Corporate Social Responsibility: Australian Case Study Innovation Capabilities: Not for Profit: Transforming Families and Children

Part of the CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance book series (CSEG)


There is growing global awareness of the challenging societal needs of families and children that are having a long-term social impact on the wider community. The increased social complexities of families demand social innovation for services. Many of these services are delivered by Not for Profit (NfP) organisations that operate in risk adverse, political environments.

Wanslea is an NfP with a 75 year history of working with families and children experiencing vulnerability, and developing services in response to local needs in Western Australia. As a case study, Wanslea demonstrates social innovation, making far-reaching differences to the lives of families and children with resulting benefits to society.

This case study demonstrates how Wanslea strategically, through progressive adaptation and evolution, exploitation and exploration, successfully engages family and children by designing proactive and sustainable services and programs. These services improve the innovation performance and create long term, positive social impact. Terms such as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), and Social Innovation are not terms usually applied by Wanslea staff, rather, the focus is on social impact measures being introduced to meet political expectations for social change and funding governance.

By applying four targeted emerging practices, Wanslea has been able to establish the current scaffold that enabled strategic social innovation and resulted in creating social value that positively influenced business and society. The targeted practices included (1) Board strategy and board selection (2) Foundational strategies for aligning research, leadership education and professional practices (3) Brand awareness and reputation and (4) Partnership collaborations.


Corporate social responsibility Strategy Case study Dynamic capabilities Innovation management Social innovation Paradox Social impact Not for profit Western Australia 


  1. Aluchna, M., & Idowu, S. O. (Eds.). (2017). The dynamics of corporate social responsibility, CSR, sustainability, ethics & governance, a critical approach to theory and practice. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016). Australia demographic statistics, March Quarter 2015. Retrieved December 20, 2016 from
  3. Betram, R. M., Blasé, K. A., & Fixsen, D. L. (2013a). Improving programs and outcomes: Implementation frameworks. Bridging the research & practice gap symposium, Houston, Texas, April 2013, & Review in a special issue of research on social work practice (pp. 7–11).Google Scholar
  4. Caradonna, J. L. (2014). Sustainability: A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Connor, G. C., Leifer, R., Paulson, A. S., & Peters, L. S. (2008). Grabbing lightening: Building a capability for breakthrough innovation. Hoboken: Jossey-Bass, Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Dahlsrud, A. (2008). How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 15(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dixon, P. (2016). Dirst 1000 days: Early intervention to support vulnerable families and their children. Family & Relationship Services Australia (FRSA) 2016 Conference e-Journal (pp. 23–23).Google Scholar
  8. Fixsen, D. L., Naoon, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, the National Implementation Research Network.Google Scholar
  9. Googins, B. (2013). Transforming corporate social responsibility: Leading with innovation. In T. Osburg & R. Schmidpeter (Eds.), Social innovation – solutions for a sustainable future. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 165–186.Google Scholar
  11. OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC). (2010). Better policies for better lives Report. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Scaife, W., McGregor-Lowndes, M., Barraket, J., & Burns, W. (2016). Giving Australia 2016: Literature review summary report. Brisbane: The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Queensland University of Technology, Centre for Social Impact, Swinburne University of Technology and the Centre for Corporate Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  14. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.Google Scholar
  15. Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 382–403.Google Scholar
  16. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 1319–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Visser, W. (2011). The ages and stages of CSR: Towards the future with CSR 2.0. (CSR international paper series, no. 3). First published in Social Space 2011.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.WansleaScarboroughAustralia
  2. 2.Innovation CultureCity BeachAustralia

Personalised recommendations