Content uploaded by Bart Vanhercke
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bart Vanhercke on Dec 24, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
P o v er ty R e d u c t io n in E u r o pe :
S o c i a l P o l i c y a n d I n n o v a t i o n
FUNDED BY THE
7TH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
WORKING PAPERS
http://improve-research.eu
The EU framework for
social innovation -
Between entrepreneurship
and policy experimentation.
Sebastiano Sabato, Bart Vanhercke &
Gert Verschraegen
Discussion Paper No. 15/21
November 2015
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Bea Cantillon, Pieter Cools, Jean-Marc Fontan, Yuri Kazepov,
Andreas Novy, Stijn Oosterlynck, Tatiana Saruis, Carla Weinzierl and Florian Wukovitsch for their
critical feedback on previous versions of this paper. All interpretations and any errors that remain
are the sole responsibility of the authors. The research for this paper has benefited from financial
support by the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2012-2016) under grant
agreement n° 290613 (ImPRovE: Poverty Reduction in Europe: Social Policy and Innovation;
http://improve-research.eu).
November 2015
© Sebastiano Sabato (*and**), Bart Vanhercke (*) and Gert Verschraegen (**)
(*) European Social Observatory (OSE)
(**) OASeS, University of Antwerp
Bibliographic Information
Sabato S., B. Vanhercke and G. Verschraegen (2015), The EU framework for social innovation -
Between entrepreneurship and policy experimentation, ImPRovE Working Paper No. 15/21.
Antwerp: Herman Deleeck Centre for Social Policy – University of Antwerp.
Information may be quoted provided the source is stated accurately and clearly.
Reproduction for own/internal use is permitted.
This paper can be downloaded from our website: http://improve-research.eu
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 3
Table of contents
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................... 4
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 Definitional challenges ............................................................................................................ 7
1.2 The Bureau of European Policy Advisers’ definition of social innovation .............................. 8
2 Tracing the roots of social innovation in EU policies .......................................................................10
3 The Lisbon II period: social innovation between the lines ...............................................................12
3.1 Social innovation through the Structural Funds (2007-2013) .............................................. 12
3.2 The Social Open Method of Coordination and the PROGRESS programme ......................... 15
3.3 Social innovation in the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) .......................................... 17
4 Towards Europe 2020: the bureau of European policy advisers as ‘agenda setter’ ........................18
5 Mainstreaming social innovation in the Europe 2020 strategy .......................................................20
5.1 The fight against poverty and social exclusion in Europe 2020 ............................................ 20
5.2 Innovation Union and the Social Business Initiative ............................................................. 21
5.3 Social Innovation in the Europe 2020 anti-poverty toolkit ................................................... 24
5.4 The European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) ........................................................ 29
6 Assessing the EU framework for social innovation ..........................................................................33
6.1 Overall assessment ............................................................................................................... 33
6.2 Social innovation and the Europe 2020 anti-poverty toolkit: a preliminary
assessment ............................................................................................................................ 35
References ..............................................................................................................................................38
Annex I. Social innovation: a multi-faced concept .................................................................................46
Annex II. Social policy experimentation .................................................................................................50
Annex III. Examples of EU instruments for social innovation and projects actually supported ............52
Annex IV. List of interviewees ................................................................................................................62
Abbreviations .........................................................................................................................................63
4 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to identify and provide a preliminary assessment of the resources that the EU
has made available to promote social innovation over the period 2006-2014, with special focus on
poverty and social exclusion policies. Such a focus is relevant insofar as the establishment of a
quantitative target concerning poverty and social exclusion has been one of the major novelties
introduced by the Europe 2020 Strategy: social innovation has been presented as a key area for
facilitating its achievement. In order to identify European Union (EU) resources relevant for social
innovation, we have adopted a diachronic approach taking into account two sub-periods: 2006-2010
(the period of the revised Lisbon Strategy) and 2010-2014 (the first stage of the new Europe 2020
Strategy). This has allowed us to shed light on both the varying importance of the issue over time and
the evolution of the relevant instruments and processes implemented by the EU. Our analysis also
provides insights into the complex and multi-layered European policy architecture for underpinning
social innovation.
Three main conclusions can be drawn from the analysis. First, considering the period 2006-2010, one
could refer to it as a situation of ‘social innovation between the lines’. The label social innovation was
rarely ever used over that period and, though a number of EU instruments and processes actually
supported it, social innovation was rarely explicitly mentioned among their objectives. Furthermore, a
variety of interpretations of the notion of social innovation can be detected, some of which
emphasised innovation related to the reform of welfare policies, others to social business and the
social economy, and others to local level initiatives. Secondly, according to our analysis, the European
Commission’s Bureau of European Policy Advisers (BEPA) played an agenda setting role in raising the
attention paid to social innovation at the EU level. Notably, activities carried out by the BEPA in 2009
and 2010 represented an occasion for a) bringing together the variegated policy community of people
dealing with social innovation, b) proposing a broad definition of social innovation, trying to include –
to a certain extent – the diversified existing interpretations of the concept, and c) bringing the issue to
the attention of EU leaders at a critical juncture of EU politics, i.e. the elaboration of the Europe 2020
Strategy. As a consequence, and this is our third conclusion, social innovation was mainstreamed into
the Europe 2020 Strategy. In fact, explicit references to such a topic can be found in both constituent
elements of the Strategy (e.g., the Integrated Guidelines, the European Platform against Poverty and
Social Exclusion and the Innovation Union flagship initiatives) as well as policy instruments
implemented as part of the Europe 2020 Strategy (including the Employment and Social Innovation
Programme, the Social Investment Package and the European Structural and Investment Funds).
Looking at policy instruments and processes implemented in the context of Europe 2020, one can
identify a varied set of resources offered to support and promote social innovation, including financial
resources, visibility and reputational resources, and cognitive and networking resources. Furthermore,
some attempts have been made to strengthen coordination between the various European
Commission Directorates-General (DGs) that take action on social innovation. Yet differences
concerning the concrete understanding of social innovation between the various DGs (and the focus
of the initiatives implemented) persist, with each DG interpreting the notion in a way closer to its
mandate. Thus, while a ‘social entrepreneurial’ view on social innovation prevailed in the former DG
Enterprise and Industry and DG Internal Market (recently merged in to a single DG GROW), the
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 5
Directorate-General Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (DG EMPL), there has gradually
developed a different notion of social innovation as ‘social policy innovation’. This is a methodology
for testing on a small scale policy reforms in line with policy orientations defined at the EU level, with
the goal of upscaling the most successful experiments through the EU Funds.
When benchmarked against some of the governance challenges typically confronting social
innovations identified by previous research in the IMPROVE project, current initiatives undertaken by
DG EMPL entail both opportunities and risks. First, linking social innovation to the reform of national
social policies and concentrating a number of resources on such a purpose may make it more likely
that the EU will have an impact on domestic reforms. However, the fact that socially innovative
projects funded through the call for tenders on social policy innovation must follow the approach and
the priorities defined at the EU level (e.g. in the Social Investment Package and the Country-specific
Recommendations) may prevent support for genuinely bottom-up ideas and out of the box
innovations, leading to a situation of constrained social innovation. Secondly, the fact that, in relevant
EU documents, social innovation is often associated with the need to improve the efficiency of social
policies in a context characterised by budget constraints and to mobilize private resources to finance
welfare provisions may lead to a narrow interpretation of the concept. In fact, social innovation could
be possibly interpreted as the need to ‘do more with less’ resources or as a way to de-responsibilise
public authorities by shifting responsibilities for welfare provisions to private/third sector actors.
Keywords: Social innovation, Europe 2020, poverty and social exclusion, social experimentation,
European structural Funds
JEL codes: I3
6 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
1 Introduction
The aim of this paper is twofold. First, we aim to identify the resources
1
that the European Union (EU)
has made available to promote and support social innovation in the period between 2006 and 2014.
In order to do so, we will map and discuss a number of policy tools and processes suitable for sustaining
social innovation that the EU has implemented over this period, with a focus on social innovations in
the field of poverty and social exclusion. Indeed, while social innovation may concern a variety of policy
fields (including, for instance, education, ageing, and healthcare), the emphasis on poverty and social
exclusion appears important to the point where setting up of a quantitative target concerning that
domain has been one of the major novelties introduced by the Europe 2020 Strategy. Social innovation
has been presented as a key area for facilitating the achievement of such a target and, more generally,
for achieving Europe 2020’s ambition to promote smart, sustainable and inclusive growth (European
Commission 2010c, 2010d). In analysing the emergence and the key features of the European social
innovation agenda, we adopt a diachronic approach, distinguishing between two sub-periods: 2006-
2010, a period in which such an agenda remained implicit, and 2010-2014, when social innovation
explicitly appeared in EU policy discourses and was largely mainstreamed into EU policy processes.
Besides highlighting changes in the attention given to the topic over time, such an approach allows us
to situate social innovation developments within the broader policy framework of the EU’s overarching
strategies: the re-launched Lisbon Strategy (2006-2010) and the Europe 2020 Strategy (2010-ongoing).
Secondly, we aim to provide a preliminary assessment of the current EU framework for social
innovation (i.e., of resources available under the Europe 2020 Strategy). Particular attention will be
devoted to the initiatives more directly linked to social innovation in the field of the fight against
poverty and social exclusion.
The present paper is primarily based on a careful analysis of documents produced by EU
institutions/bodies (desk research), complemented by insights from the relevant scientific literature
and six expert interviews with highly informed actors. Interviewees have been selected with a view to
reflecting the variety of points of view on social innovation characterising various policy circles, and
include officials from various Directorates-General (DGs) of the European Commission
2
(3),
representatives of EU level think-tanks (2) and one stakeholder (see Annex IV).
The paper is structured as follows. Section 1.1 briefly explains some definitional challenges related to
the research topic. Social innovation is indeed a contested notion: a variety of definitions have been
elaborated over time and the understanding of the phenomenon differs both among and within
scientific, civil society and governmental circles. In this paper we mainly rely on the definition
elaborated by the Bureau of European Policy Advisers (BEPA) in 2010 (section 1.2). We justify our
choice and explain how the BEPA definition relates to other interpretations of social innovation.
Section 2 briefly describes the relevant initiatives implemented before the 2000s. , In Section 3 we
review instruments and processes supporting social innovation that the EU provided in the period
between 2006 and 2010 – i.e. during the second phase of the Lisbon Strategy – relevant to the fight
against poverty and social exclusion. Section 4 will look in more detail at the late 2000s, which is the
1
In this paper we adopt a broad understanding of the term ‘resources’, not limited to financial resources.
Indeed, as pointed out by Graziano et al. (2011:10), the EU typically provides domestic actors with a large
range of resources, including legal, financial, cognitive and normative, political and cognitive ones.
2
Notably, from DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, DG Enterprise and Industry, DG Regional and
Urban Policy.
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 7
period marking the passage from the Lisbon to the Europe 2020 Strategy. We claim that it was in this
period that the label social innovation emerged in EU level policy discourses and that activities carried
out by the Bureau of European Policy Advisers played a key role in that respect. Section 5 reviews
instruments and processes supporting social innovation implemented within the Europe 2020
Strategy. Section 6 wraps things up: first we provide an overall assessment of the current EU
framework for social innovation; second, we focus on the initiatives more directly linked to the fight
against poverty and social exclusion implemented under the Europe 2020 Strategy, which will be
assessed in the light of the answers they may offer to a number of governance challenges with which
(local) socially innovative practices are generally confronted.
1.1 Definitional challenges
In view of the protean nature of the concept of social innovation, it is necessary to explain some
definitional and conceptual issues before embarking on our analysis of the EU framework. As noted by
Jenson and Harrison, social innovation can be understood as a quasi-concept, which is a concept
characterised by a significant degree of flexibility and some analytical and empirical weaknesses,
whose utility primarily lies
… in fostering cohesion across a policy network, composed of researchers, analysts and
decision-makers [and] provid[ing] an analytical focus for identifying policy challenges and
diagnosing their characteristics. (Jenson and Harrison 2013: 14)
Because there is no basic agreement on the exact meaning of concept, and a variety of definitions exist
(see Annex I), one can question from which perspective the EU framework has to be interpreted and
assessed.
The definition used in the ImPRovE project
3
stresses the highly contextual and bottom-up character of
social innovation as well as its capacity to promote the participation and the empowerment of socially
excluded groups thus eventually leading to the transformation of social relations. Other definitions
more explicitly link social innovation either to dynamics of the redefinition of boundaries between the
social and economic spheres – which eventually ‘blur’ – or to processes of reform of welfare policies
(for a more detailed description, see Annex I).
Because the aim of this paper is to shed light on the resources to promote and support social
innovation that the EU has made available in the course of the time we have opted, however, for the
unofficial EU definition of social innovation. More in particular, we will use the work carried out by the
European Commission’s Bureau of European Policy Advisers (BEPA) in 2009 and 2010 – and the
definition of social innovation proposed in that context (BEPA 2010) – as the main reference for the
present study. This a pragmatic choice, dictated by three reasons.
3
Social innovations as “[…] bottom-up initiatives that respond to the commodification of life chances and/or
the relations of domination embodied in existing institutions to satisfy social needs of socially excluded
groups (content dimension). They bypass or transform existing welfare or other institutions and structural
social relations by involving civil society, third sector or social entrepreneurs so as to increase the control of
socially excluded groups over the means to satisfy their social needs (process dimension). They thereby
contribute to the empowerment and socio-political mobilization of socially excluded groups” (Kazepov et
al.2013:12, italic in the original).
8 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
First, BEPA’s activity during the late 2000s was key for the emergence of the topic of social innovation
on the EU agenda. Although a variety of EU initiatives and programmes supported socially innovative
projects already from the end of the 1970s, it was not until the 2000s that the EU really started focusing
on social innovation and began to use the label explicitly. As we shall see below, BEPA’s activities are
crucial to understand the timing and sudden intensity of the EU’s concern with social innovation.
Second, although it cannot be considered as the official EU definition, recent important documents
produced by EU institutions explicitly refer to the BEPA definition. Third, the work undertaken by BEPA
includes a retrospective analysis of instrument and processes implemented by the EU in the past and
which – to a varied extent – supported and promoted social innovation
4
. Considering that, before 2010,
social innovation was seldom if ever explicitly mentioned at the EU level, the study conducted by BEPA
has represented a useful starting point for our analysis insofar as it allowed us to identify policy tools
and processes supporting social innovation in the domain of poverty and social exclusion implemented
in the period 2006-2010.
Although there are sound, pragmatic reasons for selecting the BEPA definition of social innovation, we
acknowledge the limitations of this choice. Definitions are not neutral tools, simply allowing us to
describe reality. Each definition selects and emphasizes certain aspects of reality while obscuring
others, and may be used to push specific policy goals (see Annex I for a fine-grained analysis). All
definitions, including the one by BEPA, can be seen as outcomes of a definitional struggle. Yet, as soon
as they are broadly accepted, they may become an element in the political game. For this reason, our
analysis will also highlight how the BEPA definition came about and can be used to legitimate specific
policy goals and attenuate others.
1.2 The Bureau of European Policy Advisers’ definition of social innovation
In January 2009 the Bureau of European Policy Advisers (BEPA) organized a high-level workshop on
social innovation, which was followed up by a report on this topic published in May 2010. In the latter,
relying on a definition proposed by a preparatory study commissioned out to the Young Foundation
and the Social Innovation eXchange (SIX) (Caulier-Grice et al. 2010), BEPA defined social innovations
as:
… innovations that are social in both their ends and their means. [They are] new ideas
(products, services and models) that simultaneously meet social needs (more effectively than
alternatives) and create new social relationships or collaborations. In other words they are
innovations that are not only good for society but also enhance society’s capacity to act. (BEPA
2010: 33, italics in the original)
Such a definition highlights two main dimensions of social innovation: the ‘output dimension’ and the
‘process dimension’. As for the former, BEPA tries to elaborate more on the kind of challenges that
social innovation is supposed to address and on the scope of change in social interactions they require
4
This paper hence limits itself to assessing the role of EU instruments and processes in supporting socially
innovative projects. A more comprehensive analysis of the role of the EU in supporting social innovation,
would require a more explicit theorization of social innovation as a multi-scalar ‘societal transformation’,
connecting local social innovations with more general processes of social change rooting out poverty and
social inclusion. Such a comprehensive, more political assessment, however, is beyond the scope of this
paper.
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 9
(BEPA 2010: 42-43), thus identifying three – complementary and interdependent approaches (or
perspectives) to social innovation:
- a social demand perspective, according to which social innovation aims at addressing:
social demands that are traditionally not addressed by the market or existing
institutions and are directed towards vulnerable groups in society. (BEPA 2010: 43)
According to this approach – considered as a ‘narrow interpretation’ of social innovation – the
economic and social spheres are seen as two separate but complementary dimensions, and
social innovations are mainly targeted at satisfying the needs of the most vulnerable groups in
society such as unemployed people, migrants, youth and elderly people, offenders. From this
perspective, key players in developing social innovations may be public, private, third sector
actors as well as users and local communities. In particular, social entrepreneurs are expected
to play a key role (BEPA 2010: 37);
- a societal challenge perspective, according to which social innovation would aim at addressing:
societal challenges in which the boundary between ‘social’ and ‘economic’ blurs, and
which are directed towards society as a whole. (BEPA 2010: 43)
From this perspective – also linked to discourses related to the sustainable development and
the Beyond GDP agendas – social innovation could reform the very meaning of economic
activities by adding an additional dimension to economic outcome (BEPA 2010: 37). In this
sense, the social domain would also represent an opportunity to generate both economic,
social and ecological returns (growth, jobs and the satisfaction of social needs);
- a systemic changes perspective, emphasising:
the need to reform society in the direction of a more participative arena where
empowerment and learning are sources and outcomes of well-being. (BEPA 2010: 43)
According to BEPA, in this perspective a key role has to be played by public actors, together
with private and community players. Social innovations would result in
… changes in fundamental attitudes and values, strategies and policies, organisational
structures and processes, delivery systems and services, methods and ways of working,
responsibilities and tasks of institutions and linkages between them and different types
of actors (BEPA 2010: 38)
5
.
As for the output dimension, irrespective of the specific output they are expected to deliver, according
to the BEPA, social innovations should rely on:
5
For each of those perspectives BEPA report refers to a number of (rather diverse) examples. Examples of
social innovations related to the social demand perspective concern the field of work reinsertion,
microfinance, education and training, health services, childcare or services for the elderly, urban
regeneration initiatives. Examples of the societal challenge perspective include, among others, the Red
Cross and the Open University, time banking, social businesses, and child trust funds. Examples related to
the systemic changes perspective range from the Open Method of Coordination implemented by the EU in
the social domain, to changes in the organization and management of firms, initiatives aiming at making
citizens more aware of climate change, initiatives aiming at tackling gender stereotypes, participatory
budgets.
10 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
… the development of new forms of organisations and interactions among actors to tackle
social issues. (BEPA 2010:36)
2 Tracing the roots of social innovation in EU policies
Over time, initiatives supporting and promoting socially innovative practices have been implemented
by public authorities such as the European Union. As noted by Jouen (2008:17), this was especially the
case of the so called Community Initiatives promoted by the European Commission since the mid -
1990s in various policy fields.
In the framework of EU cohesion policy, the URBAN I (1994-1999) and URBAN II (2000-2006)
Community initiatives have often been considered suitable for promoting social innovation (cf.
Oosterlynck et al. 2013: 19-20)
6
. Indeed, those initiatives – funded through the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF) – were aimed at promoting the sustainable development of deprived urban
neighbourhoods by adopting integrated approaches (i.e. through integrated solutions to address
economic, social and environmental challenges) based on partnership, capacity building and the active
involvement of local communities and target groups (Carpenter 2006).
Similarly, as pointed out by the Commission’s own evaluations (cf. BEPA 2010: 74; European
Commission 2000b), the mobilisation of local actors, the development of partnerships, the promotion
of integrated and bottom up approaches to rural development and capacity building activities were
among the key assets of the LEADER Community initiatives implemented between 1991 and 2006
7
.
The innovative character of the LEADER initiatives is well illustrated in the guidelines for the last of
them, LEADER+ , that intended to represent:
… a laboratory which aims to encourage the emergence and testing of new approaches to
integrated and sustainable development. (European Commission 2000b: point 8)
When it comes to the field of poverty, one can note that already the first intervention of the European
Community in this field – i.e. the European Anti-Poverty programme implemented at the end of the
1970s
8
– consisted in
… a number of locally-based pilot projects, intended to demonstrate innovatory methods of
combating poverty. (Room 2010: 9)
6
Given its focus on the urban dimension, the meaning attributed to social innovation in the URBAN initiative
seems particularly close to the understanding of the concept in the ImPRovE definition.
7
LEADER I (1991-1993), LEADER II (1994-1999), LEADER + (2000-2006). Since 2007, the approach followed
by the initiative has been integrated into the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development.
8
The first European Anti-Poverty Programme ran from 1975 to 1980. It was followed by the II and the III
Anti-Poverty Programmes (respectively implemented between 1986 and 1989 and between 1990 and
1994). In the framework of the III programme, an Observatory on national policies to combat social
exclusion was set-up. Activities carried out under the three programmes were fundamental in order to
reframe the concept of poverty in terms of social exclusion, presented as a community-wide phenomenon
requiring a community-wide response (Bauer, 2002).
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 11
According to the Commission, common features characterising those pilot projects were:
the presence of an important element of innovation, a strong participation by the population
directly concerned and a potentially significant contribution to the nations of the European
Community in the development of social policy. (European Commission 1977:4)
As pointed out by Room (2010), those projects – which followed an action-research perspective –
aimed at boosting collaboration between the scientific community, national and local policy-makers
and the disadvantaged communities. In particular, the participation of the latter in the design and
implementation of the projects was considered as a key – and in many cases successful – element
(ibid.: 11-12). Some of the projects funded through the subsequent Community Programmes were
small scale projects testing innovative methods for social provisions, with a view to generalising the
most successful ones (Room 2010: 11).
A similar emphasis on innovation as a way to test and promote policy reforms will be later developed
in the framework of the EQUAL Community initiative implemented between 2000 and 2006. The
EQUAL initiative, linked to the European Employment Strategy (EES) and aiming at combating
discrimination and inequalities in the labour market, was indeed based on five priorities (European
Commission 2000a): partnership (i.e., the involvement of all relevant actors); empowerment (including
the active participation of the target groups); transnational cooperation; innovation; mainstreaming
(intended as a process of analysis, benchmark and dissemination of innovative solutions both within
Member States and across the European Union). As for the principle of innovation, the guidelines of
the initiative read that “EQUAL will test innovative approaches to policy delivery” (European
Commission 2000a: point 28) and distinguish between three types of innovation (ibid.: point 29): 1)
‘process oriented innovations’, i.e. the development of new methods, tools and approaches or the
improvement of existing ones; 2) ‘goal-oriented innovations’, that is, the formulation of new objectives
or approaches for labour market policies (including, for instance, the opening up of new areas for
employment); 3) ‘context-oriented innovations’, which relates to political and institutional structures
9
.
The ad hoc working group on innovation and mainstreaming explicitly refers to social innovations,
defining them as:
changes in organisational values, structures and processes, and in linkages between
institutions. (EQUAL Managing Authorities 2006: 3)
In that document, social innovation was linked to the renewed Lisbon Strategy for Growth and Jobs
and was deemed particularly relevant for the modernization of the economy (here, the reference is to
‘organisational innovations’) and for the implementation of policy reforms in the domain of
employment and social inclusion. As for the latter, social innovation was seen as a way for developing
and testing on a small scale new policy approaches and new ways of delivery, before mainstreaming
them on a larger scale. In order to do so, the working group emphasised the need to implement
experiments based on sound methodologies
10
. Summing up, while a variety of EU initiatives and
9
A similar understanding of the concept of innovation can be found in the so-called Innovative actions
promoted through Art. 6 of the Regulation on the ESF for the 2000-2006 programming period (cf. European
Commission 2001).
10
As pointed out by the members of the working group, “managed effectively, innovative activity allows
experimentation to take place at a micro level enabling new approaches to be tested on a smaller scale to
find out what works, what does not and in what circumstances. That is why sound procedures monito ring,
validating and assessing innovative results are so important […]. Validation in this context means proven
12 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
programmes de facto promoted social innovation or supported socially innovative projects already
before the 2000s, with the exception of the EQUAL programme, social innovation generally did not
appear among the goals of those initiatives (see also BEPA 2010: 96-97, Jouen 2008) and that label was
seldom if ever explicitly mentioned in their constituent documents
11
.
3 The Lisbon II period: social innovation between the lines
In this Section, using the BEPA (2010) report as a blueprint, we will discuss a number of policy
instruments and processes relevant to the fight against poverty implemented in the framework of the
renewed Lisbon Strategy in order: a) to verify if and to what extent the promotion of social innovation
was among their goals; and b) to understand to what extent (and in which sense) they have supported
social innovation. More particularly, we will discuss the following policy instruments: the Structural
Funds (3.1), the Social Open Method of Coordination (OMC) and the PROGRESS programme (3.2.) and
the Seventh Framework Programme (3.3.).
3.1 Social innovation through the Structural Funds (2007-2013)
The Structural Funds – the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund
(ESF) – and the Cohesion Fund were the main financial instruments supporting the objectives of
achieving sustainable growth, competitiveness and employment set by the renewed Lisbon strategy.
For the period 2007-2013, Structural and Cohesion Funds’ support was to be targeted on the three
objectives of ‘Convergence’, ‘Regional Competitiveness and Cohesion’ and finally ‘European Regional
Competitiveness’.
The Council Regulation laying down the general provisions for the Funds (Council 2006a) does not
explicitly refer to social innovation. Yet, some (implicit) references to the topic can be found in the
Council Decision on the Community Strategic Guidelines on Cohesion (Council 2006b) and, notably, in
the guideline concerning ‘More and better jobs’. The latter basically relates to the need to support the
priorities of the European Employment Strategy, including actions aimed at promoting labour market
integration for people at risk of social exclusion, such as migrants, early school-leavers, long-term
unemployed, minorities, and people with disabilities. In this framework, the need to promote
innovation by supporting the exchange of good practices and the set-up of networks between Member
States and regions – considered as “the most visible aspects of European value added in the 2000-2006
period” (Council 2006b: art. 1.3) – is stressed. In particular, the Council recommended to mainstream
the underlying principles of the previous EQUAL programme (cf. Section 2).
Among the Structural Funds, the European Social Fund is obviously the most relevant for the present
research, insofar as it was expected to support the EU objectives in the domains of employment, social
inclusion, non-discrimination, equality, education and training (European Parliament and Council
2006b). More in detail, “reinforcing the social inclusion of disadvantaged people with a view to their
sustainable integration in employment” was one of the priorities of the ESF under the ‘Convergence’
evidence of feasibility, suitability, transferability and acceptability of the innovative approach” (EQUAL
Managing Authorities 2006:5).
11
See, European Commission 1977; 1994; 2000a; 2000b; 2000c.
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 13
and ‘Regional Competitiveness and employment’ objectives (art.3.1.c), while, under the objective of
‘Convergence’, the ESF was expected to support investment in human capital and to boost the
institutional capacity of public bodies, social partners and non-governmental organisations. An analysis
of the Regulation on the ESF reveals some references to the need to promote innovation. First, the
Regulation recalls the recommendation to integrate into the ESF the lessons learnt from the
implementation of the EQUAL programme, among them
… the participation of target groups, […] innovation and experimentation techniques,
methodologies for transnational cooperation, […] and access to and management of projects
taken on by non-governmental organisations. (European Parliament and Council 2006b: point
6).
Second, it is explicitly stated that:
The ESF shall support the promotion and mainstreaming of innovative activities in the Member
States (ibid.: art. 5) and that it should promote transnational and interregional actions
including: a) actions aiming at sharing of information, experiences, results and good practices;
b) actions aiming at developing complementary approaches and coordinated or joint actions.
(ibid.: art.6)
12
As for the European Regional Development Fund, its focus on sustainable local and regional
development strategies appears highly relevant for this research. As pointed out in the ERDF
regulation:
the ERDF may, where appropriate, support the development of participative, integrated and
sustainable strategies to tackle the high concentration of economic, environmental and social
problems affecting urban areas. (European Parliament and Council 2006a:art.8)
13
Indeed, according to the European Commission (2013a: 22), in the period 2007-2013 the ERDF
contributed to regenerating disadvantaged urban areas also through innovative solutions, including
financing initiatives to support cultural and creative quarters and outreach work to engage specific
disadvantaged groups
14
. Besides funding specific national projects, the promotion of European
territorial cooperation activities was an important feature of the ERDF 2007-2013 (European
12
According to art. 7 of the Regulation, in the framework of each operational programme, attention was to
be paid to the promotion and mainstreaming of innovative activities. Managing authorities were asked to
inform the monitoring committee about the themes where innovative activities had been implemented.
Furthermore, “the promotion of innovative transnational and interregional activities is an important
dimension which should be integrated in the scope of the ESF. In order to foster cooperation, Member States
should programme transnational and interregional actions using a horizontal approach or through a
dedicated priority axis.” (European Parliament and Council 2006b : point 12)
13
As pointed out in the ERDF Regulation, building on the experience and strength of the URBAN Community
initiative, “[…] sustainable urban development initiatives should be reinforced by fully integrating measures
in that field into the operational programmes co-financed by the ERDF, paying particular attention to local
development and employment initiatives and their potential for innovation.” (European Parliament and
Council 2006a: (9))
14
In this area, the ERDF was also supported by the JESSICA (Joint European Support for Sustainable
Investment in City Areas) initiative, a special support initiative aimed at supporting sustainable urban
development and regeneration through financial engineering mechanisms developed by the European
Commission, the European Investment Bank and the Council of Europe Development Bank.
14 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
Parliament and Council 2006a: art. 6). Those activities included: a) the establishment and development
of transnational cooperation through the financing of networks and of actions conducive to integrated
territorial development (art.6.2) and b) the reinforcement of the effectiveness of regional policy by
promoting – inter alia -
exchanges of experience concerning the identification, transfer and dissemination of best
practice including on sustainable urban development [and] actions involving studies, data
collection, and the observation and analysis of development trends in the Community. (art.6.3)
Such actions were in particular supported through the URBACT II (cooperation, networking and
exchange of good practices between cities) and the INTERREG IVC (cooperation between regions)
programmes.
Summing up, in the period 2007-2013 the Structural Funds had the possibility to support social
innovation in three respects. First, at a more general level, Structural Fund interventions relied on the
principle of partnership between the relevant actors – including public authorities, social partners and
civil society organisations – thus potentially facilitating the development of more participative arenas
for social policies characterized by new types of interactions among actors; that is, what the BEPA
(2010) report defines as the ‘systemic challenge’ perspective on social innovation. Second, the
Structural Funds financed specific socially innovative projects and, third, they supported initiatives
aimed at fostering transnational cooperation, the exchange of good practices and networking. This
said, since social innovation was not among the explicit goals of the Structural Funds, it is difficult to
quantify how many resources were actually devoted to the funding of socially innovative projects – or
to the promotion of exchanges and networking on those issues – in the period 2007-2013 and the
impact that those resources had in the Member States. According to estimates from BEPA (2010:72):
more than € 1 billion of ESF budgets [was] spent on innovative activities under the ESF
Operational Programmes, [including on] new ways of combating unemployment through
inclusive entrepreneurship, creating youth employment, age management, or social inclusion
of vulnerable groups
15
.
When it comes to the promotion of networking and the dissemination of socially innovative practices,
the BEPA (2010:65) report refers to some specific programmes funded through the ESF and the ERDF:
the Learning for change initiative and the Regions for Economic Change initiative (see Annex III, Box
1), the latter connected to the INTERREG IV C and URBACT programmes. However, some observers
have raised doubts about the extent to which social innovation was actually integrated into the
‘Territorial cooperation’ objective of the Cohesion policy (funded through the ERDF). For example,
according to Jouen (2008:22), initiatives linked to that objective – such as the Regions for Economic
Change initiative and INTERREG IV C mentioned above – still relied on an exclusively technological
interpretation of the concept of innovation, simply intended as technological progress.
15
See European Commission (2013a:22) for a number of examples of socially innovative projects and
initiatives supported by the Structural Funds (2007-2013) in the areas of social inclusion, migration, urban
regeneration, the social economy, microfinance, health and ageing, incubation, workplace innovation and
regional strategies. Some studies point to the strategic usage of ESF resources for the purpose of modifying
domestic policies (see, for instance Verschraegen et. al. (2011) on activation practices in Belgian regions).
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 15
3.2 The Social Open Method of Coordination and the PROGRESS programme
The Open Method of Coordination for Social Protection and Social Inclusion (Social OMC) was launched
in 2006 and resulted from the streamlining of three existing open coordination processes in the
domains of social inclusion, pensions, healthcare and long-term care. The Social OMC – as
implemented from 2006 to 2010 – was an iterative process relying on triennial cycles. The toolkit of
the Social OMC included the establishment of Common Objectives and the development of indicators
for measuring progress towards the objectives, reporting activities (the drafting of National Reports
on the Strategies for Social Protection and Social Inclusion and Joint Report on Social Protection and
Social Inclusion), and the promotion of mutual learning activities. The latter – which are a key feature
of open coordination processes – included a wide range of activities such as the organisation of
different kinds of peer review exercises, activities carried out by networks of independent experts
assisting the EC in policy assessments, the organisation of various kinds of Presidency events
16
, the
launch of calls for proposals to promote debates, research and awareness raising activities on social
issues funded by the European Commission (see, in particular PPMI (2011), Vanhercke and Lelie
(2012)).
Most of the activities of the Social OMC in the period between 2007 and 2013 were financed through
the Community Action Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity (PROGRESS) (European
Parliament and Council 2006c), whose purpose was to support the implementation of the EU
objectives in the fields of employment and social affairs by financing analytical activities, mutual
learning, awareness and dissemination activities, as well as initiatives supporting the main actors in
the social domain (European Parliament and Council 2006c: art 9 par.1 and par.2 ), including:
organising exchanges on policies, good practice and innovative approaches and promoting
mutual learning in the context of the social protection and inclusion strategy.
As for the domains of social protection and social inclusion, the specific objective of PROGRESS was to
support the implementation of the Social OMC by (ibid. art. 5):
(a) improving the understanding of social exclusion and poverty issues, social protection and
inclusion policies, in particular through analysis and studies and the development of statistics
and common indicators, within the framework of the OMC in the field of social protection and
inclusion;
(b) monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the OMC in the field of social protection and
inclusion and its impact at national and Community level as well as analysing the interaction
between this OMC and other policy areas;
(c) organising exchanges on policies, good practice and innovative approaches and promoting
mutual learning in the context of the social protection and inclusion strategy;
(d) raising awareness, disseminating information and promoting the debate about the key
challenges and policy issues raised in the context of the Community coordination process in the
16
Presidency events refer to “a wide variety of conferences, seminars, discussions, round-tables, and meetings
that are (co)organised by the countries holding the Presidency of the Council of the European Union together
with the European Commission” (PPMI 2011:21).
16 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
field of social protection and inclusion, including among the social partners, regional and local
actors, NGOs and other stakeholders;
(e) developing the capacity of key European level networks to support and further develop
Community policy goals and strategies on social protection and inclusion.
While key documents concerning the Social OMC and the PROGRESS programme do not explicitly
mention social innovation among their goals (see, for example European Commission 2005a, 2006,
2008b, 2008c; European Parliament and Council 2006c; 2010), this does not necessarily mean that it
was a marginal issue in both the Social OMC and the PROGRESS programme. On the contrary,
considering it:
a way to catalyse the commitment of national administrations on the transformation of
national policies for employment and social exclusion (BEPA 2010: 64),
the report considers the Social OMC as a policy framework likely to promote and support social
innovation. In particular, the role potentially played by mutual learning activities undertaken in such a
context and of the evaluation and dissemination tools funded through PROGRESS is stressed.
Indeed, some features of the Social OMC may be considered in line with the various perspectives on
social innovation set out in the BEPA report. First, it should be noted that, on a general level, the main
purpose of the Social OMC was to facilitate the modernisation of Member States’ social systems, in
line with the objectives of the Social Agendas (European Commission 2005b; 2008a). The latter
emphasised the need to reform employment and social protection systems in order to respond to
societal challenges such as globalisation, technological advances and demographic developments and
migration. An ambition that was arguably close to the ‘societal challenge perspective’ on social
innovation. Second, strengthening stakeholders’ (in particular, civil society organisations) capabilities
and promoting their involvement in EU and domestic policy-making was a key concern of both the
Social OMC and the PROGRESS programme. This approach seems consistent with the ‘systemic change
perspective’ on social innovation described in the BEPA (2010) report and – according to some
assessments – it represented one of the major strengths of the social inclusion strand of both the Social
OMC and the PROGRESS programme (cf. INBAS and ENGENDER 2010; Ecorys 2011; PPMI 2011). Finally,
and importantly, both the Social OMC and PROGRESS have been considered rather effective in
promoting and funding pilot projects, studies and analysis, mutual learning, awareness raising and
networking activities (Ecorys 2011; PPMI 2011), thus potentially providing an infrastructure for
promoting, supporting and disseminating socially innovative practices. As pointed out in the mid-term
evaluation of the PROGRESS programme carried out by Ecorys (2011: 144):
PROGRESS clearly is deemed effective in meeting its goals [in the social inclusion field].This field
has been very good in terms of involving stakeholders and beneficiaries in output delivery and
outcomes achievement [and] agenda setting, innovation and learning effects are quite evident.
However, even if examples of innovative practices supported by PROGRESS have been reported in
existing assessments (cf. INBAS and ENGENDER 2010; Ecorys 2011; PPMI 2011), information is
piecemeal and it would be difficult to say how much of the activities of the Social OMC and of
PROGRESS were actually devoted to socially innovative practices. According to Ecorys, the focus of
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 17
PROGRESS on social innovation and pilot projects needed to be reinforced (Ecorys 2011: 125), even if,
as shown by a survey of PROGRESS grant beneficiaries:
… four out of five beneficiaries report that new working procedures innovations and new
methods and approaches were adopted by the target group or their organisation thanks to the
PROGRESS grant [and] transfer of best practices from one country to another occurred in
almost the totality of projects. (ibid.: 57)
Examples of specific OMC and PROGRESS tools to sustain or disseminate socially innovative practices
emphasised in the BEPA (2010) report are:
- the PROGRESS funded peer review meetings (see Annex III, Box 2);
- the calls for proposals on social experimentation launched since 2009 by DG EMPL with the
aim of promoting social experimentation as a source of innovation in social policies (European
Commission 2009c: 5)
17
(see Section 5.3);
- the PROGRESS micro-finance facility, established in 2010 to increase access to and availability
of credit for micro-enterprises (especially the ones operating in the social economy) and for
people in vulnerable situations who want to create microenterprises (European Parliament
and Council 2010: art.2). According to BEPA (2010: 170-171), on the one hand, given its
features, such a micro-finance facility represents per se an innovative policy instrument. On
the other hand, it has the potential to trigger social innovations, inter alia by supporting
vulnerable people in launching and developing social business.
3.3 Social innovation in the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7)
The BEPA report identifies the Framework programmes for Research and Technological Developments
as one of the main tools through which the EU has supported research on social innovation (BEPA
2010: 75-76). Looking at an overview of the projects directly or indirectly focussing on social innovation
recently provided by the European Commission (n.d.), it emerges that the attention devoted to the
topic has gradually increased in the course of the years. Indeed, while only 4 and 6 projects were
funded respectively through the 5th (1999-2002) and 6th (2002-2006) Framework programmes, 16
projects were funded by FP7 (2007-2013). In reviewing the findings of 17 of those projects, Jenson and
Harrison (2013) found remarkable differences concerning the focus of the various research projects.
Indeed, the main themes addressed by those projects range from social innovations at the
local/community level, to innovation in the public sector, social enterprises, corporate social
responsibility, or social innovations referred to specific groups (such as young people or migrants).
Interestingly enough, Jenson and Harrison (2013:24) report that seven of the seventeen projects they
considered did not use the concept of social innovation at all, preferring to refer to concepts such as
social cohesion, social capital or social inclusion. As for the 7th Framework Programme, the BEPA report
identifies the establishment of social platforms as one of the most interesting instruments for
17
To be noted that the label social innovation explicitly appears in this document, which also refers to the
BEPA workshop on social innovation organised in 2009.
18 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
promoting social innovation developed under the FP7 ‘Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities’ (SSH)
programme (see Annex III, Box 4).
Here again, it should be noted that the label social innovation did not explicitly appear in the decision
establishing the 7th framework programme (European Parliament and Council 2006d), in the Decision
concerning the ‘Cooperation’ strand of the FP7 (European Parliament and Council 2007), and in the
annual Work Programmes of the ‘Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities’ programme for the years
2007, 2008 and 2009. Such a label gradually emerged later, notably in the SSH Work Programme for
2010 (European Commission 2009b) where it was linked to social innovations in the public sector and
social innovation in the context of the socio-ecological transition and will continue to be a topic for
research in the Work programmes for 2011, 2012 and 2013 (Annex III, Table 1).
4 Towards Europe 2020: the bureau of European policy advisers as ‘agenda
setter’
As shown in the previous Section, the promotion of social innovation was seldom among the stated
goals of policy instruments and processes implemented by the EU in the past and such a label was
rarely used in key EU documents. The situation changed in the late 2000s: since then, social innovation
has been explicitly mentioned in EU discourses and documents and, as we shall see in the next Section,
has become part of the Europe 2020 agenda. According to our analysis, a workshop organised by the
Bureau of European policy Advisers in 2009 and the publication, in 2010, of the BEPA report on social
innovation were key steps in this respect, insofar as BEPA activities were an opportunity to a) bring
together the variegated policy community of people dealing with social innovation (including civil
society organisations, social entrepreneurs, researchers and EC officials), b) propose a broad definition
of social innovation, able to include – to a certain extent – the diversified existing interpretations of
the concept and c) direct EU leaders’ attention to the issue at a critical juncture of EU politics, i.e. the
elaboration of the Europe 2020 Strategy, and supply EU institutions with a new policy agenda and field
of action.
The workshop on social innovation organised by the BEPA on 19th and 20th January 2009 was aimed at
debating the support to social innovation given so far by the European Union and the extent to which
social innovation was integrated into EU policies, as well as at elaborating some recommendations for
the future (BEPA 2010: 127). About 50 participants attended the meeting. Besides a substantial
number of stakeholders involved, for various reasons, in the field of social innovation
18
, participants
included representatives of the European Commission at the highest political level (including the
President of the European Commission and the Commissioners for Regional Policy and for
Employment, Social Affairs and Equal opportunities) and top level officials from various DGs (DG EMPL,
DG REGIO, DG SANCO, DG ENTR, DG EAC, SECGEN). Interviewees’ appreciations of the workshop differ.
Some of them refer to a rather open seminar, an opportunity for the various traditions on social
innovation existing in Europe to get in contact and confront each other on an equal footing
19
. Others
18
Stakeholders involved in the meeting included representatives from: organisations promoting social
entrepreneurship and individual social innovators, EU level networks of NGOs operating in the social field,
EU level social partners and institutions, think tanks, etc. (cf. European Commission 2009a).
19
As pointed out by one of the participants to the seminar: “It was this big meeting and, suddenly, I discovered
that there were people who were working on it [on social innovation]. I tried to trace them, so to understand
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 19
appear more sceptical on this point and stress the prominent role played by representatives of a more
‘entrepreneurial-oriented’ view of social innovation in both the organisation and development of the
BEPA workshop
20
and the drafting of the 2010 report. Indeed, as pointed out by virtually all our
interviewees, a decisive role in lobbying for the discussion of such a topic at the EU level and in
attracting EU leaders’ attention (in particular, the support of the former President of the European
Commission Mr. Barroso), was played by big players in the field of social entrepreneurship or by
organisations expert in the application of technological solutions to social issues, such as the Young
Foundation and the ICT Company CISCO, with traditional EU players dealing with social policies left
somehow at the margins. To a large extent, EU leaders adopted the entrepreneurial-oriented paradigm
and language on social innovation propagated by these transnational actors and agencies, and drew
less on older, governmental- and community-oriented ideas about social innovation (see also Annex
I).
After the meeting, BEPA was invited to draw up a report on social innovation, relying on suggestions
and discussions from the workshop, the contribution of the various services of the European
Commission, and a study on social innovation commissioned out to the Young Foundation and the
Social Innovation eXchange (SIX)
21
. The definition of social innovation proposed in the report is rather
broad, especially when it comes to the identification of the three perspectives on social innovation (cf.
Section 1.2). This was probably due to the need to accommodate under a single label the various social
innovation traditions existing on the ground as well as the activities promoted in the past by the various
DGs of the European Commission; the latter activities were, on that occasion, ‘officially’ recognised as
linked to the promotion of social innovation
22
.
The BEPA (2010) report primarily embeds social innovation into two interrelated discourses referred
to: a) the reform of welfare systems; b) the interplay between the social and the economic dimension.
The Renewed Social Agenda (European Commission 2008a) is identified as the main reference
framework for social innovation, which is indeed considered as a new – more participative – “paradigm
of social intervention” to address the societal challenges identified in the Social Agenda. In this sense,
social innovation is linked to the reforms of welfare systems and to the emergence of a new form of
“enabling welfare state” (BEPA 2010: 18)
23
. Next to this, the report strongly highlights elements closer
to what could be defined as an entrepreneurial perspective on social innovation. Social challenges
should not only be seen as risks but also as sources of economic and social opportunities and, through
why they were there at that stage, why so suddenly. And, then, you had a mix of things […] People who were
working on technology, ICT, for instance people from CISCO [who] were working on the use of those
technologies […] to develop new ways for training people or to fight poverty. Then, there was another ‘track’
– I would say the ‘British track’- […] interested in the market and society […] Another track was linked to
people who were working on the local level and in the third-sector: for example they were involved in local
development initiatives, etc. […] ” (Int.1)
20
For an overview of the reservations on the concept of social innovation as emerged during the BEPA
meeting expresses by EU social NGOs and trade unions, see EurActiv (2009).
21
Caulier-Grice et al. (2010). The Young Foundation has been traditionally active in this debate (see, for
instance, The Young Foundation (2006), Murray et al. (2010)).
22
In this respect, it can be said that, in the BEPA activities, the notion of social innovation has really been used
as a ‘quasi-concept’, useful for building cohesion across a policy community (cf. Jenson and Harrison: 2013)
and pushing a policy agenda.
23
As the BEPA report suggests, in a context characterised by the economic crisis and budgetary constraints,
“[…] social innovation is an effective way of responding to social challenges, by mobilising people’s creativity
to develop solutions and make better use of scarce resources” (ibid: 7).
20 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
the development of the social economy, “the social dimension [represents] a fundamental source of
growth and jobs” (BEPA 2010:27) and social innovation is expected to play a “growth-building role”
(ibid.: 9).
When it comes to the assessment of the EU’s support to social innovation the BEPA concluded that,
although many EU initiatives had supported social innovation in the past, those initiatives were rather
piecemeal and a clear policy framework for social innovation, to give visibility and political salience to
such an issue, was missing. As a consequence,
[the] need to actively promote a widespread adoption of social innovations as a component of
the EU tool box for effectively addressing poverty, generating sustainable wealth and well-
being and promoting a learning and participative society (BEPA 2010: 117),
was stressed. Obviously, the Europe 2020 strategy – in preparation at the time of the BEPA workshop
and taking its first steps when the BEPA report was published – was an opportunity for this sort of
mainstreaming, to which we turn next.
5 Mainstreaming social innovation in the Europe 2020 strategy
5.1 The fight against poverty and social exclusion in Europe 2020
Launched in 2010, the Europe 2020 Strategy aims at:
[turning] the EU into a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy delivering high levels of
employment, productivity and social cohesion [thus representing] a vision of Europe's social
market economy for the 21st century. (European Commission 2010b: 5).
Europe 2020 focuses on structural reforms in key policy domains (including the fight against poverty
and social exclusion) and combines EU priorities (as set out in the ten Integrated Guidelines, IGs), five
EU headline targets, national targets and seven EU Flagship initiatives aimed at catalysing progress
under each priority theme (Vanhercke 2013). The strategy is a constituent part of the European
Semester
24
, an annual cycle of policy coordination starting in autumn each year with the publication
of the European Commission’s Annual Growth Survey (AGS). Relying on the Integrated Guidelines, the
AGS identifies the key economic challenges faced by the EU and outlines priorities for action for the
following year. On that basis, the Member States draft (in mid-April) their National Reform
Programmes (NRPs) illustrating actions they will implement for making progress towards the IGs and
the achievement of the Europe 2020 targets. Finally, in June and July, the Commission and the Council
review the NRPs and, when necessary, issue Country-specific Recommendations (CSRs) to Member
States.
As for the social dimension of Europe 2020 (cf. Jessoula et al. 2014, Vanhercke 2013, Zeitlin and
Vanhercke 2014), it should be noted that the promotion of inclusive growth is among the key priorities
24
Launched in 2011, the European Semester is a policy coordination cycle which relies on three pillars
(Costamagna 2013, Zeitlin and Vanhercke 2014): thematic coordination under the Europe 2020 strategy,
macroeconomic surveillance under the Macro-economic Imbalance Procedure (MIP) and fiscal surveillance
under the reformed Stability and Growth Pact (SGP).
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 21
of the Strategy. IG n.10 (on employment policies) refers to the objective of ‘Promoting social inclusion
and combating poverty’ and, while focusing in particular on social inclusion, it also mentions the
domains of pensions and healthcare. Importantly, reducing the number of people at risk of poverty
and social exclusion by 20 million by 2020 is among the headline targets of the Strategy. In order to
facilitate the achievement of this target, a flagship initiative – the European Platform against Poverty
and Social Exclusion (EPAP) – has been set up (but note that it may be discontinued in 2016).
The notion of social innovation features prominently within the framework of Europe 2020. Indeed,
references to such a notion can be found in constituent documents of the Strategy such as the
Commission Communication on Europe 2020 (European Commission 2010b), the Communication on
the Innovation Union initiative and the Communication on the European Platform against Poverty and
Social Exclusion
25
. Furthermore, the need to promote social innovation is emphasised in a number of
key initiatives taken from 2012 onwards, including the Social Business Initiative, the Social Investment
Package, the Programme for Employment and Social Innovation, and the decision on the new
Structural and Investment Funds for the period 2014-2020.
5.2 Innovation Union and the Social Business Initiative
Innovation Union is one of the seven Flagship initiatives of the Europe 2020 Strategy. Its goal is:
… to improve conditions and access to finance for research and innovation, to ensure that
innovative ideas can be turned into products and services that create growth and jobs.
(European Commission 2010c: 6)
Alongside more traditional forms of innovation (such as business or technological innovation), the
Communication also refers to social innovation, recalling the language used into the BEPA report.
Indeed, the Commission Communication describes social innovations as:
an important new field […] It is about tapping into the ingenuity of charities, associations and
social entrepreneurs to find new ways of meeting social needs that are not adequately met by
the market or the public sector […] tackling societal challenges, [and] empower[ing] people and
creat[ing] new social relationships and models of collaboration. (European Commission 2010c:
21)
26
In particular, the Communication stresses three points, which should be developed in order to
promote social innovation. First, a more evidence-based approach to social innovation is needed, in
order to facilitate the identification, dissemination and scaling up of successful social innovations.
Furthermore, EU level infrastructures for speeding up and facilitating mutual learning (on the model
of business innovations) should be set-up. Second, the public sector is identified as the sector where
innovation is most needed, in order “to meet the evolving needs and expectations of public service
25
Moreover, the IG n. 10 reads that “Member States should also actively promote the social economy and
social innovation in support of the most vulnerable” (European Council 2010: Annex).
26
Among the examples of social innovations mentioned in the Communication (ibid.), “coronary heart disease
prevention schemes targeted to the whole community, social networks of helpful neighbours for old people
living on their own, urban Eco-maps which provide local communities with information on their progress
towards meeting emissions reduction targets, ethical banks which provide financial products which seek to
maximise social and environmental returns on investment”.
22 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
users against a backdrop of budget austerity” (ibid.). Third, workplace innovation (and, in particular
skills upgrade) is considered as key. Consequently, the Commission committed itself (ibid.: 22):
a) to launch a European Social Innovation pilot, intended to represent a networked virtual hub for
social entrepreneurs, the public and the third sectors and to enhance the role of the ESF in
supporting social innovation
27
;
b) to support a research programme on public sector and social innovation (with an emphasis on
measurement and evaluation, financing and other barriers to social innovation) and to launch a
European Public Sector innovation Scoreboard.
c) to consult the social partners in order to examine how the knowledge economy can be spread
to all occupational levels and all sectors.
As for the first action proposed, a pilot initiative – Social Innovation Europe (SIE) – was launched in
2011. Funded by DG Enterprise and Industry and run by an external consortium, the goal of this
initiative is to become a meeting place for social innovators (policy makers, entrepreneurs, academics,
third sector workers, and other social innovators) in Europe:
[…] a hub […] where innovative thinkers from all 27 member states can come together to create
a streamlined, vigorous social innovation field in Europe, to raise a shared voice, and to propel
Europe to lead the practice of social innovation globally
28
.
The most visible tool of the initiative is a website (including a web magazine) aimed at facilitating
networking among social innovators and spreading information about practices, activities, events, and
studies concerning social innovation. Furthermore, an annual European Social Innovation Competition
was launched in 2013, with the aim of showcasing and mentoring successful social innovations
implemented in the Member States. Proposals – which can come from individuals and organisations
(including for-profit, non-for-profit, or private companies) from all sectors – are assessed according to
three criteria
29
:
1) Innovation: i.e., the degree of innovativeness of the practices, which should obviously be “new
approaches or ideas combined or implemented in new ways”, at least, in a specific context.
2) Potential for systemic change: that is, the potential impact of the practices and the possibility to
replicate or transfer them in new contexts.
3) Potential for sustainability.
Both the 2013 and 2014 editions of the competition were dedicated to the themes of unemployment
and under-employment (cf. Annex III, Table 2).
27
“This will be complemented by support to innovative socia l experiments to be developed in the framework
of the European Platform against Poverty” (ibid.: 22).
28
Quoted from the Social Innovation Europe website
(https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/socialinnovationeurope/en/about ). According to our interviewees, the
initiative currently brings together 5000 members (Int.4).
29
Source: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/social-innovation/past-
editions/prize_en.htm , accessed 25 May 2015.
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 23
Documents and initiatives undertaken by DG Enterprise and Industry (e.g. the Commission
Communication on the Social Innovation Union or the European Social Innovation Competition
30
)
generally recall the broad definition of social innovation provided by the BEPA in 2010 and recognise
that the possible sources of social innovation are varied, including social entrepreneurs, civil society
organisations, and public authorities. However, also for obvious reasons linked to the specific mandate
of such a DG, particular attention is devoted to the private sector, the social economy and, especially,
social enterprises
31
. As explained by one interviewee:
We really take it as bold as possible, so meaning that we are not prescriptive about the fact
that the solution may come from social economy organisations or social enterprises or public
authorities or any type of company. We really actually don't pay attention to the origin. We
look at what it brings […] But it's different from other colleagues from employment, for
instance, who look at social innovation thinking of social policy innovation: we really rather
take the private sector angle. (Int.4)
What is emphasised from this perspective is the fact that social innovations, besides bringing
innovative solutions to existing social needs, create new markets and may represent a source of growth
and jobs. As stated by the former Commissioner for Industry and Entrepreneurship Antonio Tajani:
Social innovation is both a business and societal opportunity, because the most important
sectors for growth in the next decades are linked to the development of human and social
capital. (SIE 2012: 11)
As explained by one of our interviewees, interpreted in this sense, social innovation may lead to a
transformation of the economy in line with what the BEPA (2010) named the societal challenge
perspective:
This kind of attitude could and should eventually influence the whole economy. Consumption
patterns are changing, (think, for instance to the sharing economy) and there are a lot of trends
which challenge the way we conceive growth […] or competition […]. That's interesting, and so
it's just that I would like, one day, that you talk about enterprises and non-social enterprises
[…] There's a demand for it as well. As a consumer, now I'm asking more questions. For instance,
if I have some savings, I don't want it to be used for speculation. So people are getting also this
type of message from their clients, and this is influencing the thing. (Int. 4)
Actions undertaken at the EU level in order to support social enterprises and creating the right
environment for them include: a) providing opportunities for networking, exchanging information and
showcasing socially innovative experiences and b) ensuring access to appropriate finance and funding
for social innovators (cf. SIE 2012). With regard to the former aspect, particular attention is paid to the
set-up of innovation labs and incubators helping the development of social innovations. As for the
latter aspect, the need to “[…] establish […] a comprehensive ecology of finance” (ibid.: 14) supporting
30
Cf. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/social-innovation/past-
editions/definition_en.htm , accessed 25 May 2015.
31
In the jargon of the European Commission, the term ‘social enterprise’ covers business “[…]for which the
social or societal objective of the common good is the reason for the commercial activity, often in the form
of a high level of social innovation, […] where profits are mainly reinvested with a view to achieving this
social objective, […] and where the method of organisation or ownership system reflects their mission using
democratic or participatory principles or focusing on social justice” (European Commission 2011a: 2-3).
24 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
social innovative experiences in the various stages of their development is stressed: besides public
funding, private capital and resources from Foundations should be mobilised and a greater attention
to innovative enterprises should characterise public procurement (cf. SIE 2012).
Besides DG Enterprise and Industry (ENTR), issues related to ‘social enterprises’ obviously fall under
the competences of DG Internal Market. The latter, together with other DGs and as “[…] part of the
promotion and development of social innovation initiated by President Barroso in 2009” (European
Commission 2011a:4) launched in 2011 a Social Business Initiative, aimed at supporting the
development of social enterprises. In the Communication, social enterprises are considered as key for
attaining the objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy insofar as they can contribute to smart growth
(by “responding with social innovation to needs that have not yet been met”), to sustainable growth
(in that they generally take into account the environmental impact and have a long-term vision) and
to inclusive growth (“due to their emphasis on people and social cohesion”) (ibid.:3). The aim of the
Communication is to address the problems social enterprises generally face (difficult access to funding;
lack of recognition for social entrepreneurship; and the lack of an adequate regulatory framework) by
putting in place a series of actions for (ibid.):
a) Improving access to funding (by facilitating access to private funding and mobilising EU funds);
b) Increasing the visibility of social entrepreneurship by developing tools to gain a better
understanding of the sector and actions aimed at reinforcing managerial capacities,
professionalism and networking;
c) Improving the legal environment by developing appropriate European legal forms for European
social enterprises, by adapting public procurement and state aid rules to the specificities of
social enterprises.
In order to monitor the implementation of the initiatives foreseen by the SBI and to develop further
initiatives related to the social economy and social entrepreneurship, a multi-stakeholder group on
social business was set up in 2012
32
.
5.3 Social Innovation in the Europe 2020 anti-poverty toolkit
The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion and the Social Investment Package
The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion (EPAP) is the Flagship initiative most
directly related to the anti-poverty dimension of the Europe 2020 Strategy. Its ambition is to set a
dynamic framework for action which should facilitate the achievement of the Europe 2020 headline
target on poverty (European Commission 2010d: 3), involving a broad range of stakeholders and giving
visibility to the fight against poverty through the organisation of annual Conventions. More practically,
the EPAP is made up of 64 key initiatives (with specific deadlines) grouped into six areas for action
33
.
Social innovation is a prominent topic of the Platform
34
: ‘Developing an evidence-based approach to
social innovation and reforms’ and ‘Promoting a partnership approach and the social economy’ are
32
The GECES (Groupe d’Experts de la Commission sur l’Entrepreneuriat Social), which also include a sub-
group on social impact measurement.
33
For an assessment of the implementation of the Platform, see Sabato and Vanhercke (2014).
34
As noted by Daly (2012b:276), “The rhetoric around the Platform emphasizes especially innovation and
experimentation in social policy – ‘innovative social protection intervention’ […]”.
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 25
among the six areas for action of the EPAP (cf. Annex III, Table 3 and Table 4). In particular, the
Commission Communication on the EPAP presents ‘evidence-based’ social innovation (notably, in the
form of social experimentation) as
… a powerful tool to guide the structural reforms that will be needed to implement the Europe
2020 vision for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. (European Commission 2010d: 14)
Most of the initiatives foreseen by the EPAP were taken up in the Social Investment Package (SIP).
Launched in February 2013, the SIP now represents the principal tool of the European Commission for
coordinating actions in the poverty (and social) domain (Sabato and Vanhercke 2014). Through the SIP
(European Commission 2013e), the EC aims at providing guidance for and support to national social
policy reforms by identifying policy areas particularly suitable for pursuing a social investment strategy.
In the view of the European Commission, the social investment approach should ensure the
effectiveness, adequacy and sustainability of social protection systems and, at the same time, it should
be considered as a prerequisite for Europe’s future growth and competitiveness
35
. The Social
Investment Package recalls and elaborates on some of the EPAP’s areas for action and initiatives: social
innovation is among them (Annex III, Table 5).
All in all, social innovation is a key theme in both the EPAP and the SIP. This said, a number of
considerations concerning the framing of such a notion in those contexts can be made. First, in defining
social innovation, the European Commission relies on the broad definition provided by the BEPA (2010)
report. However, in both the EPAP and the SIP, the emphasis is often put on a specific form of social
innovation: evidence based social innovation or social experimentation, a notion that, from 2009
onwards, has risen to the top of the European social innovation agenda (for a more comprehensive
discussion, see Annex II). As we will explain below, this may have consequences for funding of social
innovative projects. Second, social innovation is increasingly associated to the need to reform domestic
social protection systems in order to assure their adequacy, efficiency and sustainability in a context
characterised by (permanent) budget constraints. As the European Commission puts it:
Faced with structural long-term challenges, Member States need to adapt to ensure the
adequacy and sustainability of their social systems and their contribution to stabilising the
economy […] Social innovation must be an integral part of necessary adjustments by testing
new policy approaches and selecting the most effective ones. (European Commission 2013e:
8)
36
Third, and linked to the constraints on public budgets deriving from fiscal consolidation measures, the
Social Investment Package emphasises the need to develop “more innovative approaches to financing
35
“[The SIP] provides a policy framework for redirecting Member States' policies, where needed, towards
social investment throughout life, with a view to ensuring the adequacy an d sustainability of budgets for
social policies and for the government and private sector as a whole […]” (European Commission 2013e).
36
As pointed out in another European Commission document, “[…], growing social problems more often have
to be solved with less funding: and social innovation is a tool which can provide us with new, more efficient
answers, able to deliver with fewer resources.” (European Commission 2013a: 48)
26 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
[social policy]” (ibid.: 6): public efforts should be complemented by the mobilization of third-sector
and private resources
37
. In this regard, Member States are urged to:
develop concrete strategies for social innovation, such as public-private-third sector
partnerships, ensure adequate and predictable financial support [and] explore and develop
innovative ways of securing additional private financing for social investment, for instance
through public private partnerships. (ibid.: 12)
Particular attention should be paid to the social economy and to the promotion of social
entrepreneurship. Finally, and importantly, through the Social Investment Package, an attempt to link
social innovation to other social policy tools and processes (as well as to the broader procedures of the
European Semester) is apparent. In this regard, the European Commission proposes that social
innovation should be linked to the priorities identified by the SIP and socially innovative initiatives
should be developed in order to address the challenges identified in the Country-specific
Recommendations issued in the framework of the European Semester (European Commission 2013e:
12-13). Furthermore, Member States are asked to report on those initiatives through the National
Reform Programmes. As for funding, EU financial resources – including the new Structural and
Cohesion funds, the proposed PSCI
38
programme and Horizon 2020 – should be mobilised in order to
support socially innovative projects and upscale (especially through the ESF) the most successful ones
(European Commission 2013e; 2013g).
The Social Open Method of Coordination and the EaSI programme
One of the initiatives foreseen by the European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion was to
revise the procedures of the Social OMC in order to best adapt its working methods to the new
governance of Europe 2020. This was done in 2011 when the Employment, Social Policy, Health and
Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) Council formation and the Social Protection Committee (Council
2011) officially ‘reinvigorated’ the Social OMC. New overarching and specific objectives referring to
three strands of the process were agreed and changes in the reporting procedures were introduced.
Member States are now requested to draft on a voluntary basis biennial National Social Reports, while
the SPC produces annual Social reports (which replace the previous Joint Reports). As for indicators, in
2012 a Social Protection Performance Monitor (SPPM) was introduced in order to reinforce the
monitoring of the social situation and strengthen multilateral surveillance by the SPC. As for mutual
learning activities, between 2010 and 2013, they continued to be funded through PROGRESS while,
since 2014, they have been funded through the new Programme for Employment and Social Innovation
(EaSI programme), launched in December 2013 (European Parliament and Council 2013a). The aim of
the EaSI programme is to contribute to the achievement of the Europe 2020 employment and anti-
poverty targets by supporting the implementation of the ‘social’ Flagship initiatives. Endowed with a
financial envelop of EUR 919,469,000 over the period 2014-2020, the EaSI programme is structured
around three axes:
37
E.g. by exploring the possibilities offered by Social Impact bonds, “[…] which incentivise private investors to
finance social programmes by offering returns from the public sector if the programmes achieve positive
social outcomes […]”(ibid.: 19).
38
Programme for Social Change and Innovation (PSCI) was the name originally proposed by the European
Commission for what will be finally named EaSI programme.
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 27
- PROGRESS (61% of available resources), which will support the development and coordination
of EU policies in the areas of employment, social inclusion, social protection, working
conditions, anti-discrimination and gender equality and “[will] promote evidence-based policy-
making, social innovation and social progress, in partnership with the social partners, civil
society organisations and public and private bodies” (European Parliament and Council 2013a:
art. 3.1. a, emphasis added).
- EURES (18% of available resources), the network between the European Commission and the
national Public Employment Services.
- Microfinance and Social Entrepreneurship (21% of available resources), aiming at facilitating
the access to microcredit for individuals intending to set up or develop a small business and at
supporting the social economy.
The PROGRESS axis of the EaSI programme is structured around three thematic sections: 1)
employment and, in particular, the fight against youth unemployment (20% of PROGRESS resources);
2) social protection, social inclusion and the reduction and prevention of poverty (50% of the
resources); 3) working conditions (10% of the resources). Art. 15 of the EaSI Regulation sets out the
specific objectives of PROGRESS which include:
provid[ing] financial support to test social and labour market policy innovations, and, where
necessary, to build up the main actors' capacity to design and implement social policy
experimentation, and to make the relevant knowledge and expertise accessible. (art. 15 point
c)
39
As apparent from the very name of the programme, social innovation features very prominently in the
EaSI programme and, in particular, in its PROGRESS axis. The Regulation establishing the programme
relies on the definition of social innovation provided by the Bureau of European Policy Advisers and
refers to the three approaches to social innovation which emerge from the BEPA (2010) report. Indeed,
social innovation is conceived as a way to address unmet social needs and emerging societal challenges
and to create new social relationships and collaborations (European Parliament and Council 2013a:
point 4 and art.2 point 5). Particular attention is paid to the need to support social policy
experimentation, defined as:
policy interventions that offer an innovative response to social needs, implemented on a small
scale and in conditions that enable their impact to be measured, prior to being repeated on a
larger scale, if the results prove convincing. (ibid.: art.2 point 6)
From a quantitative point of view, 15% to 20% of PROGRESS resources should be allocated to the
promotion of social experimentation over the three thematic sections (art. 14.2), which means € 10-
14 million per year over the programming period, an amount significantly higher than the € 2-4 million
of the period 2007-2014 (data reported by European Commission 2013h). Activities foreseen under
the funding priority ‘Social Policy Experimentation’ include: funding for studies aiming at further
39
The other objectives of the PROGRESS strand of the EaSI programme are: -developing and disseminating
high-quality comparative analytical knowledge; - facilitating effective and inclusive information-sharing,
mutual learning and dialogue on Union policies in the domains of the programme; -providing Union and
national organisations with financial support to increase their capacity to develop, promote and support
the implementation of Union instruments and policies in the domains of the programme.
28 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
developing the social policy experimentation methodology; grants to public authorities and
organisations to test innovative social and active labour market policy reforms; dissemination and
awareness raising activities, with a particular emphasis on the transfer and mainstreaming of
successful examples through other European instruments such as the ESF (European Commission
2013i:7). € 12 million is devoted to this heading for 2014 (ibid.)
40
.
The PROGRESS and EaSI calls for tenders on ‘social (policy) experimentation’ and ‘social policy
innovation’
As mentioned above, in DG EMPL’s discourses and documents, social innovation has been primarily
framed in terms of ‘social policy experimentation’, a policy-making tool which entered the EU policy
agenda in 2008, following the activism of the French government (for a more detailed description, see
Annex II). Indeed, since 2009 DG EMPL has been funding social policy experiments through annual calls
for proposals funded by PROGRESS (2009-2013) and the EaSI programme (2014). Interesting insights
concerning the evolution of such a policy-making tool emerge from the analysis of those calls (Annex
III, Table 6). First, in the course of time, methodological requirements have become stricter. Second,
the level of financial resources has gradually increased (from a budget of 3,500,000 euro in 2009 to
9,200,000 euro in 2014) and, in parallel, those resources have been concentrated on fewer, bigger and
longer projects. A broader diffusion of the results of these projects should be assured through the
organisation of international peer reviews. Third, as for beneficiaries, the establishment of broad
partnerships including public authorities at different levels, private and third sector actors, academia
and research institutes is a common feature of all the calls for proposals launched since 2009.
However, the role that the various partners are expected to play has changed in the course of time:
while in 2009 and 2010 all kinds of organizations had the possibility to apply on an equal basis, since
2011 the lead applicant must be a public authority or a state/semi-state agency at central, regional or
local level. The rationale behind this choice is to boost public policy-makers’ ownership and
commitment, thus possibly increasing the chances that successful experiments are streamlined into
public policy. Finally, over the years, the calls for proposals have set increasingly detailed priorities for
social policy experiments to be funded, and the attempt to integrate and create synergies with other
Europe 2020 tools has been made more explicit: since 2012, proposals for social policy experiments
are expected to address the Country-specific Recommendations issued to the Member States while,
since 2013, they should be in line with the priorities set out in the Social Investment Package.
As explained by our interviewees, such an evolution has been the consequence of an assessment
undertaken by DG EMPL in 2012 of the effectiveness of social experiments funded through the
previous calls for proposals:
For several years, we had financed [innovative] projects] through the PROGRESS programme
but two years ago - more or less in the process of preparing and adopting the Social Investment
Package - we reviewed our whole approach to that. […] One of the difficulties was that many
of those experiments were not really connected to the policy making process at local, regional,
or national level [:] organisations were interested, researchers were interested but they didn’t
have a connection with what was going on in the field, [with] the agenda of public authorities.
So we changed. We said [:] we need to go ‘more systemic’, we need to focus on supporting
40
See Annex III, Table 7 for a list of actions planned for 2014.
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 29
innovations in the process connected to public authorities […] And we started to do this two
years ago: linking innovation to the structural reforms in the context of the European Semester
or in the context of programme activities of the ESF or to the reform of services in major cities
or regions. (Int. 2)
Such an evolution in DG EMPL’s approach to social experimentation has been underlined by changes
in the terminology used in the calls for proposals launched over the years. While the calls launched
between 2009 and 2011 referred to ‘social experimentations’, ‘social policy experimentations’ was the
label used in 2012-2013 and ‘social policy innovation’ in 2014
41
. The last call, which fully takes on board
the new approach, was accompanied by the publication of a guide on social policy innovation
addressed to policy-makers commissioned at the London School of Economics. According to this study,
the concept of social policy innovation
… refers to social investment approaches that provide social and economic returns and it is
linked to the process of reforming social protection systems and social service delivery through
innovative systemic reforms. (European Commission 2014b:6)
42
5.4 The European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF)
After two years of negotiations, in December 2013 the European Parliament and the Council agreed
on the reform of EU cohesion policy and adopted the new regulations concerning the European
Structural and Investment Funds
43
(ESIF) for the period 2014-2020. (European Parliament and Council
2013b, see also European Commission 2014c). The Funds should pursue two main goals – ‘Investment
for growth and jobs’ and ‘European territorial cooperation’– and should be aligned to the Europe 2020
Strategy. Indeed, they should support the achievement of the Europe 2020 overarching objectives of
smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, taking into account the Integrated Guidelines and the relevant
Country-specific Recommendations. In order to perform this task in an effective way and maximise the
impact of the EU contribution, eleven thematic objectives
44
to be supported by the ESIF have been
41
As explained by one of our European Commission interviewees: “That’s why we are now focusing on ‘social
policy innovation’ and we do not refer –or not so often- to ‘social policy experimentation’: because the latter
is somehow connected to the old-style experiments. [With the call for 2012] we started moving along [the
new approach], and the call for 2013 represented a transition: one can already see the influence of the new
approach, though not completely. Then, the 2014 call is the one that brings all the new approach, [with]
innovations more connected to public authorities” (Int.2).
42
Case studies discussed in the guide concern: the evaluation of reforms of incapacity-for-work benefits; the
evaluation of reforms of guaranteed minimum income; the evaluation of reforms in the long-term care
sector.
43
The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF), the Cohesion Fund, the
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
(EMFF).
44
1) Strengthening research, technological development and innovation; 2) Enhancing access to, and use and
quality of, ICT; 3) Enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs, of the agricultural sector (for the EAFRD) and of
the fishery and aquaculture sector (for the EMFF); 4) Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy
in all sectors; 5) Promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management; 6) Preserving and
protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency; 7) Promoting sustainable transport and
removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures; 8) Promoting sustainable and quality employment
and supporting labour mobility; 9) Promoting social inclusion, combating poverty and any discrimination;
10) Investing in education, training and vocational training for skills and lifelong learning; 11) Enhancing
institutional capacity of public authorities and stakeholders and efficient public administration.
30 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
identified, among them ‘Promoting social inclusion, combating poverty and any discrimination’
(European Parliament and Council 2013b: art.9). Fund-specific regulations lay down how much funding
should be allocated to each objective and identify specific investment priorities for each thematic
objective. The Funds should be concentrated on those priorities. Member States are requested to draft
Partnership Agreements for the period 2014-2020, setting out their investment priorities, the ways in
which they relate to the achievement of the Europe 2020 objectives and address the Country-specific
Recommendations, and the arrangements for managing the funds effectively (European Commission
2014c: 236). Partnership Agreements must be submitted to the European Commission which can
either approve them or ask for revision.
On the basis of the Partnership Agreements, Member States should draft the Operational programmes
detailing how they intend to implement the Funds. These programmes should describe the expected
contribution of the Funds to the achievement of the Europe 2020 objectives, the arrangements set up
to ensure the correct implementation, priorities identified, the specific objectives, financial aspects,
targets and indicators to measure achievements (European Parliament and Council 2013b: art.27). The
new regulation has introduced strong elements of ‘conditionality’. On the one hand, ‘ex-ante
conditionality’, meaning that funding is conditional on the fulfilment of specific requirements linked to
each investment priority (as well as to more general requirements concerning, for example, anti-
discrimination, gender equality, etc.). On the other hand, macroeconomic conditionality has been
introduced. This refers to the possibility that the contribution of the ESI Funds is suspended when a
Member State reaches a significant level of non-compliance under the various EU economic
governance procedures such as the excessive deficit procedure and the macroeconomic imbalances
procedure (see European Commission 2014c: 248).
As mentioned in Section 5.3, both the EPAP and the Social Investment Package had the ambition to
duly integrate social innovation into the framework of cohesion policy. Important steps in this direction
do emerge from both the Common Provisions on the ESI Funds and the Regulations on the ERDF and
the ESF. As for the Common Provisions (European Parliament and Council 2013b), it should first be
noted that social innovation may be the theme of a specific priority axis of Member States’ Operational
Programmes and, in this case, it may have a sort of special status. Indeed, as a general rule, a priority
axis should correspond to a single thematic objective and should comprise one or more of the
investment priorities of that thematic objective) (art. 96.1). However, in the case of the ESF, in order
to promote thematically coherent integrated approaches, priority axes intended to implement social
innovation (as well as territorial cooperation) can combine investment priorities from different
thematic objectives.
Second, priority axes dedicated to social innovation may be endowed with additional resources. In fact,
as pointed out in art. 120.3, the maximum co-financing rate of the ESI Funds shall be increased for each
priority axis dedicated to social innovation or to transnational cooperation (or a combination of both).
Third, when appropriate, Member States should provide information about progress in the
implementation of actions in the field of social innovation in the annual implementation reports to be
submitted in 2017 and 2019 (art. 111.1). Finally, as pointed out in the Common Strategic Framework
providing guidance for the implementation of the ESI Funds, complementarity with the EaSI
programme should be ensured and “Member States shall seek to scale-up the most successful
measures developed under the Progress axis of the EaSI, notably on social innovation and social policy
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 31
experimentation with the support of the ESF” (European Parliament and the Council 2013b: Annex 1
point 4.7.2)
45
.
Among the Structural and Investment Funds, the European Social Fund clearly has the leading role in
supporting social innovation. In the first part of the Regulation on the ESF, (European Parliament and
Council 2013c: (20)), it is made clear that:
support for social innovation contributes to making policies more responsive to social change
[and] in particular, testing and evaluating innovative solutions before scaling them up is
instrumental in improving the efficiency of policies and thus justifies specific support from the
ESF”
46
.
The ESF should primarily support the following thematic objective of the ESI Funds: promoting
sustainable and quality employment and supporting labour mobility; promoting social inclusion,
combating poverty and any discrimination
47
; investing in education, training and vocational training
for skills and lifelong learning; enhancing institutional capacity of public authorities and stakeholders
and efficient public administration. Being mentioned among the general provisions listed in Chapter II
of the ESF Regulation
48
, the promotion of social innovation potentially concerns all the thematic
objectives and investment priorities within the scope of the ESF (European Commission 2013a: 51-52).
In practice, Member States may either devote to social innovation specific priority axes of their
operational programmes (
49
) or include social innovation programmes in priority axes dedicated to
other ESF investment priorities.
Member States are requested to identify (either in the operational programmes or at the
implementation stage) ‘fields for social innovation’ that correspond to their specific needs (art.9.2) and
to specify, in their operational programmes, how planned ESF-supported actions contribute to social
innovation (art. 11.3(b)). According to the European Commission (2013a:52),
45
According to the European Commission (2013a: 50-51), besides those explicitly devoted to social
innovation, other provisions may also enable or facilitate social innovation. Notably, enhanced partnership
and simplification should facilitate access to funds for stakeholders (especially for smaller ESF projects
where public support does not exceed euro 50,000). Furthermore, the possibility of setting up multi-fund
operational programmes and of financing operations by more than one fund may allow the integration of
ERDF and ESF resources for socially innovative projects (ibid.: 51). Finally, the Community-Led Local
Development instrument (CLLD) may be used to support social innovation at territorial level (ibid.).
46
Furthermore, “The ESF should encourage and support innovative social enterprises and entrepreneurs as
well as innovative projects taken on by non-governmental organisations and other actors within the social
economy.” (ibid.)
47
At least 20% of the ESF should be earmarked for the social inclusion thematic objective in each Member
State.
48
Art. 9.1 reads: “The ESF shall promote social innovation within all areas falling under its scope, as defined
in Article 3 of this Regulation, in particular with the aim of testing, evaluating and scaling up innovative
solutions, including at the local or regional level, in order to address social needs in partnership with the
relevant partners and, in particular, social partners”.
49
In this case, Member States can combine investment priorities from different thematic objectives and
benefit from an increase of the maximum co-financing rate of the Structural and Investment Funds, as
foreseen by art. 11.2 of the ESF Regulation (“[…]the maximum co-financing rate for a priority axis shall be
increased by ten percentage points, but shall not exceed 100 % where the whole of a priority axis is
dedicated to social innovation or to transnational cooperation, or a combination of both”).
32 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
[Due to] the possibility of mainstreaming [it] in all areas of the operational programmes […],
coupled with the principle of thematic concentration […], including the alignment with the NRP
and CSR, the 20% earmarking to social inclusion and the concentration on 4 investment
priorities, social innovation will be closely linked to the policies contributing to Europe 2020 and
supported by ESF.
As for the European Commission, it is asked to:
… facilitate capacity building for social innovation, in particular through supporting mutual
learning, establishing networks, and disseminating and promoting good practices and
methodologies. (art. 9.3)
The European Regional Development Fund should support all the eleven thematic objectives set out
in the Common Provisions. However, when it comes to the investment priorities, social innovation is
explicitly mentioned only under the thematic objective ‘strengthening research, technological
development and innovation’
50
, while support to social enterprises is mentioned under the thematic
objective ‘Promoting social inclusion, combating poverty and any discrimination’ (European Parliament
and Council 2013d: art.5). According to the European Commission (2013a: 54-55), this does not imply
that the ERDF cannot contribute to socially innovative projects under other thematic objectives,
including that linked to social inclusion. On the contrary, ERDF resources could be used (also together
with ESF ones) to support socially innovative projects by investing in health and social infrastructure
or supporting the physical and economic regeneration of deprived urban and rural communities. In
Section 3.1, we claimed that the support of the ERDF to sustainable local and regional development
strategies and to European territorial cooperation during the period 2007-2013 was particularly
relevant for the promotion of socially innovative initiatives. In particular, the ERDF contributed to the
development of networks between the actors involved and to the exchange of information and mutual
learning. Such activities will continue also during the 2014-2020 period. In fact, on the one hand, the
ERDF will:
… support, within operational programmes, sustainable urban development through strategies
that set out integrated actions to tackle the economic, environmental, climate, demographic
and social challenges affecting urban areas. (European Parliament and Council 2013d: art. 7)
On the other hand, at the initiative of the Commission, the ERDF may support innovative actions in the
area of sustainable urban development, including:
50
The ERDF should contribute to strengthening research, technological development and innovation by, inter
alia, “promoting business investment in R&I, developing links and synergies between enterprises, research
and development centres and the higher education sector, in particular promoting investment in product
and service development, technology transfer, social innovation, eco-innovation, public service applications,
demand stimulation, networking, clusters and open innovation through smart specialisation, and
supporting technological and applied research, pilot lines, early product validation actions, advanced
manufacturing capabilities and first production, in particular in key enabling technologies and diffusion of
general purpose technologies” (European Parliament and Council 2013c: art 5 (1) (b), emphasis added). As
noted by the European Commission (2013a:53), this provision is important insofar as it somehow put social
innovation on the same footing as technology-based social innovation, thus contributing to the
development of a wider concept of innovation.
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 33
studies and pilot projects to identify or test new solutions which address issues that are related
to sustainable urban development and are of relevance at Union level. (ibid.: art. 8)
6 Assessing the EU framework for social innovation
The analysis of the instruments and processes for promoting and supporting social innovation made
available by the EU over the period 2006-2014 has allowed us to identify three sub-periods. First, the
period 2006-2010 was characterized as a situation of ‘social innovation between the lines’: the label
social innovation was seldom used and, though a number of EU instruments and processes actually
supported it, social innovation was rarely explicitly mentioned among their objectives. According to
our analysis, the years 2009 and 2010 represented a critical juncture leading to a more concrete
inclusion of the theme of social innovation in the EU agenda. In particular, the European Commission’s
Bureau of European Policy Advisers played an agenda setting role and contributed to raising the
attention paid to social innovation at the EU level. As a consequence, social innovation was
mainstreamed into the Europe 2020 Strategy launched in 2010: explicit references to such a topic can
be found in both constituent elements of the Strategy and policy instruments implemented in its
framework.
In the following Sections, we will provide a preliminary assessment of the instruments and resources
for promoting social innovation currently provided by the EU (Section 6.1), with particular attention to
instruments and resources more directly linked to poverty and social exclusion (Section 6.2). As for the
latter point, we will try to assess whether and to what extent those instruments and resources can
help in attenuating/overcoming some governance challenges typically confronting local forms of social
innovation.
6.1 Overall assessment
After 2010 the theme of social innovation has gained visibility at the EU level and it has been
mainstreamed in key policy instruments and processes implemented under the Europe 2020 Strategy.
Looking at those policy tools and processes, one can identify a variety of resources made available by
the EU in order to promote and support social innovation (intended in the broad understanding
proposed by BEPA in 2010), including:
- financial resources: for instance, funds for implementing or up-scaling socially innovative practices
(e.g., through the European Structural and Investment Funds), funds devoted to organisations
operating in the social economy (e.g. ESIF; EaSI microfinance facility), funds dedicated to the
regeneration of deprived urban or rural areas (e.g. ERDF), or funds for experimenting pilot projects
(e.g. through the EaSI calls for social policy experimentation);
- visibility and reputational resources: for instance, through the organization of social innovation
competitions or through the promotion of social innovations and social innovators in EU level
conferences, and through initiatives aiming at promoting a more social enterprise-friendly legislative
and financial environment (e.g., the Social Business Initiative);
- networking and cognitive resources: e.g. through the set-up of EU level Platforms for exchanging
experiences such as the Social Innovation Europe Platform; through the funding of capacity building
34 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
and training initiatives, the publication of manuals and toolkits, training, or the organisation of
conferences and seminars on social innovation (e.g. through the EaSI programme); by funding
research on the topic, including the setting up of social innovation incubators and labs (FP7 and Horizon
2020)
Importantly, under the new policy framework, social innovation has been, to some extent, put on the
same footing as more traditional forms of innovation, namely technological and economic innovation.
This is particularly evident in the Innovation Europe Flagship initiative, and European Structural and
Investment Funds, the (post-2009) FP7 Programme and Horizon 2020
51
. Furthermore, some attempts
to strengthen the coordination among the various EC DGs have been made. In fact, according to our
interviewees (Int.2), social innovation is among the themes discussed by the Group of Innovation
Commissioners (chaired by the Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science), while an inter-
service group on social innovation, bringing together officials from various EC Directorate and services,
has been set up
52
. As explained by an EC official:
The inter-service group is the place where people working on social innovation interact. […] So,
in this sense, there is a certain network internally. Of course, each one has their own perspective
and ‘moves’ that perspective with initiatives, etc. What we do [in the inter-service group] is:
when someone is moving one thing in their own field, we try to draw on the others. We’re trying
to build synergies, to find where we can collaborate. And we try to understand what are the
perspectives of the others, which are different. (Int.2)
The excerpt above nicely highlights the fact that the emergence in 2010 of the label social innovation
has made it possible to group actions taken by the European Commission under a common heading,
and to strengthen their coordination, despite persisting differences concerning the concrete
understanding of such a notion between the various EC DGs (and the focus of the initiatives
implemented). In other words, and rather obviously, each DG has linked social innovation to its own
agenda, adopting a perspective on it closer to its policy tradition and mandate. So, in both DG ENTR
and DG MARKT, social innovation is mostly considered as an opportunity to develop new markets and
as a way to ‘transform’ the economy (hence, as a possible source of growth and jobs with social
returns): the emphasis is on the social economy and, particularly, on social enterprises. Such a ‘social
entrepreneurial’ perspective on social innovation seems to be transversal to various DGs
53
, evidenced
by a growing emphasis on social enterprises apparent in some of the initiatives implemented by DG
EMPL. This said, another perspective seems to be prevalent in DG EMPL discourses and initiatives: in
fact, in that context, social innovation has been mostly related to the reform of social policies. Initially
linked to the debate on ‘social experimentation’ – which was going on at the time of the 2010 BEPA
51
Horizon 2020 is the current European Research programme covering the period 2014-2020. According to
the BEPA (2014:81, bold in the original), “[…]Horizon 2020 marks a clear break with the past by coupling
research to all forms of innovation, including social innovation, and covering the entire value creation chain
in one single programme”.
52
The work of these groups is facilitated by the Bureau of Policy Advisers – recently renamed European
Political Strategy Centre - whose attention to social innovation is still high. Recently, that body has produced
a new report on social innovation updating the 2010 study (BEPA 2014).
53
In the interpretation of one interviewee, this may depend on the role played by people close to such a
perspective in the organisation of the BEPA workshop in 2010 and on the fact that, afterwards, the social
innovation agenda was warmly endorsed by the then Commissioner for Enterprise and Industry. When
compared with the 2010 report, the follow-up study on social innovation published by BEPA in 2014
emphasises even more the role of social enterprises.
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 35
workshop – such a framing has been strengthened over time and, currently, it has been conceptualised
more explicitly through the notion of ‘social policy innovation’. Conversely, relatively less attention
seems to be paid to perspectives on social innovation which stress more explicitly the participatory
character of socially innovative projects and their role in empowering socially excluded groups and
transforming social relations.
6.2 Social innovation and the Europe 2020 anti-poverty toolkit: a preliminary assessment
In this Section we will consider the instruments for promoting social innovation more directly related
to the Europe 2020 anti-poverty toolkit (Section 5.3). We will try to do so by assessing whether and
how the current European toolkit addresses some main governance challenges with regard to poverty-
related socially innovative action
54
. Most of these challenges basically concern the relationship
between social innovations and the welfare state, and two issues emerge with particular strength: a)
the problem of mainstreaming social innovations into the broader welfare system, and b) the
implications of social innovation with regard to the configuration of the welfare mix. As for the former,
the upscaling of social innovations is often considered a remarkable challenge, and welfare state
institutions are supposed to play a key role in supporting local forms of social innovation. As for the
latter issue, social innovations are supposed to rely on new forms of interaction between the state,
market actors and civil society and on the adoption of a participatory governance style. However, it is
a considerable challenge to achieve such a result avoiding, on the one hand, an excessive
fragmentation between actions undertaken by such a diverse set of actors (and by different levels of
government), and, on the other hand, the risk that a greater involvement of civil society/private actors
masks strategies through which public authorities simply try to avoid responsibilities in times of budget
constraints.
How are these challenges addressed by the current European toolkit for underpinning socially
innovative actions? As we have argued in this study, in the field of the fight against poverty and social
exclusion, social innovation has been increasingly framed in terms of ‘experimentations’ aimed at
reforming social policies. Such a tendency has been accentuated with the launch of the Europe 2020
Strategy and the growing attention devoted to ‘evidence-based social innovation’ (variously referred
to as social experimentation, social policy experimentation, or social policy innovation), a methodology
promoted through a series of calls for proposals launched since 2009 by DG EMPL. Looking at the
development of such a technique over time, one can note an attempt to set up arrangements aiming
at facilitating the sustainability and upscaling of the projects funded, including the attribution of a
major role to public authorities, so as to ensure their commitment; an increased linkage of the projects
funded with EU priorities (notably, the priorities set by the Social Investment Package and the Country-
specific Recommendations), so as to boost their political salience; a gradual reinforcement of the
methodology, including the setting up of experimental protocols clearly explaining upscaling
strategies; and the provision of funds for upscaling successful projects (notably, through the ESF).
All in all, it can be said that such provisions are likely to increase the chances that socially innovative
projects are up-scaled into the broader welfare policies. However, it should be kept in mind that these
54
These governance challenges concern (ImPRovE Social Innovation team, n.d.): mainstreaming social
innovation; avoiding fragmentation; developing a participatory governance style; equality and diversity;
uneven access; avoiding responsibility; managing intra-organizational tensions; enabling legal framework.
36 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
resources are not targeted to local and bottom-up socially innovative projects,
55
but rather to
experiments aimed at testing on a small scale social policy reforms in line with the priorities and the
approach defined at the EU level. While such a choice is a rational strategy for maximising the impact
on MS’ policies, this may lead to a sort of ’constrained social innovation’ pattern, where the
approaches to be followed have been already decided in advance and the space for bottom up ideas
and ‘out of the box’ thinking appears limited. Framed in this sense, social innovation represents a
strategy to reform welfare states in the direction of the social investment approach. This utilitarian,
policy-oriented approach sits uneasily with a long standing discourse about social innovation as
community-based process of societal transformation (see annex I). How such different understandings
of social innovation are to be reconciled remains an open question.
When it comes to the relation between social innovation and the configuration of the welfare mix,
some scholars have stressed the risk that, instead of being a new and more effective response to social
needs and societal challenges, social innovation
… might simply become a convenient buzzword to forward neoliberal ideology in a time of
austerity and the marketization of social services (Grisolia and Ferragina 2015: 169),
or a way for public authorities to avoid responsibilities in times of budget constraints (Improve Social
Innovation Team). As we have shown in Section 5.3, in key policy documents related to the Europe
2020 Strategy, social innovation has indeed been increasingly associated with the need to reform
domestic social protection systems in order to ensure their adequacy, efficiency and sustainability in a
context characterised by budget constraints. In order to do so, the Member States are invited to
develop more innovative approaches to financing social policy through the mobilization of third-sector
and private resources and to develop public-private-third sector partnerships in delivering social
services. Such a choice is generally justified by the need to increase the efficiency of social spending
and to boost the effectiveness of social services (for instance, by allowing for more tailor-made
services) and it does not imply a priori a move towards privatization and marketization
56
. However,
some risks cannot be denied. In a context characterised by significant cuts in social spending and an
increased pressure on the welfare states, narrow interpretations of social innovation may emerge,
possibly reinforcing ongoing dynamics of welfare state retrenchment. Indeed, social innovation may
be merely interpreted as a call to ‘do more with less resources’ or to search for alternative sources of
funding for welfare provisions or as a way to shift responsibilities from public to private/third-sector
actors in times of permanent austerity.
Summing up, in the course of time, EU financial resources – in particular, the ESF – have been used to
support domestic welfare states. This support, however, has been mainly targeted to the ‘preventive’
function of welfare systems, which has been recently labelled as the ‘investment’ function
57
.
55
According to one of our interviewees, other resources provided by the European Commission fit more with
the idea of promoting bottom-up forms of social innovation and social innovations promoted by small
organisations. For instance, resources for civil society organisations, the social economy and social
enterprises provided by the EaSI programme, funding for urban and rural development strategies provided
through the Structural and Investment Funds. In other words, here the reference is not to “[…] place based
social innovative policies and actions [which] emerged in the institutional margins of welfare states”
(Cantillon 2014:316).
56
Our interviewees (in particular, Int.2 and Int. 5) have strongly denied the existence of a ‘privatisation
agenda’ behind initiatives on social innovation undertaken by DG EMPL.
57
Recently, in a context characterised by the fiscal consolidation priorities and declining national budgets
devoted to social policies, the importance of EU funds in supporting social investment oriented policies
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 37
Conversely, EU financial resources have played a more limited role when it comes at supporting other,
more traditional functions of domestic welfare systems, notably protection and redistribution. In this
fields, EU support has mostly been indirect, that is, limited to encouraging cooperation between the
Member States, providing cognitive resources to be used in domestic reforms and recommending
reforms to be implemented. This obviously depends on a variety of factors, including the lack of EU
legal competences, provisions contained in the regulation of the ESF and Member States’ resistance
towards further EU intervention in core areas of domestic welfare states (Baeten and Vanhercke,
2016).
Recent debates on the possibility of a stronger EU role in the domains of minimum income and
unemployment protection represent a good illustration of these limitations. In the former case,
proposals to elaborate an EU framework directive concerning minimum income guarantee (see, more
recently, EAPN 2010, Peña-Casas et al. 2013, EESC 2013), possibly supported by a European fund for
social solidarity ensuring the adequacy of national minimum income schemes (Peña-Casas et al. 2013,
EESC 2013), were rejected due to an alleged lack of EU competences in this domain and an insufficient
political willingness
58
.
Similarly, discussions about the set-up of common macroeconomic stabilisers for the euro-area such
as a European unemployment insurance (cf. Dullien 2012, 2013), somehow envisaged by the European
Commission (2012) itself, seems to have reached deadlock. In a context characterised by the
persistence of remarkable differences in the performances of national welfare systems
(Vandenbroucke with Vanhercke 2014 ), pressure on social policy budgets and a decrease of the
capacity to guarantee adequate income protection in a number of Member States (Bouget et al. 2015),
the adequacy of the EU support in the social domain is seriously put into question and the need of a
serious debate about the role of the EU in the domain of social policy and the distribution of tasks
between the EU and the Member States arises (Vandenbroucke with Vanhercke 2014).
(e.g. Active labour market policies or policies targeted to children) has considerably grown in many Member
States (cf. Bouget et al. 2015).
58
For a discussion on the feasibility and the constraints of a EU instrument for minimum income guarantee,
see Peña-Casas et al. 2013, Vandenbroucke et al. 2013, Verschueren 2012).
38 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
References
Baeten, R. and Vanhercke, B. (2016), ‘Inside the black box: the EU’s economic surveillance of national
healthcare systems’, Comparative European Politics, Special Issue edited by Hans Vollaard and
Dorte Sindbjerg.
Bauer, M. M., 2002, ‘The Commission and the poverty Programmes’, Journal of Common Market
Studies, 40 (3), pp. 381-400.
Bureau of European Policy Advisers (BEPA) (2010), Empowering people, driving change. Social
innovation in the European Union, European Commission – Bureau of European Policy Advisers
(BEPA), May 2010, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Bureau of European Policy Advisers (BEPA) (2014), Social Innovation. A Decade of Changes, available
at http://espas.eu/orbis/document/social-innovation-decade-changes (accessed 25 May 2015).
Busch-Geertsema, V. (2013) Housing First Europe. Final Report (Bremen/Brussels: GISS), available at
www.housingfirsteurope.eu (accessed 25 February 2015).
Cantillon, B. (2014), ‘Beyond social investment. Which concepts and values for social policy-making in
Europe?’, in Cantillon, B. and Vandenbroucke, F. (eds.), Reconciling Work and Poverty Reduction.
How Successful are European Welfare States?, Oxford University Press, pp. 286-318.
Careja, R. (2012), Analysis and Follow‐up of Mutual Learning in the Context of Peer Review in the Social
Protection and Social Inclusion Programme. Case Study 2 – Task A. Peer Review on Field Social
Work Programmes in Neighbourhoods Threatened by Social Exclusion: Czech Republic, 19‐20
May 2005.
Carpenter, J. (2006), ‘Addressing Europe’s Urban Challenges: Lessons from the EU URBAN Community
Initiative’, Urban Studies, 43 (12), pp. 2145- 2162.
Caulier-Grice, J, Kahn, L., Mulgan, G., Pulford, L., and Vasconcelos, D. (2010), Study on Social
Innovation: A paper prepared by the Social Innovation eXchange (SIX) and the Young Foundation
for the Bureau of European Policy Advisors, European Union/Young Foundation, March 2010,
available at
http://youngfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Study-on-Social-Innovation-for-
the-Bureau-of-European-Policy-Advisors-March-2010.pdf (accessed 25 May 2015).
Clegg, D. and Bennett, H. (2014), Work Package 4 – Multilevel ‘Arenas’ for Fighting Poverty and Social
Exclusion. National report United Kingdom, Deliverable D4.3, FP7 project ‘Combating Poverty in
Europe: Re-organising Active Inclusion through Participatory and Integrated Modes of Multilevel
Governance’
(COPE), available at
http://cope-research.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/COPE_WP4_National_Report_UK.pdf
(accessed 25 May 2015).
Costamagna, F. (2013), ‘The European Semester in Action: Strengthening Economic Policy
Coordination While Weakening the Social Dimension?’, LPF-WEL Working Paper No. 5,
December,
http://www.centroeinaudi.it/lpf/working-papers/wp-all/8794-the-european-semester-in-
action-strengthening-economic-policy-coordination-while-weakening-the-european-social-
dimension.html (accessed 25 May 2015).
Council (2006a), Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions
on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund
and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999.
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 39
Council (2006b), Council Decision of 6 October 2006 on Community Strategic Guidelines on Cohesion,
(2006/702/EC).
Council (2011), ‘The Future of the Social Open Method of Coordination (OMC) – Endorsement of the
Opinion of the Social Protection Committee’, Brussels, 23 May 2011, 10405/11, SOC418.
Daly, M. (2012a), Analysis and Follow‐up of Mutual Learning in the Context of Peer Review in the Social
Protection and Social Inclusion Programme. Case Study 4 – Task A. Peer Review on The UK
government’s Sure Start programme: United Kingdom, 04‐05 May 2006.
Daly, M. (2012b), ‘Paradigms in EU social policy: a critical account of Europe 2020’, Transfer: European
Review of Labour and Research, 18 (3), pp. 273-284.
Dullien, S. (2012), A European unemployment insurance as a stabilization device – Selected issues,
Paper prepared for the European Commission (DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion).
Dullien, S. (2013), A euro-area wide unemployment insurance as an automatic stabilizer: Who benefits
and who pays?, Paper prepared for the European Commission (DG Employment, Social Affairs
and Inclusion).
Ecorys (2011), The Mid-Term Evaluation of PROGRESS. Final Report, Rotterdam, 22 December 2011,
available at http://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=7430&langId=en (accessed 25 May
2015).
EQUAL Managing Authorities of Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain and United Kingdom (2006), The
principle of Innovation in the new ESF programmes (2007-2013). A framework for programming,
report by an ad hoc working group of Member States on Innovation and Mainstreaming, June
2006.
EurActiv (2009), Brussels promotes 'social innovation' to tackle crisis, EurActiv, 21 January 2009,
http://www.euractiv.com/socialeurope/brussels-promotes-social-innovat-news-221206
(accessed 25 May 2015).
European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN)(2010), Working document on a Framework Directive on
Minimum Income, EAPN Working paper, drafted by Anne Van Lancker for the European Anti-
Poverty Network.
European Commission (1977), Report from the Commission to the Council on the European programme
of pilot schemes to combat poverty 1976, COM (76) 718 final, Brussels, 13 January 1977.
European Commission (1994), Community initiative concerning Urban Areas (URBAN)- Corrigendum,
COM (94) 61 final /2, Brussels, 20.04.1994.
European Commission (2000a), ‘Communication from the Commission to the Member States
establishing the guidelines for the Community initiative Equal concerning transnational
cooperation to promote new means of combating all forms of discrimination and inequalities in
connection with the labour market’, Official Journal of the European Communities, 2000/C
127/02, 5.5.2000.
European Commission (2000b), Commission notice to the Member States of 14 April 2000 laying down
guidelines for the Community initiative for rural development (Leader +), 2000/C 139/05.
European Commission (2000c), Communication from the Commission to the Member States of 28 April
2000 laying down guidelines for a Community initiative concerning economic and social
regeneration of cities and of neighbourhoods in crisis in order to promote sustainable urban
development (URBAN II), 2000/C 141/04.
European Commission (2001), Communication from the Commission on the implementation of
Innovative Measures under article 6 of the European Social Fund Regulation for the programming
period 2000-2006, COM (2000) 894/final, Brussels, 12.01.2001.
40 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
European Commission (2005a), ‘Working Together, Working Better: a New Framework for the Open
Coordination of Social Protection and Inclusion Policies in the European Union’, Communication
from the Commission, 2005 (COM/2005/706 final).
European Commission (2005b), ‘Communication on the Social Agenda’, Communication from the
Commission, 2005 (COM/2005/33).
European Commission (2006), General Guidelines for the Implementation of the Community Action
Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity PROGRESS (2007-2013), Brussels, 21
December 2006, 01/FB D(2006), PROGRESS/003/2006.
European Commission (2008a), ‘Renewed Social Agenda: Opportunities, Access and Solidarity in 21st
Century Europe’, Communication from the Commission, 2008 (COM/2008/412 final).
European Commission (2008b), ‘A Renewed Commitment to Social Europe: Reinforcing the Open
Method of Coordination for Social Protection and Social Inclusion’, Communication from the
Commission, COM (2008) 418 final), 02.07.2008.
European Commission (2008c), Draft Strategic Framework for the implementation of the Community
Programme for Employment and Social Solidarity – PROGRESS, Brussels, 18 March 2008, 01/FB
(2007), PROGRESS/009/2007- revised.
European Commission (2009a), President Barroso discusses how to boost ‘social innovation’, Press
Release, IP/09/81, Brussels, 20 January 2009.
European Commission (2009b), Work Programme 2010 – Cooperation – Theme 8: Socio-economic
sciences and humanities, European Commission C (2009) 5893 of 29 July 2009.
European Commission (2009c), Call for proposals for transnational actions on social experimentation,
VP/2009/005, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.
European Commission (2010a), Call for proposals for social experimentations, VP/2010/007, DG
Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion.
European Commission (2010b), Europe 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth,
Communication from the Commission, Brussels 3.3.2010, COM (2010) 2020 final.
European Commission (2010c), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Europe
2020 Flagship Initiative Innovation Union’ , SEC(2010) 1161 , COM/2010/0546 final, Brussels,
6.10.2010.
European Commission (2010d), The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion: A
European Framework for social and territorial cohesion, Communication from the Commission,
COM (2010) 758.
European Commission (2010e), Work Programme 2011 – Cooperation – Theme 8: Socio-economic
sciences and humanities, European Commission C (2010) 4900 of 19 July 2010.
European Commission (2010f), ‘List of key initiatives, Accompanying document to the European
Commission Communication The European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion: A
European Framework for social and territorial cohesion’, Brussels, 16.12.2010, SEC (2010) 1564.
European Commission (2011a), Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Social
Business Initiative’, COM (2011) 682 final, Brussels, 25.10.2011.
European Commission (2011b), Work Programme 2012 – Cooperation – Theme 8: Socio-economic
sciences and humanities, European Commission C(2011)5068 of 19 July 2011.
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 41
European Commission (2012a), Call for proposals for social experimentations (VP/2010/007). A
Detailed List of the Selected Projects, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, Brussels,
03.05.2012.
European Commission (2012b), Work Programme 2013 – Cooperation – Theme 8: Socio-economic
sciences and humanities, European Commission C (2012) 4536 of 09 July 2012.
European Commission (2013a), Guide to Social Innovation, DG Regional and Urban Policy, February
2013, available at
http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/10157/47822/Guide%20to%20Social%20Innov
ation.pdf (accessed 25 May 2015).
European Commission (2013b), European Social Platforms. A review on an experiment in collaborative
research design, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Socio-economic Sciences and
Humanities.
European Commission (2013c), ‘Platform actions completed as of July 16, 2013’, DG Employment,
Social Affairs and Inclusion, available at
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=961&langId=en&moreDocuments=yes (accessed 25
May 2015).
European Commission (2013d), ‘Platform actions ongoing as of July 16, 2013’, DG Employment, Social
Affairs and Inclusion, available at
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=961&langId=en&moreDocuments=yes (accessed 25
May 2015).
European Commission (2013e), ‘Towards Social Investment for Growth and Cohesion – Including
Implementing the European Social Fund 2014-2020’, COM (2013) 83 final.
European Commission (2013f), Policy Roadmap for the 2013-2014 Implementation of the Social
Investment Package, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, November 2013 version.
European Commission (2013g), ‘Social Investment through the European Social Fund’, Commission
Staff Working Document accompanying the Communication from the Commission to the
European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions ‘Towards Social Investment for Growth and Cohesion- including
implementing the European Social Fund 2014-2020,Brussels, 20.2.2013, SWD (2013) 44 final.
European Commission (2013h), Employment and Social Innovation, Social Agenda, no. 35, 11/2013,
ISSN 1682-7783.
European Commission (2013i), Work Programme. Funding Priorities for 2014. European Union
Programme for Employment and Social Innovation Programme (EaSI), DG Employment, Social
Affairs and Inclusion, available at
http://ec.europa.eu/social/keyDocuments.jsp?advSearchKey=EaSIannualworkprogramme&mo
de=advancedSubmit&langId=en&policyArea=&type=0&country=0&year=0 (accessed 25 May
2015).
European Commission (2014a), Three projects meet the European Job Challenge and receive the Social
Innovation Prize, Press release, Brussels, 20 May 2014.
European Commission (2014b), Testing Social Policy Innovation. Primer for the training, guide prepared
under coordination of and edited by LSE Enterprise, last updated on 25th June 2014, available at
http://ec.europa.eu/social/keyDocuments.jsp?advSearchKey=Testing+Social+Policy+Innovatio
n.+Primer+for+the+training%2C&mode=advancedSubmit&langId=en&policyArea=&type=0&co
untry=0&year=0 (accessed 25 May 2015).
42 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
European Commission (2014c), Investment for jobs and growth. Promoting development and good
governance for European regions and cities. Sixth report on economic, social and territorial
cohesion, preliminary version, Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy, 23rd July 2014.
European Commission (n.d.), Research on Social Innovation. Inventory of projects funded under the EU
Research Framework Programmes FP 7, FP 6, and FP 5, DG Research and Innovation.
European Consensus Conference on Homeless (2010), Policy Recommendations of the Jury, Brussels,
9-10 December 2010.
European Council (2010), Council Decision 2010/707/EU of 21 October 2010 on guidelines for the
employment policies of the Member States, Official Journal L of 24.11.2010.
European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (2008), Opinion of the European Economic and Social
Committee on How can social experimentation be used in Europe to develop public active
inclusion policies (Exploratory opinion), SOC/311, EESC opinion 1676-2008, Brussels, 23 October
2008.
European Economic and Social Committee EESC (2013), Opinion of the European Economic and Social
Committee on European minimum income and poverty indicators, SOC/482, Brussels, 10
December 2013.
European Parliament and Council (2006a), Regulation of 5 July 2006 on the European Regional
Development Fund and Repealing Regulation No 1783/1999, 2006 (2006/1080/EC).
European Parliament and Council (2006b), Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the European Social Fund and Repealing Regulation (EC) No
1784/1999) (2006/1081/EC).
European Parliament and Council (2006c), Decision No 1672/2006/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 24 October 2006 establishing a Community Programme for Employment and
Social Solidarity — Progress, (OJ L 315, 15.11.2006, p. 1).
European Parliament and Council (2006d), Decision no. 1982/2006/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme of the
European Community for research, technological development and demonstration activities
(2007-2013), OJ L 412/1, 30.12.2006.
European Parliament and Council (2007), Corrigendum to Council Decision 2006/971/EC of 19
December 2006 concerning the specific programme ‘Cooperation’ implementing the Seventh
Framework Programme of the European Community for research, technological development
and demonstration activities (2007 to 2013), OJ L 54/30, 22.2.2007.
European Parliament and Council (2010), Decision No 283/2010/EU of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 25 March 2010 establishing a European Progress Microfinance Facility for
employment and social inclusion, OJEC L/871, 7.4.2010.
European Parliament and Council (2013a), Regulation (EU) no 1296/2013 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on a European Union Programme for Employment and
Social Innovation (EaSI) and amending Decision No 283/2010/EU establishing a European
Progress Microfinance Facility for employment and social inclusion.
European Parliament and Council (2013b), Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 17 December 2013 laying down common provisions on the European
Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the European
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and
laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European
Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and repealing
Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006.
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 43
European Parliament and Council (2013c), Regulation (EU) No 1304/2013 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Social Fund and repealing Council
Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006.
European Parliament and Council (2013d), Regulation (EU) No 1301/2013 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 17 December 2013 on the European Regional Development Fund and on
specific provisions concerning the Investment for growth and jobs goal and repealing Regulation
(EC) No 1080/2006.
Ghailani, D. with Melo, M. (2012), Analysis and Follow‐up of Mutual Learning in the Context of Peer
Review in the Social Protection and Social Inclusion Programme. Case Study 6 – Task A. Peer
Review on the Multi‐regional Programme to Combat Discrimination: Spain, 25‐26 October 2007.
Graziano, P., Jacquot, S. and Palier, B. (2011), ‘Introduction: The Usages of Europe in National
Employment-friendly Welfare State Reforms’, in Graziano, P., Jacquot, S. and Palier, B. (eds.),
The EU and the Domestic Politics of Welfare State Reforms. Europa, Europae, Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1-18
Grisolia, F. and Ferragina, E. (2015), ‘Social Innovation on the Rise: yet another buzzword in a time of
austerity?’, Salute e Società, 1/2015, 169-179.
Ilie, E. and During, E. (2012), An analysis of social innovation discourses in Europe: concepts and
strategies of social innovation in Europe, Social Innovation Europe, available at
https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/socialinnovationeurope/magazine/context/highlights/analysis-
social-innovation-discourses-europe (accessed 25 May 2015).
ImPRovE Social Innovation team, (n.d.), Governance challenges for successful local forms of social
innovation, ImPRovE Milestone 42.
INBAS and ENGENDER (2010), Study on Stakeholders’ Involvement in the Implementation of the Open
Method of Coordination (OMC) in Social Protection and Social Inclusion. Final Report, CONTRACT
No VC/2008/0325, July 2010.
J-Pal Europe (2011), Social Experimentation. A methodological guide for policy makers, report written
by J-Pal Europe at the request of the Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and
Inclusion, version for the Ministerial conference ‘Innovative responses to the social impact of
the crisis’ organised by the Polish Presidency of the European Union – Wroclaw, 26 September
2011.
Jenson, J. and Harrison, D. (2013), Social Innovation research in the European Union. Approaches,
findings and future directions. Policy Review, European Commission, Directorate-General for
Research and innovation, Luxembourg: Publications Office, 2013, available at
http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/social_innovation.pdf
Jessoula, M., Sabato, S. , Agostini C., and Madama, I. (2014), The Europe 2020 Anti-Poverty Arena, Work
Package 4 Multilevel “Arenas” for Fighting Poverty and Social Exclusion, Deliverable D 4.7, FP7
project ‘Combating Poverty in Europe: Re-organising Active Inclusion through Participatory and
Integrated Modes of Multilevel Governance’, available at http://cope-research.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2014/10/COPE_Deliverable-4.7.pdf (accessed 25 May 2015).
Jouen, M. (2008), Social Experimentation in Europe: Towards a more complete and effective range of
the EU Actions for Social Innovation, study realised at the request of the DIIESES and the High
Commissioner for active Inclusion against poverty for the Forum on Social experimentation in
Europe on 21-22 November 2008 in Grenoble, Notre Europe, Studies and Researches n. 66.
Kazepov, Y., Saruis, T., Wukovitsch, F., Cools, P. and Novy, A. (2013), How to study social innovation in
poverty analysis. Methods and methodologies, FP7 project ‘Poverty Reduction in Europe: Social
Policy and Innovation’ (ImPRovE), Deliverable D.14.1, November 2013.
44 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
Moulaert, F., Martinelli, F., Swyngedouw, E. and Gonzalez, S. (2005), ‘Towards alternative model(s) of
local innovation’, Urban Studies, 42(11): p. 1969-1990.
Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., Mehmood, A. and Hamdouch, A. (eds.) (2013), The International
Handbook on Social Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary
Research, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J. and Mulgan, G. (2010), The Open Book of Social Innovation, The Young
Foundation and NESTA (the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts), March
2010.
Oosterlynck, S., Y. Kazepov, A. Novy, P. Cools, E. Barberis, F. Wukovitsch, T. Saruis and B. Leubolt (2013),
The butterfly and the elephant: local social innovation, the welfare state and new poverty
dynamics. ImPRovE Discussion Paper No. 13/03. Antwerp: Herman Deleeck Centre for Social
Policy – University of Antwerp.
OSE and PPMI (2012a), Analysis and Follow-up of Mutual Learning in the Context of Peer Review in the
Social Protection and Social Inclusion Programme. Task 3/Deliverable 3. Host Country
Assessment, Synthesis Report, May 2012, available at
http://www.ose.be/files/publication/2012/PeerReeview_2012_SyntRep1_HostCountryAssess
mentAEC_0512.pdf (accessed 25 May 2015).
OSE and PPMI (2012b), Analysis and Follow-up of Mutual Learning in the Context of Peer Review in the
Social Protection and Social Inclusion Programme. Task 4/Deliverable 4. Peer Country
Assessment, Synthesis Report, May 2012, available at
http://www.ose.be/files/publication/2012/PeerReeview_2012_SyntRep2_PeerCountryAssess
mentAEC_0512.pdf (accessed 25 May 2015).
Peña-Casas R. Ghailani D. Sabato S. Nicaise I, (2013) Towards a European minimum income, Brussels,
European Economic and Social Committee, November, N° EESC/COMM/03/2013.
Pleace, N. and Bretherton, J. (2013), ‘The Case for Housing first in the European Union: A Critical
Evaluation of Concerns about Effectiveness’, European Journal of homelessness, Volume 7, No.
2, December 2013, pp. 21- 41.
PPMI (2011), Evaluation of the effectiveness and impact of the Social OMC since 2006 (Deliverable 7),
Public Policy and Management Institute (PPMI), April 2011.
Room, G. (2010), The Path to Lisbon. The European Anti-Poverty Programmes from the 1970s to the
1990s, Kurswechsel, 3/2010, pp. 9-18, available at
(http://people.bath.ac.uk/hssgjr/documents/Kurswechsel.pdf (accessed 25 May 2015).
Sabato, S. and Vanhercke, B. (2014), About the baby and the bathwater: assessing the European
Platform against Poverty, ETUI, Working Paper 2014/09, available at
https://www.etui.org/Publications2/Working-Papers/About-the-baby-and-the-bathwater-
assessing-the-European-Platform-against-Poverty (accessed 25 May 2015).
Social Innovation Europe (SIE) (2012), Financing Social Impact. Funding Social Innovation in Europe-
mapping the way forward, report written by Carmel O’ Sullivan, Simon Tucker, Peter Ramsden,
Geoff Mulgan, Will Norman and Diogo Vasconcelos, Enterprise and Industry online magazine,
available at
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/files/funding-social-innovation_en.pdf
(accessed 25 May 2015).
The Young Foundation (2006), Social Silicon Valleys. A manifesto for Social Innovation: what is, why it
matters, how it can be accelerated, Spring 2006.
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 45
The Young Foundation (2012) ‘Social Innovation Overview: A deliverable of the project: ‘The
theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe’ (TEPSIE)’,
European Commission – 7th Framework Programme, Brussels: European Commission, DG
Research.
Vandenbroucke, F., Cantillon, B., Van Mechelen, N., Goedeme, T. and Van Lancker, A. (2013), ‘The EU
and Minimum Income Protection: clarifying the Policy Conundrum’, in Marx, I. and Nelson, K.
(eds.), Minimum Income Protection in Flux, Palgrave MacMillian, 271-317.
Vandenbroucke, F. with Vanhercke, B. (2014), A European Social Union. 10 Tough Nuts to Crack,
Background report for the Friend of Europe High-Level Group on ‘Social Union’, Spring 2014.
Vanhercke, B. (2013), ‘Under the radar? EU social policy in times of austerity’ in Natali, D. and
Vanhercke, B. Social developments in the European Union 2012, Brussels: OSE and ETUI, pp. 91-
121.
Vanhercke, B., and Lelie, P. (2012), ‘Benchmarking Social Europe a Decade on: Demystifying the OMC’s
Learning Tools’, in A. Fenna e F. Knuepling (eds.), Benchmarking in Federal Systems: Australian
and international Perspectives, Melbourne: Productivity Commission.
Verschraegen, G, Vanhercke, B. and Verpoorten, R. (2011), ‘The European Social Fund and domestic
activation policies: Europeanization mechanisms’, Journal of European Social Policy, 21 (1), pp.
55- 72.
Verschueren (2012), ‘Union Law and the Fight against Poverty: Which Legal Instruments?’, in Cantillon,
Verschueren & Ploscarr (eds.) Social Inclusion and Social Protection in the EU: Interactions
between Law and Policy, Intersentia, pp. 205-231.
Zeitlin, J. and Vanhercke, B., (2014), Socializing the European Semester? Economic Governance and
Social Policy Coordination in Europe 2020, report prepared for the Swedish Institute of European
Studies (SIEPS), report no.7, December 2014, available at
http://www.sieps.se/sites/default/files/Sieps%202014_7%20webb%20NY_2.pdf (accessed 25
May 2015).
46 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
Annex I. Social innovation: a multi-faced concept
At the conceptual level, social innovation is a controversial notion: a variety of definitions have been
elaborated over time and the understanding of the phenomenon differs both among and within
scientific, civil society and governmental circles (cf. BEPA 2010, Ilie and During 2012, Jenson and
Harrison 2013, Moulaert et al. 2013, The Young Foundation 2012).
According to Caulier-Grice and colleagues (The Young Foundation 2012), the lack of a shared definition
is hardly surprising, given the variety of contexts and disciplines where the notion has been used and
the fact that social innovation is mainly a practice-led and context-specific field, addressed by actors
operating in the various sectors of the economy and, often, at their crossroads. Indeed, existing
definitions focus on different aspects of the phenomenon such as the content, the process and the
impact of social innovation, the motivations of the actors involved, the sectors and the territorial levels
where it takes place
59
. In their review of the literature, the authors identify five usages of the concept
of social innovation, which has been variously employed to refer to (The Young Foundation 2012: 6-7):
a) “societal transformation”, i.e. a process of social change leading to the transformation of society
as a whole, where actors from civil society, the social economy, social entrepreneurship, and
business play a key role;
b) a “model of organisational management”, i.e. as business strategies aimed at increasing
organisational efficiency and boosting competitiveness by promoting changes in human,
institutional and social capital;
c) “social entrepreneurship”, with an emphasis on social enterprises and the role of social and civic
entrepreneurs;
d) the “development of new products, services and programmes aimed at meeting social needs”,
here including both public sector innovation and the role of social enterprises and civil society
in providing public services;
e) a “model of governance, empowerment and capacity building”, thus emphasising the process
dimension of the phenomenon.
Ilie and During (2012) distinguish between various ‘discourses’ on social innovation and try to identify
the specific features characterising the understanding of the concept in governmental, entrepreneurial
and academic circles. According to the authors, discourses on social innovation taking place in those
circles differ on relevant dimensions such as the role attributed to communities, the definition of (and
the importance attributed to) the outputs and the outcomes of the process, the emphasis on aspects
such as the up-scaling and the diffusion of social innovations. In particular, discourses promoted by
governmental bodies and independent agencies tend to focus on two aspects: the improvement of the
efficiency of policies and the need to make policies more engaging for the communities. On the former
59
Drawing on this literature review, the authors identify certain core elements and common features useful
for building a common definition of social innovation, conceived as “new solutions (products, services,
models, markets, processes etc.) that simultaneously meet a social need (more effectively than existing
solutions) and lead to new or improved capabilities and relationships and better use of assets and resources.
In other words, social innovations are both good for society and enhance society’s ca pacity to act” (The
Young Foundation 2012: 18).
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 47
aspect, the authors note that in governmental discourses “[…] social innovation is interpreted as an
equivalent of improved implementation and outcome assessment” (Ilie and During 2012: 16): in order
to be accepted by governmental bodies, it is expected to produce measurable outputs (ibid.: 22). Public
authorities are the main actors of the process while, beyond the rhetoric of participation which
emerges from official documents, communities are often relegated to a relatively passive role (ibid.:
16-17)
60
. A higher degree of involvement of the communities, on the contrary, characterises some
‘entrepreneurial discourses’ on social innovation.
These discourses are obviously characterised by an emphasis on concepts such as ‘social enterprises’
and ‘social entrepreneurship’ which finally tend to overlap with the notion of social innovation.
According to Ilie and During (2012: 27), entrepreneurial discourses have two extremes, “[…] one more
experimental, oriented towards society and learning from experience, the second anchored in the
traditional theories of economic and technological innovations”. In the former interpretation,
considerable importance is attached to social values which – in the logic of action of social enterprises-
would prevail over financial benefit (even more than in the governmental discourses). Furthermore, in
this context the degree of involvement of communities tends to be higher, at least at the
implementation stage. In the latter interpretation, the focus seems to be limited to changes in the
business model, with a more limited role for community participation: in this case, “outputs are […]
more important than outcomes and financial gains define to a large degree the level of success or
failure that social innovation has” (Ilie and During 2012: 33). In the understanding of the authors, the
need to identify criteria and tools to define and measure success and the search for models and
patterns for up-scaling and diffusing social innovations are common features of both entrepreneurial
and governmental discourse(ibid.: 33). This preoccupation is less evident in discourses developed by
part of the academic community which, on the contrary, tends to emphasise the link between social
innovation and culture and the context-specificity of social innovation (Ilie and During 2012: 35).
According to the authors, however, even within this strand of academic discourses, the role attributed
to communities in the process of social innovation generally remains rather passive or not properly
specified, an exception being the studies conducted by Frank Moulaert and colleagues
61
(ibid.: 67-69).
Moulaerts’ work is part of a research tradition on social innovation on which the ImPRovE project
draws. Indeed, referring to the domain of poverty and social exclusion, Kazepov et al. (2013:12,
emphasis in the original), define socially innovative actions as:
… bottom-up initiatives that respond to the commodification of life chances and/or the
relations of domination embodied in existing institutions to satisfy social needs of socially
excluded groups (content dimension). They bypass or transform existing welfare or other
institutions and structural social relations by involving civil society, third sector or social
entrepreneurs so as to increase the control of socially excluded groups over the means to satisfy
60
In the words of the authors, “The structures functioning according to the principles of the governmental
discourse re-define their organisational patterns and use their own resources (material, capital, knowledge)
to produce new methods and tools through which they can perform their activities. The systematic
repetition of this feature of novelty is an expression of innovations in form and not necessarily in content.
What we mean by this is that agencies working under the governmental discourse perform their traditional
practices (policy development, planning, provision of services and employment) in a different format – one
with a twist towards more inclusive processes (engaging vulnerable populations, impr oving existing
participatory methods, re-shaping behavioural patterns).” (Ilie and During 2012: 19).
61
See Moulaert et al. (2005).
48 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
their social needs (process dimension). They thereby contribute to the empowerment and socio-
political mobilization of socially excluded groups.
Such a definition relies on a specific conceptualisation of poverty- intended as a multi-dimensional and
relational phenomenon resulting from historically produced unequal social structures- and highlights
three key dimensions of social innovation: a content dimension, a process dimension, and an
‘empowerment’ dimension (Kazepov et al. 2013; Oosterlynck et al. 2013). From a substantive point of
view, social innovations aim at satisfying social needs that are not adequately addressed by existing
institutions and structures (notably, macro-level welfare policies and the market). Since social needs-
as well as the capacity of welfare states and the market to address them- vary in space and time,
socially innovative practices are “highly contextual” and often arise, in a bottom up fashion, at the local
level
62
(Oosterlynck et al. 2013: 2).
As for the process dimension, besides pursuing social goals, socially innovative practices must rely on
“social means”, that is, they should have the ambition to transform the structures and the institutions
which prevent people from satisficing their social needs. In other words, social innovations should
develop new social relations or transform existing (and unsatisfactory) ones (Oosterlynck et al. 2013:
3). To this purpose, the active involvement of both civil society actors and – importantly- socially
excluded groups is considered as a distinguishing feature of social innovation: socially innovative
practices are supposed to empower socially excluded individuals and groups. In this sense, social
innovation implies processes of “[…] social learning, individual and collective awareness raising, and
socio-political mobilisation” (ibid.: 6).
This said, as mentioned above, a high degree of variation characterises academic research on social
innovation. Jenson and Harrison (2013) have reviewed the findings of 17 comparative European
projects related to social innovation funded through the ‘Socioeconomic Sciences and Humanities
Programme’ of the fifth, sixth and seventh framework programmes. According to the authors, there
are differences among the various research projects conducted, in terms of theoretical choices, levels
of analysis and specific focus of the projects (Jenson and Harrison 2013: chapter. 3):
First, social innovation research draws on numerous disciplines and theoretical traditions,
which makes it difficult to build upon (and to develop) a shared paradigm. What is more, often
theory development is not among the main objectives of those types of research, which are
generally more problem (and policy)-oriented
63
.
Second, research projects differ when it comes to the levels of analysis considered, with most
studies generally focusing on the meso (i.e. at the role of institutions) or individual (i.e.
marginalised individuals or groups) levels and more rarely on the macro (societal) level.
62
According to the authors, social innovation is inevitably a “local and institutionally embedded process”
(Oosterlynck et al. 2013: 3). However, this does not imply that it is necessarily a locally isolated
phenomenon, since “[…] most successful social innovations rely on co-operation with and support from
supra-local actors [:] through co-operation with supra-local actors, networks and institutions, localized
social innovations can be upscaled and transferred to other local contexts and thus structurally transform
society” (ibid.).
63
As noted by the authors (Jenson and Harrison 2013: 26-27), since the policy review concerns research
projects funded by the European Commission through the ‘Socioeconomic Sciences and humanities
Programme’, both their inter-disciplinary approach and their policy-oriented nature may depend on the
specific features of the call for proposals issued under that programme.
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 49
Third, the research focus of those projects differs in terms of the actors which are considered
(from citizens to social entrepreneurs to bureaucrats), sectors (public, private or third-sector),
and scale (urban, regional, national or supranational) (Jenson and Harrison 2013: 30-31).
Finally, the causal value attributed to social innovation also differs: in some cases, social
innovation is considered as an independent variable producing change, in other cases it is
studied as a dependent variable, i.e. as the outcome of institutions and actors’ initiatives.
Against this backdrop, the lack of a shared definition is not so surprising and – while stressing the need
to work on a consensual definition or, at least, on a set of nested definitions for levels of analysis-
Jenson and Harrison (2013:14) invite us to think of social innovation as a ‘quasi-concept’, that is a
concept
… whose utility lies less in fabricating certainty than in fostering cohesion across a policy
network, composed of researchers, analysts and decision-makers [and] provid[ing] an
analytical focus for identifying policy challenges and diagnosing their characteristics.
50 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
Annex II. Social policy experimentation
The importance of the topic of social policy experimentation has started to grow on the EU agenda
since 2008, also as a consequence of the activism of some Presidencies of the EU. In particular, the
concept has a French origin and, since 2008, was pushed at the EU level by the French Minister Martin
Hirsch. In the Communication ‘A renewed commitment to social Europe: Reinforcing the Open Method
of Coordination for Social Protection and Social Inclusion’, the European Commission (2008b:8)
explicitly referred to the possibility of using the PROGRESS programme in order to develop social
experimentations, that is, “as a way to test innovative ideas before engaging in large-scale social
programmes” in key domains of the Social OMC such as minimum income, child benefits, or long-term
care. In the same year, in view of the Presidency of the Council of the EU (second half of 2008), the
French government asked the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) to deliver an
exploratory opinion on ‘How can social experimentation be used in Europe to develop public active
inclusion policies’. In the view of the EESC, social experimentation potentially represented a useful
policy-making tool, though the concept “remains in many respects […] vast and vague [and]
evaluations of its results are often overly vague (if not non-existent) or controversial as they are
ambiguous and debatable” (EESC 2008: point 2.1.2). So, further work was needed in order to agree on
a precise definition and to elaborate a sound and shared methodology. A series of conferences
organised by subsequent Presidencies have offered an occasion to further develop and disseminate
knowledge about social policy experimentation and, in collaboration with the academic community,
to make progress in the elaboration of the methodology. Among them, it is worth mentioning the
Forum on Social Experimentation in Europe’ organised by the French Presidency in Grenoble in
November 2008, the Ministerial conference on ‘Innovative responses to the social impact of the crisis’
organised by the Polish Presidency in Warsaw in 2011, and the Conference on ‘Social policy innovation
and social experimentation’ organised in November 2012 in Brussels
64
.
As mentioned in Section 5.3, in the Communication of the European Commission concerning the
European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion, social experimentations have been defined as
“[…] small scale projects designed to test policy innovations (or reforms) before adopting them more
widely” (European Commission 2010d: 14) . According to Jouen (2008:1), “in the social field, [social
experimentation] is clearly situated in the area of innovation produced by local actors (NGOs, local and
regional authorities, local governmental bodies, trade-unions, private companies, …), as a tool for
renewing social policy” and “it represents the latest stage of a long tradition of supporting and
promoting innovation in the area of cohesion policy in general and the ESF in particular” (ibid.: 2). This
said, two main elements distinguish social policy experimentation from more traditional forms of local
social innovations (cf. Jouen 2008; J-Pal Europe 2011):
1) it is strongly ‘evidence-based’ and relies on a rigorous methodology which includes a detailed
experimental protocol, specific sampling procedures and a strict evaluation process.
Importantly, the experimental protocol should describe in detail all the stages of the
experimentation (from the social need it is supposed to address to evaluation procedures and
64
Discussions during those events were generally based on background notes aimed at better defining the
concept of social experimentation and its methodology: see Jouen (2008) for the conference in Grenoble
and J-Pal Europe (2011) for the conference in Warsaw. At the request of the European Commission, a new
guide on social policy innovation has been delivered by the London School of Economics in 2014 (European
Commission 2014b).
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 51
strategies to streamline it, if successful). Furthermore, as for sampling, both a treatment group
and a control group should be set up: random sampling is strongly suggested, however, also
quasi experimental methods – such as regression discontinuity, difference in differences,
statistical matching, before and after, comparing participants and non-participants – can be
considered (see J-Pal Europe 2011 for a detailed discussion on this point).
2) Streamlining successful experiments into policy making and up-scaling them into policy reforms
should represent a constitutive feature of social policy experimentations (which should be
already foreseen in the experimental protocol). As Jouen (2008: 31) points out “a successful
experiment should not go without follow-up. This is […], intrinsically, what makes the originality
of experimentation in comparison to a policy of support for social innovations. It is also what
justifies the somewhat restricting framework in which experimentation is carried out”
65
. In order
to facilitate the achievement of such an outcome, social experimentations should rely on broad
partnerships involving all the actors concerned. However, the leadership of public authorities
and their commitment to take into account the results of the experimentation are considered
as fundamental.
65
In other words, “experimentation appears as a means of streamlining the conduct of innovation and as a
tool which allows social reforms to be based on concrete data” (ibid: 13).
52 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
Annex III. Examples of EU instruments for social innovation and projects
actually supported
Box 1. Examples of initiatives aiming at fostering cooperation, knowledge exchange and
networking on social innovation
Regions for economic change initiative (2010-2013 / ERDF). Regions for economic change (RfEC) was a learning
platform for EU regions which supported the creation of networks aimed at testing and sharing good practices
in urban and regional development (with a particular focus on innovation) and at speeding up their transfer. It
included the annual ‘Regions for Economic Change Conference’ and ‘RegioStars Awards’, a Policy Learning
Database and the creation of Interregional Fast Track Networks. The latter were networks established around
key themes and used to test innovative ideas and facilitate their transfer into regional policies and programmes.
375 million euros were allocated to the RfEC in the period 2010-2013.
Learning for change initiative (2007-2013 / ESF). The Learning for Change initiative aimed at “promoting a
learning culture and developing an infrastructure for social innovation and mutual learning” through a series of
actions including (BEPA 2010: 72): the creation of Learning Networks of ESF Managing Authorities and
implementing bodies with strategic stakeholders; supporting ESF managers dealing with the implementation of
transnational actions under regional and national programmes; collecting good practices and success stories,
thus creating a European base of evidence and experience allowing Member States to quickly share and apply
successful practices; promoting the shared use of common tools and capacity building in ESF bodies to increase
the skills and competences of ESF managers. Learning networks set-up in 2009 addressed a variety of issues
such as entrepreneurship and results-based management, migrants and ethnic minorities, the integration of
ex-prisoners, partnership, transnational cooperation, empowerment and inclusion, administrative capacity
building, the employment of young people, age management, gender mainstreaming and the social economy
(BEPA 2010:82).
Source: BEPA (2010) and websites of the Regions for economic change initiative
66
66
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/cooperate/regions_for_economic_change/index_en.cfm#1
(accessed 25 May 2015).
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 53
Box 2. The peer reviews meetings in the Social OMC
PROGRESS funded peer reviews are seminars lasting 1 ½-2 days hosted by a single country (host country) and
attended by a limited number of other countries (peer countries) as well as by actors such as European
Commission officials, stakeholders’ representatives and experts. The main goal of the meetings is to promote
mutual learning dynamics among participating states through the identification and dissemination of good
practices on the basis of a systematic exchange of experiences and evaluation of policies, actions, programmes
or institutional arrangements. These meetings, held since 2004, concerned topics related to one or more of the
key themes of the Social OMC (with a prevalence of topics linked to the social inclusion strand): 1) Integration
of ethnic minorities and immigrants; 2) Quality and accessibility of social services; 3) Homelessness and housing
exclusion; 4) Children and families; 5) Promoting active inclusion; 6) Over-indebtedness and financial exclusion;
7) Ageing and providing adequate and sustainable pensions; 8) Health and long-term care; 9) Interaction of
social, economic and employment policies; 10) Governance.
While it is difficult to assess how many meetings were actually devoted to the analysis of socially innovative
practices, research on the peer review exercise (OSE and PPMI 2012a, 2012b; Jessoula et al. 2014.) shows that
specific programmes with some degree of innovation (if compared with domestic traditions in the respective
policy domains) were sometimes the topic of those meetings. Examples include:
- the Czech programme Field Social Work Programmes in Neighbourhoods Threatened by Social Exclusion
(discussed during a peer review in 2005), which was innovative for the Czech context because of its rationale
(awareness of the specificity of socially excluded communities; aimed not only at providing services, but also at
awareness raising) and its practical approach (allowing flexible and individualised social work with the client;
professionalization of the field work personnel) (cf. Careja 2012);
- the UK government’s Sure Start programme (reviewed in 2006) which relied on ‘Anglo‐American’ models,
thus representing an important innovation compared to existing policies in England and the European Union
(cf. Daly 2012a);
- the Spanish Multi‐Regional Programme to Combat Discrimination (reviewed in 2007) which presented
important innovations concerning the involvement of Spanish NGOs in Operational Programmes financed by
Structural Funds (cf. Ghailani 2012);
- the British City Strategy (reviewed in 2009) which contained some innovative elements related to the emphasis
on the localisation of welfare provisions and to the partnership approach promoted (sharing of responsibilities
for tackling unemployment and poverty between the State and communities) (cf. Clegg and Bennett 2014).
Source: OSE and PPMI (2012a, 2012b); Jessoula et al. (2014)
54 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
Box 3. Housing First Europe
One of the projects funded through the second PROGRESS call for social experimentation (European
Commission 2010a) was Housing First Europe (HFE) (European Commission 2012a). In a nutshell, the ‘Housing
first’ approach – which derives from pioneer initiatives developed in the United States – relies on the idea that
homeless people (including people with complex and multiple needs) should be provided with long-term
housing (coupled with multidisciplinary social support) as soon as possible (Busch-Geertsema, 2013). In the
European context, such an approach was considered an innovative practice insofar as it reversed the usual
‘staircase approaches’ based on the idea that –before having access to a tenancy- homeless people with
complex needs had to demonstrate they were ready to sustain long-term accommodation (ibid.). At the time
of the 2010 PROGRESS call for proposals, Housing First was a topic debated at the EU level (see, for instance,
European Consensus Conference on Homeless, 2010) and several Housing first-like projects were being
implemented or experimented in EU countries/cities. However, both the understanding and important features
of specific Housing First projects as implemented in Europe and in the world varied to some extent (cf. Busch-
Geertsema, 2013, Pleace and Bretherton, 2013).
Against such a backdrop, the aim of the Housing First Europe project was precisely to test and evaluate Housing
First projects in 5 European cities in order to assess the potential and the limits of such an approach and identify
its essential elements (European Commission 2012a). The project – implemented between 2011 and 2013 –
was led by the Danish Board of Social Services and the partnership was composed of 10 partners (mainly loca l
public authorities) from Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland, Sweden, the
United Kingdom, and Ireland. Besides the five ‘test sites’ to be evaluated (Amsterdam, Budapest, Copenhagen,
Glasgow, Lisbon), other five ‘peer sites’ where Housing First projects were also implemented (Dublin, Ghent,
Gothenburg, Helsinki, Vienna) were involved in order to bring their experiences into the debate on the
evaluation of the test sites. Activities carried out in the project were organised around two strands: a) Research
and Evaluation (under the responsibility of a team of evaluators made up of researchers from various countries);
b) Mutual Learning activities aimed at promoting the discussion of the results of the evaluation among various
stakeholders and facilitating exchanges on existing Housing First projects implemented in Europe and beyond.
The final deliverables of the project were the draft of a final report and of a number of local reports and the
organisation of a final conference (held in Amsterdam in June 2013).
Box 4. The Social Platforms
The Social Platforms were funded through specific calls for proposals issued under the FP7 Programme between
2007 and 2013. Inspired by the already existing Technology Platforms, the idea of the Social Platforms was to
bring together members of the scientific community, policy-makers and civil society organisations in order to
elaborate and develop a common research agenda, thus suggesting new research topics for EU research
(European Commission 2013b: 9).
Up to now, 4 Social Platforms have been created (ibid.):
- ‘Social Policies’ (2007-2010) concerning social cohesion in European cities.
- ‘Family Platform’ (2009-2011), on the topic of families and family policies.
- ‘SPREAD’ (2011-2012), addressing the issue of sustainable lifestyles.
- ‘INNOSERV’ (2012-2014), concerning innovation in social services.
According to existing assessments (European Commission 2013b), the identification of key social issues to be
included in the future research agenda through a constructive and participatory (although not always smooth)
dialogue between researchers, policy-maker and civil society representatives is the key innovation introduced
by the social platforms.
Source: European Commission (2013b)
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 55
Table 1. Social Innovation in the FP7 ‘Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities’ (SSH)
programme 2011-2013
Work Programme
Activity
Topic(s)
2011
Activity 8.1: Growth, employment
and competitiveness in a
knowledge society – the
European case
- SSH.2011.1.3-1 New
Innovation Processes
including Social Innovation
2012
Activity 8.2: Combining economic,
social and environmental
objectives in a European
perspective: Paths towards
sustainable development
- SSH.2012.2.1-1 Social innovation
against inequalities
- SSH.2012.2.1-2 Social innovation
for vulnerable populations
Activity 8.3: Major trends in
society and their implications
- SSH.2012.3.2-3 Social innovation
in the public sector
2013
Activity 8.1: Growth, employment
and competitiveness in a
knowledge society
- SSH.2013.1.1-1 Economic
underpinnings of social
innovations
Activity 8.3: Major trends in
society and their implications
- SSH.2013.3.2-1 Social Innovation
– empowering people, changing
societies?
Source: authors’ elaboration from European Commission 2010e, 2011b, 2012b.
Table 2. Winners of the Europe Social Innovation Competition 2013-2014
Title
Short description
2013
Community Catalysts (United Kingdom)
Community Catalysts propose connecting talents in
business and communities to create jobs for social
benefit by helping people to use their creativity to set
up sustainable, small-scale social care and health
services that people can afford. These micro-
enterprises could be offered by a wide range of
people, including disabled, older and family carers.
Community Catalysts want to extend their current
reach and impact through a managed network of
professional business and professional mentors
supporting community entrepreneurs throughout the
UK via an on-line platform
Economy App (Germany)
Economy App collects information from users on
what they could offer in a local economy and what
their economic needs are. The software keeps a
record of the value of products and services provided
and accepted for every person in this economic
network and so no money ever needs to change
hands.
MITWIN.NET (Spain)
MITWIN.NET proposes an intergenerational
professional network conceived to facilitate contact
between people in order to share a job and
knowledge, with the main goal of reducing the high
rate of youth unemployment. MITWIN.NET proposes
that older workers share a job with younger people,
allowing those approaching retirement to share
knowledge with those being incorporated into the job
market, easing both entry and exit from the job
market and addressing youth unemployment.
56 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
2014
From waste to wow! QUID project (Italy)
The fashion business demands perfection, and slightly
damaged textiles cannot be used for top brands. The
project intends to recycle this first quality waste into
limited collections and thereby provide jobs to
disadvantaged women. This is about creating highly
marketable products and social value through
recycling.
Urban Farm Lease (Belgium)
Urban agriculture could provide 6,000 direct jobs in
Brussels, and an additional 1,500 jobs in terms
considering indirect employment (distribution, waste
management, training or events). The project aims at
providing training, connection and consultancy so
that unemployed people take advantage of the large
surface available for agriculture in the city (e.g. 908
hectares of land or 394 hectares of suitable flat roofs)
Voidstarter (Ireland)
All major cities in Europe have ‘voids’, units of social
housing which are empty because city councils have
insufficient budgets to make them into viable homes.
At the same time these cities also experience pressure
with social housing provision and homelessness.
Voidstarter will provide unemployed people with
learning opportunities alongside skilled
tradespersons in the refurbishing of the voids.
Sources: European Commission (2014a) and European Social Innovation Competition website
(http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/innovation/policy/social-innovation/past-
editions/prize_en.htm , accessed 25 May 2015).
Note: the short descriptions of the projects are quoted from the sources above.
Table 3. EPAP initiatives under the area for action ‘Developing an evidence-based approach to
social innovation and reforms’
Initiative
Timefram
e
State of
implementation (July
2013)
Launch a major initiative to promote social innovation. The initiative
would: establish a ‘high-level steering committee’ to provide advice
and guidance on developing EU actions in this field; create a
European research excellence network; launch a European research
project in the area of social innovation; define common principles
about designing, implementing and evaluating small scale projects
designed to test policy innovations (or reforms) before adopting them
more widely (social experiments); ensure communication and
awareness raising about relevant ongoing social innovation; make use
of existing financial instruments, including PROGRESS, to support
evidence-based social innovation and experimentation.
2011-
2012
ONGOING
Exploring the best ways and formulate proposals for social innovation
in the new financial framework, including through the ESF and
possibly new financing facilities.
2011-
2012
ONGOING
Develop cross-sectoral approaches that articulate actions in several
related policy fields such as employment, education, health, youth,
housing, migration and social protection that have the potential to
lead to social innovation.
2011-
2012
COMPLETED - (SISPE
included in the ESF
2014-2020 and in the
PSCI)
Source: authors' elaboration from European Commission (2010f, 2013c, 2013d).
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 57
Table 4. (Selected) EPAP initiatives under the area for action ‘Promoting a partnership approach
and the social economy’
Initiative
Timeframe
State of implementation (July 2013)
Propose measures to improve the quality
of the legal structures relating to
foundations, mutual societies
and cooperatives in order to optimise
their functioning and facilitate their
development within the single
market*
2011-2012
COMPLETED - Proposal adopted by the
Commission 8/2/2012 + ONGOING
Develop awareness-raising actions on
the benefits of the social economy
targeting key public and private actors
and enhance access of social economy
actors to relevant EU
financial programmes, among others by
supporting the development of
partnerships on active
inclusion measures
2011-2013
ONGOING - Pilot Project supported by the EP with
10 projects
Propose a Social Business Initiative in
order to support and accompany the
development of socially
innovative corporate projects within the
single market by means of, in particular,
social ratings, ethical and
environmental labelling, revised rules on
public procurement, the introduction of
a new investment fund
regime and the use of dormant savings*
2011
COMPLETED
Promote actions to increase
understanding and use of social inclusion
considerations in public
procurement
2011-2013
ONGOING - Proposal for A Directive on Public
Procurement. + Guide produced 2010: ‘Buying
Social: A Guide to Taking Account of Social
Considerations in Public Procurement’
Develop a new policy initiative on CSR in
2011, concentrating on CSR
reporting/disclosure, business and
human rights, the international aspects
of CSR, and especially the employment
and enterprise aspects of
Europe 2020
2011
COMPLETED
Source: authors’ elaboration from European Commission (2010e, 2013c, 2013d).
Note (*): Those initiatives are part of the Single Market Act.
58 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
Table 5. Social innovation in the Social Investment Package’s Roadmap.
1. Strengthening the social investment approach through the European Semester
Deliverable
Implementation status/ Milestone
Timeframe
A policy makers' manual for applying
innovative approaches to long-term
care provision
In cooperation with the Institute for Prospective Technological
Studies of the Joint Research Centre and the Social Protection
Committee Working Group ‘AGE’
Publication May 2014
Closing the Gap: SPC report on the
contribution of innovative approaches
to long-term care
Report scheduled for adoption by SPC in the first quarter of
2014, to help MS adjust to ageing trends while ensuring social
protection against the risk of long-term care needs in old age.
Publication May 2014
Conference on social entrepreneurship,
‘Social entrepreneurs: have your say’
As well as the main programme, this conference includes a
workshop specifically on 'Social Policy Investment and Social
Entrepreneurship', social innovation informs many of the
event's activities
16-17 January 2014
2. Making the best use of EU funds to support social investment
Deliverable
Implementation status/ Milestone
Timeframe
Identifying social innovation and social
investment priorities for Horizon 2020,
the EU's 2014-2020 €70 billion
programme for research and
innovation
The Horizon 2020 Work Programme for 2014-15 is expected to
include a specific call focussing on SIP, in particular on
innovative social investment approaches for the modernisation
of social policies and services
Call for proposals
early 2014
Study on effective policies to reduce
homelessness and housing exclusion
- The right to housing - homelessness prevention in the context
of evictions
- Follow-up study on the right to housing
- Housing First Europe - social innovation and social policy
experimentation project
- Work in Stations project supporting integration of homeless
people around train stations by creating partnerships between
local authorities, railway companies, and NGOs
- Study on the relation between mobility and migration and
destitution in the EU
Publication and launch
seminar end-2015
Publication 2016
Support to stakeholders through calls
for proposals in line with the social
investment approach.
The Commission will fund social policy experimentation aimed
at measuring the impact of social policy intervention in line
with the Social Investment Package
Call for proposals
launched September
2013 Projects selected
will run till 2016-2017.
Providing support services for actors
engaged in social policy
experimentation, including innovative
social enterprises
Concrete support actions to MS authorities and other
stakeholders (training, preparing a guide and advice function).
2014
3. Streamlining governance and reporting
Deliverable
Implementation status/ Milestone
Timeframe
Supporting social enterprises' access to
finance: European Social
Entrepreneurship Funds
Regulation on European social entrepreneurship funds
Adopted 17 April 2013
Fully in force since 22 July
2013
Source: authors’ elaboration from European Commission (2013f)
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 59
Table 6. Calls for proposals on social (policy) experimentation 2009-2014
Title
(programme/year)
Priorities
Beneficiaries
Budget
Duration
Call for proposals for
transnational actions
on social
experimentation
(PROGRESS/2009)
Social policies falling within the
scope of the Social OMC
a) public authorities; b)
organisations mandated
by a public authority
(including non-profit
bodies or organisations
of general interest)
approximately
EUR 3.5 million
(around 10
projects)
From 12
to 24
months
Call for proposals for
social
experimentations
(PROGRESS/2010)
Social policies falling within the
Social OMC (with particular
attention to the social inclusion of
young people, and to the
transition from institutional to
community-based care)
public bodies, regional
and local authorities,
NGOs, service providers,
etc.
approximately
EUR 2.5 million
(around 10
projects)
From 12
to 24
months
Call for proposals for
social
experimentations
(PROGRESS/2011)
social inclusion of vulnerable
groups; quality of childcare
services; active and healthy
ageing; transition from education
to work for young people
Lead applicants must be
public authorities,
state/semi-state
agencies at central,
regional or local level (in
partnership with at least
one civil society
organisation)
EUR 3.5 million
(3-5 projects)
From 18
to 24
months
Call for proposals for
social policy
experimentations
(PROGRESS/2012)
- Promotion of youth activation
measures; Provision of quality
childcare services; Promotion of
active and healthy ageing.
- Link with the CSRs 2012-2013
The applicant must be a
public authority, at
central, regional or local
level, or a
body governed by public
law
EUR 4,200,000
(grants between
700,000 € and
1,000,000 €)
From 24
to 36
months
Call for proposals for
social policy
experimentations
supporting social
investments
(PROGRESS 2013)
- Proposals designing social policy
interventions in line with the
policy reforms strands of the SIP( -
Activating and enabling benefits
and services to support people's
inclusion in society and the labour
market; - Social protection
systems to respond to people's
needs throughout their lives; -
More effective and efficient
spending to ensure adequate and
sustainable social protection.
Priority for projects focusing on
youth opportunities measures).
Lead applicant must be a
public authority at
central, regional or local
level, or bodies
governed by public law
(+ at least one co-
applicant public
authorities at central,
regional or local level, or
bodies governed by
public law, and/or civil
society organisations,
and/or private sector
organisations)
EUR 3,500,000
(grants between
700,000 €
1,000,000 €
maximum)
From 24
to 36
months
Call for proposals for
social policy
innovations
supporting reforms in
social services (EaSI-
PROGRESS axis /
2014)
- Reforms of social services (with a
focus on: one-stop-shop approach,
personalised approaches and
innovative partnerships).
- The proposals should also
consider the specific context of
the country(ies) concerned,
including the Country-Specific
Recommendations addressed to
the Member State
=
EUR 9,200,000
(projects
750,000 €
minimum and
2,000,000 €
maximum )
From 24
to 36
months.
Source: authors’ elaboration on the calls for proposals 2009-2014
60 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
Table 7. EaSI-PROGRESS axis (Social Protection and Social Inclusion). Activities under the objective ‘Social
policy experimentation’ (2014)
67
Title of the activity
Description
Foreseen
output
Target audience
Planned
duration
Methodology for
financial and societal
return on investment
on social investment
policies
Developing a methodology to determine the financial
and societal return on investment on social investment
policies (e.g. investing in children, especially early
childhood)
Study report
Social and
economic
partners, Social
services
2014
Building analytical
knowledge on inclusive
personal credit (‘social
credit’)
Mapping the existing practices in the EU MS, assessing
whether they are regulated or not, their weaknesses
and deficiencies, strengths and opportunities,
identifying good practice examples of suitable and
transferable schemes and measures, and
recommendations for further analytical development
related to social credits and also for possible actions
that would provide EU added value.
Study report
Associations,
NGOs and similar
2014
OECD study on
integrated housing and
social services
Stock taking background study on integrated housing
and social service delivery to be presented at an OECD
conference at the end.
Study report
EU and MS Policy
makers, Experts
2014
Social Innovation and
Social Policy
Experimentation (SISPE)
Grants shall be awarded to support the testing of
innovative social policy reforms in EaSI participating
countries in line with Europe 2020 and the Social
Investment Package (SIP). The call shall have 2 strands,
the first one aiming at using social innovations to
create efficiency gains aimed in particular at public
authorities to follow up on Europe 2020 Country
Specific Recommendations and the second one to
strengthen partnerships between public, private and
3rd sector to involve awareness raising activities to
create better understanding about the use and
benefits of social policy innovation
Support to
organisations
(SP, NGO,
enterprises,
national,
regional, local
authorities)
National
authorities
(minist., dept.
and similar)
2014-2016
Social Policy Innovation
at a national level
Series of seminars to be organised at national level
Seminar/meet
ing/workshop
National
authorities
(minist., dept.
and similar)
2014
Social Policy Innovation
at a regional level
Series of seminars to be organised at a regional level in
cooperation with the Committee of Regions in
particular to encourage creation of shared interest from
stakeholders to engage actively in Europe 2020 and the
European Semester, at national and EU level.
Seminar/meet
ing/workshop
Regional/local
authorities,
Regional/local
authorities
2014
67
Other activities relevant for social innovation are listed under different headings.
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 61
Cooperation with the
Council of Europe for
support to capacity
building for local
authorities for Roma
inclusion
Support to capacity building for local authorities for
Roma inclusion. This project will provide training,
mentoring, and coaching to local authorities aiming to
integrate Roma living on their territories. It shall
strengthen the capacity of local and regional authorities
(targeting both elected officials and senior civil
servants) to develop and implement plans and policies
for Roma inclusion. It shall ensure that local authorities
are equipped with tools, knowledge, and skills enabling
them to overcome the challenges and barriers they
often face when it comes to taking into account the
needs of the Roma (including structural barriers which
prevent a proper implementation of the strategies and
policies) and provide concrete outputs in terms of
general local development in which the contribution of
the Roma is properly recognised.
Support to
organisations
(SP, NGO,
enterprises,
national,
regional, local
authorities)
Regional/local
authorities
September
2014-
March
2016
Analysis of the private
capital market's interest
in financing social
investments.
An open call for tender will be launched in order to carry
out a study on the role of private investments and
capital to finance actions in the field of SIP
Study report
EU and MS Policy
makers, Experts,
International
organisations,
National
authorities
(minist., dept.
and similar)
2014
Support services for
social policy
experimentation in the
EU
Organisation of trainings, information sessions and the
production of communication tools
Training
Social services
2014-2015
Source: authors’ elaboration from European Commission (2013i: 7-8)
62 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
Annex IV. List of interviewees
Code
Institution/organisation
Date
Modality
Int.1
Think tank
29 October 2014
Face to face
Int.2
European Commission
30 October 2014
Face to face
Int.3
European Commission
06 November 2014
Face to face
Int.4
European Commission
18 December 2014
Face to face
Int.5
EU NGO
18 December 2014
Face to face
Int.6
Think tank
09 January 2015
Phone
THE EU FRAMEWORK FOR SOCIAL INNOVATION – BETWEEN ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND POLICY EXPERIMENTATION 63
Abbreviations
AGS
Annual Growth Survey
BEPA
Bureau of European Policy Advisers
CISCO
Cisco Systems Inc.
CLLD
Community-Led Local Development instrument
CSRs
Country-specific recommendations
DG
Directorate General (European Commission)
DG EAC
Directorate General for Education and Culture
DG EMPL
Directorate General Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
DG ENTR
Directorate General Enterprise and industry
DG MARKT
Directorate General Market and Services
DG REGIO
Directorate General Regional and Urban Policy
DG SANCO
Directorate General Health and Food Safety
EAFRD
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development
EaSI
Programme for Employment and Social Innovation
EC
European Commission
EESC
European Economic and Social Committee
EMFF
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund
EPAP
European Platform against Poverty and Social Exclusion
EPSCO
Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council
ERDF
European Regional Development Fund
ESF
European Social Fund
ESIF
European Structural and Investment Funds
EU
European Union
EURES
European Job Mobility Portal
FP
Framework programmes for Research and Technological
Developments
GECES
Expert Group on social entrepreneurship
HFE
Housing First Europe
ICT
Information and Communication Technologies
IGs
Integrated Guidelines
ImPRovE
Poverty Reduction in Europe: Social policy and innovation
JESSICA
Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas
64 IMPROVE DISCUSSION PAPER 15/21
LEADER
Community initiative for rural development
MS
Member State of the European Union
NGO
Non-Governmental Organisation
NRPs
National Reform Programmes
OSE
European Social Observatory
PROGRESS
Community Action Programme for Employment and Social
Solidarity
PSCI
Programme for Social Change and Innovation
RfEC
Regions for Economic Change initiative
SG
Secretary General (European Commission)
SIE
Social Innovation Europe
SIP
Social Investment Package
SIX
Social Innovation eXchange
Social OMC
Open Method of Coordination for Social Protection and Social
Inclusion
SPC
Social Protection Committee
SPPM
Social Protection Performance Monitor
SSH
Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities programme (FP7)
URBAN
Community initiative concerning urban areas
ImPRovE: Poverty Reduction in Europe.
Social Policy and Innovation
Poverty Reduction in Europe: Social Policy and Innovation (ImPRovE) is an international
research project that brings together ten outstanding research institutes and a broad
network of researchers in a concerted effort to study poverty, social policy and social
innovation in Europe. The ImPRovE project aims to improve the basis for evidence-based
policy making in Europe, both in the short and in the long term. In the short term, this is
done by carrying out research that is directly relevant for policymakers. At the same time
however, ImPRovE invests in improving the long-term capacity for evidence-based policy
making by upgrading the available research infrastructure, by combining both applied and
fundamental research, and by optimising the information flow of research results to
relevant policy makers and the civil society at large.
The two central questions driving the ImPRovE project are:
How can social cohesion be achieved in Europe?
How can social innovation complement, reinforce and modify macro-level policies
and vice versa?
The project runs from March 2012 till February 2016 and receives EU research support to
the amount of Euro 2.7 million under the 7th Framework Programme. The output of
ImPRovE will include over 55 research papers, about 16 policy briefs and at least 3
scientific books. The ImPRovE Consortium will organise two international conferences
(Spring 2014 and Winter 2015). In addition, ImPRovE will develop a new database of local
projects of social innovation in Europe, cross-national comparable reference budgets for
6 countries (Belgium, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Italy and Spain) and will strongly expand
the available policy scenarios in the European microsimulation model EUROMOD.
More detailed information is available on the website http://improve-research.eu.
Bea Cantillon (Coordinator)
E-mail: bea.cantillon@uantwerpen.be
Phone: +32 3 265 53 98
Address: University of Antwerp – Sint-Jacobstraat 2 (M.177) – 2000 Antwerp - Belgium
Tim Goedemé (Manager)
E-mail: tim.goedeme@uantwerpen.be
Phone: +32 3 265 55 55
Mobile: +32 494 82 36 27
Address: University of Antwerp – Sint-Jacobstraat 2 (M. 185) – 2000 Antwerp - Belgium
