Best Leadership Practices

By Luca Collina, Mostafa Sayyadi and Michael Provitera  

The article starts by looking at the roots of corporate social innovation, which come from ideas like corporate social responsibility and social innovation. It then shows how these ideas are connected but also different, clearly understanding what each one is and how corporate social innovation works. Finally, the best leadership practices for corporate social innovation capability in the AI age are presented.  

It is widely agreed that corporate social responsibility has been the fundamental aspect of defining companies’ commitments towards society, considering the support of business activities. [1] [2] The literature has also tried to determine what actions could be taken and link them between business results’ expectations and positive effects on social problems. Research from 2011, started introducing the innovation aspect in the forms i.e., service and green innovation. So as Chu et al. (2022) say, achieving success through innovation and considering the opportunities and connections with social and environmental needs. [3] Through social innovation and corporate social innovation, it internally clarifies (values and culture) and externalizes (reputation and corporate brand) the company’s commitment and values. There are four different perspectives from the company: 

  • The Functionalist Perspective  

This perspective produces programs, products, and services to align company interests with society’s needs. With the Shared Value Initiative, Michael Porter and Kramer (2006) tried to encourage companies to create offerings (products, prices) that could be affordable by society while creating a social benefit. [4] 

  • The Culturalist Perspective  

Culturalists understand that both companies and societies have cultures and that companies adapt their actions to their surroundings. Companies use this perspective to reflect their cultural relationships with the community in which they operate. 

  • The Sociopolitical Perspective 

The company and society are in a power relationship. Management, mediation, and action are the functions of corporate social responsibility. This power is also directed to maintain respect for the community and its components while showing commitment to helping social system characteristics be maintained. 

  • The Constructive Perspective 

It is the approach that the company shows that it is socially responsible and is the first step to gaining credibility. Activating corporate social responsibility for companies indicates that they can deal with societal issues and shows that they take responsibility. This activated perspective fosters the company’s reputation. 

As for the companies’ interests in pursuing social initiatives, the following points have been highlighted: 

  1. Economic and Financial Performance: corporate social responsibility should aim to increase profits.  
  2. Competitive Advantage: Generate an edge against rival firms by either benefitting the company itself or stopping others from gaining similar advantages. 
  3. Reputation: Aligning stakeholders’ interests with those of the company, improving its standing within society by adopting social causes as its priorities, and building up its image through engagement in society. 
  4. Cost and Risk Reduction: Companies reduce costs and mitigate risks through social actions designed to minimize operational expenses and address any potential threats associated with the production and distribution of goods or services. 
  5. Value Creation: the process of producing economic, social, environmental, and institutional benefits regardless of any driving force or motivations for doing so. 

The Boundaries of Social Innovation 

The growing relevance of social innovation comes from the progressive shift from a centralized point to local entities, which, with a progressive utilization of entrepreneurship and a market-focused approach, try to offer specific and tailored innovative solutions to particular issues evidencing both tangible and intangible low-resource availability. [5] [6] The research about social innovation has seen the growing interest of scholars since the 70s, and during the 90s was explicitly mentioned and received growing attention, with a changing focus, particularly in the management and business world. [7] [8] [9] 

Among the various definitions of social innovation, we need to consider why it emerged in the past decades: different public and private subjects have put it into their agendas; one concept is relevant: resolving diverse problems going through a deep societal transformation. [10] [11] We should also consider that authors have let emerge that many diverse concepts about social innovation require then a better understanding to connect social innovation with enterprise innovation. [12] Social innovation aims at providing innovative solutions that address societal problems and bring about social transformation through novel ideas such as solving society-related issues or encouraging inclusion, improving people’s well-being, or altering values, practices, or systems in society; however social innovation is considered different from those innovations with social elements. 

  • Diversity of Social Innovation in Addressing Issues 

An in-depth review of various social innovation case studies underscored the wide-ranging nature of social and environmental issues that social innovation can effectively address. These case studies span sectors and geographical boundaries, offering compelling evidence of social innovation’s vast scope and versatile nature. 

  • Key Aspects of Social Innovation 

Five critical aspects should underpin any comprehensive definition of social innovation. These include: 

  • addressing a social need,  
  • incorporating an innovative element,  
  • managing the implementation,  
  • inducing improvement  
  • fostering relationships and collaborations.  

This multi-dimensional approach offers a more holistic and meaningful interpretation of social innovation. 

  • SDGs and Social Innovation 

In an attempt to categorize the myriad forms of social innovation, we found the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to be a practical classification framework. The versatility and global prominence of the SDGs lend them credibility as a classification system, supported by the fact that 89% of the scrutinized case studies could be associated with one or more SDGs. 

  • Actors in Social Innovation 

Through the case studies, the study dispels the common misconception that the realm of social innovation belongs exclusively to social entrepreneurs. It highlights that the development and implementation of social innovation can often be the result of efforts by a diverse spectrum of actors. This inclusive nature of social innovation helps expand its reach and potential impact by drawing from the insights and contributions of various stakeholders. 

  • Social Innovation and Unmet Needs of Society  

A company’s innovations meet social needs effectively and create new social relationships and collaborations are considered social innovation. It still appears that social innovation could be misunderstood and confused either with the evolution of corporate social responsibility or understood that a big idea could solve problems. [13] Another aspect of social innovation could be related to innovative companies that explicitly consider social innovation and sustainability, including economic, social, and environmental elements, even if a suggestion for better implementation and management is required. [14] Another characteristic of the links between firms and social innovation was found by Przychodzen (2018) when they investigated the factors that characterize the link: sector, where social innovation acts as a stimulus to innovate, and high net margins and ROE promote social innovation. [15] 

The Boundaries of Corporate Social Innovation 

Corporate social innovation has its own identity, distinguished from other forms of innovative social support.  

  • Social Entrepreneurship and Corporate Social Innovation 

Social entrepreneurship is a specific way to create social value by building an organization and business model to satisfy its mission, while corporate social innovation aims to generate both economic and social value. 

  • Organizational Innovation and Corporate Social Innovation 

Organizational innovation doesn’t include involving stakeholders and doesn’t aim to generate effective change in society 

  • Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Social Innovation 

These two definitions have a link that can be compared with vision and mission. The former represents a values declaration based on ethics overarching companies’ actions toward creating benefits for social aspects. Corporate social innovation works on specific projects to deliver social value. Our attention will be on corporate social innovation with the assumption that a vision that aims to satisfy unmet social needs (social innovation scope) and corporate social responsibility is accepted as the critical point of the social vision. 

The Best Leadership Practices for Corporate Social Innovation Capability 

The best leadership practices for developing corporate social innovation capability within organizations are what companies should consider using a model to embed business and social innovation. It emphasizes the need to prioritize social empathy and shared value creation in their social innovation efforts. The importance of integrating dynamic capabilities for innovation, stakeholder engagement, and top management support is fundamental. Organizations should focus on aligning their leadership and change organizations for innovation to support social value creation. The development of a vision for corporate social innovation, along with strategies, processes, and structures that facilitate successful social innovation projects, is crucial. 

The next step for our future endeavors will be completed by the unlearning processes and connecting them with the learning ones.  

Unlearning and Learning 

The unlearning and training activities are a great way to learn through experience, and we experienced that “action learning” is the best way. Removing or, better, identifying what is not working anymore, with an effective reality check, allows new learning with experimentation. 

Action Learning “learning by doing” involves actively engaging with real-world challenges and reflecting upon them to gain new knowledge and insights. When combined, people can effectively draw from experience to address complex problems and reflect if they are applicable. They benefit from supportive peers who offer new perspectives to explore emerging issues through novel inquiries and probes.  

We also present a view of the approaches with and without AI and Chatbots: 

  • AI and Chatbots 

AI-powered Decision Support System (DSS) It effectively supports unlearning outside real-life decision-making scenarios. We can design specifically to learn how to provide a safe space for employees to unlearn old habits and learn new ones.  

Unlearning Process (With AI and Chatbots). The same approach is used with DSS, only different in the use of technology. 

  • Without AI and Chatbots 

Scenario Planning and Future-back Thinking. It involves envisioning possible futures and working backwards to let trainees use their skills to identify the skills, knowledge, and behaviors needed in those scenarios.  

Negative Learning. It is a powerful tool to challenge pre-existing beliefs and assumptions, facilitating unlearning and opening the door to new learning. This is particularly effective in extreme cases where existing behaviors or mindsets may harm existing or future leaders, particularly in negative situations. 

Go to top

About the Authors 

Luca-CollinaLuca Collina is a transformational and AI Business consultant at TRANSFORAGE TCA LTD. York St John University awarded him the Business – Postgraduate Programme Prize and CMCE (Centre for Management Consulting Excellence-UK) for his paper in Technology and Consulting Research Prize. Author/External Collaborator of CMCE. 

Mostafa-SayydiMostafa Sayyadi works with senior business leaders to effectively develop innovation in companies, and helps companies—from start-ups to the Fortune 100—succeed by improving the effectiveness of their leaders.  

Michael-J-ProviteraMichael J. Provitera is an Associate Professor at Barry University. He is an author of Level Up Leadership published by Business Expert Press.  

 

References 

  1. Pless, N.M., Sengupta, A., Wheeler, M.A. & Makk, T. (2022). Responsible Leadership and the Reflective CEO: Resolving Stakeholder Conflict by Imagining What Could Be Done. Journal of Business Ethics 180(1), 313–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04865-6 
  2. Fietz, B., Hillmann, J. & Guenther, E. (2021). Cultural Effects on Organizational Resilience: Evidence from the NAFTA Region. Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, 73, 5–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41471-021-00106-8 
  3. Fietz, B. & Günther, E. (2021). Changing Organizational Culture to Establish Sustainability. Controlling & Management Review, 65, 32–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12176-021-0379-4 
  4. Bhattacharya, C.B., Sen, S. & Edinger-Schons, L.M. (2023). Corporate Purpose and Employee Sustainability Behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 183, 963–981. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05090-5 
  5. Fischer, M. et al. (2023). Corporate Sustainability. In: Sustainable Business. SpringerBriefs in Business. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25397-3_4 
  6. Rojot, J. (2017). Corporate Social Responsibility and Culture. In: Azoury, N. (eds) Business and Society in the Middle East. Palgrave Studies in Governance, Leadership and Responsibility. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48857-8_8 
  7. Beschorner, T. & Hajduk, T. (2017). Responsible Practices are Culturally Embedded: Theoretical Considerations on Industry-Specific Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics 143(4), 635–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3405-2 
  8. Kejžar, A., Dimovski, V. & Colnar, S. (2022). Social Innovation from the Perspective of Quality of Life of Old People and in Long-Term Care. In: Baikady, R., Sajid, S., Przeperski, J., Nadesan, V., Islam, M.R., Gao, J. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Global Social Problems. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68127-2_12-1 
  9. Bataglin, J. & Kruglianskas, I. (2022). Social Innovation: Field Analysis and Gaps for Future Research. Sustainability 14, 1153. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031153 
  10. Portales, L. (2019). Social Innovation: Origins, Definitions, and Main Elements. In: Social Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13456-3_1 
  11. Todd, J. (2005). Social Transformation, Collective Categories, and Identity Change. Theory and Society, 34(4), 429–463. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4501731 
  12. Slee, B., Burlando, C., Pisani, E., Secco, L. & Polman, N. (2021). Social innovation: a preliminary exploration of a contested concept. Local Environment, 26, 791 – 807. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2021.1933404 
  13. Hristov, I. & Chirico, A. (2023). The cultural dimension as a key value driver of sustainable development at a strategic level: an integrated five-dimensional approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability 25(2), 7011–7028. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-02345-z 
  14. Piccarozzi, M. (2017).  Does Social Innovation Contribute to Sustainability? The Case of Italian Innovative Start-Ups. Sustainability, 9(12), 1-28. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122376 
  15. Przychodzen, W. A.P.J. (2018). Sustainable innovations in the corporate sector–The empirical evidence from IBEX 35 firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172(2), 3557-3566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.087 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR