Ecosocial Innovations as Part of Social and Solidarity Economy : Local Models for a Sustainable Development

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ Ecosocial Innovations as Part of Social and Solidarity Economy : Local Models for a Sustainable Development © 2019 the Authors Published version Stamm, Ingo Peter; Hirvilammi, Tuuli; Matthies, Aila-Leena; Närhi, Kati Stamm, I. P., Hirvilammi, T., Matthies, A.-L., & Närhi, K. (2017). Ecosocial Innovations as Part of Social and Solidarity Economy : Local Models for a Sustainable Development. RISUS - Revista de Inovação e Sustentabilidade, 8(4), 200-218. https://doi.org/10.24212/2179-3565.2017v8i4p200218 2017 RISUS - Journal on Innovation and Sustainability volume 8, número 4 - 2017 ISSN: 2179-3565 Editor Científico: Arnoldo José de Hoyos Guevara Editora Assistente: Lívia Lopes Aguiar Avaliação: Melhores práticas editoriais da ANPAD ECOSOCIAL INNOVATIONS AS PART OF SOCIAL AND SOLIDARITY ECONOMY: LOCAL MODELS FOR A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Inovações Eco-sociais como Parte da Economia Social e Solidária: Modelos Locais Para um Desenvolvimento Sustentável Ingo Peter Stamm, Tuuli Hirvilammi, Aila-Leena Matthies, Kati Närhi University of Jyvaskyla, Kokkola University Consortium Chydenius, Finland E-mail: [email protected]; T[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Abstract: The paper first introduces the concept of ecosocial innovations. These are local organizations embedded in social and solidarity economy, which combine ecological and social challenges in their work. They are successful models of how to operationalize sustainability. Based on a cross-national, multi-case study with a social work background, the paper aims at providing insights about the work and significance of ecosocial innovations. Drawn from interview material collected in four countries within selected ecosocial innovations, seven themes as common characteristics of these local actors are presented. One trait of ecosocial innovations is a creative mix of paid work, voluntary engagement, and subsidized employment in their activities. This mix is not only a compromise due to a lack of resources, but it also acknowledges the interconnectedness of well-being and sustainable social practices. The paper concludes with a summary of the main results and an outlook of the potential of ecosocial innovations for the future. They could for example serve as models for an ecological social work Keys-Words: Ecosocial innovations, social and solidarity economy, sustainability, social work 200 RISUS – Journal on Innovation and Sustainability, São Paulo, v. 8, n.4, p.200-218. Dez/2017 - ISSN 2179-3565 Recebido em: 15/09/2017 Aceito em: 24/12/2017 http://dx.doi.org/10.24212/2179-3565.2017v8i4p200-218 RISUS - Journal on Innovation and Sustainability volume 8, número 4 - 2017 ISSN: 2179-3565 Editor Científico: Arnoldo José de Hoyos Guevara Editora Assistente: Lívia Lopes Aguiar Avaliação: Melhores práticas editoriais da ANPAD ECOSOCIAL INNOVATIONS AS PART OF SOCIAL AND SOLIDARITY ECONOMY: LOCAL MODELS FOR A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Inovações Eco-sociais como Parte da Economia Social e Solidária: Modelos Locais Para um Desenvolvimento Sustentável Ingo Peter Stamm, Tuuli Hirvilammi, Aila-Leena Matthies, Kati Närhi University of Jyvaskyla, Kokkola University Consortium Chydenius, Finland E-mail: [email protected]; T[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Resumo: Este artigo apresenta o conceito de inovações eco-sociais. Conceito que remete para as organizações locais ligadas à economia social e solidária cuja intervenção não deixa de atender aos desafios sociais e ecológicos, podendo ser vistos como modelos de sucesso na operacionalização da sustentabilidade. Baseado num estudo comparativo multi-caso internacional, a partir de uma abordagem do Serviço Social, o artigo procura mostrar o trabalho desenvolvido nestas iniciativas, salientando a importância das mesmas. Entrevistas recolhidas junto dos atores locais em quatro países permitiram identificar sete características comuns às diferentes experiências estudadas. Destaca-se a identificação de um padrão comum no funcionamento destas inovações eco-sociais: uma criativa fusão de trabalho assalariado, voluntariado e emprego subvencionado. Esta combinação não é resultado, apenas, de compromissos motivados pela falta recursos, mas, também, da adoção de práticas sociais sustentáveis e de bem-estar. O artigo termina com um resumo das principais conclusões e um sobrevoar do potencial que as inovações eco-sociais apresentam para o futuro, podendo, por exemplo, fornecer modelos para um serviço social ecológico. Palavras-Chave: Inovações eco-sociais, economia social e solidária, sustentabilidade, serviço social RISUS – Journal on Innovation and Sustainability, São Paulo, v. 8, n.4, p.200-218. Dez/2017 - ISSN 2179-3565 201 Recebido em: 15/09/2017 Aceito em: 24/12/2017 INTRODUCTION What is the common ground between a mobile bike repair station in Belgium, a field of organic vegetables in South Tyrol, a former hospital in Helsinki hosting cultural events, and an open space for sustainable well-being? They can all be called ecosocial innovations (ESI), which are developing and spreading throughout European societies at the present time. They bring sustainability into the world (Fichter, 2010; Howaldt, Kopp, & Schwarz, 2015); or in other words, these innovations are the operationalization of a sustainable development (Mehmood & Parra, 2013). The projects, associations, and cooperatives behind the concrete action are part of a social and solidarity economy that contributes to a change of the current, dominating, economic growth system. Moving toward a sustainable economy means finding ecologically sound and socially fair economic solutions (Jackson, 2009; Gismondi & Cannon, 2012). The social and solidarity economy already puts some of these solutions into action at the local level. It can be seen as a forerunner or as a counter-economy (Wallimann, 2014, p. 49; Elsen, 2016). This paper is based on a cross-national, multi-case study that examines existing ecosocial innovations in Europe and their challenges1 . Social work and its nascent debates on the ecological imperatives of the profession and its role in a sustainable development are the background of the study (cf. Kemp, 2011; Dominelli, 2012, 2014; Coates & Gray, 2012; Peeters, 2012; McKinnon & Alston, 2016; Matthies & Närhi, 2017)2 . The bedrock of a new ecosocial paradigm in social work and in social policy is to consider environmental problems as social problems, the environmental crisis as a social crisis, and therefore environmental policies as social policies (cf. Wallimann, 2013; Cook, Smith, & Utting, 2012). Even though the consequences of the environmental crisis can more directly be seen as affecting the most vulnerable people in countries of the global south, the logic stays the same: since human wellbeing is ultimately dependent on healthy ecosystems, the crisis is threatening the basis of welfare systems. The paper introduces the concept of ecosocial innovation in the context of the social and solidarity economy. It aims to provide knowledge about the social practices and the significance of ecosocial innovations. With case study data, the paper shows how the integrated challenges of sustainability are responded to in the concrete practices of the ecosocial innovations. In short, ecosocial innovations are social innovations with a clear and consistent ecological approach that are improving both social and ecological sustainability. Common definitions of social innovations combine two components: they are establishing and improving social relations and are addressing and satisfying human needs (e.g., Nicholls & Murdock, 2012; Moulaert, MacCallum, Mehmood, & Hamdouch, 2013; McNeill, 2013; Nicholls, Simon, & Gabriel, 2015). Some authors emphasize that social innovations are crucial for empowering people and bringing about social change on a macro level (cf. Moulaert et al., 2013; Mehmood & Parra 2013). In many studies on social innovations, their potential for a sustainable development is underrated or neglected. The identification of this missing link was the starting point for this study, which consolidates social innovation and sustainability in the concept of ecosocial innovations. 1 It is part of the research project ECOSOS (Contribution of Social Work and Systems of Income Security to the Ecosocial Transformation of Society), which is a 4-year-long research project funded by the Academy of Finland. The project encompasses eight work packages. Further work packages will deal with the role of social work and the impact of ecosocial transition on social security systems. 2 Närhi and Matthies (2016) present an overview of the diverse traditions of ecological thinking in social work and the various concepts. 202 RISUS – Journal on Innovation and Sustainability, São Paulo, v. 8, n.4, p.200-218. Dez/2017 - ISSN 2179-3565 ECOSOCIAL INNOVATIONS AS PART OF SOCIAL AND SOLIDARITY ECONOMY: LOCAL MODELS FOR A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Ingo Peter Stamm, Tuuli Hirvilammi, Aila-Leena Matthies, Kati Närhi The central part of the paper is dedicated to six ecosocial innovations (cases), which are located in Finland, Germany, Belgium, and Italy. For the case studies semi-structured interviews served as the main data source. The paper presents the main results of the thematic analysis of the interview material in seven themes and concludes with delineating commonalities, differences, and relationships between the cases and a brief look at the possible roles of social work in ecosocial innovative action. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND The concept of social innovation is as popular nowadays as it is hard to grasp. Definitions and concepts vary. Its openness can be seen as a weakness as well as a strength. Following the open book of social innovations, they are simply “both good for society and enhance society’s capacity to act” (Murray, Caulier-Grice, & Mulgan 2010, p. 4). Caulier-Grice et al. (2012, pp. 20–21) suggest five core elements of social innovation. They can serve as an orientation when discussing the nature and the outcomes of social innovations: novelty, from ideas to implementation, meets a social need, is effective, and enhances society´s capacity to act. Within these general elements one can identify both a broader and a narrower idea of social innovations. The broader idea sees the importance of social innovations also for social entrepreneurship, new forms of organizational management, and the development of better services and programs. The driving actors come from all parts of society and also the state, the private sector, and academia. The narrower view on social innovations emphasizes the bottom-up character and the central traits of participation, democratic decision-making, and self-organization. The main drivers are civil society actors, who often are innovative and pragmatic individuals or small groups of activists. They implement their ideas locally in the field of the social and solidarity economy (SSE). The social and solidarity economy, like the related concepts of local or community as well as diverse economies (Gibson-Graham, 2008), focuses on the positive aspects of the civil society sector instead of the negative (non-profit) (Elsen & Schicklinski, 2016). Wallimann (2014, p. 51) suggests a perception of SSE “as a ‘grass roots’-based, regionally oriented federation of democratically run ‘local’ enterprises, whereby networks between federations may be created to cover larger territories. Organized in various legal forms as cooperatives, associations, foundations, or corporations, the important criterion is that all should be organized for members to have control over capital and surplus value”. According to Utting (2015, p. 2) SSE gives primacy to social and environmental objectives, recalls the role of ethics in economic activity, and supports active citizenship. The number of national and cross-national research projects on social innovations in Europe on the concept and the implementation is high, which has resulted in numerous publications, articles, and research reports. Examples are the WILCO project on social innovations for social cohesion (cf. Evers, Ewert, & Brandsen, 2014), TEPSIE (from 2012– 2015), and TRANSIT (from 2014–2017). The project “Social Innovations and the Environment” is one of the few that uses the term social innovations in the field of environmental policies and its local implementations (Science Communication Unit, 2014). The final report provides short case descriptions in six different European countries and shows the great variety in their forms of action and scope. Among the cases are the International Transition Network and the Copenhagen City Bee Project “bybi”. The results demonstrate how the pathways of many social innovations for the environment are different and non-linear as well as how multiple drivers often lead to multi-functional solutions (Science Communication Unit, p. 25). RISUS – Journal on Innovation and Sustainability, São Paulo, v. 8, n.4, p.200-218. Dez/2017 - ISSN 2179-3565 203 However, most projects omit the focus on innovations with an ecological approach and highlight the economic and social dimension. The two streams of social innovation and sustainability hardly ever communicate and therefore remain indifferent to each other (Mehmood & Parra, 2013). The number of authors linking the two explicitly and emphasizing the transformative potential of social innovations for a sustainable development is only slowly rising (cf. Haxeltine et al., 2013; McNeill, 2013; Parra, 2013; Olson et al., 2017). This leads also to an inconsistent terminology and a missing definition of the concept. Examples are innovations for sustainability (cf. Hargreaves, Longhurst, & Seyfang, 2012), sustainable innovations, as well as grassroots or niche innovations (for sustainable development) (Seyfang & Smith, 2007). For more technology-oriented innovations in the context of sustainability, the term green innovations, eco-innovations, or environmental innovations seem to dominate (cf. Schiederig, Tietze, & Herstatt, 2012; van Kemenade & Teixeira, 2017). In the context of social work research social innovations promoting ecological sustainability are also not clearly defined or examined, even though they might serve as models for the practical dimension of “ecosocial work”. They could work for example as vantage points for community development, as possibilities to enhance sustainable well-being, and as platforms for social action for economic and political change (Boetto 2017, pp. 61–62; Kemp, 2011). RESEARCH SETTING AND METHODS The criteria for ecosocial innovations were defined in the initial phase of the research. They served as guidelines in the mapping phase and for the final selection of the cases. The organizations, associations, cooperatives, or projects had to fulfill the following three criteria: 1.They are innovative by making a significant contribution to a transition toward a more sustainable society. They are part of a social or solidarity economy at the local or grass-roots level and are not (or at least not only) aiming to make a profit. 2.The innovations are realizing new ideas for, by, and with young unemployed people. They enable participation and respect the views and needs of young people. 3.The innovations are improving ecological sustainability. They enhance the fair distribution of material resources and reduce environmental impacts in their own activities and in the communities in which they are situated. The criteria defined ideal cases and were therefore partly changed in the course of the mapping phase. Especially the second criteria was modified as not enough innovations could be identified that focused only on young unemployed people. Thereafter, the activities of the ESI did not have to aim at a certain age group. ECOSOCIAL INNOVATIONS AS PART OF SOCIAL AND SOLIDARITY ECONOMY: LOCAL MODELS FOR A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 204 RISUS – Journal on Innovation and Sustainability, São Paulo, v. 8, n.4, p.200-218. Dez/2017 - ISSN 2179-3565 RISUS – Journal on Innovation and Sustainability, São Paulo, v. 8, n.4, p.200-218. Dez/2017 - ISSN 2179-3565 205 Ingo Peter Stamm, Tuuli Hirvilammi, Aila-Leena Matthies, Kati Närhi The researchers systematically used the internet, emails, and social media; activists, researchers from social work and other academic disciplines, social work practitioners, as well as students were contacted and asked for ideas and contact persons. Using the snowball method, information about 48 ESIs in five countries – Finland, Germany, Belgium, Italy, and the UK – were collected. During this phase, the researchers conducted preliminary interviews with several coordinators and participants. Finally, six cases were selected for in-depth case studies: three cases in Finland and one each in Germany, Italy, and Belgium based on their high correspondence with the criteria and in order to show the broad diversity of the found ESI. The main research questions were: what work ecosocial innovations are doing and how do they function? These were backed up by the sub-questions about enabling and hindering structures. Case study research is sometimes critically viewed as just a label that is stuck on many, very heterogeneous studies (cf. Flyvbjerg, 2006). In social work (Lee, Mishna, & Brennenstuhl, 2010) and other disciplines, it is increasingly used. The term can be used for both an analysis process and a product of analysis (cf. Stake, 2000; Bazeley, 2013). Case study research can be the preferred method when the main research questions are open questions (Yin, 2014). In this study the chosen ecosocial innovations are seen as the cases. Following Ragin and Becker’s (1992, pp. 1-18) work on case conceptions, the cases were found and made at the same time. They were found because they are empirically real and bounded but specific. They were identified and established as cases by the research team in the course of the described phase of mapping. However, they were also made as cases as specific theoretical constructs. The ecosocial innovations are representative or common cases since they exemplify a broader category of which they are members (for more on different types of cases see Yin, 2014; also Bryman, 2012). As the mapping phase showed, numerous innovations (cases) with quite similar approaches are emerging in European countries. This multi-case study is exploratory and descriptive in nature. Not only were a number of cases chosen, but they were chosen from four different countries. Therefore, the study at hand is a cross-national, multi-case study with comparative elements. The challenge of conducting cross-national research was undertaken in order to identify differences and similarities in a phenomenon that can clearly be observed in many countries. Still, the aim was not a direct comparison but to try to understand the functioning of ecosocial innovations better and to have the chance to find more diverse and interesting cases. By examining the special character of each ESI based on national social welfare settings, the countries can be seen as second-tier cases. As with any case study research, a crucial step is defining the cases (here the ecosocial innovations) as the units of analysis. One trait of each case study is the use of a variety of methods or “multiple sources of evidence” (Yin, 2014, p. 17), which enables a triangulation of data (Lee et al., 2010, p. 686; see Flick, 2012 on triangulation). This can mean a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods or the use of different qualitative methods. The latter way was chosen for this study since qualitative methods are most useful for understanding the concrete practices and the significance of the small sample of chosen ecosocial innovations. Altogether, 28 semi-structured individual interviews as well as two group interviews with narrative elements were conducted. The interviews were the main method used to examine the cases. The interviewees were founders, coordinators, participants, and users. Altogether, 17 female and 18 male adults from various age groups were interviewed; 28 persons were interviewed individually, and seven took part in group interviews. In Italy, South Tyrol, the interview language was German. In Belgium the interviews took place in English, and some parts were directly translated from Dutch into English during the interview by other employees of the ESI. In Germany and Finland the mother tongues of German and Finnish were used. In addition to the interview data, the researchers used documents that were mainly available on the webpages of the innovations. They were self-descriptions about the history and activities of the innovations, sometimes titled with the mission and vision or guiding principles and also yearly reports or funding applications. To conclude the array of methods, the researchers made field visits, partly in the course of conducting the interviews, and systematically documented them. The transcripted interview material was as a first step openly coded; mostly using descriptive and concept coding (cf. Saldana, 2016). As a second step, the data was organized into categories and sub-categories in a code and category list, which was structured against the background of the research questions. This list served as a basis for the thematic analysis (cf. Bazeley, 2013; Kuckartz, 2013). The themes were related to the research focus and provided a basis for a theoretical understanding of the data (cf. Bryman 2012). Themes were generated for example by identifying patterns or trends in the data, repetitions, transitions, similarities, and differences regarding certain topics or questions in the interviews (Ryan & Bernard, 2003; Bazeley, 2013). In this paper, the themes were declarative sentences used to describe the general character of ecosocial innovations. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Case introduction Hirvitalo (FI-1), Tampere, Finland: Hirvitalo (Center of Contemporary Art Pispala) is a non-profit and open cultural space. Its aim is to stimulate local activities and enrich artistic and cultural life in the community. It was founded in 2006 by young local artists who squatted in the empty building. Nowadays, it is a registered association supported by the municipality of Tampere. Hirvitalo has weekly open meetings where participants and members can take part in planning and decision-making. It offers a range of activities from an open café and a social kitchen, to art exhibitions and gardening projects. All projects and activities are based on voluntary work by students, artists, and local people or on subsidized work for unemployed people. Oma maa (FI-2), Helsinki area, Finland: Oma maa is an organic food cooperative and was founded around 2010. It is inspired by the concept of community-supported agriculture. The food is grown in the fields of an old farm, which is located 30 km from Helsinki. The cooperative has approximately 80-100 members, who pick up their weekly food bags directly from the farm or from the café that the cooperative also runs in Helsinki. Eight persons are at present so-called production-members, who actively take responsibility for the farming and food delivery. A big part of the work in Oma maa is done voluntarily by members; only during the summer months can the cooperative provide gainful employment for some farmers. ECOSOCIAL INNOVATIONS AS PART OF SOCIAL AND SOLIDARITY ECONOMY: LOCAL MODELS FOR A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 206 RISUS – Journal on Innovation and Sustainability, São Paulo, v. 8, n.4, p.200-218. Dez/2017 - ISSN 2179-3565 Ingo Peter Stamm, Tuuli Hirvilammi, Aila-Leena Matthies, Kati Närhi RISUS – Journal on Innovation and Sustainability, São Paulo, v. 8, n.4, p.200-218. Dez/2017 - ISSN 2179-3565 207 Lapinlahden Lähde (FI-3), Helsinki, Finland: Lapinlahden lähde was initiated only 3 years ago when it rented an old hospital building in Helsinki. Now the building offers space for sustainable well-being and cultural events. The activities range from a vegetarian lunch café and art galleries to an old sauna and a small upcycling and second hand shop. Lapinlahden lähde also hosts many seminars and workshops. The association has four full time employees and a number of trainees and volunteers. One of their main aims is to create new jobs and offer paths to employment and meaningful work. Kunst-Stoffe (GER), Berlin, Germany: Kunst-Stoffe is a registered association, which works in the fields of waste prevention and reduction, cultural development, and the promotion of creativity. Another important part is educational work. The main activity is to receive, organize, and store waste and second-hand material and to pass it to individuals or groups for further use. Apart from that, Kunst-Stoffe offers repair-cafés, a bike, and a wood workshop. It has approximately 15 persons who are active in its inner circle. Most of them are volunteers or freelancers; one person is part-time employed. Velo (BE), Leuven, Belgium (Flanders): Velo has been established in the city of Leuven for more than 20 years. It is a social enterprise and part of the social economy in Flanders. It promotes bike mobility combined with re-use and re-cycle concepts. The main activities are repairing and renting bikes as well as mobile repair shops and other smaller bike projects. It also offers training for marginalized people; nowadays the majority are young people who often have a history of migration and refuge seeking. Velo offers 55 full-time jobs and has about 110 people working there, including volunteers and trainees. Vinterra (IT), Mals, Italy (South Tyrol): Vinterra is a social cooperative that was founded 3 years ago. Its fields for growing organic vegetables are located in the valley of Vinschgau, which is close to the city of Merano. The main goal of the cooperative is to combine organic farming with a social agenda on a sound economic basis. In addition to the farming, Vinterra also runs a street kitchen and produces parfaits. It provides around 12 persons with gainful employment. Understanding the work of ecosocial innovations – results of the thematic analysis The above introduction segments have illustrated the great variety in the selected ecosocial innovations. This section presents the main results of the thematic analysis. The themes are mostly based on the similarities and differences between the statements of the interviewees, trends, and patterns as well as repetitions (cf. Ryan & Bernard, 2003). It is understood that prior theoretical knowledge can also influence the formulation of themes. Furthermore, a theme is not always completely suitable for all cases. These impediments and variations are indicated in the theme descriptions as far as possible. The following table shows the seven themes. They are to some extent self-explaining due to their form of declarative statements, but short descriptions are also presented to give the reader a better overview. The themes all provide answers to the main research questions. At this stage it did not seem helpful to allocate certain themes to certain aspects of the main or sub-questions. The themes disengage from the research questions. All that remains is a brief reflection on the practice and theory of social work and ecosocial innovations. Understanding ESI means understanding better how social and ecological problems are interconnected and how sustainability can be operationalized at a local level. There is much to learn for a profession that seems to currently struggle with its role and responsibilities regarding sustainability. If social work finally accepts the interconnectedness of social and ecological problems, and its part of the responsibility for solving these, then an active role is not one option but a necessity. For social work practitioners the social practices put into action by ecosocial innovations could for example serve as models for their organizations or as possible partners at the local level. Topics for further research include how and what to learn from the pioneering work of ESI as well as exploring the connections between ecosocial innovations and social policy. 214 RISUS – Journal on Innovation and Sustainability, São Paulo, v. 8, n.4, p.200-218. Dez/2017 - ISSN 2179-3565 ECOSOCIAL INNOVATIONS AS PART OF SOCIAL AND SOLIDARITY ECONOMY: LOCAL MODELS FOR A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT REFERENCES Bazeley, P. (2013). Qualitative data analysis. Practical strategies. London: Sage. Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (Fourth Edition). Oxford: University Press. Caulier-Grice, J., Davies, A., Patrick, R., & Norman, W. (2012). Defining social innovation. A deliverable of the project: “The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe” (TEPSIE), European Commission – 7th Framework Programme, Brussels: European Commission, DG Research. Retrieved from http://siresearch.eu/sites/ default/files/1.1%20Part%201%20-%20defining%20social%20innovation_0.pdf Coates, J., & Gray, M. (2012). The environment and social work: An overview and introduction. International Journal of Social Welfare, 21(3), 230–238. doi: 10.1111/j.14682397.2011.00851.x Cook, S., Smith, K., & Utting, P. (2012). Green economy or green society? Contestation and policies for a fair transition. (Occasional Paper No.10. Social Dimensions of Green Economy and Sustainable Development). Retrieved from http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BCCF9/ search/B24EA25289BD528AC1257AC5005F6CA5 Della Porta, D., Hänninen, S., Siisiänen, M., & Silvasti, T. (2015). The precarization effect. In D. della Porta, S. Hänninen, M. Siisiänen, & T. Silvasti (Eds.), The new social division: Making and unmaking precariousness (pp. 1–23). New York: Palgrave. Dominelli, L. (2012). Green social work. From environmental crises to environmental justice. Cambridge: Polity Press. Dominelli, L. (2014). Promoting environmental justice through green social work practice: A key challenge for practitioners and educators. International Social Work, 57(4), 338–345. doi: 10.1177/0020872814524968 Elsen, S. (2016). Community based economy and ecosocial transition. In A.-L. Matthies & K. Närhi (Eds.), Ecosocial transition of society. Research on the contribution of social work and social policy (pp. 54–70). Oxford: Routledge. Elsen, S., & Schicklinski, J. (2016). Mobilising the citizens for the socio-ecological transition. In T. Sauer, S. Elsen, & C. Garzillo (Eds.), Cities in transition. Social innovation for Europe´s urban sustainability (pp. 221–238). New York: Routledge. Fichter, K. (2010). Nachhaltigkeit: Motor für schöpferische Zerstörung? In J. Howaldt & H. Jacobsen (Eds.), Soziale Innovation. Auf dem Weg zu einem postindustrielle Innovationsparadigma (pp. 181–198). New York: Springer. Flick, U. (2011). Triangulation. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: Springer. RISUS – Journal on Innovation and Sustainability, São Paulo, v. 8, n.4, p.200-218. Dez/2017 - ISSN 2179-3565 215 Ingo Peter Stamm, Tuuli Hirvilammi, Aila-Leena Matthies, Kati Närhi Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings on case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219– 245. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1077800405284363 Gibson-Graham, J.K. (2008). Diverse economies: Performative practices for ‘other worlds’. Progress in Human Geography, 32(5), 613–632. Retrieved from http://communityeconomies.org/site/assets/ media/Gibson/Diverse%20Economies%202008.pdf Gismondi, M., & Cannon, K. (2012). Beyond policy “Lock-In”? The social economy and bottomup sustainability. Canadian Review of Social Policy, 67, 58–73. Retrieved from http://crsp.journals. yorku.ca/index.php/crsp/article/view/35371 Hargreaves, T., Longhurst, N., & Seyfang, G. (2013). Up, down, round and round: Connecting regimes and practices in innovation for sustainability. Environment and Planning A, 45, 402–420. doi: 10.1068/a45124 Haxeltine, A., Avelino, F., Wittmayer, J., Kemp, R., Weaver, P., Backhaus, J., & O’Riordan, T. (2013). Transformative social innovation: A sustainability transitions perspective on social innovation. Retrieved from http://kemp.unu-merit.nl/pdf/Haxeltine%20et%20al.%202013%20TSI%20 Transition%20Perspective.pdf Hildebrandt, E. (2003). Arbeit und Nachhaltigkeit. Wie geht das zusammen? In G. Linne & M. Schwarz (eds.), Handbuch Nachhaltige Entwicklung. Wie ist nachhaltiges Wirtschaften machbar (pp. 381–393)? Opladen: Leske+Budrich. Howaldt, J., Kopp, R., & Schwarz, M. (2015). Social innovations as drivers of social change: Exploring Tarde´s contribution to social innovation theory building. In A. Nicholls, J. Simon, & M. Gabriel (Eds.), New frontiers in social innovation research (pp. 29–51). Hampshire: Palgrave. Kemp, S. (2011). Recentring environment in social work practice: Necessity, opportunity, challenge. British Journal of Social Work, 41(6), 1198–1210. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcr119 Kuckartz, U. (2013). Qualitative text analysis. A guide to methods, practice and using software. London: Sage. Lee, E., Mishna, F., & Brennenstuhl, S. (2010). How to critically evaluate case studies in social work. Research on Social Work Practice, 20(6), 682–689. doi: 10.1177/1049731509347864 Littig, B., & Grießler, E. (2005). Social sustainability. A catchword between political pragmatism and social theory. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(1/2), 65–79. Retrieved from http:// www.ihs.ac.at/pdf/soz/test2.pdf Matthies, A.-L., & Närhi, K. (2017). Ecosocial transition of society. Research on the contribution of social work and social policy. Oxford: Routledge. 216 RISUS – Journal on Innovation and Sustainability, São Paulo, v. 8, n.4, p.200-218. Dez/2017 - ISSN 2179-3565 ECOSOCIAL INNOVATIONS AS PART OF SOCIAL AND SOLIDARITY ECONOMY: LOCAL MODELS FOR A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT McKinnon, J., & Alston, M. (2016). Ecological social work. Towards sustainability. Hampshire: Palgrave. McNeill, J. (2013). Enabling social innovation: Opportunities for sustainable local and regional development. Retrieved from http://www.communityeconomies.org/site/assets/media/ JoanneMcNeill/JMcNeill_Social-Frontiers-2013_enabling-social-innovation.pdf Mehmood, A., & Parra, C. (2013). Social innovation in an unsustainable world. In F. Moulaert, D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood, & A. Hamdouch (Eds.), The international handbook on social innovation: Collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research (pp. 53–66). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., Mehmood, A., & Hamdouch, A. (2013). General introduction: The return of social innovation as a scientific concept and a social practice. In Authors (Eds.), The international handbook on social innovation: Collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research (pp. 1–6). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., & Mulgan, G. (2010). The open book of social innovation. Retrieved from http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/the_open_book_of_social_innovation.pdf Närhi, K., & Matthies, A.-L. (2016). Conceptual and historical analysis of ecological social work. In J. McKinnon & M. Alston (Eds.), Ecological social work. Towards sustainability (pp. 21–38). Hampshire: Palgrave. Nicholls, A., & Murdock, A. (2012). The nature of social innovation. In Authors (Eds.), Social innovation: Blurring boundaries to reconfigure markets (pp. 1–30). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Olson, P., Moore, M.-L., Westley, F. R., & McCarthy, D. D. P. (2017). The concept of the Anthropocene as a game-changer: A new context for social innovation and transformations to sustainability. Ecology and Society, 22(2), 31. doi.org/10.5751/ES-09310-220231 Parra, C. (2013). Social sustainability: A competing concept to social innovation? In F. Moulaert, D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood, & A. Hamdouch (Eds.), The international handbook on social innovation: Collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research (pp. 142–154). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Peeters, J. (2012). The place of social work in sustainable development. Towards ecosocial practice. International Journal of Social Welfare, 21(3), 287–298. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2397.2011.00856.x Ragin, C., & Becker, H. (1992). What is a case? Exploring the foundation of social inquiry. Cambridge: University Press. Ryan, G.W., & Bernard, H.R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15, 85–109. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X02239569 RISUS – Journal on Innovation and Sustainability, São Paulo, v. 8, n.4, p.200-218. Dez/2017 - ISSN 2179-3565 217 Ingo Peter Stamm, Tuuli Hirvilammi, Aila-Leena Matthies, Kati Närhi Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: Sage. Schiederig, T., Tietze, F., & Herstatt, C. (2012). Green innovation in technology and innovation management: An exploratory literature review. R & D Management, 42(2), 180–192. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2011.00672.x Science Communication Unit, University of the West of England, Bristol (2014). Science for Environment Policy In-depth Report: Social Innovation and the Environment. Retrieved from http:// ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/IR10_en.pdf Utting, P. (2015). Introduction: The Challenge of scaling up social and solidarity economy. In P. Utting (Ed.) Social and solidarity economy. Beyond the fringe (pp. 1–37). London: Zed Books. Van Kemenade, T., & Teixeira, A. A.C. (2017). Policy stringency and (eco)-innovation performance: A cross country analysis. Journal on Innovation and Sustainability, 8(2), 34–60. doi.org/10.24212/21793565.2017v8i2p34-60 Wallimann, I. (2013). Environmental policy is social policy – Social policy is environmental policy: Toward Sustainability Policy. New York: Springer. Wallimann, I. (2014). Social and solidarity economy for sustainable development: Its premises – and the Social Economy Basel example of practice. International Review of Sociology, 24(1), 48–58. doi: 10.1080/03906701.2014.894345 Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research. Design and methods (Fifth Edition). London: Sage. 218 RISUS – Journal on Innovation and Sustainability, São Paulo, v. 8, n.4, p.200-218. Dez/2017 - ISSN 2179-3565 ECOSOCIAL INNOVATIONS AS PART OF SOCIAL AND SOLIDARITY ECONOMY: LOCAL MODELS FOR A SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT