Corporate social innovation: How firms learn to innovate for the greater good☆
Philip Mirvis a,⁎, Maria Elena Baltazar Herrera b, Bradley Googins c, Laura Albareda d
a Global Network for Corporate Citizenship, USAb Asian Institute of Management, Philippinesc Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship, USAd Deusto Business School, Spain
☆ The authors acknowledge institutional support frUniversity, the Asian Institute of Management, and theCitizenship, and research support from Pamela LaureJikyeong Kang, Asian Institute of Management, for valuab⁎ Corresponding author at: Global Network for Corpora
Ipswich, MA 01938, USA.E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Mirvis).
Please cite this article as: Mirvis, P., et al., Cosearch (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jb
a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 1 February 2016Received in revised form 1 March 2016Accepted 1 April 2016Available online xxxx
This research explores how companies learn to engage in successful social innovation through the acquisition oftacit knowledge fromexternal parties. The study draws from literature on knowledge transfer, corporate partner-ships, and corporate social innovation (CSI) and extends the authors' previous research on corporate socialresponsibility (CSR) and sustainability-oriented innovation. Observations draw on a five-year longitudinal,multi-company, multinational study of over 70 firms. The research shows that much of the knowledge ex-changed in CSI is tacit knowledge that companies develop from shared interactions and experiences. This articledescribes CSI relationship platforms along two dimensions: 1) distance of engagement fromfirmvalue chain, and2) intensity of investments and interactions. This research relies on inductive methods and aims at patterndefinition and theory building rather than theory testing. Specific examples explain CSI processes and provideguidance to managers. The findings have relevance to companies seeking to innovate in the CSR and “sharedvalue” space, to social entrepreneurs, and to researchers interested in these topics.
Keywords:Corporate social innovationTacit knowledgeKnowledge transferStakeholder engagementCollaborative innovationCo-creationEmergence
1. Introduction
Multinational corporations (MNCs) today confront two challenges.First, the past three decades have produced little significant organicgrowth and firms have focused on cost cutting, outsourcing, and indus-try consolidation mergers to meet profit targets. Second, many MNCsface increased public and stakeholder expectations to take a largerrole in addressing troubling social, economic, and environmental issues(Mirvis & Googins, 2006; Porter & Kramer, 2011).
To increase growth, MNCs are exploring new innovation sources(e.g., open-innovation, crowd sourcing, employee engagement, co-innovation) and methods (e.g., incubators, design thinking, and con-tests) (Chesbrough, 2013; Prahalad & Krishnan, 2008). Yet many corpo-rate social responsibility (CSR) programs still emphasize philanthropicfunding and programmatic activities and a significant gap remains be-tween stakeholder expectations and corporate social performance. In-novations aimed at the greater good are instead coming from socialentrepreneurs, enterprises, and innovators in non-business sectors(Phills, Deiglmeier, & Miller, 2008).
om Bizkiai Talent and DeustoGlobal Network for Corporaten A. Chan. The authors thankle input.te Citizenship, c/o 28Water St.,
rporate social innovation: Housres.2016.04.073
A select set of leading firms seeking to both grow and meet stake-holder expectations are turning to corporate social innovation (CSI).On the commercial side, this has them using social innovation tools toenhance their supply chains, reach socially-conscious and green con-sumers, and tap markets at the base of the pyramid (BoP). The compa-nies' turn to corporate social innovation also has them supporting andpartnering with social innovators and enterprises to bring business so-lutions to societal needs.
Corporate Social Innovation (CSI) differs from traditional CSR effortsin several respects (Mirvis, Googins, & Kiser, 2012). First, traditional CSRprograms result from a philanthropic intent, whereas CSI represents astrategic investment that companies manage more or less like othercorporate investments. Second, CSR programs involve contributions ofmoney and manpower, whereas CSI engages a company in societally-relevant R&D and applies the full range of corporate assets to the chal-lenges at hand. Third, traditional CSR programs often have companiescontract with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) or communitygroups to deliver social services. CSI involves deeper collaborationacross functions within a firm and with external parties to co-createsomething new that provides a sustainable solution to social ills. Finally,whereas CSR can generate goodwill and enhance corporate reputation,CSI also aims to produce new sources of revenue and to generate amore socially relevant innovation system and corporate culture thatcan be a source of competitive advantage.
This research extends previous research by the authors on CSR, CSI,and innovations for sustainability. Observations build on a longitudinal,
w firms learn to innovate for the greater good, Journal of Business Re-
2 P. Mirvis et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
multi-company, multinational study of over 70 firms lasting over fiveyears. They reveal diversity among firms, as firms tackle different socialissues, devise different social innovation strategies, join in differentpartnership configurations, and developdifferent kinds of social innova-tions. Across this array, a common theme arises: companies do not havean established play-book for innovating in this space and they (andtheir partners) must learn together to produce successful innovations.
Expansive literature exists on knowledge transfer and social capitaldevelopment across firms in networks (Inkpen & Tsang, 2005;Mowery, Oxley, & Silverman, 1996) and as partners inmergers and alli-ances (Junni, Sarala, & Vaara, 2012; Reus, 2012). The literature also in-cludes volumes on knowledge exchange in R&D (Cummings & Teng,2003). However, these studies concern mostly business-to-business(B2B) networks and commercial innovation. Companies' social innova-tion often involves business-to-nonbusiness (B2N) partnering and alsoaims for social impact.
As this volume transposes Kurt Lewin's injunction that “there isnothing so practical as a good theory” into explorations of how practicecan contribute to theory (c.f., Bradbury, Mirvis, Nielsen, & Pasmore,2008), this study of CSI is in the theory-generating tradition. This articleproposes inductive frameworks for understanding how firms learn toproduce successful CSI by acquiring, exchanging, and co-creatingknowledge, and recommends avenues for future research.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Organizational knowledge
Knowledge creates new capabilities and transforms organizations(Zollo & Winter, 2002). External sources are critical to acquire knowl-edge significantly different from what exists in a firm (Cohen &Levinthal, 1990). Through alliances and partnerships, firms can access,exchange, and co-develop knowledge and technologies (Argote &Ingram, 2000).
The literature includes many frameworks on forms of knowledgecreation and transfer within and across organizations (Botha, Kourie,& Snyman, 2014; Nonaka, 1994). Most frameworks address distinctionsbetween explicit and tacit knowledge, with the former being codifiedknowledge that is accessible in forms, manuals, and software programs.Tacit knowledge, however, is not-yet codified, andmay be heldwithin aperson, or experientially produced in action. Experts classify tacitknowledge into technical (techniques, processes, and methods) andcognitive forms (values, beliefs, and ideas). In social innovation, organi-zations exchange both forms (Mulgan, 2006).
2.1.1. Knowledge for social innovationFour types of knowledge are germane to corporate social innovation.
First, companies need knowledge about the local conditions in theirsupply chain or in a market they seek to enter. Non-business partnersoften have that knowledge (“know-what”) and can work with businesspartners to conduct indigenous research (Hart & London, 2005). Second,companies need to understand how to produce and implement socialinnovations in an unfamiliar culture and context and how to workwith partners. Companies typically develop this capability (“know-how”) experientially, through the co-creation of social innovationswith partners and/or users (Herrera, 2015a). Third, companies needlegitimacy with and connections to local interests and users. Partnerorganizations can facilitate engagement with local communities andnon-traditional customers (Austin, 2000) and provide access to inter-ests beyond the usual corporate reach (Worley &Mirvis, 2013). This as-sociation highlights the importance of social ties (“know-who”) inknowledge acquisition and transfer. Finally, many firms engaged inCSI explicitly seek to address significant social, economic, and environ-mental problems. Innovative efforts built on corporate commitment tosocial purpose (“know why”) have an added boost of motivation that
Please cite this article as: Mirvis, P., et al., Corporate social innovation: Hosearch (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.073
can yield perseverance and resilience that organizations need for adeeper knowledge exchange and co-creation.
2.1.2. Knowledge acquisition processesOrganizations either acquire or create new knowledge (Nahapiet
& Ghoshal, 1998; Seidler-de Alwis & Hartman, 2008). The SECIframework – socialization, externalization, combination, and inter-nalization – outlines key steps in knowledge exchange (Nonaka,Toyama, & Konno, 2000). This research uses four general stages ofexchange in collaborative ventures: initiation, acquisition, transfor-mation, and assimilation. At each stage, organizations can exchangeknowledge using an explicit, structured, and planned process, orthrough more organic, serendipitous, and implicit methods.
2.2. Gaps in the literature
An emerging body of practice-oriented literature describes howcompanies engage in CSI. Christensen, Baumann, Ruggles, and Sadtler(2006) show how “catalytic” innovation models apply to health care,education, and community economic development. Weiser, Kahane,Rochlin, and Landis (2004) demonstrate how companies develop inno-vations for underserved markets. Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004)document how co-created innovations create value in BoP marketsand are transferable to the developed world. Research also covers “col-laborative innovation” for sustainability (Albareda & Bree, 2015) andhow institutionalizing firm-specific CSI capabilities creates competitiveadvantage (Herrera, 2015b).
The literature includes less information about how companies“learn” to produce social innovations through knowledge exchangewith partners in CSI. While some studies point to various learning en-ablers in cross-sector partnerships (Arya & Salk, 2006; Murphy, Perrot,& Rivera-Santos, 2012), the literature gives scant attention to types ofknowledge exchanged. In addition, since tacit knowledge is “contextspecific” and companies need experience for its understanding, researchcan help identify how different kinds of innovations and partnershipsarrangements might influence both the content and process of knowl-edge exchange. This article addresses the following research questions:What are different contexts for knowledge exchange in CSI?What kindsof knowledge exchange happen in CSI?What facilitates the exchange ofknowledge in the initiation, acquisition, transformation, and assimila-tion phases of CSI? How might this differ in planned versus unplannedknowledge exchange?
3. Method
The sample of firms studied for the illustrative case studies resultsfrom the authors' research networks, encompassing over 70 companiesworldwide, many well known for their leadership in the CSR and CSIspaces. The longitudinal study examines the full scope of the companies'CSI activities (N20 companies) or specific social innovations (N50 com-panies). Thefindings and casematerial comes frompersonal interviews,field observations, and selected reports, articles, and blogs. Researchmethods are inductive and aimed towards pattern definition and theorybuilding rather than theory testing.
4. Illustrative case studies and observations
The study classifies the cases along twodimensions: 1) distance of en-gagement from the core of the business—from value chain to societal en-hancement, and 2) intensity of firm investment and involvement—fromlow to high (see Fig. 1).
4.1. Knowledge transfer—value chain enhancement
A considerable amount of corporate social innovation centers onfirms' value chains. This encompasses sourcing or supply chain, and
w firms learn to innovate for the greater good, Journal of Business Re-
3P. Mirvis et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
development of new business models aimed at the BoP or socially con-scious and green consumers, through to the acquisition of socially re-sponsible businesses. Recently, companies engage employees in CSI tobenefit the value chain as well as society overall (Mirvis, 2012).
4.1.1. Pro bono global service: IBM, KickStart, and Dow corningSince 2008, IBMhas sent over 2400 employees on 800 projects to 34
countries for one-month service learning assignments through IBM'sCorporate Service Corps. In Tanzania, the collaboration of IBM teamswith the innovationNGOKickStart developsmodular e-training coursesin marketing, sales, and supply chain management for local entrepre-neurs. This collaboration engaged IBMers in socially-oriented R&D. InIndia, Dow Corning teams develop energy-efficient cook stoves forstreet vendors. To resolve technical challenges, the team emails, blogs,and tweets ideas with hundreds of fellow employees back home. Thisexchange involves know-what, know-how, and, in reaching out toother parties, elements of know-who.
Collaborations on supply chains can involve internal and externalparties. Canadian grocer Loblaw's partnership with Greenpeace, theWorld Wildlife Fund-Canada, and the Marine Stewardship Council(MSC) aims at sustainable fish sourcing, an effort requiring collabo-rative innovation built on trust. “The initiative required creativethinking and a leap of faith as sustainable sourcing criteria wasadopted” (Steele & Feyerherm, 2014). Loblaw faces many internalchallenges in implementing sustainable sourcing criteria. In workingtogether, the grocer learns about marine stocks and documents its“chain of custody”, while NGOs learn about factors of cost and mar-gins in the grocery business.
4.1.3. BOP business models: SC Johnson, USAID, and Borlaug InstituteSC Johnson, the world's leading maker of insect control products,
needs a steady supply of pyrethrum. SC Johnson, in partnership withUSAID and Borlaug Institute of Texas A&M, works with Rwandan farm-ing communities on sustainable farming for pyrethrum. SC Johnson'spartners establish a motorcycle-based distribution system to bring in-secticides to areas with endemic malaria. In turn, the Bill & MelindaGates Foundation provides SC Johnson with funding to develop themarket for insecticides in other countries. What does SC Johnson learnfrom social innovation? How to move from sustainable sourcing to
Please cite this article as: Mirvis, P., et al., Corporate social innovation: Hosearch (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.073
developing affordable products to build a full BoP business model that,in its current iteration, involves promoting farmer's cooperatives, capac-ity building, and creating community-basedmarketing and distributionsystems.
4.1.4. Socially responsible business acquisition: preservative and additiveacquisitions
Recent years have seen the acquisitions of the social responsiblebusiness the Body Shop by L'Oreal, Stonyfield Farm by Groupe Danone,and Ben & Jerry's by Unilever. The Body Shop constitutes a “preserva-tive” acquisition. Stonyfield is an “additive” acquisition of Danone. Thetwo companies' teams work together to combine the “best of both” inthe areas of sourcing and product development. The Ben & Jerry's acqui-sition, by comparison, suffers from political power plays, with theparent company diluting product quality and pushing away from com-mitments to pay premiums to local dairy farmers, all to increase mar-gins (Mirvis, 2008).
4.2. Knowledge transfer—societal enhancement
Some studies also show examples of businesses aiming their socialinnovation at solving major societal problems (Eggers & Macmillan,2013; Volans et al., 2014). Korngold (2014) describes corporate engage-ments that focus on economic development, climate change, ecosys-tems, education, health care, and human rights, where innovationfeatures and benefits accrue to both business and society.
4.2.1. Open innovation and crowdsourcing: Intel and make it wearableIntel launches the Make It Wearable Challenge to bring external
parties together with industry professionals to generate ideas for wear-able devices and ubiquitous computing. The winner develops a smalldrone, wearable like a wristwatch, and that with a sweep of the armcan take pictures and video. Intel's challenge contest exemplifies avariant of open innovation involving co-ideation, sourcing product de-velopment ideas from external parties. Intel's Luke Filose reflects, “com-petitions introduce us to creative users and to situations where ourtechnology can be used in new ways. This gives us a chance to exploreand try out new ideas” (personal interview, October 28, 2015). Afterthe contest, Intel unveils a button-sized computing system for smartclothes and other wearables.
w firms learn to innovate for the greater good, Journal of Business Re-
4 P. Mirvis et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
4.2.2. Social entrepreneur support: Barclays acceleratorBarclays hosts an innovation accelerator, a 13-week program for fin-
tech startups, run in partnership with Techstars. From over 300 applica-tions from 50 countries, the company develops eleven ideas, includingan alternative to pay day loans, a next generation credit scoring system,and a peer-to-peer funding platform for real estate. “It is time to rede-fine financial services,” says Michael Harte, Barclays' Chief Operationsand Technology Officer. “We're seeking to connect the world's most ac-tive innovators (…) all while helping to revolutionize the industry.”(“Barclays News,” July 16, 2015).
4.2.3. Social enterprise partnership: Accenture Development programsAccenture Development Partnerships (ADP) have undertaken over
600 projects in 55 countrieswhere its professionals, at 50% salary reduc-tion, work in partnership for up to six months with NGOs to bring busi-ness solutions to humanitarian problems. In 2010, ADP works withNetHope, a consortium of over 40 NGOs, to launch the first global IThelp desk for international NGOs. In 2013, the partners conduct astudy of technology use in developing markets, developing insights toprioritize simpler text-based applications for rural workers use, whooften don't own smart phones.
4.2.4. Social enterprise ‘ownership’: WaterHealth centersWaterHealth International (WHI) develops and runs decentralized
WaterHealth Centers (WHCs), financially sustainable water treatmentplants that use ultraviolet and reverse osmosis technologies to provideaccess to safe and affordable drinking water. Since its foundation in1995, WHI has installed more than 500 WHCs in rural, underservedcommunities in India, Bangladesh, Ghana, and the Philippines. In2014, The Coca-Cola Company takes a minority equity stake in WHI toaccelerate placement of new WHCs globally, which helps Coke achieveits goal of replenishing all of the water in its beverages by 2020, usingfinancially sustainable methods.
5. Findings on knowledge exchange
These cases illustrate considerable exchange of knowledgeamong partners to CSI, particularly tacit knowledge. In the SC John-son case, explicit knowledge (“know what”) on farming practicesand management is teachable, but the implementation of practices(“know how”) and development of the product distribution systemrequires continuous co-learning with the local community. Innova-tion team immersion in the local situation produces insights onusers' experience of nets versus alternatives (the bundling of insecti-cides and cleaning products), and culturally compatible marketingformats, such as WOW clubs. Local partners are crucial to shapingthe WOW club value proposition.
Leveraging local ties (“know-who”) also feature in many innova-tions. Coca-Cola forms a social enterprise ecosystem to supportwomen who operate sari-sari stores in the Philippines; the stores areone of Coca-Cola's main sales channels. Local NGO partners providemuch of the Coca-Cola funded STAR program support, including train-ing, access to microfinance and merchandising, and peer mentoring.Complementary knowledge between the partners informs the designof Coca-Cola's STAR program, but effective implementation requires dis-tinct and locally embodied knowledge.
The STAR program has spread throughout Southeast Asia and illus-trates the strong business and societal case (“know-why”) for CSI.Adel Tamano, vice president for Public Affairs and Communications(PAC) of Coca-Cola Philippines, reports, “When women are given theopportunity to earn, they tend to reinvest the income to the educationand health care of their family; it becomes a viable to solution to break-ing poverty cycles” (Tesda, February 11, 2014).
Please cite this article as: Mirvis, P., et al., Corporate social innovation: Hosearch (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.073
5.1. Intensity of investment, ties, and social impact
The case studies highlight how knowledge exchange increases ascompanies invest more, leverage social ties, and seek increased socialimpact in CSI activities. This seems to be true in the case of both valuechain and societal enhancement undertakings (see Fig. 2). In botharenas, the exchanged knowledge has to do with the local market orcommunity, and associated issues andopportunities, and the corporatesgain cultural understanding. The exchange of knowledge also benefitstheir self-image as do-gooders and their reputations as social innova-tors, some of which thanks to their associating with legitimating non-business partners.
Added knowledge accrues as companies increasingly engage in CSI.In the case of pro bono service learning, corporate volunteers gainhands-on experience in emerging markets and enhance their globalleadership capabilities (Mirvis, Hurley, & MacArthur, 2014). Innovatingin their supply change teaches companies about meeting global stan-dards and, in the cases of Loblaw and other firms in food, footwear,and apparel industries, about how to attain product sustainability certi-fication from accrediting bodies. Business model innovations yieldproduct insights and market entry strategies. Mark Martin, VP of Inter-national Markets for SC Johnson, says: “we do not believe in taking a‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to entering BoP communities. It is importantfor us to have a keen understanding of each market's needs as well asthe time it takes to successfully enter these markets” (SC Johnson,2014) Acquiring a socially responsible company provides opportunitiesfor deeper knowledge exchange and a tutorial on what a companyneeds to run a socially responsible business.
In regard to societal enhancement, consultations and contests withsocial innovators produce product ideas and can enhance the innovativeidentity and spirit of a firm. On this count, Intel competes with Googleand Facebook in the “war for talent.” Sponsoring, incubating, andmentoring social entrepreneurs requires further investment but alsoteaches firms how to produce social innovations, connects firms withan ecosystem of social entrepreneurs, and can spillover into socialintrapreneurship among employees (Davis & White, 2015). A full scaleengagement with a social enterprise opens up knowledge on larger-scale and more systemic social innovation, which further improveswhen a company takes a financial stake in a social enterprise. Shell'spartnership with solar innovator d.light and Credit Suisse's investmentsin intermediary micro-finance institutions exemplify how big compa-nies also gain social legitimacy and a license to grow through CSI inemerging markets (Mirvis et al., 2012).
5.2. Internal versus external innovation
The literature includes considerable research on factors predictingthe sharing of knowledge between parties to an innovation (Voorberg,Bekkers, & Tummers, 2015). Murphy et al. (2012) point out that rela-tional capacity, not just absorptive capacity, influences learning and in-novation in cross-sectoral alliances. This CSI study opens up three lesswell-studied considerations of what increases knowledge exchange:1) how central the innovation is to the core of the business; 2) how like-ly the usage of the gained knowledge is in further applications; and3) how valuable the knowledge is to each of the parties involved.
In general, this study finds stronger knowledge exchange on thesecounts when the parties engage in value chain (internal) than with so-cietal (external) innovation. In both the SC Johnson and Loblaw cases,the gained knowledge in value chain innovation is relevant to businessunits, applicable to future situations, and yields recognition and rewardsto the innovation parties These conditions predict a strong motivationto share knowledge. This pattern of open information seeking is evidentin other corporate innovations in supply chains and businessmodels—including Nestlé's “shared value,” Danone's “sustainable agri-culture,” and Unilever's “sustainable living” platforms.
w firms learn to innovate for the greater good, Journal of Business Re-
5P. Mirvis et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
However, this research also finds significant knowledge exchangewith external parties even when the innovation is not central to thecore business or to a firm's continued exploitation. John Deere supportsJoint Initiative for Village Advancement (JIVA), an integrated communi-ty development program, in three rural villages of Rajasthan, India. Inthis philanthropic effort, Deere aspires to be more than simply amonetary donor; the company, according to its executives, is seekingto be an active partner and catalyst for meaningful development work.A technical university and community groups have joined the JIVApartnership—broadening the knowledge exchange.
Another example is Johnson & Johnson's (J&J) Campaign forNursing's Future, a response to what doctors and nurses identify astheir most vexing problem. The program includes imaginative advertis-ing and engages J&J staff and partners. The campaign leads to a signifi-cant increase in the perceptions of nursing as a good career choiceamong 18–24 year olds and general public, and improves recruitmentand retention rates in the nursing profession. J&J's Communications di-rector, Patrick McCrummen, explains, “J&J doesn't subscribe to the Mi-chael Porter idea of shared value as the company engages in manyactivities which aim to help people and build trust, rather than seekinga measurable business outcome or quantifiable profitability”(Christiansen, June 19, 2014). This kind of results highlights the impor-tance of “know-why” in knowledge transfer and absorption. Severalstudies highlight how firms that perceive their roles as “serving society”more broadly aremore likely to recognize the value of B2Nalliances anduse alternative success metrics (Mirvis et al., 2012; London, Rondinelli,& O'Neill, 2005). Generalizing suggests that some purpose-drivenfirms treat social innovation as part of their overall mission.
5.3. Knowledge acquisition process: planned versus emergent
Many innovation models emphasize planned (SECI) and structuredinformation exchange between parties (Szulanski, 2000). Here, theparties recognize what kind of innovation they need, decide to shareknowledge with one another, and engage in an innovation processinvolving formalized interaction, prototyping, evaluation, and data-based improvement. In the case of many social innovations, however,
Please cite this article as: Mirvis, P., et al., Corporate social innovation: Hosearch (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.073
the parties may align only a joint interest, rather than a shared goal,and the relevance of their knowledgemay be unknown or even suspect.Conditions for planned information exchange are often lacking—problems are ambiguous and value-laden and each party can have a dif-ferent idea aboutwhat sort of innovationwill prove effective (Murphy&Arenas, 2011). This means that knowledge sharing in CSI may resultfrom an emergent rather than an organized process (Kania, Kramer, &Russell, 2014).
In some instances, too, knowledge emerges not via exchange butthrough collaborative work. In CSI, the parties can confront complexchallenges that do not match their prevailing ideas about problems-and-solutions. Instead, knowledge emerges from empathic interactionswith local interests in situ, before trial-and-error experimentation. This,plus power and resource differences and differences in their preferredcognitive styles and operating cultures,means that knowledge assimila-tion and transformation may also hinge on less formal methods.
Fig. 3 highlights some of these key differences between the plannedand the organic approach to knowledge transfer. This research observessignificant differences in the degree of planning of the knowledge trans-fer across the case studies. Specifically, companies that involve in CSI ef-forts in their value chain are more likely to use a planned approach toknowledge transfer. In the case of pro bono volunteering, many firmsprepare volunteers for scouting out ideas in their overseas assignmentsand harvest lessons from their experiences afterward. SC Johnson par-ticipates in a collective learning exercise that aims at BoP business de-velopment with academic partners at the Borlaug Institute, as well asThe Center for Sustainable Global Enterprise at Cornell University. Themost successful acquisitions of the studied socially responsible busi-nesses have to do with the use of formal merger integration teams, col-lective review of integration ideas, and co-development of new workarrangements and offerings.
Nevertheless, the study also finds examples where a more organicapproach yields significant innovation. Commenting on the learningfrom their joint R&D, NetHope's Lauren Woodman and Accenture'sJessica Long write, “it's no longer good enough to arrive in developingcountries and proclaim to have all the answers. We need to refine oursolutions by researching local markets, learning lessons from trial and
w firms learn to innovate for the greater good, Journal of Business Re-
6 P. Mirvis et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
error and welcoming feedback and possibilities from those on theground” (Woodman& Long, 2014). An SAP employeewhowas assistingan NGO in South Africa to develop an investment network remarks aserendipitous discovery, “We had to learn how to think simpler. Build-ing sustainable solutions is essential. We had to ask how can we buildtemplates and process maps that (the NGO) can use after we leave?”(van der Ploeg & White, 2014).
One way to conceptualize what predicts deeper knowledge-sharingand co-creation is Austin's (2000) “collaboration continuum.” Austinand Seitanidi (2012) contend that multi-organizational partnershipsfollow a developmental logic and propose that members' relationshipsdeepen and their work becomes more innovative. As partners movefrom a transactional and tactical relationship to deeper levels of collab-oration, they exchange more information and resources and together,they must develop collaborative capabilities. This study of CSI observesa similar progression in knowledge exchange between partners. As rela-tionships deepen from investment to collaborating to formal partner-ship, parties are more apt to engage in structured, planned, andmutual knowledge exchange and to co-create social innovations (seeFig. 4).
6. Implications
This study has important implications for researchers and managerswith an interest in understanding how CSI collaborations improve CSIcapability through knowledge exchange. The research indicates that
Fig. 4. Knowledge exchange in
Please cite this article as: Mirvis, P., et al., Corporate social innovation: Hosearch (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.073
CSI activities, being intensely interactive and experiential, result inknowledge exchange, even when knowledge acquisition is not an ex-plicit goal. The results also indicate that much of the knowledge ex-changed during CSI activities is tacit. The research indicates thatknowledge exchange tends to occur between all parties in CSI collabora-tions, and that knowledge transfer tends to be bi- or multi-lateral. Theresearch also indicates that knowledge gained in CSI activities enhancesimplementation of future CSI activities, and enhances future knowledgetransfer through improved learning capabilities and increased socialcapital. This means that potential for a virtuous cycle exists. The re-search indicates that knowledge gain includes explicit knowledge(know-what and some know-how), tacit local knowledge on method(know-how and know-who), and improved understanding of the im-portance of CSI (know-why).
Companies and managers can use the study's framework of weak-strong engagements and external–internal dimensions to contemplatethe challenges involved in accessing tacit knowledge and co-creating in-novations. On engagements with social enterprises in Africa, StephaneBodaika, a doctor who has been serving as a Global Health Fellow withUSAID, says: “it is the duty of the newcomer to learn the rules and cus-toms of their new environment. These places have values which aresometimes similar to those from the west, but other values will differ.And in some cases, wemay have the same values, but theway of process-ing and responding to information differs across culture” (White, 2015).
Finally, to learn to innovate in this new context, companies requirethe assimilation of knowledge from CSI efforts and the
multi-party collaboration.
w firms learn to innovate for the greater good, Journal of Business Re-
7P. Mirvis et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
institutionalization of new capabilities. In many planned innovationmodels, knowledge integrates across the receiving organization in for-mal innovation frameworks and procedures. These deliberate ap-proaches increase assimilation speed and maximize the newknowledge's effects. However, knowledge assimilation can also bemore organic and implicit via osmosis and through informal networks.
7. Discussion
This research shows that firms gain knowledge for CSI across differ-ent spectra. The case studies illustrate that some CSI emanates from abusiness objective and expands through social considerations, whileothers deliberately target social impact and then align to businessneeds. This research illustrates that most of the knowledge that CSIrequires is tacit and difficult to transfer. The literature comments onthe strength of “weak ties” in extending an organization's reach andits opening to new ideas. However, studies of successful multi-organizational networks and partnerships also stress the importanceof shared interests and mutual trust that regular interactions betweenthe parties bring about (Peloza & Falkenberg, 2009; Zhang & Huxham,2009). Forging strong ties is especially important when a multi-partypartnership faces ambiguity in defining its goals and uncertainty inachieving them (Senge, Dow, & Neath, 2006).
The illustrative case studies attempt to deepen understanding of thevarieties of CSI types and partnership platforms. However, the catego-ries these case studies cover are not exhaustive and the trends thatthis study observes are only suggestive; thus, more focused theorizingand further studies could refine the understandings of tacit-explicitknowledge transfer across the different types of social innovations andthe external–internal spectrum. Also worthy of attention are furtherstudies of the unique challenges, drivers, andmechanisms of knowledgeexchange in CSI partnerships, as opposed to traditional corporate inno-vation arrangements.
References
Albareda, L., & Bree, F. G. (2015). Building a model of collaborative innovation for sustain-ability: The emergence of non-profit partners. Bilbao, Spain: Deusto Business School.
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage infirms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150–169.
Arya, B., & Salk, J. E. (2006). Cross-sector alliance learning and effectiveness of voluntarycodes of corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(2), 211–234.
Austin, J. E. (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and business. Nonprofitand Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 69–97.
Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. (2012). Collaborative value creation: A review of partneringbetween nonprofits and businesses: Part I. Value creation spectrum and collaborationstages. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(5), 726–758.
Barclays News (2015, July 16). Barclays launches Rise global community and first US Ac-celerator. Retrieved from https://www.home.barclays/news/2015/07/rise.html
Botha, A., Kourie, D., & Snyman, R. (2014). Coping with continuous change in the businessenvironment: Knowledge management and knowledge management technology. Oxford,UK: Chandos Publishing.
Bradbury, H., Mirvis, P. H., Nielsen, E., & Pasmore, B. (2008). Action research at work: Cre-ating the future following the path from Lewin. In P. Reason, & H. Bradbury (Eds.),Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.
Chesbrough, H. (2013). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation land-scape. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Christensen, C.M., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R., & Sadtler, T. M. (2006). Disruptive innovationfor social change. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 94–101.
Christiansen, N. (2014, June 19). “creating shared value” is lost in translation. Let's reclaimit (Retrieved from https://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/06/19/CSV-controversy).
Cohen,W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learn-ing and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.
Cummings, J. L., & Teng, B. S. (2003). Transferring R&D knowledge: The key factors affect-ing knowledge transfer success. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,20(1), 39–68.
Davis, G., & White, C. (2015). Changing your company from the inside out: A guide for socialintrapreneurs. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Eggers, W. D., & Macmillan, P. (2013). The solution revolution: How business, government,and social enterprises are teaming up to solve society's toughest problems. Boston: Har-vard Business Review Press.
Hart, S. L., & London, T. (2005). Developing native capability. Stanford Social InnovationReview, 3(2), 28–33.
Please cite this article as: Mirvis, P., et al., Corporate social innovation: Hosearch (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.073
Herrera, M. E. B. (2015a). Innovation for impact: Business innovation for inclusive growth.Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1725–1730. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.045.
Herrera, M. E. B. (2015b). Creating competitive advantage by institutionalizing corporatesocial innovation. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1468–1474. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.036.
Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer.Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146–165.
Junni, P., Sarala, K. M., & Vaara, E. (2012). The dynamics of knowledge transfer in mergersand acquisitions. In D. Faulkner, S. Teerikangas, & R. Joseph (Eds.), Handbook of re-search on mergers and acquisitions (pp. 108–146). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kania, J., Kramer, M., & Russell, P. (2014). Up for debate: Strategic philanthropy for a com-plex world. Stanford Innovation Review, (Summer, 2014), 26–37.
Korngold, A. (2014). A better world, Inc.: How companies profit by solving global problems…where governments cannot. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
London, T., Rondinelli, D. A., & O'Neill, H. (2005). Strange bedfellows: Alliances betweencorporations and nonprofits. In O. Shenkar, & J. J. Reuer (Eds.), Handbook of strategicalliances (pp. 353–366). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mirvis, P. (2012). Employee engagement and CSR. California Management Review, 54(4),93–117.
Mirvis, P., & Googins, B. (2006). Stages of corporate citizenship: A developmental frame-work. California Management Review, 48(2), 104–126.
Mirvis, P. H. (2008). Can you buy CSR. California Management Review, 51(1), 109–116.Mirvis, P. H., Googins, B., & Kiser, C. (2012). Corporate social innovation. Wellesley, MA:
Lewis Institute, Social Innovation Lab, Babson University.Mirvis, P. H., Hurley, S. T., &MacArthur, A. (2014). Transforming executives into corporate dip-
lomats: The power of global pro bono service. Organizational Dynamics, 43(3), 235–245.Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm
knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 77–91.Mulgan, G. (2006). The process of social innovation. Innovations, 1(2), 145–162.Murphy, M., & Arenas, D. (2011). Through indigenous lenses: Cross-sector collaborations
with fringe stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(1), 103–121.Murphy, M., Perrot, F., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2012). New perspectives on learning and in-
novation in cross-sector collaborations. Journal of Business Research, 65(12),1700–1709.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizationaladvantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. OrganizationScience, 5(1), 14–37.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, Ba and leadership: A unifiedmodel of dy-namic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33(1), 5–34.
Peloza, J., & Falkenberg, L. (2009). The role of collaboration in achieving corporate socialresponsibility objectives. California Management Review, 51(3), 95–113.
Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering social innovation. StanfordSocial Innovation Review, 6(4), 34–43.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review,89(1/2), 62–77.
Prahalad, C. K., & Krishnan, M. S. (2008). New age of innovation: driving co-created valuethrough global networks. New York: McGraw Hill.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice invalue creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14.
Reus, T. H. (2012). A knowledge-based view of mergers and acquisitions revisited: Ab-sorptive capacity and combinative capability. In S. Finkelstein, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),Advances in mergers and acquisitions. Vol. 11. (pp. 69–88). Bingley, UK: EmeraldGroup Publishing.
SC Johnson (2014). The choices wemake: Sc Johnson 2014 Public Sustainability Report. Re-trieved from http://deres.org.uy/wp-content/uploads/final_2c_scjohnson_pr2014.pdf
Seidler-de Alwis, R., & Hartmann, E. (2008). The use of tacit knowledge within innovativecompanies: knowledge management in innovative enterprises. Journal of knowledgeManagement, 12(1), 133–147.
Senge, P. M., Dow, M., & Neath, G. (2006). Learning together: New partnerships for newtimes. Corporate Governance, 6(4), 420–430.
Steele, B., & Feyerherm, A. (2014). Loblaw sustainable seafood: Transforming theseafood supply chain through network development and collaboration. In C. G.Worley, & P. H. Mirvis (Eds.), Building networks and partnerships (organizing forsustainable effectiveness, volume 3) (pp. 101–132). Bingley, UK: Emerald GroupPublishing Limited.
Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of sticki-ness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 9–27.
Tesda (2014, February 11). TESDA, Coca-Cola program for women inspires Asian neigh-bors. Retrieved from http://www.tesda.gov.ph/News/Details/376
van der Ploeg, A., & White, D. (2014, March 31). Social sabbaticals and the new face ofleadership. Retrieved from http://ssir.org/articles/entry/social_sabbaticals_and_the_new_face_of_leadership
Volans, KPMG, & SIG (2014). Breaking through: How corporate social innovation createsbusiness opportunity. Retrieved January 6, 2016, from: https://www.kpmg.com/Ca/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/5441-KPMG-Social-Innovation-Report-FY14-web-Final.pdf
Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. PublicManagement Review, 17(9), 1333–1357.
Weiser, J., Kahane, M., Rochlin, S., & Landis, J. (2004). Untapped: Creating value in under-served markets. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
White, D. (2015, Summerr). The drive for Tri-sector leadership in Global Health. Globalhealth and diplomacy (Retrieved from http://onlinedigeditions.com/article/The_Drive_For_Tri-Sector_Leadership_In_Global_Health/2018365/260337/article.html).
w firms learn to innovate for the greater good, Journal of Business Re-
8 P. Mirvis et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Woodman, L., & Long, J. (2014, October 14). How tech innovation leads to sustainable solu-tions in developing nations. Huffington Post (Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lauren-woodman/how-evolutions-in-technol_b_5631879.html).
Worley, C. G., & Mirvis, P. H. (2013). Studying networks and partnerships for sustainabil-ity: Lessons learned. In C. G. Worley, & P. H. Mirvis (Eds.), Building networks and part-
Please cite this article as: Mirvis, P., et al., Corporate social innovation: Hosearch (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.073
nerships (organizing for sustainable effectiveness, volume 3) (pp. 261–291). Bingley,UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Zhang, Y., & Huxham, C. (2009). Identity construction and trust building in developing in-ternational collaborations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45(2), 186–211.
Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capa-bilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351.
w firms learn to innovate for the greater good, Journal of Business Re-
