Next Article in Journal
The Impact of Climate Risk on Insurers’ Sustainable Operational Efficiency: Empirical Evidence from China
Previous Article in Journal
Strategies to Redress the Resilience of Residential Buildings Following Climatic Impacts: Perspectives from the UK Construction Industry
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 8
10.3390/su17083427
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

University’s Contribution to Society: Benchmarking of Social Innovation

by
Ester Planells-Aleixandre
1,*,
Adela García-Aracil
1 and
Rosa Isusi-Fagoaga
2
1
Institute of Innovation and Knowledge Management, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain
2
Universitat de València and UTRASFER Associated Unit of CSIC at INGENIO, 46022 Valencia, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(8), 3427; https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083427
Submission received: 17 February 2025 / Revised: 4 April 2025 / Accepted: 4 April 2025 / Published: 11 April 2025
Versions Notes

Abstract

Social innovation is crucial to tackling the challenges faced by contemporary societies. Universities are rich in resources that, through their active involvement in social innovation, can solve social problems. However, the ambiguity of the term social innovation is a concern and has implications for academic social innovation initiatives. A deeper understanding of the role of universities in society is needed, particularly in leveraging social innovation to address unmet social needs. This paper combines conceptual and empirical literature to explore how universities are evolving in their approach to managing social innovation. While there is a wide variety of initiatives and approaches that explore the challenges of universities in promoting social innovation in their communities, the broader capacity of the universities’ engagement in social responsibility and sustainable development is also presented. This paper highlights that the notion of a world-class university is outdated; what is needed is (i) the alignment of social innovation with universities’ core teaching and research activities to increase legitimation and recognition of social innovation practices; (ii) the idea of a sustainable management system promoting dynamic coordination of social and private interests, positioning engagement centrally; and (iii) the idea of a culture that is tolerant of error and manages it in a way that incentivizes academic involvement in social innovation activities. This paper also emphasizes the relevance of introducing incentives for university staff involvement in problem-solving activities and in delivering social services via service-learning.

1. Introduction

Social innovation (SI)—understood as innovation with social aims—plays a crucial role in addressing today’s pressing global challenges and advancing the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) outlined in the ambitious Agenda 2030 [1]. These challenges encompass resource scarcity, the impacts of a changing climate and its unpredictable outcomes, issues of recycling and waste management, demographic shifts such as declining birth rates and aging populations, high immigration levels, social exclusion, rising healthcare costs, diversity in education systems, and the enduring effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, among others [2,3].
These global problems persist in our societies, and scientists are exploring new directions beyond the current growth-based economic models driving our economies [4]. Scientists emphasize redefining the relationship between science and society to foster stronger connections between academia and the broader community [5]. This call for societal transformation is mirrored in European Union policies, advocating a shift from Knowledge Society 1.0 to Knowledge Society 2.0, from Globalization 3.0 to Industry 4.0, and, more recently, toward developing innovation ecosystems. This inclusive approach highlights innovation systems’ ecological and sustainable dimensions [2,6,7,8]. In this context of societal transformation toward an innovation ecosystem, European universities must reform and embrace a role that actively engages with society [9]. Universities must build on their university–community relations experience to ensure community engagement becomes a more central mission [10,11].
Since the 1980s, European universities have undergone a process of strategic modernization characterized by increased centralization driven by performance-based funding models and managerial autonomy aimed at enhancing the productivity and efficiency of public expenditure [12]. This has influenced the relationship between universities and society by (i) monetizing the value of university activities; (ii) prioritizing activities based on their perceived strategic significance; and (iii) prompting universities to concentrate on a limited number of strategically essential endeavors [13]. Consequently, the university’s third mission of societal engagement has increasingly been framed through financial terms, prioritizing public engagement—particularly with businesses—and income-generating initiatives, often overshadowing other activities [14]. Focusing on engagement with the business sector has overshadowed other forms of social engagement, reducing their visibility and perceived value, while informal collaborations, particularly with voluntary community groups, have gained prominence [4,5].
European universities have long maintained strong connections with their host societies, with higher education (HE) serving as a model for delivering expert knowledge, expanding access to education, training professionals, enhancing the well-being of farmers and industrial workers, and promoting democratic values, among other contributions [15]. Over time, the relationship with communities has evolved to encompass greater community–university collaboration and the joint development of solutions [11,16]. This paper aims to offer a more structured perspective on university–community collaboration, focusing on the university’s role in addressing societal challenges through SI, which seeks to meet unaddressed social needs, devise sustainable solutions for complex issues, and foster the growth of a social economy [17]. The literature includes several works on SI at higher education institutions (HEIs) [18,19,20]. For instance, Benneworth and Cunha [10] analyze the role of Portuguese universities in fostering SI activities and how to measure the social impact of these activities; Berghaeuser and Hoelscher [11] focused on SI as part of the third mission of German HEIs based on the impact of science in society, among others However, most of these studies focus on individual case studies, ignoring common partners and aggregating learning. The present paper provides insights into the concept of SI and tries to integrate the different approaches within the HE framework to enhance understanding of how universities can foster SI to increase the university’s contribution to society. We propose some elements that we consider crucial for the re-design and promotion of SI at universities in addition to community–university engagement, such as universities’ engagement in social responsibility and sustainable development, as shown in the sections below. Finally, some conclusions and policy considerations are made.

2. Understanding Social Innovation

SI can be studied using a range of different lenses. First, a management science lens highlights common themes shared with other social science fields, emphasizing opportunities to enhance social capital and enable economic and educational organizations to function more effectively or evolve. This approach also considers the economic dimensions of human development and underscores the significance of fostering an ethical and stable entrepreneurial culture [21]. Second, a territorial development lens focuses on local development problems [22]. In contrast, the third type of lens, rooted in political science and public administration, offers strategies and initiatives to enhance citizens’ access to governance and government while promoting greater transparency in public administration [23]. Fourth, an arts and creativity lens allows investigation of SI’s role in social, intellectual, and other types of creations [24,25]. Current discussion of SI tends to adopt one or other of these lenses to explain how change happens and what drives SI.
Caulier-Grice et al. [26] reviewed the uses of the SI term and found that it has been used to describe (a) societal transformations; (b) models of organizational management; (c) social entrepreneurship; (d) the development of new products, services, and programs; and (e) models of governance, empowerment, and capacity building. However, SI is context-dependent, occurring within broader social, cultural, educational, economic, and environmental settings. It involves innovative responses to urgent social challenges, using approaches that shape social interactions and prioritize well-being [27]. The range of SI definitions and theories is summarized in Table 1. The different interpretations of the term ‘social’ are notable. They encompass innovative products, services, models, markets, and processes that address social needs while simultaneously enhancing capabilities, fostering new relationships, and optimizing the use of assets and resources.
This overview demonstrates the lack of consensus around SI as a concept. However, most definitions are consistent with understanding the social as embedded in social relations (i.e., new forms of social relations between nonprofits, social enterprises, civil society, businesses, and local authorities can facilitate SI). At the same time, there is an increased focus on the beneficial aspects (social impact) of SI and a move away from social relations toward a utilitarian approach, which is concentrated on the societal value of the innovation (e.g., [30,31]). The value of an approach that combines social relations (or social processes) and societal impact (or societal change) has also been addressed [33] (for a detailed revision of how the concept of SI has evolved, see [36,37]).
As we want to analyze how universities can improve their contribution to society on SI, it calls for a renewed understanding of the relationship of universities with their society, based on the concept that SI involves new forms of social collaboration, collective approaches to delivering innovation, the consideration of the civil society at different stages in the SI process, and the positive impact of SI on society.

3. Social Innovation Approaches at Universities

SI requires a commitment to resolving social problems and tends to involve a complex web of interactions, numerous points of intervention, and the combination of multiple disciplines to produce lasting solutions. The long-term nature of SI means that universities are well placed to engage in SI [38].
Universities possess abundant resources that can be leveraged to find solutions to social challenges. University researchers bring expertise in theoretical frameworks to design solutions and the technical skills needed to gather and analyze empirical data to evaluate the feasibility of innovations. Additionally, universities can facilitate knowledge transfer across sectors through student training and collaborations with funding agencies, private investors, public policy regulators, and the engaged community [39].
The contribution of HEIs to society has gained increasing attention in recent years [14]. These institutions are now expected to provide education and conduct research and actively contribute to their communities’ economic, social, and cultural development. The ability of HEIs to fulfill this role depends on various factors, including the characteristics of the institutions, the regions in which they are located, and the policy frameworks in place, among others [4]. While a wide variety of initiatives and approaches explore the opportunities and challenges of HEIs in promoting social engagement in their communities, in this paper, we additionally examine the broader capacity of the universities’ engagement in social responsibility and sustainable development.

3.1. A Community–University Engagement Perspective

There is growing pressure on universities to focus on societal well-being; address economic, social, and environmental problems at the community level; and provide HE. Universities are developing partnerships with their community through community engagement, scholarship in action, and intellectual entrepreneurship [40]. However, the relationships between universities and their local communities are intricate and mutually dependent. Universities play a key role in regional growth and socioeconomic and cultural development, enhancing human capital and creating opportunities for reciprocal learning [41].
Uyarra [42] identifies five archetypes of how universities engage with society: (i) knowledge factories, which emphasize technological knowledge production for industry; (ii) relational universities, which closely collaborate with industry partners; (iii) entrepreneurial universities, exploiting their knowledge via patents and spin-offs; (iv) systemic universities, which contribute to the development of collective innovation resources; and (v) engaged universities, which actively work to enhance regional policy frameworks. Each of these directions can provide different institutional freedom to engage in SI [17].
Other ways to classify university engagement and promote SI include analyzing modes of delivery and distinguishing among teaching, research, knowledge exchange, and services [43] (see Table 2). However, most engagement initiatives have multiple aims and involve different university activities. For instance, science shops include both service-learning and teaching, and often some knowledge exchange and research. These activities create social value by promoting community development, the formation of wider collaborative networks, and collaborative action to challenge existing social institutions [10]. Other universities’ “Labs” bring together students, faculty, and community members to co-create solutions for systemic issues, such as urban poverty, housing, or inclusive education in refugee camps [19].

3.2. A University Social Responsibility Perspective

Within the framework of university social responsibility, universities contribute by encouraging citizenship, observing the social reality, and becoming interlocutors (stakeholders) to promote social dialogue. In this context, the university as a social institution is a reference point in transmitting professional, ethical principles and a place where values and counter values are learned [44]. The responsible university SI model focuses on six dimensions that need to be considered and enables the university’s main functions (teaching, research, knowledge transfer) to be analyzed and other dimensions. These other dimensions include the pedagogic–curricular, the organizational, R&D and innovation, relationships with the local context, the environment, and internationalization [45,46] (see Table 3). For instance, the University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain) offers a service-learning course where students work on community-driven projects addressing issues such as refugees and prisoners’ food security and health inequalities, dealing with curricular and pedagogical dimensions and the relationship with the context dimension [44]. This university implements a university-wide sustainability framework that involves staff, students, and faculty. Policies include equity in employment and housing initiatives. This is an example of social responsibility by aligning governance and operations with sustainability goals.

3.3. A Sustainable Development Goal Perspective

HE should contribute to developing a society that can work toward the SDGs and satisfy current needs without compromising the lives and abilities of future generations [47,48]. This conceptualization recognizes that development is essential to addressing human needs and enhancing the quality of life, but it must be pursued in a way that does not undermine the natural environment’s ability to support current and future needs [49]. In this context, universities play a central role in equipping future generations with the competencies (knowledge, skills, and attitudes) and capabilities (relevant to active individuals’ engagement in society and individual freedom to pursue what they value) to address sustainability challenges and opportunities, and perform research that advances the sustainable development agenda [50]. Universities should provide their expertise and leadership to encourage stakeholders to adopt sustainable practices by integrating sustainability into business strategies, decision-making processes, and accountability frameworks [17]. Therefore, SDGs provide an ethos for HEIs to re-invent themselves and rethink their engagement with teaching, research, and the community [47,48]. This will require a shift in our understanding of innovation as an end (i.e., innovation to create economic value and performed only by firms) rather than a means (i.e., innovation to enable social welfare developments in all fields and all firms and in the community). In turn, this will require a collaborative approach in line with the inclusive bottom-up approach envisaged by the SDGs in which HEIs have a crucial role in enabling sustainable development [49]. Several strategies are available to universities in this context, including the reference framework of education, research, governance and operations, and public engagement [48,51] (see Table 4). The Erasmus+ Program (European Union) facilitates cross-border education and partnerships, emphasizing collaborative projects addressing global challenges, such as migration and climate change, to design scalable solutions for SDGs [2,8]. Achievement of the SDGs will depend on the extent of the interactions between and within the dimensions described above.
The SDGs are prompting universities to develop new approaches, new forms of collective action involving public and private stakeholders, and new solutions to social challenges based on innovation. This will require a multilevel perspective and a framework that includes SI [4]. In this new paradigm, competitiveness and productivity are only one priority; others include increased social well-being and quality of life, and the co-creation of knowledge as part of public–private engagement [52].
In this context, universities must provide new valuable knowledge for SI processes and promote participation in SI to improve university services and practices [53] and enable engagement in different SI stages (idea generation, creation of experimental space, demonstrator, expansion, coalition, codification, and diffusion) [10]. Therefore, universities and their communities should fulfill different roles in the SI process by acting as solution providers, process facilitators, resource providers, and catalysts [4,54,55]. Based on this literature review, we propose below different approaches to promoting universities’ contributions to SI, integrating SI into the core activities of the HEIs, and the major factors governing and managing resource allocation.

4. Promoting Universities’ Contributions to Social Innovation

4.1. Alignment of Social Innovation with Universities’ Core Activities

Some universities face a dilemma in relation to involvement in SI activities. Universities are under intense pressure to improve their teaching and research quality, internationalize, and achieve excellence; in this context, SI is a secondary task [39,55]. In the world-class university model, publications and prizes are the priority, resulting in less attention paid to socially useful activities [56]. This results in tensions between the increasing pressures on universities to prioritize individual institutional success (private benefits) over wider public benefit [4,55]. The involvement of universities in SI activities can be increased by identifying some alignment between SI activities and their core teaching and research tasks. The societal role of the university includes the provision of higher-level education for their students and for other workers, with SI, focused on the delivery of social services. In some societies, particularly in Latin America, universities and their graduates are obliged to contribute to society via service-learning and SI activities [57]. In most EU universities, collaborative research involving multiple stakeholders from various groups, organizations, and sectors is aimed at problem-solving and meeting societal needs [36]. Therefore, as universities contribute to SI in various ways in response to a range of stakeholder demands, considering SI as a core university goal is vital to avoid considering peripheral activities that remain isolated [10].

4.2. New Governance Models and the Rise of Social Innovation

The notion of new public management refers to attempts to enable more efficient public expenditure by introducing (quasi-)markets to provide public services and imposition of regulation enabled by new technologies to eliminate game-playing and market failures [58]. Introducing new public management increases competition among public institutions, promotes payment by results, and introduces new audit and accountability regimes. These factors have significantly impacted universities and are acting as disincentives for social engagement or narrowing the focus to only certain types of engagement [59].
Traditional university governance is focused on disciplinary checks and balances to ensure that researchers conform to normative lines of inquiry and paradigmatic approaches. Although the ideal might be public service, universities as institutions are governed by self-interest, limiting their capacity to challenge existing power relations [10]. These norms are enforced by a peer-review system primarily for good quality publications, funding success, and tenure and promotion decisions, which is not conducive to interdisciplinary research and knowledge transfer outside traditional patents and licenses [60,61]. In this framework, knowledge transfer and more general community engagement are prerequisites for increasing SI, which depends on the university’s capabilities to develop solutions to the grand challenges faced by today’s advanced societies and education systems [62]. Universities should combine a significant degree of autonomy to orient their activities with an array of connections to different institutions and actors, and especially those most in need of support from academia (e.g., organization of domestic workers) to give them a voice. The transition to a sustainable university management system can promote dynamic coordination of the university’s social and private interests. Ref. [63] points to the growing impetus in university campuses for inclusion in the university missions, plans, and policies of a sustainability dimension. However, it cannot be assumed that this would automatically result in better performance; the design and implementation of sustainable management models at the department, faculty, and university levels must be coordinated.

4.3. An Organizational Error Management Culture and Its Impact on Social Innovation

SI has received increased attention from academic and social organizations linked to organized citizenship and business and public administrations. This interest in what has been called ‘SI practices’ emerged in the years of accelerated change following the 2008 economic and financial crisis when certain social structures were dismantled and replaced gradually by others [64]. However, despite human beings’ natural inventiveness and curiosity, SI is difficult and requires the right background conditions, such as social movements, basic legal protections and status, and open media. SI in a business context is driven by collaboration, an open culture, and access to capital, while in a politics and government context, it requires think tanks, innovation funds, creative leaders, and efficient parties. SI can be accelerated in social organizations by practitioner networks, political alliances, strong civic organizations, and progressive foundations. In the context of academia, some universities have established research centers and SI labs, but unless their activities are woven into the fabric of activities of the various contributing units and the community that will benefit from their efforts, there is a danger that they may become silos [65,66,67]. Moreover, many of the actors in the university SI community do not consider themselves part of this community since SI lacks a concrete identity and tends to be seen as linked to the social economy, collaborative economy, or innovative education [4]. Achieving successful SI requires institutional legitimization and recognition of academic SI practices combined with a culture of error management [55,68].
All organizations, including universities, make mistakes that can have negative (e.g., lost time, unsuccessful research proposals) or positive (e.g., learning, innovation, resilience) consequences. Ref. [69] suggests the need to implement an error management culture at the organizational level and a system of norms, values, and practices that are tolerant of errors [70]. An error management culture would encompass organizational practices to communicate about errors, share knowledge derived from errors, provide help in error situations, and detect and handle errors [69]. A good error management culture is likely to translate into good organizational performance based on error prevention and monitoring, reducing errors’ negative consequences by enabling their control while simultaneously increasing their positive consequences (via learning, initiative, and innovation) [71,72].
Most business, technology, and social innovations fail. The SI process is inherently uncertain and error-prone and usually involves uncharted territory. An error management culture would reduce the negative connotations of errors and increase academic confidence that errors will not be accompanied by punishment [69,72]. To the best of our knowledge, the relationship between an error management culture and SI has not so far been explored.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

This paper provides insights into the concept of SI and integrates different HE approaches to better understand how universities can contribute to society, using SI to address unmet social needs, find sustainable solutions to complex social problems, and develop a social economy. The ambiguity of the term SI is a concern and has implications for academic SI initiatives and activities. It contributes to the lack of recognition and legitimization of SI at the formal institutional and governmental levels [4]. This ambiguity is also an obstacle to the understanding of SI by a range of actors, including funders, policymakers, and potential participants. It creates confusion about the difference between SI and business innovation [36]. SI involves new forms of social collaboration, collective approaches to delivering innovation, the role of civil society at different stages in the SI process, and the positive impact on society of SI [33]. Some of the lack of understanding of SI is that it is difficult to measure and not expressed in direct financial terms, and requires different resources. Business innovation is strictly related to finance and financial returns, whereas SI requires political recognition and support, voluntary labor, and philanthropic commitment. Scale and market share also have little impact on SI addressed to a real but contained need. There is a need for more rigorous and sharper concepts, and clearer metrics to understand SI.
HE can be seen as both driving innovation and spurring sustainability development, and these combined roles are resulting in recognition by universities of their part in the innovation ecosystem. What distinguishes the innovation ecosystem from the business ecosystem is the co-creation of value by multiple actors [5,42]. In this innovation ecosystem context, Ref. [9] suggests the need for HE roles to change to include societal challenges, promote knowledge exchange among different actors, build trust, facilitate successful knowledge exchange, and actively participate in implementing social changes. Fostering these institutional changes can be understood as an approach to responding to social missions and facilitating SI activities. However, there is a need for a better understanding of the implications of SI and its relationship to university missions, not from a closed administrative model of accountability, but in an attempt to find a flagship to build a model for SI collectively among universities. It can help to strengthen European communities in favor of social transformation, such as renewed organizational models into the HEIs based on democratic governance, empowerment, and solidarity; raising awareness and engaging newcomers to the field of SI; and recognition of social entrepreneurship initiatives at the academic world and beyond through publications, citations, and patents, among others, through institutional changes [45].
Moreover, SI inevitably involves errors and failures, and there is a need for an organizational error management culture to encourage more academic involvement in SI [69,72]. The organizational culture is productive if it creates a strong organization and responds to organizational objectives. An effective organizational culture enables productivity improvements, increased involvement of employees, and greater organizational benefits [71]. HEIs can mediate the discussion of errors, document errors, and use errors as potential learning opportunities. An error management culture encourages exploration, experimentation, and individual initiative, which are required for innovation, including SI. HEI managers should introduce incentives for involvement in problem-solving activities, delivery of social services via service-learning, and provision of support for teaching and research activities, enabling participation in workshops and seminars on social issues and sustainability developments, and tolerance of mistakes.
In this sense, this study has several policy implications. It adds to our understanding of the importance of university engagement with the community to promote SI practices. It discusses how HEIs can help to facilitate SI through a university social responsibility lens and a focus on the SDGs. We recommended a set of actions to serve as guidelines for universities, companies, the public, and policymakers about implementing SI processes. Alignment of SI to the university’s core activities would enable practical learning by faculty, students, companies, and other nonprofit organizations, and link theory to practice to increase students’ competencies and capabilities, and collaborative research on societal problems. The transition to a sustainable management system would help to coordinate the social and private interests of academia and encourage more general community engagement as a prerequisite for SI. It would help policymakers to formulate effective multilevel and multi-actor policies aligned to the goals of SI practices. Successful implementation of SI will require new regulations and funding. Explicit implementation of error management strategies would increase the quality of HEIs’ performance in SI and enable learning from errors (increasing quality control).
However, our study has some limitations. It is based on a review of the available literature covering a defined time, and this might not include all HEI activity in this context. To obtain a better understanding of trends and developments in HEI activities, future research can focus on examining strategic plans, as official documents where the institution’s major directions are defined, and it identifies the university’s position and strengths with the wider university community, allowing further research about the interactions of HEIs with society and the improvements of HEIs’ answer to social demands. More empirical evidence is needed on SI practices and practitioners. Empirical description drawing on those experiences can help to bring clarity about how SI is practiced.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.P.-A., A.G.-A. and R.I.-F.; methodology, E.P.-A., A.G.-A. and R.I.-F.; validation, E.P.-A., A.G.-A. and R.I.-F.; formal analysis, E.P.-A., A.G.-A. and R.I.-F.; investigation, E.P.-A., A.G.-A. and R.I.-F.; resources, E.P.-A., A.G.-A. and R.I.-F.; writing—original draft preparation, E.P.-A., A.G.-A. and R.I.-F.; writing—review and editing, E.P.-A., A.G.-A. and R.I.-F.; project administration, A.G.-A. and R.I.-F.; funding acquisition, A.G.-A. and R.I.-F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded in part by the Knowledge Generation Projects 2023 of the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, grant number PID2023-153304OB-I00, Knowledge Transfer at Universities: Economic, Social, Educational and Cultural Balance (UTRANSFER). The views expressed in this paper are not necessarily the views of that organization.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Information was provided fundamentally from literature review.

Acknowledgments

We are very grateful for the research institute INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), which provides administrative and technical support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. UN, United Nations. About the Sustainable Development Goals. 2015. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed on 30 September 2020).
  2. EC, European Commission. This is European Social Innovation; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cattivelli, V.; Rusciano, V. Social Innovation and Food Provisioning during Covid-19: The Case of Urban-Rural Initiatives in the Province of Naples. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Monteiro, S.; Isusi-Fagoaga, R.; Almeida, L.; García-Aracil, A. Contribution of Higher Education Institutions to Social Innovation: Practices in Two Southern European Universities. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Cai, Y.; Ahmad, I. From an Entrepreneurial University to a Sustainable Entrepreneurial University: Conceptualization and Evidence in the Contexts of European University Reforms. High. Educ. Policy 2023, 36, 20–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. EC, European Commission. Horizon 2020 Fact Sheet. European Research Area. 2013. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/sites/horizon2020/files/FactSheet_Open_Access.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2025).
  7. EC, European Commission. Social Policy Innovation. Meeting the Social Needs of Citizens; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  8. EC, European Commission. Horizon Europe Strategic Plan 2021–2024; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  9. Reichert, S. The Role of Universities in Regional Innovation Ecosystems; European University Association: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  10. Benneworth, P.; Cunha, J. Universities’ contributions to social innovation: Reflections in theory & practice. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2015, 18, 508–527. [Google Scholar]
  11. Berghaeuser, H.; Hoelscher, M. Reinventing the third mission of higher education in Germany: Political frameworks and universities’ reactions. Tert. Educ. Manag. 2020, 26, 57–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. García-Aracil, A. Understanding productivity changes in public universities. Evidence from Spain. Res. Eval. 2013, 22, 351–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mora, J.G. Governance and management in the new university. Tert. Educ. Manag. 2001, 7, 95–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Benneworth, P.; Humphrey, L. Universities’ Perspectives on Community Engagement. In University Engagement with Socially Excluded Communities; Benneworth, P., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 165–187. [Google Scholar]
  15. Fitzgerald, H.E.; Bruns, K.; Sonka, S.T.; Furco, A.; Swanson, L. The Centrality of Engagement in Higher Education. J. High. Educ. Outreach Engagem. 2012, 16, 7–29. [Google Scholar]
  16. Voorberg, W.H.; Bekkers, V.J.J.M.; Tummers, L.G. A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Manag. Rev. 2015, 17, 1333–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cinar, R.; Benneworth, P. Why do universities have little systemic impact with social innovation? An institutional logic perspective. Growth Change 2021, 52, 751–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dro, I.; Therace, A.; Hubert, A. Empowering People, Driving Change: Social Innovation in the European Union; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Berzin, S.C.; Dearing, T.; Mathews, O.; Choi, Y.J.; Pitt-Catsouphes, M. The Center for Social Innovation at Boston College. J. Evid.-Inf. Soc. Work 2018, 15, 473–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Peris-Ortiz, M.; Gómez, J.A.; Marquez, P. (Eds.) Strategies and Best Practices in Social Innovation; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  21. Moulaert, F.; Nussbaumer, J. Defining the social economy and its governance and the neighborhood level: A methodological reflection. Urban Stud. 2005, 42, 2071–2088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Moulaert, F.; Martinelli, F.; Gonzalez, S.; Swyngedouw, E. Introduction: Social Innovation and Governance in European Cities. Urban development between path-dependency and radical innovation. Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 2007, 14, 195–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Swyngedouw, E. Civil society, governmentality and the contradictions of governance-beyond-the-state: The Janus-face of social innovation. In Social Innovation and Territorial Development; MacCallun, S., Haddock, S.V., Eds.; Taylor and Francis Group, Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 63–171. [Google Scholar]
  24. Mumford, M.D. Social Innovation: Ten cases from Benjamin Franklin. Creat. Res. J. 2002, 14, 253–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bavel, J.J.V.; Baicker, K.; Boggio, P.S.; Capraro, V.; Cichocka, A.; Cikara, M.; Crockett, M.J.; Crum, A.J.; Douglas, K.M.; Druckman, J.N.; et al. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2020, 4, 460–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Caulier-Grice, J.; Davies, A.; Patrick, R.; Norman, W. Defining Social Innovation: A Deliverable of the Project. The Theoretical, Empirical and Policy Foundations for Building Social Innovation in Europe; European Commission—7th Framework Programme; European Commission, DG Research: Brussels, Belgium, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  27. Nicholls, A.; Edmiston, D. Social Innovation Policy in the European Union. In Policy Design in the European Union. Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology; Heiskala, R., Aro, J., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 161–190. [Google Scholar]
  28. Drucker, P.F. Landmarks of Tomorrow; Harper and Brothers: New York, NY, USA, 1957. [Google Scholar]
  29. Drucker, P.F. The Changed World Economy. Foreign Aff. 1985, 64, 768–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mulgan, G. The Process of Social Innovation. Innov. Technol. Gov. Glob. 2006, 1, 145–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Phills, J.A.; Deiglmeier, K.; Miller, D.T. Rediscovering social innovation. Stanf. Soc. Innov. Rev. 2008, 6, 34–43. [Google Scholar]
  32. Pot, F.; Vaas, F. Social innovation, the new challenges for Europe. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2008, 57, 468–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Murray, R.; Grice, J.C.; Mulgan, G. The Open Book of Social Innovation; The Young Foundation and NESTA: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  34. Barroso, J.M. Europe Leading Social Innovation. Social Innovation Europe Initiative; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  35. Moulaert, F.; MacCallum, D. Advance Introduction to Social Innovation; Edward Elgar Publishing Limited: Cheltenham, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ayob, N.; Teasdale, S.; Fagan, K. How social innovation “came to be”: Tracing the evolution of a contested concept. J. Soc. Policy 2016, 45, 635–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Edwards-Schachter, M.; Wallace, M.L. Shaken but not stirred: Sixty years of defining social innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2017, 119, 64–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Matheson, K. How Universities Can Enable Social Innovation. Technology Innovation Management Review. Open Source Bus. Resour. 2008.
  39. McKelvey, M.; Zaring, O. Co-delivery of social innovations: Exploring the university’s role in academic engagement with society. Ind. Innov. 2017, 25, 594–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Clifford, D.; Petrescu, C. The keys to university-community engagement sustainability. Nonprofit Manag. Leadersh. 2018, 23, 77–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Perkmann, M.; Salandra, R.; Tartari, V.; McKelvey, M.; Hughes, A. Academic engagement: A review of the literature 2011–2019. Res. Policy 2021, 50, 104114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Uyarra, E. Conceptualizing the regional roles of universities, implications and contradictions. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2010, 18, 1227–1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Benneworth, P.; Pinheiro, R.; Karlsen, J. Strategic agency and institutional change: Investigating the role of universities in regional innovation systems. Reg. Stud. 2017, 51, 235–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. De la Cuesta, M.; De la Cruz, C.; Rodríguez, J.M. Responsabilidad Social Universitaria; Netbiblo: La Coruña, Spain, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  45. Villa, A.; Arnau, E.; Cabezas, C.; Cancino, R.; Fernández-Lamarra, N.; Greising, C.; Guido, E.; Jouannet, C.; Mora, C.L.; Morales, M.; et al. An Assessment Model for Responsible University Social Innovation (RUSI); University of Deusto: Bilbao, Spain, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  46. Zamaniyan, I.; Yousefzadeh Choosari, M.; Khahbaz, A.S. Analyzing the components of University social responsibility in the comprehensive scientific map of the country: A mixed study. Q. J. Res. Plan. High. Educ. 2023, 29, 15–36. [Google Scholar]
  47. Vilalta, J.M.; Betts, A.; Gomez, V. Higher Education’s Role in the 2030 Agenda. The Why and How of GUNi’s Commitment to the SDGs; GUNi: Barcelona, Spain, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  48. Panwar, P.; Dixit, R.; Pandey, A.K. The Role of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Higher Education: Creating a Better Future. Boletín Lit. Oral–Lit. J. 2023, 10, 1283–1289. [Google Scholar]
  49. Nhamo, G.; Mjimba, V. (Eds.) Sustainable Development Goals and Institutions of Higher Education; Sustainable Development Goals Series–Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  50. García-Aracil, A.; Monteiro, S.; Almeida, L.S. Students’ Perceptions of their Preparedness for Transition to Work after Graduation. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 2021, 22, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hooey, C.; Mason, A.; Triplett, J. Beyond Greening: Challenges to adopting sustainability in institutions of higher education. Midwest Q. 2017, 58, 280–291. [Google Scholar]
  52. Morawska-Jancelewicz, J. The Role of Universities in Social Innovation within Quadruple/Quintuple Helix Model: Practical Implications from Polish Experience. J. Knowl. Econ. 2022, 13, 2230–2271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Radberg, K.K.; Löfsten, H. The entrepreneurial university and development of large-scale research infrastructure: Exploring the emerging university function of collaboration and leadership. J. Technol. Transf. 2024, 49, 334–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Janiunaité, B.; Gudaityté, D. Higher Education as an agent of social innovation. In Higher Education and National Development: Universities and Societies in Transition; Bridges, D., Juceviciene, P., Jucevicius, R., Mclaughlin, T.H., Stankeviciute, J., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2006; pp. 217–224. [Google Scholar]
  55. García-Aracil, A.; Isusi-Fagoaga, R.; Planells-Aleixandre, E. Social commitment at higher education institutions: Analysis of their strategic plans. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Salmi, J. The Challenge of Establishing World-Class Universities; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  57. Robinson, F.; Hudson, R. Can Universities Really Effectively Engage with Socially Excluded Communities? In University Engagement with Socially Excluded Communities; Benneworth, P., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 189–198. [Google Scholar]
  58. Schubert, T. Empirical observations on New Public Management to increase efficiency in public research–Boon or bane? Res. Policy 2011, 38, 1225–1234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ramírez, Y.; Tejada, A. Corporate governance of universities: Improving transparency and accountability. Int. J. Discl. Gov. 2018, 15, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Conejero, E. Rendimiento, evaluación y rendición de cuentas de las administraciones públicas en España. Rev. Int. Investig. Políticas Y Sociológicas 2014, 13, 77–101. [Google Scholar]
  61. García-Aracil, A.; Castro-Martinez, E.; Azagra-Caro, J.M.; D’Este, P.; Fernández de Lucio, I. University Technology Transfer: The Case of Spain. In University Technology Transfer: The Globalization of Academic Innovation; Breznitz, S.M., Etzkowitz, H., Eds.; Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group: Abingdon, UK, 2015; pp. 253–270. [Google Scholar]
  62. Isusi-Fagoaga, R.; Castro-Martínez, E. Transferencia de Conocimiento a los Profesionales de la Educación: Sentido y Estrategia. In Transferencia de Conocimiento en Educación. Un Desafío Estratégico; Santos Rego, M.A., Ed.; Narcea: Madrid, Spain, 2020; pp. 103–115. [Google Scholar]
  63. Malsagov, M.K. Sustainable Management of Universities. Adv. Syst. Sci. Appl. 2019, 19, 65–79. [Google Scholar]
  64. Hernández-Ascanio, J.; Tirado-Valencia, P.; Ariza-Montes, A. El concepto de innovación social: Ámbitos, definiciones y alcances teóricos. Rev. Econ. Pública Soc. Y Coop. 2016, 88, 165–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Guerrero, M.; Urbano, D. The development of entrepreneurial university. J. Technol. Transf. 2012, 37, 43–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Guerrero, M.; Urbano, D. Academics’ start-up intentions and knowledge filters: An individual perspective of the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Bus. Econ. 2014, 43, 57–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Howaldt, J.; Schröder, A.; Kaletka, C.; Rehfeld, D.; Terstriep, J. Mapping the World of Social Innovation: A Global Comparative Analysis Across Sectors and World Regions. SI-DRIVE: Social Innovation, Driving Force of Social Change: Dormund, Germany, 2016; D.1.4. [Google Scholar]
  68. Keith, N.; Frese, M. Enhancing Firm Performance and innovativeness through error management culture. In Handbook of Organizational Culture and Climate; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2011; Volume 9, pp. 137–157. [Google Scholar]
  69. Van Dyck, C.; Frese, M.; Baer, M.; Sonnentag, S. Organizational error management culture and its impact on performance: A two-study replication. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 1228–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Reichers, A.E.; Schneider, B. Climate and culture: An evolution of constructs. In Organizational Climate and Culture; Schneider, B., Ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1990; pp. 5–39. [Google Scholar]
  71. Otto, K.; Geibel, H.V.; Kleszewski, E. Perfect Leader, Perfect Leadership? Linking Leader’s Perfectionism to Monitoring, Transformational and Servant Leadership Behavior. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Dong, R.K.; Li, X. Psychological safety and psychosocial safety climate in workplace: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review towards a research agenda. J. Saf. Res. 2024, 91, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Evolution overview of the definition of Social Innovation (SI).
Table 1. Evolution overview of the definition of Social Innovation (SI).
AuthorsDefinition
[28,29]Innovation is the act that endows resources with a new capacity to create wealth. Drucker discusses this in the context of Japan, which became a major economic power by adopting creative imitation, importing and adopting low-cost technology rather than increasing its R&D and new product development activities. Drucker considers this to be SI and concludes that Japan’s success has been based primarily on SI.
[30] (p. 146)SI refers to innovative activities and services that are motivated by the goal of meeting a social need and are predominantly diffused through organizations whose primary purposes are social.
[31] (p. 39)SI is a novel, more effective, efficient, and sustainable solution to a social problem than the existing solutions, whose value created accrues primarily to society as a whole rather than private individuals.
[32] (p. 468)SI is a broader concept than organizational innovation. It includes, e.g., dynamic management, flexible organization, working smarter, development of skills and competencies, and networking among organizations. It is seen as complementing technological innovation.
[33] (p. 3)SI includes innovations that are social both in their ends and their means. SI is defined as new ideas (products, services, and models) that both meet social needs and create new social relationships or collaborations. They are both good for society and enhance society’s capacity to act.
[34] (p. 2)SI tries to meet unmet social needs and improve social outcomes. It involves finding new creative ways to meet pressing social needs that are not being satisfied by the market or the public sector, and involve the most vulnerable groups in society.
[10]SI has emerged as an attempt to capture and describe bottom-up phenomena where new ideas, approaches, techniques, and organizational forms grow from humble roots into substantive new social capacities.
[7]SI means developing new ideas, services, and models to address social issues better. It invites input from public and private actors, including civil society, to improve social services.
[35]SI is path-dependent and contextual. It refers to those changes to agendas, agencies, and institutions that lead to more inclusion of excluded groups and individuals in various spheres of society at various spatial scales. SI is a process that changes the dynamics of social relations, including power relations.
Source: Own elaboration from literature review.
Table 2. Community–university engagement activity.
Table 2. Community–university engagement activity.
Modes of DeliveryMain Areas of Engagement Activity
Teaching
  • Teaching appropriate engagement practices
  • Practical education for citizenship
  • Public lectures and seminar series
  • Continual professional development for hard-to-reach groups
  • Adult and lifelong learning
Research
  • Collaborative research projects
  • Research projects involving co-creation
  • Research commissioned by hard-to-reach groups
  • Feedback on the results of the research
Knowledge exchange
  • Consultancy for hard-to-reach client groups
  • Publicly funded knowledge exchange projects
  • Capacity building for hard-to-reach groups
  • Knowledge exchange through student consultancy
  • Promoting public understanding and media
Service
  • Providing access to university assets and services
  • Encouraging hard-to-reach groups to exploit these services
  • Making an intellectual contribution as an expert
  • Contributing to the civic life of the region
Source: Own elaboration based on [43].
Table 3. Dimensions of Responsible University Social Innovation.
Table 3. Dimensions of Responsible University Social Innovation.
DimensionsSocial Mission
1. Curricular and PedagogicalThis refers to a proposal for relevant education and social and academic quality as part of an institutional education project promoting comprehensive, professional, and citizenship education (being, knowing, know-how, and knowing how to live together). This requires an integrated learning service approach, fostering social entrepreneurship and enriching learning environments.
2. Organizational dimensionThis refers to the institution’s management and transformation in mission, vision, policies, strategic plans, programs, organizational structure, processes, and impact. These are developed and implemented to ensure institutional day-to-day work alongside an organizational culture that encourages responsible social innovation.
3. R&D and innovation dimensionThis refers to the implementation and contribution of R&D to SI and the improvement of processes and solutions related to significant issues concerning the development of the society in which the university is immersed. Although this implementation is led by the university’s responsible research unit, the work involved is the responsibility of the teaching staff.
4. Relationship with the context dimensionThis refers to the universities’ substantive functions and services to the rest of society via institutions (cultural, social, financial, educational) and communities. The relationship dimension includes a notion of equality in aims and goals within a shared project to foster understanding of, reflection on, and solutions to the challenges within local, national, and international contexts. Universities link intellectual production with popular wisdom to influence political, economic, environmental, and cultural affairs.
5. Environmental dimensionThis is defined as the ability of universities to assume their rightful role in the socio-environmental system, since sustainable development is part of their education and management role.
6. Internationalization dimensionThis refers to the institutional process of crossing borders. It is a dynamic process involving the integration of an international and intercultural dimension in the university’s mission, cultural practices, development plans, curricula, and overall policy.
Source: Own elaboration from [45,46].
Table 4. Strategies for Integrating the SDGs into HE.
Table 4. Strategies for Integrating the SDGs into HE.
DimensionsInstitutionalizing SDGs
1. Education
  • Ensure equal access to affordable, good quality, technical, and vocational education (student inclusiveness and equitable opportunities)
  • Facilitate innovative teaching, including a service-learning approach
  • Ensure all learners acquire the knowledge, values, attitudes, skills, and capabilities to promote sustainable development
2. Research
  • Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research
  • Innovations and solutions to achieve the SDGs
  • National and local implementation of research outputs and research integrity
  • Capacity building for research on the SDGs
3. Governance and Operations
  • Align institutional governance and operations with the SDGs
  • Institutionalize a culture of sustainability that balances economic efficiency, social equity, and environmental accountability
  • Incorporate the SDGs into institutional reporting
4. Public Engagement
  • Cross-sectoral dialogue and actions involving HEIs, governments, industry, and communities, including civic society
  • Policy development and advocacy to ensure the provision of sustainable services to society
  • Advocacy for an improved sector role in the SDGs
  • Demonstration of sector commitment to the SDGs
  • Collaboration and public–private partnerships involving interaction and listening to generate mutual benefits
Source: Own elaboration based on [48,49,51].
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Planells-Aleixandre, E.; García-Aracil, A.; Isusi-Fagoaga, R. University’s Contribution to Society: Benchmarking of Social Innovation. Sustainability 2025, 17, 3427. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083427

AMA Style

Planells-Aleixandre E, García-Aracil A, Isusi-Fagoaga R. University’s Contribution to Society: Benchmarking of Social Innovation. Sustainability. 2025; 17(8):3427. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083427

Chicago/Turabian Style

Planells-Aleixandre, Ester, Adela García-Aracil, and Rosa Isusi-Fagoaga. 2025. "University’s Contribution to Society: Benchmarking of Social Innovation" Sustainability 17, no. 8: 3427. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083427

APA Style

Planells-Aleixandre, E., García-Aracil, A., & Isusi-Fagoaga, R. (2025). University’s Contribution to Society: Benchmarking of Social Innovation. Sustainability, 17(8), 3427. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17083427

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop