Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Two Birds with One Stone: The Quest for Addressing Both Business Goals and Social Needs with Innovation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research examines whether and how firms can meet both business goals and social needs through their innovation activities. We examine antecedents and consequences of innovation that addresses social needs, in addition to business goals, using data collected from European for-profit firms. We find that innovation including social intent is more likely under conditions of high market turbulence, which represents an important form of demand-driven threats. Meanwhile, we find no relationship with competitive intensity, a form of pressure driven threats. Together, these findings suggest that customers and other stakeholders are more likely to drive firms to focus on the social dimension than competitors. The findings also indicate that innovation including social intent is positively related with customer acceptance, which supports the notion that innovation can meet both business goals and social needs. This relationship is partially mediated by perceived market turbulence, which highlights the importance of customers and their demands for social responsibility. This research advances both theory and practice as we add to existing discourses on innovation by providing a broader than common perspective that includes the social dimension as a potential part of innovation conducted to meet business goals. Furthermore, we shed light on how and when firms are likely to include intended social outcomes in their innovation (with resultant improvement in performance) and when they are less likely to do so, which highlights a potential untapped opportunity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ang, S. H. (2008). Competitive intensity and collaboration: Impact on firm growth across technological environments. Strategic Management Journal,29(10), 1057–1075.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2005). Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research,58, 1652–1661.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,30(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayuso, S., Rodriguez, M. A., & Ricart, J. E. (2006). Responsible competitiveness at the ‘micro’ level of the firm using stakeholder dialogue as a source for new ideas: A dynamic capability underlying sustainable innovation. Corporate Governance,6(4), 475–490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P. (2011). Measurement and meaning in information systems and organizational research: Methodological and philosophical foundations. MIS Quarterly,35, 261–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baltazar Herrera, M. E. (2015). Creating competitive advantage by institutionalizing corporate social innovation. Journal of Business Research,68(7), 1468–1474.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, W. P. (1997). The dynamics of competitive intensity. Administrative Science Quarterly,42, 128–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review,28(2), 238–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Billing, R., & Scott, B. (1995). Renewable reporting: New material on environmental performance. CA Magazine-Chartered Accountant,128(2), 62–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production,65, 42–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bocquet, R., Le Bas, C., Mothe, C., & Poussing, N. (2013). Are firms with different CSR profiles equally innovative? Empirical analysis with survey data. European Management Journal,31(6), 642–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boons, F., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013). Business models for sustainable innovation: State-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production,45, 9–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boons, F., Montalvo, C., Quist, J., & Wagner, M. (2013). Sustainable innovation, business models and economic performance: An overview. Journal of Cleaner Production,45, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2008). Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and financial performance. Strategic Management Journal,29(12), 1325–1343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cadogan, J. W., Cui, C. C., & Li, E. K. Y. (2003). Export market-oriented behavior and export performance: The moderating roles of competitive intensity and technological turbulence. International Marketing Review,20(5), 493–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014). Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,82(2), 42–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Candi, M., Jae, H., Makarem, S., & Mohan, M. (2017). Consumer responses to functional, aesthetic and symbolic product design in online reviews. Journal of Business Research,81, 31–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, R. Y. K., Hongwei, H., Chan, H. K., & Wang, W. Y. C. (2012). Environmental orientation and corporate performance: The mediation mechanism of green supply chain management and moderating effect of competitive intensity. Industrial Marketing Management,41, 621–630.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, H., Zeng, S., Lin, H., & Ma, H. (2017). Munificence, Dynamism and complexity: How Industry Context Drives Corporate Sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment,26, 125–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, N., & Majumdar, S. (2014). Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing,29(3), 363–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, B., & Winn, M. I. (2007). Market imperfections, opportunity and sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing,22, 29–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corner, P. D., & Ho, M. (2010). How opportunities develop in social entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,34(4), 635–659.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cui, A. S., Griffith, D. A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2005). The influence of competitive intensity and market dynamism on knowledge management capabilities of multinational corporation subsidiaries. Journal of International Marketing,13(3), 32–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal,23(12), 1095–1121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E., & Sethi, R. (2011). New product exploration under environmental turbulence. Organization Science,22(4), 1026–1039.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, P., & Daniel, L. (2010). Understanding social innovation: A provisional framework. International Journal of Technology Management,51(1), 9–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Medeiros, J. F., Vidor, G., & Ribeiro, J. L. D. (2015). Driving factors for the success of the green innovation market: A relationship system proposal. Journal of Business Ethics,2015, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, T. J., & McMullen, J. S. (2007). Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: Reducing environmental degradation through entrepreneurial action. Journal of Business Venturing,22, 50–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dellyana, D., Simatupang, T. M., & Dhewanto, W. (2016). Business model innovation in different strategic networks. International Journal of Business,21(3), 191–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M. A., & Pekovic, S. (2015). Resource efficiency strategies and market conditions. Long Range Planning,48(2), 80–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dembek, K., Singh, P., & Bhakoo, V. (2016). Literature Review of Shared Value: A Theoretical concept or a Management Buzzword? Journal of Business Ethics,137(2), 231–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demil, B., & Lecocq, X. (2010). Business model evolution: In search of dynamic consistency. Long Range Planning,43(2), 227–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doane, D., & Abasta-Vilaplana, N. (2005). The myth of CSR. Stanford Social Innovation Review,3(3), 22–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review,20(1), 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Droge, C., Calantone, R., & Harmancioglu, N. (2008). New product success: Is it really controllable by managers in highly turbulent environments? Journal of Product Innovation Management,25(3), 272–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkington, J., & Hartigan, P. (2007). The power of unreasonable people: How social entrepreneurs create markets that change the world. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-Kranz, D., & Santalo, J. (2010). When Necessity Becomes a Virtue: The Effect of Product Market Competition on Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy,19(2), 453–487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankenberger, K., Weiblen, T., & Gassmann, O. (2014). The antecedents of open business models: An exploratory study of incumbent firms. R&D Management,44(2), 173–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, E., & Mele, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics,53, 51–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilley, K. M., Worrell, D. L., Davidson, W. N., & El-Jelly, A. (2000). Corporate environmental initiatives and anticipated firm performance: The differential effects of process-driven versus product-driven greening initiatives. Journal of Management,26(6), 1199–1216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (2010). Contemporary strategy analysis. West Sussex: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grewal, R., Cote, J. A., & Baumgartner, H. (2004). Multicollinearity and measurement error in structural equation models: Implications for theory testing. Marketing Science,23(4), 519–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, J. J., & Mahon, J. F. (1997). The corporate social performance and corporate financial performance debate: Twenty-five years of incomparable research. Business and Society,36(1), 5–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, A., & Page, A. L. (1993). An interim report on measuring product development success and failure. Journal of Product Innovation Management,10(4), 291–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, A., & Page, A. L. (1996). PDMA success measurement project: Recommended measures for product development success and failure. Journal of Product Innovation Management,13(6), 478–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haigh, N., & Hoffman, A. J. (2012). Hybrid Organizations: The Next Chapter of Sustainable Business. Organizational Dynamics,41(2), 126–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haigh, N., Walker, J., Bacq, S., & Kickul, J. (2015). Hybrid Organizations: Origins, Strategies, Impacts, and Implications. California Management Review,57(3), 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J. K., Daneke, G. A., & Lenox, M. J. (2010). Sustainable development and entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future directions. Journal of Business Venturing,25(5), 439–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen, T. J., & Heiskala, R. (2007). Social innovations, institutional change and economic performance: Making sense of structural adjustment processes in industrial sectors, regions, and societies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., & Freeman, R. E. (1999). Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance: Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal,42(5), 479–485.

    Google Scholar 

  • He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration versus exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science,15(4), 481–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heirati, N., O’Cass, A., Schoefer, K., & Siahtiri, V. (2016). Do professional service firms benefit from customer and supplier collaborations in competitive, turbulent environments? Industrial Marketing Management,55, 50–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hockerts, K. (2015). How hybrid organizations turn antagonistic assets into complementarities. California Management Review,57(3), 83–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hockerts, K., & Morsing, M. (2008). A literature review on corporate social responsibility in the innovation process (pp. 1–28). Frederiksberg: Copenhagen Business School (CBS), Center for Corporate Social Responsibility.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hockerts, K., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2010). Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids — Theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing,25(5), 481–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, D., & Littlewood, D. (2015). Identifying, mapping, and monitoring the impact of hybrid firms. California Management Review,57(3), 107–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, M., & Morgan, R. E. (2007). Deconstructing the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and business performance at the embryonic stage of firm growth. Industrial Marketing Management,36(5), 651–661.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaksson, R., Johansson, P., & Fischer, K. (2010). Detecting supply chain innovation potential for sustainable development. Journal of Business Ethics,97(3), 425–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science,52(11), 1661–1674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janssen, O., Van De Vliert, E., & West, M. (2004). The bright and dark sides of individual and group innovation: A special issue introduction. Journal of Organizational Behavior,25(2), 129–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. The Journal of Marketing,57, 53–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review,31(2), 386–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. C., & Kagermann, H. (2008). Reinventing your business model. Harvard Business Review,86(12), 50–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joyce, A., Paquin, R., & Pigneur, Y. (2015). The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design more sustainable business models. In ARTEM organizational creativity international conference, 26–27 March 2015, Nancy, France.

  • Kandemir, D., Yaprak, A., & Cavusgil, S. T. (2006). Alliance orientation: Conceptualization, measurement, and impact on market performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,34(3), 324–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ketata, I., Sofka, W., & Grimpe, C. (2015). The role of internal capabilities and firms’ environment for sustainable innovation: Evidence for Germany. R&D Management,45(1), 60–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuckertz, A., & Wagner, M. (2010). The influence of sustainability orientation on entrepreneurial intentions — Investigating the role of business experience. Journal of Business Venturing,25(5), 524–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M., & Jay, J. (2015). Strategic responses to hybrid social ventures. California Management Review,57(3), 126–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology,86(1), 114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longoni, A., & Cagliano, R. (2016). Sustainable innovativeness and the triple bottom line: The role of organizational time perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3239-y

    Google Scholar 

  • Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2010). Towards a conceptual framework of ‘business models for sustainability’. In R. Wever, J. Quist, A. Tukker, J. Woudstra, F. Boons & N. Beute (Eds.), Knowledge collaboration & learning for sustainable innovation, Delft. ERSCP-EMSU Conference 2010, The Netherlands, October 25–29, 2010

  • Lusch, R. F., & Laczniak, G. R. (1989). Macroenvironmental forces, marketing strategy and business performance: A futures research approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,17(4), 283–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magretta, J. (2002). Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 86–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science,2(1), 71–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marquaridt, D. W. (1970). Generalized inverses, ridge regression, biased linear estimation, and nonlinear estimation. Technometrics,12(3), 591–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, D. (1976). Planning and the corporate philosophy. Managerial Planning,25(2), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review,26(1), 117–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meek, W. R., Pacheco, D. F., & York, J. G. (2010). The impact of social norms on entrepreneurial action: Evidence from the environmental entrepreneurship context. Journal of Business Venturing,25(5), 493–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, H. (1999). When the cause is just. The Journal of Business Strategy,20(6), 27–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic momentum. Strategic Management Journal,3, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, J. F. (1993). Predators and prey: A new ecology of competition. Harvard Business Review,71(3), 75–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moorman, C., & Rust, R. T. (1999). The role of marketing. The Journal of Marketing,63, 180–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morioka, S. N., Evans, S., & De Carvalho, M. M. (2016). Sustainable business model innovation: Exploring evidences in sustainability reporting. Procedia CIRP,40, 659–667.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulgan, G. (2006). The process of Social Innovation. Innovations,1(2), 145–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., & Mulgan, G. (2010). The open book of social innovation. London: National endowment for science, technology and the art.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicolopoulou, K., Karataş-Özkan, M., Vas, C., & Nouman, M. (2015). An incubation perspective on social innovation: The London Hub—A social incubator. R&D Management,47(3), 368–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis. Organization studies,24(3), 403–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osburg, T., & Schmidpeter, R. (2013). Social innovation: Solutions for a sustainable future. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business Model Generation. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paramanathan, S., Farrukh, C., Phaal, R., & Probert, D. (2004). Implementing industrial sustainability: The research issues in technology management. R&D Management,34(5), 527–537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrish, B. D. (2010). Sustainability-driven entrepreneurship: Principles of organization design. Journal of Business Venturing,25(5), 510–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, E. R. G., Gwozdz, W., & Hvass, K. K. (2016). Exploring the relationship between business model innovation, corporate sustainability and organisational values within the fashion industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3044-7

    Google Scholar 

  • Peloza, J., & Shang, J. (2011). What business leaders should know: Investing in CSR to enhance customer value. Director Notes Series, The Conference Board Governance Center 3(3), February 2011.

  • Phills, J., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. (2008). Rediscovering Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review,6(4), 34–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,88(5), 879.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). The big idea: Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review,89(1), 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rettab, B., Brik, A., & Mellahi, K. (2009). A study of management perceptions of the impact of corporate social responsibility on organisational performance in emerging economies: The case of Dubai. Journal of Business Ethics,89(3), 371–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M. (2005). Being good or being known: An empirical examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of Management Journal,48(6), 1033–1049.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rueda-Manzanares, A., Aragón-Correa, J. A., & Sharmaw, S. (2008). The Influence of Stakeholders on the Environmental Strategy of Service Firms: The Moderating Effects of Complexity, Uncertainty and Munificence. British Journal of Management,19, 185–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo Spena, T., Colurcio, M., & Melia, M. (2017). Framing the new social-service innovation Midset. In T. Russo Spena, C. Mele, & M. Nuutinen (Eds.), Perspectives and experiences (pp. 205–235). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saemundsson, R. J., & Candi, M. (2014). Antecedents of Innovation Strategies in New Technology-based Firms: Interactions between the Environment and Founder Team Composition. Journal of Product Innovation Management,31(5), 939–955.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos, F., Pache, A. C., & Birkholz, C. (2015). Making Hybrids Work: Aligning business models and organizational design for social enterprises. California Management Review,57(3), 36–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos-Vijande, M. L., & Álvarez-González, L. I. (2007). Innovativeness and organizational innovation in total quality oriented firms: The moderating role of market turbulence. Technovation,27(9), 514–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Hansen, E. G. (2012). Business cases for sustainability: The role of business model innovation for corporate sustainability. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development,6(2), 95–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidpeter, R. (2013). Social innovation: A new concept for a sustainable future? Social innovation (pp. 1–9). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah, R., & Goldstein, S. M. (2006). Use of structural equation modeling in operations management research: Looking back and forward. Journal of Operations Management,24(2), 148–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, D. A., & Patzelt, H. (2011). The new field of sustainable entrepreneurship: Studying entrepreneurial action linking “what is to be sustained” with “what is to be developed”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,35(1), 137–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siguaw, J. A., Simpson, P. M., & Enz, C. A. (2006). Conceptualising innovation orientation: A framework for study and integration of innovation research. Journal of Product Innovation Management,23(6), 556–574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1994). Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation-performance relationship? The Journal of Marketing,58, 46–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommer, A. (2012). Managing green business model transformations. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staudt, S., Shao, C. Y., Dubinsky, A. J., & Wilson, P. H. (2014). Corporate social responsibility, perceived customer value, and customer-based brand equity: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Strategic Innovation and Sustainability,10(1), 65–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strand, R. (2014). Strategic leadership of corporate sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics,123(4), 687–706.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs, W., & Cocklin, C. (2008). Conceptualizing a “sustainability business model”. Organization & Environment,21(2), 103–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theodosiou, M., Kehagias, J., & Katsikea, E. (2012). Strategic orientations, marketing capabilities and firm performance: An empirical investigation in the context of frontline managers in service organizations. Industrial Marketing Management,41(7), 1058–1070.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, K. H., & Yang, S. Y. (2013). Firm innovativeness and business performance: The joint moderating effects of market turbulence and competition. Industrial Marketing Management,42, 1279–1294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Have, R. P., & Rubalcaba, L. (2016). Social innovation research: An emerging area of innovation studies? Research Policy,45(9), 1923–1935.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Tonder, E., & Roberts-Lombard, M. (2013). A theoretical framework for managing CSR plans and related initiatives in the modern business environment. Journal of Business & Economics Research,11(12), 503.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., Wieland, H., & Akaka, M. A. (2015). Innovation through institutionalization: A service ecosystems perspective. Industrial Marketing Management,44, 63–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vilanova, M., Lozano, J. M., & Arenas, D. (2009). Exploring the nature of the relationship between CSR and competitiveness. Journal of Business Ethics,87(1), 57–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viñals, C. R. (2013). Introduction to social innovation as a new form of organisation in knowledge-based societies. In: C. R. Viñals & C. Parra Rodriguez (Eds.), Social Innovation: New Forms of Organisation in Knowledge-Based Societies (pp. 3–15). London: Rutledge.

  • Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance - Financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal,18(4), 303–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wei, Z., Yang, D., Sun, B., & Gu, M. (2014). The fit between technological innovation and business model design for firm growth: Evidence from China. R&D Management,44, 288–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, F., & Post, J. E. (2013). Business models for people, planet (& profits): Exploring the phenomena of social business, a market-based approach to social value creation. Small Business Economics,40(3), 715–737.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, P., & Ferris, S. P. (1997). Agency conflict and corporate strategy: The effect of divestment on corporate value. Strategic Management Journal,18(1), 77–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • York, J. G., & Venkataraman, S. (2010). The entrepreneur–environment nexus: Uncertainty, innovation, and allocation. Journal of Business Venturing,25(5), 449–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business models: Lessons from the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning,43(2), 308–325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, E. Y., & Lounsbury, M. (2016). An institutional logics approach to social entrepreneurship: Market logic, religious diversity, and resource acquisition by microfinance organizations. Journal of Business Venturing,31(6), 643–662.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Part of the funding for this work has been provided from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under Grant Agreement No. 324448.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Research on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Reykjavik University, Menntavegur 1, 101, Reykjavík, Iceland

    Marina Candi

  2. University of Catanzaro “Magna Graecia”, Viale Europa, Località Germaneto, Catanzaro, Italy

    Monia Melia & Maria Colurcio

Authors
  1. Marina Candi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Monia Melia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maria Colurcio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marina Candi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights

Data were collected from managers of European firms. The survey instrument consisted solely of questions about the firms with no data collected about the individuals responding. Therefore, this study does not fall under the category of studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Candi, M., Melia, M. & Colurcio, M. Two Birds with One Stone: The Quest for Addressing Both Business Goals and Social Needs with Innovation. J Bus Ethics 160, 1019–1033 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3853-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3853-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation