Grand Societal Challenges Research Articles

New Ways of Teaching: Using Technology and Mobile Apps to Educate on Societal Grand Challenges

We use this editorial essay as a call for a more effective use of new technologies, such as mobile apps and Web 2.0 tools, to educate students and other relevant stakeholders on business ethics, corporate social responsibility, and sustainability topics. We identify three overarching reasons that justify the need for new ways of teaching that further incorporate technology to foster the innovative thinking needed to tackle imminent societal grand challenges such as climate change and increasing inequality. First, we are facing a new generation of millennials and Generation Z students who are digital natives and more likely to search for educational content on their electronic devices. Second, new technologies offer opportunities to reach students globally, helping to democratize education. Third, we posit that the intrinsic characteristics of societal grand challenges, which are complex, uncertain, and evaluative, can benefit from technology as an effective translator of multilayered concepts into more digestible action items. Our essay ends with a brief summary of the four essays included in the thematic symposium: “There is an App for that! The Use of New Technologies and Apps in Ethics, Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainability Education.”

(Invited) Merging Humans and Machines with Hydrogel Bioelectronics

While human tissues are mostly soft, wet and bioactive; machines are commonly hard, dry and biologically inert. Bridging human-machine interfaces is of imminent importance in addressing grand societal challenges in healthcare, security, sustainability and joy of living. However, interfacing human and machines is extremely challenging due to their fundamentally contradictory properties. At MIT SAMs Lab, we propose the Hydrogel Technology to bridge human-machine interfaces. On one side, hydrogels with similar mechanical and physiological properties as tissues can naturally integrate with human body, playing functions such as scaffolds, catheters, stents and implants. On the other side, the hydrogels embedded with electronic and mechanical components can control and respond to external machines. In this talk, I will first discuss the mechanics to design extreme properties for hydrogels, including tough, resilient, adhesive, strong and antifatigue, which are necessary for reliable robust human-machine interfaces. Then I will discuss a set of novel soft hydrogel devices that interface with the human body, including i). long-term high-efficacy hydrogel neural probe, ii). ingestible and GI-resident hydrogel machine, and iii). untethered fast and forceful hydrogel robots controlled by magnetic fields. I will conclude the talk by proposing a systematic approach to design next-generation human-machine interfaces based on hydrogel technology.

How does community philanthropy function?: Direct effects of the social problem and the moderating role of community racial diversity

Based upon the existing literatures surrounding collective action and the environmental justice frame, consciousness-raising is a social tool for community constituents facing the hazards of environmental pollution to community health. Environmental pollution is a complex phenomenon that poses grand societal challenges including global implications and locally situated contexts. We believe that locally situated social problems, such as air pollution emissions, influence the functions of community philanthropy, a means of effective collective civic action. By drawing upon resource mobilization theory and organizational ecology theory, this study aims to examine the direct effects of the social problem of environmental pollution to community health and its impact on collective resource mobilization. This is accomplished by analyzing both the organizational growth of the environmental nonprofit sector in terms of the density and aggregated resources at the community level, conceptualized here as community philanthropy. Collective civic action supports environmental activism and is embodied in the shared beliefs, values, and understandings of a community whom seek a legitimate means of collective action; these opportunities are often provided by the nonprofit sector. We also examine the moderating role of community racial diversity on this relationship. Empirical results demonstrate that in racially diverse communities, community philanthropy is facilitated when facing the social problem of increased environmental pollution. Our problem-driven research implies that community racial diversity may impact the mobilization of collective resources when dealing with locally situated social problems.

Open Innovation in Brazil: Exploring Opportunities and Challenges

While open innovation has been increasingly adopted in developed countries, firms from emerging markets such as Brazil markedly fall behind this trend. Our understanding of the reasons behind this phenomenon remains nevertheless limited, since most research focuses on the industrialized world. In this paper, we aim to inspire the academic community to investigate the issue of why companies from emerging economies such as Brazil have limited open innovation strategies , when they need to draw on external partners as to overcome the institutional, resource and capability constraints they are subject to. We build on the argument that latecomer firms in emerging economies need to actively use open innovation more than ever, as to overcome internal rigidities and spur the innovative resources and capabilities required for the digital transformation and for addressing grand societal challenges. In reviewing current research on openness and especially in the Brazilian setting, we contend that it is a relevant empirical context to study, giving the potential to uncover unique mechanisms and theoretical relations by asking (and possibly answering) novel research questions. Building on a conceptual framework that links various implementation levels of open innovation, we identify themes that are either less well researched or contested and thereby suggest challenges and opportunities for future research.

Open Innovation in Brazil: Exploring Opportunities and Challenges

While open innovation has been increasingly adopted in developed countries, firms from emerging markets such as Brazil markedly fall behind this trend. Our understanding of the reasons behind this phenomenon remains nevertheless limited, since most research focuses on the industrialized world. In this paper, we aim to inspire the academic community to investigate the issue of why companies from emerging economies such as Brazil have limited open innovation strategies, when they need to draw on external partners as to overcome the institutional, resource and capability constraints they are subject to. We build on the argument that latecomer firms in emerging economies need to actively use open innovation more than ever, as to overcome internal rigidities and spur the innovative resources and capabilities required for the digital transformation and for addressing grand societal challenges. In reviewing current research on openness and especially in the Brazilian setting, we contend that it is a relevant empirical context to study, giving the potential to uncover unique mechanisms and theoretical relations by asking (and possibly answering) novel research questions. Building on a conceptual framework that links various implementation levels of open innovation, we identify themes that are either less well researched or contested and thereby suggest challenges and opportunities for future research.

Management as a profession: A grand societal challenge

The future of management as a profession is dependent on the rise of new forms of management, including both circularity and distributed leadership. This requires a transition away from the widespread belief that management is something done by a few individuals at the top of an organisation. As part of this transition, there is a need to shift attention from human agents towards management technologies. Professor Georges Romme, from Eindhoven University of Technology, explains how the quest for management as a science-based profession can be revitalised.

A political ecology of transdisciplinary research

Transdisciplinary research (TDR) is widely regarded as a promising, and even essential, means of addressing complex sustainability problems, whilst delivering beneficial outcomes for scientists and the non-academic actors with whom they engage. Premised on the 'ecological modernisation' of Europe, regional funding for TDR under Framework Programmes such as FP7 and more recently Horizon 2020 have sought to support academic engagement with a wide range of research stakeholders through calls for transdisciplinary research in order to better address Europe's "grand societal challenges" (EC 2013). This article, based on doctoral research, consists of an ex-post study of three European Union funded transdisciplinary projects (CREPE, EJOLT and GAP2) implemented under the Seventh Framework's (2007-2013) Science in Society program. Its focus is on how issues of power and governance permeate TDR projects, giving rise to tensions, challenges and ultimately struggles over the very meaning of official projects and their outcomes, despite the most egalitarian of intentions and underlying principles of mutual benefit. These tensions, this article argues, should be understood not merely as cultural, methodological or cognitive challenges, but as essentially political conflicts that manifest and flow across multiple scales. In light of these inherent challenges, the article argues that TDR is always conducted on a terrain of political ecology, and concludes by making recommendations for potential collaborators, as well as for European research policy makers, with the objective of enabling participants and funders alike to realise the transformative potential of this promising mode of research.<p><strong>Keywords</strong>: Political ecology of transdisciplinary research, power, governance, Science in Society, European research agenda, agro-ecology, environmental justice, fisheries </p>

Delving into social entrepreneurship in universities: is it legitimate yet?

ABSTRACTUniversities have recently been pressurized to go beyond their economic conceptualization of third-mission activities and contribute to solving grand societal challenges in the regions in which they are located. Social entrepreneurship has emerged as one mechanism by which universities can address societal challenges. Despite a growing awareness of universities’ potential and expectations to enhance social entrepreneurship in their geographical vicinities, how these processes become legitimized within a higher education context has received surprisingly little attention. This paper, therefore, explores factors affecting the (de)legitimacy process of social entrepreneurship within universities. Using a single case study design that relies on semi-structured interviews carried out in a Dutch public university, it was found that organizational legitimacy of social entrepreneurship remains unestablished. Furthermore, the legitimacy process is affected by (1) the expectations of stakeholders, the difficulty of measuring social impact and third-mission indicators; (2) an overemphasis on high-tech research and application as an organizational identity; (3) the absence of a leader in the field and lack of organizational recognition; and (4) stringent regulations of public institutions in the Netherlands. In addition, enhancing social entrepreneurs is hindered by the lack of place-based belonging among the student body. Consequently, this paper argues that a holistic approach that focuses on the specificities of universities and the increasing competitive environment in which they have come to function, the potential facilitating role of other organizational actors in the field, and designing appropriate policy instruments and incentives would benefit universities in their efforts to enhance social entrepreneurship.

Editors’ Comments: Why Do We Need a Special Issue on New Theoretical Perspectives on Market-Based Economic Systems?

Academy of Management ReviewVol. 44, No. 1 From the EditorEditors’ Comments: Why Do We Need a Special Issue on New Theoretical Perspectives on Market-Based Economic Systems?Jay Barney and Subi RanganJay BarneyEditor and Subi RanganAssociate EditorPublished Online:3 Jan 2019https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0425AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsDownload CitationsAdd to favoritesTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail View articleREFERENCESAgarwal, R., & Holmes, M. In press. Let’s not focus on inequality. Academy of Management Review. Google ScholarArrow, K. 1950. A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. Journal of Political Economy, 58: 328–346. Google ScholarBarney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 99–120. Google ScholarCard, D., Heining, J., & Kline, P. 2013. Workplace heterogeneity and the rise of West German wage inequality. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128: 967–1015. Google ScholarChandler, A. 1977. The visible hand. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google ScholarChua, A. 2018. Political tribes: Group instinct and the fate of nations. New York: Penguin Press. Google Scholardel Rio, F., & Lores, F. 2016. Regulation and rent-seeking: The role of the distribution of political and economic power. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 19: 986–1008. Google ScholarForoohar, R. 2016. American capitalism’s great crisis. Time, May 12: http://time.com/4327419/american-capitalisms-great-crisis/?iid=toc_051216. Google ScholarGeiger, A. 2017. 17 striking findings from 2017. Fact Tank, December 26: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/12/26/17-striking-findings-from-2017/. Google ScholarHoward-Grenville, J., Davis, J., Dyllick, T., Joshi, A., Miller, C., Thau, S., & Tsui, A. 2017. Sustainable development for a better world: Contributions on leadership, management, and organizations. Academy of Management Discoveries, 3: 107–110.Link , Google ScholarIchino, A., Karabarbounis, L., & Moretti, E. 2010. The political economy of intergenerational income mobility. Economic Inquiry, 49: 47–69. Google ScholarMcGahan, A. 2018. Freedom in scholarship: Lessons from Atlanta. Academy of Management Review, 43: 173–178.Link , Google ScholarMishel, L., Gould, E., & Bivens, J. 2015. Wage stagnation in nine charts. Economic Policy Institute, January 6: www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation. Google ScholarNorberg, J. 2016. Progress: Ten reasons to look forward to the future. London: Oneworld. Google ScholarOECD. 2018. Market concentration. Available at one.oecd.org/document/DAF/COMP/WD(2018)46/en/pdf. Google ScholarPiketty, T. 2014. Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google ScholarPinker, S. 2016. The better angels of our nature. New York: Penguin Press. Google ScholarPryor, F. 2001. New trends in U.S. industrial concentration. Review of Industrial Organization, 18: 301–326. Google ScholarRadelet, S. 2015. The great surge: The ascent of the developing world. New York: Simon & Schuster. Google ScholarRangan, S. (Ed.). 2015. Performance and progress: Essays on capitalism, business, and society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google ScholarRangan, S. (Ed.). 2018. Capitalism beyond mutuality? Perspectives integrating philosophy and social science. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google ScholarRawls, J. 1971. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google ScholarSchumpeter, J. 1942. Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. London: Routledge. Google ScholarSen, A. 1976. On economic inequality. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Google ScholarSen, A. 1999. Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google ScholarSerrao-Neumann, S.Coudrain, A.Coulter, L. (Eds.). 2018. Communicating climate change information for decision-making. New York: Springer. Google ScholarSmith, A. 1776. The wealth of nations. London, W.: Strahan. Google ScholarStiglitz, J. 2012. The price of inequality. New York: Norton. Google ScholarTsui, A. S., Enderle, G., & Jiang, K. 2018. Income inequality in the United States: Reflections on the role of corporations. Academy of Management Review, 43: 156–169.Link , Google ScholarWilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. 2009. The spirit level: Why equality is better for everyone. London: Penguin Press. Google ScholarWilliamson, O. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Macmillan. Google ScholarZingales, L. 2000. In search of new foundations. Journal of Finance, 55: 1623–1653. Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byRethinking Corporate Power to Tackle Grand Societal Challenges: Lessons from Political PhilosophyRuth V. Aguilera, J. Alberto Aragón-Correa and Valentina Marano12 October 2022 | Academy of Management Review, Vol. 47, No. 4Open Team Production, the New Cooperative Firm, and Hybrid AdvantageMarco Berti and Christos Pitelis20 April 2022 | Academy of Management Review, Vol. 47, No. 2The Corporate Social Responsibility Price Premium as an Enabler of Substantive CSRLeandro Nardi20 April 2022 | Academy of Management Review, Vol. 47, No. 2A World Changed: What Post-9/11 Stories Tell Us about the Position of America, Purpose of Business, and Meaning of WorkChristopher Michaelson and Jennifer Tosti-Kharas18 November 2020 | Academy of Management Review, Vol. 45, No. 4 Vol. 44, No. 1 Permissions Metrics in the past 12 months History Published online 3 January 2019 Published in print 1 January 2019 Information© Academy of Management ReviewAcknowledgmentsComments from Bill Hesterly and Jason Snyder were helpful in developing this essay.Download PDF

On sector-non-neutral innovation policy: towards new design principles

The paper addresses the shift from a moderate innovation policy to a more radical one, aimed at radical transformations of existing structures, such as accelerating innovation to address grand societal challenges or to modernize a traditional sector. In this paper, we propose an analytical framework based on the identification of three constitutive rationales of policy intervention in the domain of innovation. This approach introduces the distinction between moderate and stronger modes of intervention. Stronger modes are characterised by a higher degree of intentionality, centralization and focus. The last part of the paper is devoted to certain principles of policy design under which the risks of such a shift can be minimized and positive effects can be maximized.

Research partnerships – embracing user involvement: practical considerations and reflections

Purpose Academic researchers are increasingly required, and rightly so, to demonstrate the impact of their work beyond the gates of the university. This has led to an increasing focus, especially in response to funded calls, on developing research partnerships that cross disciplines, sectors and borders to help address our grand societal challenges. The purpose of this paper is to set out learning from the work of the organisation the Centre for Ageing Research and Development in Ireland (CARDI) and reflections on how to bring forward effective research partnerships involving users. Design/methodology/approach This paper is based on reflections and learning from the organisation CARDI which delivered a highly successful programme of interdisciplinary, cross-sectoral and cross-country research partnerships in both rural and urban areas between 2007 and 2015, across the island of Ireland. Findings Research partnerships that wish to involve users require time, commitment, support, understanding and a willingness to change and be challenged. This paper highlights that there are methodological, philosophical, moral, economic and of course, practical aspects to be considered. Research limitations/implications This reflective paper is based on a case study from the island of Ireland during the period 2007–2015 working in the area of ageing and older people. Practical implications The author emphasises that for research partnerships involving users to be successful, they need to not only consider the most effective research methods but also focus on the overarching purpose of the work and adopt an ethos and practice that maximises each partner’s knowledge and expertise to their full potential. Social implications This reflective paper focused on the characteristics associated with partnership success, i.e. communication style, values, philosophy and practice and argues that establishing effective and inclusive partnerships requires time, the appropriate framework and reviewing the process on an ongoing basis. Originality/value The issue of user involvement in research partnerships requires much more consideration. Researchers, government, funders, businesses and service providers are increasingly recognising the benefits of “user” involvement to help design programmes and services that are most effective. Nowhere is this more important than in planning and delivering services, policy and programmes for our ageing population.

Delivering on open data: Current practices in data sharing, and challenges ahead!

Watch the VIDEO.The case for sharing research data has been strongly made in many parts of the world, but noticeably so in Europe. Open access to research data delivers more value for every funding Euro by enabling data reuse and reducing unnecessary duplication of research. Further, open data can help speed the pace of discovery and allows for reproducibility studies. The European Commission has set out a clear vision for open data in their Horizon Europe proposal. Yet in 2018 only about half of research data are shared, according to surveys of researchers, and a much smaller proportion are shared openly or in ways that maximise discoverability and reuse. Whilst policy implementation remains critical to the uptake of data sharing, this must be joined by greater support and education for researchers, and faster, easier routes to sharing data optimally. We also need to make it worth a researcher’s time to share their data. Starting with the case for better data practice, this talk showcases the findings of one of the largest author surveys of its kind on current practices, attitudes and perceptions in data-sharing at the point of scholarly publication. The survey, carried out by Springer Nature in 2018, is based on over 7700 responses from academic researchers - at various levels of their career – in Europe, Asia, America, and Australasia. Responses are from across all subject areas. The resulting data provides a valuable insight into how, where, and why data is currently shared and what the main obstacles to sharing it are.The talk identifies the most “critical areas” – as borne out of the survey findings – that need to be tackled with top priority if we are to accelerate the speed and scope of data-sharing. In closing, we therefore ask – how can we better work together across research libraries, institutions, funders, governments, and publishers, to address and action these “critical areas”? Indeed, it is only by working together that we can unlock the huge potential of research data, namely to improve our knowledge, to address the grand societal challenges, and to help solve some of the most pressing problems in science today.

Challenging the “deficit model” of innovation: Framing policy issues under the innovation imperative

As innovation is increasingly becoming an imperative for policymakers around the globe, there is a growing tendency to frame policy problems as problems of innovation. This logic suggests that we are unable to address grand societal challenges and ensure economic competitiveness because our societies, institutions, scientific activities or individual predispositions are not sufficiently geared towards innovation. In this paper, we analyze this “deficit model” of innovation in which a lack of innovation is routinely invoked as the main obstacle to social progress. Drawing parallels to research on the deficit model of public understanding of science (PUS), we develop a theoretical framework that captures the dynamics and normative implications of deficit construction, highlighting five salient dimensions: problem diagnoses, proposed remedies, the role of expertise, implied social orders, and measures of success. We apply this framework to three empirical case studies of recent innovation strategies in Luxembourg, Singapore, and Denmark. Attention to this deficit framing around innovation is important, we argue, because it is an essential part of how innovation transforms societies in the 21st century: not only through new technological possibilities or economic growth, but also by shaping public discourse, narrowing policy options, and legitimizing major institutional interventions. The implied pro-innovation bias tends to marginalize other rationales, values, and social functions that do not explicitly support innovation. It further delegates decisions about sweeping social reconfigurations to innovation experts, which raises questions of accountability and democratic governance. Experiences from the history of PUS suggest that, without a dedicated effort to transform innovation policy into a more democratic, inclusive, and explicitly political field, the present deficit logic and its technocratic overtones risks significant social and political conflict.

Innovation policy for system-wide transformation: The case of strategic innovation programmes (SIPs) in Sweden

The orientation towards grand societal challenges can be seen as a new wave or paradigm for innovation policy. Such policy aims at system-wide transformation and is often referred to as system innovation policy. While insights from transition studies have provided novel and useful rationales for innovation policy targeting system-wide transformation, it remains unclear how to design, implement and evaluate such policies. The contribution of this paper is to translate and concretize the challenges of system innovation policy towards scope for policy action and analysis. Building on insights from transition studies we group the challenges into four domains: directionality, experimentation, demand articulation, and policy coordination and learning. We relate challenges within the four domains to three generic features of innovation systems: interests and capabilities of actors, networks, and institutions. The derived framework is applied in a case study on the strategic innovation programmes, a recent policy initiative by Vinnova, Sweden’s Innovation Agency, targeting system innovation.

The assisted living project: a process evaluation of implementation of sensor technology in community assisted living. A feasibility study

Introduction: The ageing population has been described as a grand societal challenge worldwide, and access to technology is one important strategy for meeting this challenge. The Assisted Living Project has a responsible research and innovation approach and includes older adults in evaluating sensor-based functions in assisted living facilities. The purpose of involving users in research is to enhance a wider dialogue about the values, methods, and purposes of the research project.Methods: We carried out a feasibility study in order to inform the development and conduct of a pilot project with eight residents. The purposes were to evaluate the process of technology installation, the feasibility of the technology, and methods for user involvement. One resident, Hilda, gave her informed consent to take part in this feasibility study. Her sensor system consisted of two magnetic sensors, six pyroelectric infrared motion sensors, one power sensor, one push button by the entrance door, and one loudspeaker. The sensors were wirelessly connected to a controller, which registered and transmitted all data to a secure server.Results: The feasibility study suggested important modifications for the pilot project, which concerned pre-configuration of the sensors, securing efficiently, rapid installation, number of visitors during the installation, preparation necessitating a site acceptance test for the wireless network and environmental prerequisites for mounting the sensors. Furthermore, this study recommends that the signals that are transmitted from the sensors to the secure server need verification.Conclusion: A feasibility study provides an opportunity to inform develop and conduct of a main trial. The MRC framework was useful for doing a process evaluation to assess feasbility and quality of implementation, clarify causal mechanisms and identify contextual factors associated with variations in outcome. Implications for rehabilitationThe feasibility study was useful in order to develop sustainable technological solutions byevaluating the robustness of the technologyconsider challenges regarding the architectural features/requirements for mounting sensors etc.decide user needs for individual tailoring to reach a ‘person-fit’ technologyUser participation in a feasibility study is vital to learn about the end user’s needs and expectations regarding information, technical support, for support in daily use and follow-up.Transdisciplinary collaboration in the feasibility study is necessary to inform the main technology implementation project.

The evolution of mission-oriented policies: Exploring changing market creating policies in the US and European space sector

Market creation is moving to the centre of mission-oriented innovation policy. This is particularly visible in the space sector. Agencies such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the European Space Agency (ESA) are developing market-creating innovation policies in response to (a) the increasing emphasis on societal grand challenges, (b) the rise of a new wave of space companies (often referred to as “New Space”) and (c) the global trend towards interconnecting and interlinking of industries (a trend referred to as Industry 4.0). In this paper we explore the changing nature of mission-oriented innovation policies for market creation for two agencies, NASA and ESA. For these agencies, earlier mission-oriented policies focused on clear challenges with identifiable concrete problems and directed by a strong centralized agency. Contrast this with today, with broadly defined grand challenges, decentralized innovation systems with mixed top-down and bottom-up problem definition. We describe the current drivers and pressures that are creating a window for policy change, and we present examples of how NASA and ESA are responding to these pressures and use this exploration to dig deeper into the evolving frames of market-creating innovation policy in the space sector to identify the challenges for such policies and to further articulate a research agenda.

Mission-oriented innovation policy and dynamic capabilities in the public sector

This article contextualizes the reemergence of mission-oriented innovation policies in the broader search for a new type of innovation policies—and the appropriate organizational forms—that can tackle “grand societal challenges,” and focuses on our knowledge gaps in designing and implementing such innovation policies. We identify the concept and practice of dynamic capabilities in the public sector as perhaps the key missing element in the search for the new generation of innovation policies. We offer a brief conceptual and historical overview of what constitutes mission-oriented policies, focusing on two key elements of missions: coordinated public investments and market-shaping policies to “crowd in” private and third sector experimentation and innovation. The article concludes by briefly discussing the central public sector dynamic capabilities for 21st-century missions.

New Insights on Social Entrepreneurship and Hybridity from the SEFORΪS Project

Management and organizational researchers (George, Howard-Grenville, Joshi, & Tihanyi, 2016 for a review) have taken a strong interest in ‘grand societal challenges’ – that is, persistent social issues that often concern marginalized actors in society. Social enterprises are organizations that typically work to address such persistent societal issues from social exclusion, poverty to environmental degradation through engaging in market-based activities (Mair & Marti, 2006). Yet social enterprises also encounter challenges through being hybrids and anchored both in social welfare and economic logics (Battilana & Lee, 2014). The papers in this symposium interrogate hybridity in organizing, its outcomes and antecedents including those lying with the individual founding, managing and leading a social enterprise as well as those relating to organizational strategies and contexts. Specifically, they look at the questions such as (i) How different motives of nascent social entrepreneurs affect success? (ii) Are all the social entrepreneurs ‘change-makers’ or are there other distinct value profiles that exemplify social enterprise managers? (iii) What explains differences in beneficiary/customer orientation and governance practices among social enterprises, and when and why do these differences matter to organizational outcomes? and (iv) What drives success in cross-sector partnerships in which social enterprises are involved? To answer these questions, the papers rely on novel experimental, large-scale, cross- country comparable survey and granular case-study evidence on social enterprises. Do Nascent Social Entrepreneurs Respond to Rewards? Motivations in a Grant Competition Presenter: Ina Ganguli; Harvard U. Presenter: Marieke Huysentruyt; HEC Paris Presenter: Chloé Le Coq; Stockholm School of Economics-SITE The Value of Values in Understanding the Distinctiveness and Heterogeneity of Social Enterprises Presenter: Ute Stephan; Aston Business School Presenter: Johanna Mair; Hertie School of Governance Presenter: Marieke Huysentruyt; HEC Paris Performance of Social Enterprises: A Configurational Analysis of Customer/Beneficiary Orientation Presenter: Tomislav Rimac; ESCI-Pompeu Fabra U. Unpacking Hybridity: Organizational and Institutional Antecedents of Social Enterprise Governance Presenter: Johanna Mair; Hertie School of Governance Presenter: Nikolas Rathert; Hertie School of Governance Cross-sector Cooperation Through a Serlean Lens: The Case of Swedish Social Enterprises Presenter: Bogdan Prokopovych; U. of Massachusetts, Amherst Presenter: Clara My Lernborg; Stockholm School of Economics Presenter: Davis Plotnieks; SITE, Stockholm School of Economics

From Solo To Multivocal Chorus:An Orchestration Process For Transformational Social Change

This study advances research on organizational efforts to tackle grand societal challenges. I examine how institutional entrepreneurs orchestrate cross-sector partnership platform as a means to transform the societal challenges in ways that generate transformational social change. I use a longitudinal case initiated by one institutional entrepreneur in China as my empirical window and leverage data that I collected over 7 years. Through the study, I identify four purposive actions institutional entrepreneurs undertake to tackle grand societal challenges, which involve designing cross- sector collaboration platform, seeking support from government, securing neutrality on the cross-sector collaboration platform to boost participation, and the standardizing of profession in the new field.

Does Going-Together Always Lead to Better Solutions? Exploring Challenge-Based R&D Projects

To tackle important grand societal challenges, government institutions initiate large- scale programs in which organizations participate in challenge-based R&D projects, aimed at solving extant technological problems within a specific field. Due to knowledge recombination benefits, it is often assumed that organizations should go-together – i.e. formally involving partners in these projects – rather than go- alone – i.e. proceeding independently. In this study, we relax the assumption that going-together is always more productive than going-alone in terms of problem- solving performance. Specifically, we argue that that not every organization is able to translate potential into realized knowledge recombination opportunities. Firstly, we formulate a baseline hypothesis, in which we expect that problem- solving performance is higher, on average, when going-together than going- alone. Secondly, we hypothesize that the ability to translate potential into realized knowledge recombination opportunities when going-together is contingent upon the focal organization’s institutional background, internal knowledge pool size, and challenge-based R&D project portfolio size. Analysing a unique sample of 414 challenge-based R&D projects within the Department of Energy’s Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program over a 14-year time period (2003-2016), we generally find support for our theoretical predictions. We contribute to theory and practice by showing that the often-assumed performance edge of going-together over going- alone does not materialize for every organization.