replicate it with other projects. It may be interesting to apply the study to social innovation projects at national and international level. Another limitation is the fact that after the data collection period and analysis new projects have demonstrated their interest in collaborating in the study, since they recognize it as an added value for the organization, in order to share experiences knowledge and, above all, have the possibility of approaching the new research processes in this area of study. Due to time constraints, such projects could not include, but they may remain for future research.

With regard to future research, it is possible to (1) verify the impact of innovation projects on the market and its beneficiaries; (2) recognize the communication with social innovation projects and outline strategies that can serve as models of good practice for other social sector projects and organizations; (3) understand the commitment relationship that the community has with social initiatives and analyze the mechanisms of donations; (4) to update of the Map of Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship, based on governmental changes and the financing programs created, such as Portugal 2020 Social Innovation; (5) understand how the SROI - Social Return on Investment methodology is being implemented, which organizations are using this methodology, what impact the results are having in support of decision making and process of project development, how the results obtained with the application of the methodology are being communicated and how these results contribute to the growth of projects/organizations; (6) to carry out a study to understand the work being done by the volunteers, to measure the contribution work in social organizations, to identify the main motivations of the volunteers, to draw a volunteer profile of the contemporaneity and to find communication strategies and bringing this resource to organizations.