Voluntas (2020) 31:966–980
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00156-x
ORIGINAL PAPER
Connecting Two Sides: A Qualitative Study on Social Innovation
Ventures and Poor Communities in an Emerging Economy
Rodrigo Luiz Morais-da-Silva1 • Andréa Paula Segatto1
Indira Gandhi Bezerra-de-Sousa1
Published online: 3 September 2019
 International Society for Third-Sector Research 2019
Abstract The relationship between social innovation
venture and poor communities has received little attention
from studies in the area of social innovation. In order to
clarify this relationship, our study seeks to answer: What
strategies would help to bring social innovation ventures
closer to poor communities? We developed an empirical
and qualitative research in a social innovation venture and
two poor beneficiary communities in Brazil. The results
indicate that the proximity between those agents was based
on five main items: (a) reputation of the social venture;
(b) appropriate prices according to the community’s real-
ity; (c) close relations with the community; (d) structure
proximity; and (e) winning the community leadership’s
trust. Thus, our study contributes to the literature by
exploring the beneficiary communities and their relation-
ship with social innovation ventures. In addition, we sug-
gest the use of the term ‘‘social innovation venture’’ to
designate a wide range of types of organizations willing to
generate social innovation in the practical field.
Keywords Social innovation
Social innovation venture

Poor communities
Poverty
Brazil
Qualitative research
& Rodrigo Luiz Morais-da-Silva
rodrigolms.silva@gmail.com
Andréa Paula Segatto
andreapsegatto@gmail.com
Indira Gandhi Bezerra-de-Sousa
indirabs16@gmail.com
1
Postgraduate Program in Management (PPGADM) - UFPR
Business School, Federal University of Paraná, 632, Prefeito
Lothario Meissner Av., Jardim Botânico, Curitiba,
Paraná 80210-170, Brazil
123
•
Introduction
Poverty has been considered one of the most complex
social problems (Hart 2005; Rogers et al. 2008) by
affecting a considerable part of the population from
developing countries and marginalized people in rich
nations. To solve this problem, many players from different
sectors (state sector, market sector and civil sector) are
trying solutions in the macro- and the micro-level. How-
ever, according to the World Bank Group (2017), more
than 10% of the world population lives with less than $1.9
a day; therefore, they cannot meet their daily food needs.
The academia has been trying to help solve this problem
by clarifying this issue. In the field of management,
specifically in the innovation management studies, many
contributions are trying to elucidate, for example, disrup-
tive innovations, frugal innovations, innovations for the
populations from the base of the pyramid, and more
recently emphasized, the social innovation, the main sub-
ject of this research.
Social innovation could be understood as ‘‘a novel
solution to a social problem that is more effective, efficient,
sustainable, or just than existing solutions and for which
the value created accrues primarily to society as a whole
rather than private individuals’’ (Phills et al. 2008: 36). The
central point in the social innovation topic is the creation of
social value to solve social problems (Lautermann 2013).
Besides that, these innovative solutions with social purpose
are commonly developed by organizations with social
intention (Mulgan 2006), also known as hybrid organiza-
tions (Jäger and Schröer 2014). We adopted the term social
innovation ventures to identify organizations dedicated to
generating social innovation.
Although the practical relevance of the topic, social
innovation has been studied with greater intensity only in
Voluntas (2020) 31:966–980
the last 15 years. According to Phillips et al. (2015), this
area of research has been investigated in three main areas:
the role of the social entrepreneur, the relation established
between the actors and the institutional environment. In
spite of the last two areas being focused on the social
innovation ecosystem and the relation between the actors
inside this ecosystem, a significant part of the contribution
is trying to discuss social innovation and the role of gov-
ernments (Kolk and Lenfant 2015; Ojo and Mellouli 2018;
Phills et al. 2008), impact investment funds (Clarkin and
Cangioni 2016; Glanzel and Scheuerle 2016), social
enterprises (Bhatt and Altinay 2013) and traditional com-
panies (Le Ber and Branzei 2010).
Nevertheless, the beneficiaries, usually members of poor
communities, mainly in emerging economies, are not part
of the agents commonly investigated in the social innova-
tion ecosystem. There are many possible reasons for this,
for example the difficulty of contacting people living in
poor communities or marginalized areas, the methods used
in most research and the focus on the organization level.
However, the social innovation beneficiaries are one of the
most critical parts to be studied in this context, since they
are the centre of attention in this field. Therefore, they are
the focus of this study.
Based on this literature gap, this research aims to answer
the following question: What strategies would help to bring
social innovation ventures closer to poor communities?
Thus, this research could clarify how the social innovation
proposal can achieve greater success. For this, one social
innovation venture dedicated to solving social problems
related to habitation in Brazil (called Homes for All
Enterprise—a fictitious name) was investigated by quali-
tative approach. The data were collected by observations in
loco, documentary research and in-depth interviews with
the managers from the organization and members from the
poor communities (the beneficiaries). We adopted the term
‘‘poor communities,’’ in the same way as Ansari et al.
(2012), to designate areas with limited access to financial
resources and, generally, difficulty in accessing products
and services (Domenico et al. 2010).
This research contributes, in practical terms, to
social entrepreneurs from organizations dedicated to gen-
erating social innovation understand better ways to bring
their business closer to the poor communities. Regarding
the theoretical contributions, this paper investigated a
research gap that has not yet been investigated in depth and
may help draw other researchers’ attention to also study the
poor communities involved in the social innovation
context.
967
Social Innovation
The Concepts of Social Innovation and Social
Innovation Venture
Although studies on social innovation have gained promi-
nence in the last decade (Van der Have and Rubalcaba
2016), the term was initially used in the early twentieth
century to designate changes to the communities of the
West Indies (Ayob et al. 2016). From 1980 onwards,
publications with the term ‘‘social innovation’’ began to
focus on organizational and social aspects to delineate the
first contours of the concept’s current understanding.
That new focus was possible with the study by Gershuny
(1983), Drucker (1987) and Kanter (1999), who analysed
different approaches within the understanding of social
innovation as an alternative for the resolution of social
problems by organizations beyond the governmental sec-
tor; Ayob et al. (2016) argued that social innovation was
driven by the industrialization and urbanization of the
nineteenth century through the stimulation of social
enterprises and social innovation. However, it was only at
the end of the twentieth century and at the beginning of the
twenty-first century that a greater expressiveness of studies
involving the theme could be perceived.
Considering the concepts of social innovation, Ayob
et al. (2016) highlight that, in general, between 1989 and
1993, the definitions were concentrated in social relations
and societal impact with little or almost no consensus.
Between 1994 and 1998, the concept was used in several
ways, without any attempt to explain it. Between 1999 and
2003 emerged the contested concept of social innovation,
in which it may have been possible to identify various
aspects, without being treated in a universal way and that
could have been, above all, associated with social relations
and the creation of ideas. The period of 2004–2008 was a
period of competition between researchers in the intent to
strengthen their definitions. Between 2009 and 2013, an
apparent convergence arose around the concepts, especially
those involving collaborations between agents.
The conceptual evolution of the topic social innovation
over time points to an internal complexity of definition
(Casini et al. 2018; Fossati et al. 2017). Even with the
evident evolution, social innovation is still considered a
contested concept because it does not have a single and
exact definition nor a consensual understanding among
specialists in the field (Ayob et al. 2016; Marques et al.
2017; Ziegler 2017), which leads the topic to receive var-
ious criticisms in the field (Fossati et al. 2017).
The ‘‘essentially contested concept’’ derives from the
explanations of Gallie (1956) who considers that some
concepts, such as art, democracy and freedom, are
123
968
considered a frustration for those that seek fixed defini-
tions. This definition of the contested concept, still
according to Gallie (1956, p. 169), ‘‘involves endless dis-
putes about their proper uses on the part of their users.’’
The main problem of a concept being considered as con-
tested is the difficulty of accumulating knowledge from a
perspective. The conceptual confusion in the social sci-
ences is the greatest source of difficulty in theoretical
development and in empirical analyses (Collier et al.
2006).
The argument that social innovation is a contested
concept comes from the finding of different understandings
and definitions in the area. The analysis of publications
involving the theme developed by Ayob et al. (2016)
describes the existence of two perspectives of under-
standings that clash in some points: the perspective that
understands social innovation as a process focused on the
change of the relations of power, and the perspective of
results focused on the generation of social value.
On the one hand, for the processual view, social inno-
vation is ‘‘new social practices created from collective,
intentional, and goal-oriented actions aimed at prompting
social change through the reconfiguration of how social
goals are accomplished’’ (Cajaiba-Santana 2014: 44).
Therefore, the processual perspective focuses on social
structures with interaction among individuals or the indi-
vidual as main elements of the social innovation process,
where the participatory role of all actors involved in the
process of social innovation should be highlighted (Daw-
son and Daniel 2010).
On the other hand, for the result view, ‘‘an innovation is
termed a social innovation if the implied new idea has the
potential to improve either the quality or the quantity of life
[…] innovations conducive to better education, better
environmental quality and longer life expectancy a few’’
(Pol and Ville 2009: 881). In this case, the social innova-
tion is disseminated mainly by organizations without the
explicit need of the social participation, what matters are
the results of new products and services developed with
social purpose (Lettice and Parekh 2010; Mulgan 2006).
Besides the perspectives of process and result, there are
other perspectives of understanding in the area. One of
them is the Nicholls and Murdock (2012) and Nicholls
et al. (2015), who argue that the social innovation literature
can be divided into three focuses: (1) resilience theory and
social innovation that relate to the need to maintain a
sustainable environment in which social relations occur;
(2) innovation in social relations, in their structures, in
labour relations and social changes; and (3) social inno-
vation focused on market failures, whose focus is related to
innovative understanding of social needs not contemplated
by the market, government or non-governmental
organizations.
123
Voluntas (2020) 31:966–980
Another way of understanding the different perspectives
of social innovation is through the analysis of scale char-
acteristics and scope of Marques et al. (2017). For the
authors, definitions of social innovation can be grouped
into four approaches. The first is social structural innova-
tion that understands the phenomenon through transfor-
mations of social structures brought about by revolutions
over time or by the great social movements such as femi-
nism and environmentalism. The second, called the radical
social innovation, is related to the innovative way in which
goods and services are produced and delivered with the
intention of changing the current state, such as local social
currencies and activities that seek to reduce social
inequalities. The third, complementary social innovation,
seeks to offer goods without drastically reforming current
institutional arrangements, such as the Grameen Bank
proposal in Bangladesh. The fourth, instrumental social
innovation, seeks to provide goods in the same way as the
third perspective, but with little novelty as to the methods
used in comparison with what was already being done,
such as philanthropy and corporate social responsibility
actions.
These different perspectives of understanding presented
previously contribute to the consolidation of the term social
innovation as a contested concept. However, some expla-
nations for this are the contemporaneity of the theme
(Dacin et al. 2011; Morais-da-Silva et al. 2016; Phillips
et al. 2015), the topic complexity (Turker and Vural 2017)
and the diversity of research areas involved in the theme,
such as community psychology, creativity, local develop-
ment, and social and societal challenges: focus on social
innovations as solutions to unsatisfied social needs (Van
der Have and Rubalcaba 2016). In addition, both Ayob
et al. (2016) and Ziegler (2017) argue for a tendency (even
if initially) of convergence between concepts at present for
an understanding of collaborative social innovation. In this
approach, the field of social innovation would create a
space for a variety of disciplines and actors that contributed
to the formation of social innovation as a collaborative
concept and no longer a contested concept (Ziegler 2017).
In relation to our study, our research can be allocated
from a perspective of social innovation outcome (Pol and
Ville 2009), in which the focus is the creation of social
value unprecedented for society, without the express
necessity of the participation of the beneficiaries. We
adopted the social innovation concept as ‘‘a novel solution
to a social problem that is more effective, efficient, sus-
tainable, or just than existing solutions and for which the
value created accrues primarily to society as a whole rather
than private individuals’’ (Phills et al. 2008: 36). In this
article, in coherence with Mulgan (2006: 146), social
innovation ‘‘is predominantly diffused through organiza-
tions whose primary purposes are social.’’
Voluntas (2020) 31:966–980
Regarding the environments in which a social innova-
tion can be developed, the literature establishes that it can
occur from social entrepreneurs, social businesses, social
enterprises, non-profit organizations, traditional companies
and government (Groot and Dankbaar 2014; Phills et al.
2008). To group the different organizational forms that can
generate social innovation, we adopted an unprecedented
term ‘‘social innovation venture.’’ We define a social
innovation venture as any organizational form, such as a
social enterprise, a non-profit organization, an NGO, a
government agency project, or a company project, dedi-
cated to the development and implementation of innovative
proposals with primarily social purpose, and promoters’
different types of social innovation. The term social inno-
vation venture is more appropriate because it covers a
greater number of organizational forms, in different context
and environments, that seek to address a social problem
from an innovative proposal.
Partnerships Focused on Social Innovation
Due to the complexity of social problems, simple solutions
developed by individual organizations could not be suffi-
cient to deal with, for example, poverty, low levels of
education, violence and housing deficit. Because of this,
terms as partnerships, alliances, collaboration and social
networks have been highlighted commonly in the social
innovation topic and its correlated issues (Austin 2002;
Mandell and Steelman 2003). Furthermore, according to
Westley and Antadze (2010), social innovation could be
considered as something that transcends sectors and levels
of analysis.
In doing so, the social change as result of social inno-
vation proposals, the interaction between actors in the
social systems developed through the collectively and
cooperation (Neumeier 2012), highlighting the relevance of
interactions in the development of social innovations to the
society. Among the most relevant players as part of this
system, the literature on this field has highlighted the social
enterprise, the social entrepreneur, the investors, the gov-
ernment and the traditional companies.
The social enterprise could be understood as similar
models from the traditional companies, once it seeks
financial sustainability by selling products and services;
however, the social enterprise model run with a social
purpose, not only with economic goals (Defourny and
Nyssens 2017; Domenico et al. 2010; Santos et al. 2015).
The social entrepreneur, as another player in the social
innovation system, is characterized as a person that works
with a new social initiative to deal with problems not
resolved in the society (Austin et al. 2006; Peredo and
McLean 2006; Yunus 2007) by the combination of
969
resource that meet a social need (Peredo and McLean
2006).
The investors could help other social ventures indirectly
by what has been called social investment funding, from
the provision of financial resources mainly (Brest and Born
2013). The government, in particular, is one of the most
relevant actors (Ojo and Mellouli 2018) and should leave
the role as regulator and tax collector to assume more
collaborative positions, supporting social value creation
initiatives (Phills et al. 2008). The traditional companies
also could have a relevant role in a social innovation sys-
tem. According to Le Ber and Branzei (2010), partnerships
between traditional companies could allow the access of
social innovation ventures to technology and new compe-
tencies. Besides that, traditional companies have capillarity
(range) and many resources and could contribute more to
the society to solve its problems, and this could help social
ventures in its proposals.
Therefore, considering those players in the social inno-
vation system, less attention has been given to the benefi-
ciaries/users of the social innovation initiatives. The
relationship between community and its territory in the
study of social innovation can also be perceived in studies
investigating the role of this kind of innovation in the local
development of a community, a neighbourhood, a city, or
the connection between them, as in the investigation by
Van der Have and Rubalcaba (2016). From this perspec-
tive, it is understood that the proposals for social innova-
tion do not occur in a disjointed way from the community
and from the local context (Van Dyck and Van den Broek
2013), but are spatially specific and embedded (Moulaert
2009). Therefore, it is argued that participatory processes
and citizens’ empowerment are relevant aspects of social
innovation (Edwards-Schachter et al. 2012).
Even with this relevance, the contexts in which social
innovations are developed and implemented are not always
given due attention from the academic literature. It is
possible to suggest some reasons for this: as the users are,
usually, from the poor or marginalized part of society, it is
more difficult to contact and investigate them, mainly in
emerging economies; and also the research methods fre-
quently used are developed to give more attention to the
quantity not to the deep information.
Nevertheless, the social innovation beneficiaries are one
of the most critical parts to be studied in this context, since
they are the centre of attention in this field. Due to this fact,
this paper also aims to understand the beneficiaries’ point
of view about their relationship with social innovation
ventures. Thereby, following this vision of the relationship
between organizations and users, it is intended to explore
how these two actors may become closer in an environment
that generates social innovation.
123
970
Methodology Proceedings
The empirical focus of this paper is a social innovation
venture in the habitation sector in Brazil. Called as Homes
for All Enterprise (fictitious name), they help to find a
solution in conflicts between poor communities, as illegal
occupants of big urban areas, and the legal landowners. As
the main objective here is to understand how to make social
innovation venture get closer to poor communities, the
qualitative approach was adopted. According to Denzin
and Lincoln (2006) and Merriam (2009), qualitative
researches should be adopted when the focus is on the
process, on the meaning and on the interpretation that
people give to their experiences. Besides that, the case
study was adopted due to its appropriate feature to inves-
tigate complex phenomena inside a context (Merriam
2009; Stake 1998).
The Homes for All Enterprise was chosen as part of this
study because its characteristics as a social innovation
venture in the Brazilian context. These characteristics are
clearly established social objective of improving access to
housing in Brazil; seek to offer their service to improve the
quality of life of poor communities by allowing them to
legally own the property their homes are constructed on, as
well as enabling and motivating infrastructure projects
promoted by the local government; have as their target
audience (beneficiaries/customers) people with low
monthly income and with unmet social needs; generate its
revenues from market operations selling its services to poor
communities; a highly innovative model by offering an
unprecedented service in the Brazilian environment, which
led Homes for All Enterprise to receive numerous Brazilian
and Latin American awards. By contemplating these five
criteria, in addition to the proximity to poor communities,
Homes for All Enterprise was selected for this
investigation.
The data collection was developed in two environments:
the Homes for All Enterprise and two poor neighbourhoods
assisted by them. The data were collected through docu-
mentary research, non-participant observation, and inter-
views. Specifically, aiming to give the researcher the
opportunity to know the case and some of its characteristics
before the interviews, the documents (web page of the case,
newspaper news, institutional videos, publicly available
reports) assisted in the collection of initial information of
the case and served as the basis for the interviews, when
the information was debated. The non-participant obser-
vation was developed in a structured way, planned, for
120 min in both environments (the social innovation ven-
ture and the poor communities) and were used to confirm
some of the findings.
123
Voluntas (2020) 31:966–980
Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted in the
study (three with the entrepreneur, one with an employee
of the enterprise, as well as six with the poor communities’
residents). The details of the interviews are described in
Table 1. Although the number of interviews (10) may seem
as not significant regarding this study, it is worth noting the
size of the organization researched (small sized) in which
the entrepreneur, interviewed three times in this study, is
the main agent in the process with the communities. In
addition, despite the difficulty of access to the communi-
ties, six interviews were conducted at this location. The
focus on the interviews was in obtaining information about
the experience before, during and after the service provided
by the Homes for All Enterprise.
Neighbourhoods A and B were chosen because they
were the oldest areas served by Homes for All Enterprise
since its founding and for being in the final process of
regularization of its areas. Considering this, they have more
experience in the relationship with Homes for All Enter-
prise and would be better able to contribute to this research.
The selection of community members to be interviewed
was made by the community leader themselves. In both
neighbourhoods, the leaders were interviewed, and, at the
end of the interview, they indicated, at the request of the
researchers, two other residents who had experience with
Homes for All Enterprise in their respective communities.
Regarding the data analysis, the content analysis was
adopted by searching through the categorization of the
information collected. In detail, according to Bardin
(1993), the analysis process is composed by three steps:
(a) initial reading: when the focus was on understanding
the historical relation between the agents and in identifying
the primary elements that involved the actors in a suc-
cessful relationship. At this stage, the data from the inter-
views were transcribed by the researchers themselves, the
field notes (derived from the observations) were reviewed,
and all data were inserted into the Atlas TI software for
better organization; (b) categorization: when the focus was
on the categorization of the data related to the purpose of
this research. At that moment, the researchers, from the
open codification, initiated a process of reading and dis-
cussing the data in order to categorize the information
patterns regarding the elements that provided the proximity
between the social innovation venture and the communities
benefited from it. As a result of this phase, about 10 codes
were delineated; (c) refinement: when the elements iden-
tified in the previous steps of the analysis process were
reviewed. In this stage, the codes outlined in the previous
stages were debated from the data that represented them
and, therefore, some codes were extenuated because they
did not sustain themselves from the information collected
(little evidence); and others were merged, as they were the
same elements, only described in different ways. From this
Voluntas (2020) 31:966–980 971

Table 1 Interviews
Interviewed Profile Coding

Homes for All Entrepreneur Man, 50–55 years old, founder and president of Homes for All Homes for All
Enterprise Enterprise 1
Homes for All Enterprise employee Man, 25–30 years old, analyst of prospecting Homes for All Homes for All
Enterprise Enterprise 2
President of the neighbourhood A residents’ Woman, 50–55 years old, small merchant CA1
association
Resident 1, neighbourhood A Woman, 45–50 years, cleaner CA2
Resident 2, neighbourhood A Man, 65–70 years old, retired CA3
President of the neighbourhood B residents Man, 50–55 years old, retired CB1
association
Resident 1, Neighbourhood B Woman, 45–50 years old, seamstress CB2
Resident 2, neighbourhood B Woman, 40–45 years old, cleaner CB3

process, five elements related to the proximity of the
relation between the actors have been discovered.
It is also worth mentioning the use of validity and
reliability strategies to guarantee rigour to the present
study. Therefore, the triangulation of information obtained
from interviewees was used to strengthen patterns that
ratify the elements identified; triangulation of the sources
of evidence (interviews, documentary analysis and obser-
vation); as also the triangulation of researchers, since the
data were analysed in several stages and reviewed with the
participation of all the involved researchers.
The Context and the Case
Poverty is a relevant and an in-depth problem in Brazil.
The number of people living with less than US $3.10 a day
was, in 2013, about 19 million (The World Bank 2016),
approximately 10% of the Brazilian population. One of the
consequences of the poverty in Brazil is the number of 3.2
million of residences under the classification as ‘‘irregular’’
or ‘‘subnormal clusters,’’ representing more than 11.5
million people living in precarious conditions (IBGE
2013).
About poverty and habitation in Brazil, it is possible to
highlight the relevance of alternative forms beyond the
state performance that can improve peoples quality of life.
In this scenario, Homes for All Enterprise, characterized as
a social innovation venture, responsible to generate social
innovation, acts in helping poor people to legalize their
house.
The portrait usually found by the Homes for All
Enterprise is observed by many families who had, as a
common feature, low monthly incomes and lack of ade-
quate housing. Situations like these led this population to
establish residences in areas of risk and on private property.
Therefore, on the one hand there is a legal landowner and
on the other hand there are many families that do not have
adequate housing, resulting in major conflicts over prop-
erties. Although these invasions occurred in general a few
decades ago, driven mainly by the Brazilian rural exodus, it
can be said that the problem of the housing deficit has not
been solved in the country.
To help to solve this social problem, a social innovation
venture called Homes for All Enterprise was founded in
2001 in the south of Brazil. Currently, Homes for All
Enterprise is a small organization, with almost 20
employees, and benefits 15 communities in the south, 07 in
the southeast, and 01 in the north of Brazil. The Homes for
All Enterprise, including its social entrepreneur and its
staff, are not part of the beneficiary communities. They are
part of an outside group that seeks, through market logic, to
deliver social value to the communities that need support
for the legalization of their homes and for obtaining the
property rights.
Despite its small structure and reduced number of
employees, Homes for All Enterprise is supported by
partner organizations: an impact investment fund and the
local authorities. The fund injected financial capital into the
social innovation venture in 2013 and, thus, acquired a
share of it. In addition to the injection of financial
resources, the impact investment fund is part of the man-
agement board and thus assists in the strategic level deci-
sions of the social innovation venture. The Local
Authorities, though not involved with the allocation of
financial resources, are other important partners. Local
authorities assist in two main ways. The first includes the
political and judicial support to allow the regularization
service of the occupied areas. This often includes the
editing of local laws that allow the regularization of these
areas. The second form of assistance is the construction of
infrastructure in the areas in process of regularization. This

123
972
usually includes improvement in the water distribution
system and electric power system, the provision of corre-
spondence services and the introduction of sewage net-
works, construction of streets with pavements, items hardly
found in the communities in which Homes for All Enter-
prise operates.
Homes for All Enterprise’s activities could be analysed
in five main steps. First: an analysis of possible areas to be
regularized is developed by the social innovation venture in
collaboration with partners, as NGO (non-governmental
organization), local governments and representatives of
areas in conflicts. Second: meetings with the residents’
association, representatives of the local governments and
legal owners of the areas. Third: evaluation of the urban
areas as well as other transaction details about the pay-
ments from the occupants to the legal owner; Four: through
the Homes for All Enterprise, which keeps a percentage to
maintain its structure, the payments are made; Five: at the
end of the payment, the residents receive the proper deeds
and records of real estate, confirming their legal ownership
of the property.
It is important to mention that the Homes for All
Enterprise maintain its activity (in financial aspects) from
the service provided to poor communities that seek to
regularize their property to guarantee rights over them. Its
financial maintenance stems from this service and a part of
the payments made by the communities. As these com-
munities do not have high purchasing power, part of the
funds comes from impact investment funds operating in
Brazil.
To complete this study and its purpose, two deprived
areas called Neighbourhood A and Neighbourhood B
(fictitious names), attended by Homes for All Enterprise in
the same city, were investigated. The number of families
benefiting from the action of Homes for All Enterprise was
approximately 130 in Neighbourhood A and around 140 in
Neighbourhood B, reaching more than 1100 people.
According to data from residents of both neighbourhoods
and the entrepreneur of the social innovation enterprise, the
two areas were known as ‘‘slums.’’ In Brazil, areas such as
these are common mainly in large cities or in metropolitan
regions. They are identified by high population density,
high levels of crime and poverty, and low urban infras-
tructure. Generally, these areas, as in Neighbourhood A
and Neighbourhood B, are irregularly occupied.
As these areas were irregularly occupied, they have been
suffering from conflicts between the residents and its legal
owners. In both cases, the identification of the areas was
made by Homes for All Enterprise from local government
requests, which could not solve the conflict, and requests
from the community members themselves. Both have been
assisted by the social innovation venture for a minimum of
5 years and now they are at the end of the process of land
123
Voluntas (2020) 31:966–980
regularization. So, they have enough experience with the
Homes for All Enterprise.
Findings
The empirical results suggest that there are five strategies
that help bring social innovation ventures and poor com-
munities closer. In the following section, we present five
main elements, based on the empirical evidence.
Finding 1: Social Innovation Venture Reputation
Our empirical data suggest that there is, in these two
communities (neighbourhood A and neighbourhood B), a
distance between the populations, the companies and
entrepreneurs in general. The main reason for this is the
receipt of funds by companies from these communities
without providing the promised service. This conclusion
could be demonstrated in the declaration of CA1: ‘‘real
estate agencies had already been here, but they were a
farce, and then came the lawyers and they also deceived
us’’ and CA3 ‘‘many have come here; we paid for one, we
paid for another and nothing happened.’’ According to
these excerpts, there is a widespread impression that sev-
eral companies and entrepreneurs have misled community
members. Oftentimes the value of the service was paid in
advance and the service was not provided.
To address this situation, the Homes for All Enterprise’s
experience of success in land regularization in other
regions of the country was important to improve its
receptivity in the communities, as highlighted by the CB3
interviewee:
At first, I was a bit suspicious of Homes for All
Enterprise, but they had already done other jobs in
coastal communities. We heard about this, but here
for us, they were new. Then we talked and matured
our ideas for months until the negotiations were
concluded. (CB3)
When realizing the serious work of Homes for All
Enterprise, the community itself tries to pass on this
experience to other communities that have the same
problem, recommending their services, according to infor-
mation provided by the interviewee BB3:
So, for us it was great, it was awesome. There are
even some people there in the neighbouring com-
munity, they are begging Homes for All Enterprise to
go there, they have seen the success achieved here,
they saw the success of Homes for All Enterprise, we
told them everything ourselves. (BB3)
Voluntas (2020) 31:966–980
In addition to this community explanation, Homes for All
Enterprise’s entrepreneur argued that one of the elements
of success in gaining new areas for regularization is the
‘‘good image’’ he acquired from the prizes won, as well as
positive exposure in the media. The following is a passage
in which the entrepreneur (interviewed Homes for All
Enterprise 1) exemplifies this question:
At first it was me and my employees who sought the
areas to regulate. People know about us today. When
we have won a prize from a major national newspa-
per, we have appeared on TV and in the magazines,
this has caused us to receive many calls from com-
munities that want our services. (Homes for All
Enterprise 1)
It can be seen, therefore, that poor communities, in general,
are kept away from companies due to their lack of
receptivity to people with few resources available for
purchases. When there is a greater proximity between
companies and poor communities, this is usually associated
with the direct exploitation of the little resource maintained
by these people. This can also be related to misleading
actions and a lack of competency by companies.
With this, a generalized mistrust could be established
with organizations and entrepreneurs that seek to work
with poor populations. One of the ways to improve this
image, that is, the reputation of social innovation ventures,
is to present narrative of success from previous work.
While it may take time, this image built within the com-
munity can be one of the main means to establish new
negotiations with different communities.
Other relevant information was the exposure of the
entrepreneur and the social innovation venture in prizes
that could guarantee the legitimacy of the proposal and
make the community recognize it to solve their problems.
Exhibits in the media, such as television channels and
newspapers, can also help build and maintain a reputation
for social innovation venture, which can help bring this
social innovation venture closer to its poor communities as
potential beneficiaries. In this way, Homes for All Enter-
prise’s positive reputation can be considered as one of the
relevant elements for the poor community to approach,
establish a relationship of trust and demand the services of
the social innovation venture. The reputation of the com-
munity, from the point of view of Homes for All Enter-
prise, was not considered by the entrepreneur as a relevant
aspect since this is difficult to assess in an urban context of
a large city.
973
Finding 2: Appropriate Prices to the Population’s
Reality
A second relevant question verified in this research is
related to the prices practiced by the social innovation
venture. Since the communities investigated in this study
(Neighbourhoods A and B) are largely composed of poor
people, by charging an appropriate price to the local real-
ity, Homes for All Enterprise can act efficiently, solving
the problem, but within the financial possibilities of the
residents, as reported by the interviewee Homes for All
Enterprise 1 and Homes for All Enterprise 2:
In areas where there is an agreement between the
owner and the residents, a fair value of indemnity is
defined […] Then we make a payment agreement, we
define where the lots are, and each inhabitant begins
to pay his lot to the owner. (Homes for All
Enterprise1)
We do a socioeconomic survey to know what the
financial capacity of the residents is and what they
could afford. At that time, we identified that most of
the residents agreed with the regularization and
accepted to pay. It is no use waiting for another 30 to
40 years for the promise that they will receive a
property for free, which does not happen. So, they
prefer to pay a lower value. (Homes for All Enter-
prise 2)
It can be seen in the explanations above that in addition to
charging a more affordable price for properties, Homes for
All Enterprise seeks to adjust the financing system to
people who do not have sufficient income to pay, even with
the agreement considering a lower price than practiced in
the traditional market. With data collection through non-
participant observation, it was possible to perceive the
poverty situation of the area mainly due to the low quality
in the overall infrastructure of the neighbourhoods (un-
paved streets, sidewalks only on main streets, little access
to basic sanitation, for example) and low-cost housing
(small wooden houses, houses without finishing, and
unfinished walls, for example).
To define the price that each community member must
pay for the area, Homes for All Enterprise makes a
socioeconomic survey based on indicators developed by
them, in which the number of people in the residence is
considered, their income, as well as the size of their
occupied property. With this, a calculation is made on the
value that the community can pay for each area in an
average period of 7–10 years. This value is negotiated with
the owner of the area, as well as considering the reality of
the community. In general, several rounds of negotiation
are required so that a common value agreement is reached.
123
974
The payments made by the residents of the investigated
neighbourhoods were based on sacrifices made by the
families, according to the reports of the interviewees CA2
and CB2.
When we bought the property, we were already
employed, and we were able to pay the regularization
instalments. Everything that we would earn, we
would save to pay it. […] Even if there was no bread,
but the land was there, and we never delayed the
instalment. (CA2)We had to save money to pay it. It
was half of our salary, so we got together and paid.
But for us it was an immense joy, we did not expect
that it would be so fast. (CB2)
Although a financial sacrifice was necessary, it was verified
that the prices practiced by Homes for All Enterprise
satisfied a basic need of owning a property of these people
residing in the poor neighbourhoods, so the amount paid
was something ‘‘advantageous,’’ according to reports of
CB3.
The rent from any house today, there in the neigh-
bourhoods, simple neighbourhoods, costs twice what
I am paying per month for my lot to be regularized,
that is advantageous! (CB3).
It is emphasized that by charging appropriate prices to the
local reality, the social innovation venture obtains a wide
acceptance in the community. To do so, it is necessary to
carry out a survey of the payment possibilities, including a
price that should be accessible for the community.
In addition, it should be noted that the amounts paid by
poor communities usually involve a great sacrifice by most
families, who fail to acquire other necessary products and
services, prioritizing the agreed values. Even so, the
amounts paid are understood as advantageous by the
communities, provided they meet an important need within
their reality.
In addition to the statements that indicate accessibility
of the amounts paid by properties traded by Homes for All
Enterprise in relation to the market price, there is another
way of confirming this. The Homes for All Enterprise has
received throughout its history numerous Brazilian and
international awards. Among them are awards from the
largest media organizations in Brazil in partnerships with
international institutions, the title certifying Homes for All
Enterprise as an organization that contributes to the UN
Sustainable Development Goals, as well as recognitions of
internationally prestigious organizations such as Ashoka
and Schwab Foundation.
123
Voluntas (2020) 31:966–980
Finding 3: Close Personal Relations
with the Community
A third element identified in this study is related to the
personal proximity of the relations established by the social
innovation venture. This element does not refer to the
strictly economic relationship between buyers and sellers
as in the traditional market, but rather to something more
in-depth and with the intent that goes beyond the capture of
the economic value generated. Such emphasis can be
observed in the actions carried out by the social innovation
venture, as well as in the importance to the social issues
given by the undertaking. The following section highlights
the importance given by the social innovation venture and
the undertaking of the specific issues of the communities
served.
Suddenly there was a situation in a neighbourhood
with 200 families being dumped on the street. Then I
left the meeting to see the situation. I could not hold a
meeting at the same time as those people were being
evicted. At that time, they were knocking down
properties and dumping 250 families in another
neighbourhood. I organized a march with the people,
we gathered in front of the site where they were
knocking down properties and we were able to sus-
pend the reintegration. (Homes for All Enterprise 1)
It is possible to note that the relevance of the problems of
the communities often goes beyond the obligations related
to the social innovation venture, such as the time when the
entrepreneur decided to leave the meetings of the day to
meet a demand of the population. This established the
credibility of the entrepreneur and the social innovation
venture in the community. However, programmed activi-
ties were also necessary so that the population could
understand the proposal and trust the performance of
Homes for All Enterprise.
It started to take too long to negotiate and I started
getting annoyed with Homes for All Enterprise, the
people here in the community were even saying that I
was in favour of Homes for All Enterprise and against
the community. Then I called them, and I discussed
everything with the owner of the enterprise. The same
day he came here, we talked a lot and he explained to
everyone why it was taking so long. End of story: we
closed the deal with them. (BB1)
I went to the Homes for All Enterprise to talk so
many times, the staff was always very considerate,
they kindly answered our questions and those of our
neighbours too. (BB2)
Therefore, when the relations between the parties are not
yet established with high levels of confidence, due to
Voluntas (2020) 31:966–980
historical facts, some actions can be taken. The first one
usually occurs more naturally, according to the events. It
comes from altruistic actions in which one human being
tends to be worried about others.
In addition, more programmed actions also help estab-
lish closer relationships among the actors, such as meetings
and informal lectures. These events in the community
demonstrate the importance of the place to the social
innovation venture; in the same way meetings in the
organization give greater legitimacy to the process, since
they show that there is a structure that supports the business
model and the fact that the solutions come from an ‘‘ac-
tual’’ organization. This was also perceived through non-
participant observation as some Homes for All Enterprise
posters were arranged in the public areas of neighbour-
hoods (such as in churches and in neighbourhood residents’
associations) with addresses and telephone contact of
Homes for All Enterprise.
Organized events (meetings and lectures) can create an
atmosphere of closeness between the parties, enabling
negative impressions related to past experiences to be
overcome by close and trusting relationships.
Finding 4: Proximity of Structure
The fourth element identified as the potential inducer of the
proximity between social innovation ventures and poor
communities is related to the organization’s structure. In the
investigated case of Homes for All Enterprise and the two
communities, little initial acceptance was observed when the
service was offered. Once found that the main reason for this
was the lack of knowledge of the population about details of
the negotiation, the entrepreneur and his team decided to set
up information kiosks in the two investigated communities.
The importance of these structures within communities can
be exemplified by the following sections:
They [Homes for All Enterprise] came and set up a
small office right here and they stayed here for two or
three months doing peoples’ registrations. […] And
Homes for All Enterprise was always scheduling
meetings, they were always talking to us. (CA3)
They [Homes for All Enterprise] came here to the
community, we had meetings in the church hall. They
came to explain, to talk and to show the projects, we
had to change the projects several times. (CB1)
It can be seen in the speeches that the bringing of the social
innovation venture into the community can represent
integration with the families. Besides just clients, the
communities, as interviewed CB1, visualize themselves as
part of the process since it was necessary to ‘‘change
projects several times,’’ and this was possible because of
the proximity to the social innovation venture.
975
It should be noted, however, that the cost of maintaining
a structure outside the organization is highly expensive and
not always possible. In the case of Homes for All Enter-
prise and the two communities, the strategy used was to
provide local structures (paid by the social innovation
venture) only in the first months of negotiations. As a
result, residents came to know the social innovation, to
make sure that it ‘‘really exists,’’ in addition to the fact that
a good deal of the negotiations was made in that period. In
the following section, the entrepreneur commented on this
strategy:
When we arrive in a new area, we make available an
information kiosk for a while, but not forever because
there comes a time when the locals know that Homes
for All Enterprise is there, and they have our contact.
(Homes for All Enterprise 1)
The non-participant observation can also prove this prox-
imity between the social innovation venture and the
communities, from photographs arranged in the corridors
of Homes for All Enterprise in which the information
kiosks in the attended neighbourhoods are shown. In this
sense, it can be understood that the proximity of structure
can help social innovation venture to approach poor
communities as they guarantee greater legitimacy among
the poor populations, demonstrating that the social inno-
vation venture really exists. In addition, there are issues
related to the ease of having the possibility of a local
service, since almost all the people involved work long
hours a day and the locations of the companies are almost
always far from the neediest communities.
Finding 5: Winning the Community Leadership’s
Trust
The fifth element identified in this study as relevant to the
closeness between poor communities and social innovation
ventures concerns the importance of the community leader.
In both environments investigated, local leaders were
classified as a relevant link between the parties, mainly
because they are already recognized by the community that
elected them as leaders or representatives. The role of local
leaders can be understood from their lines:
Some people understood what Homes for All Enter-
prise was talking about and some did not. Then I
explained and explained, always taking the lead. And
things got better. We started to create more confi-
dence in Homes for All Enterprise, we saw their
effort, we saw the bureaucracies they had to deal with
as well and how difficult it was for them. (CB2)
When people receive their deeds, they get an air of
happiness and gratitude. Last week, some people
123
976 Voluntas (2020) 31:966–980

received their deeds. You cannot imagine the joy of Proposition 1 Social innovation venture’s positive rep-
hugging each other, hugging me and saying, ‘thank utation support the proximity of a social innovation venture
you, we’re this happy because you helped a lot.’ and poor communities.
(CA1)
Appropriate Prices to the Population’s Reality
The participation of the community leader is very involved
from the negotiation stages with Homes for All Enterprise
The second research finding is related to the prices imposed
and legal landowners. In that period, much detailed
on the poor communities. To that end, prices in low-mid-
information of the negotiation is demanded by the com-
dle-income markets must have a good price-performance
munity. Recognition of all community leaders’ efforts
ratio and this is related to the inability of large investments
comes with time, when, for example, in the final phase of
in products or services, as well as the impossibility of
the process, many community members thank you for the
frequent replacement of products with a short period of use
work.
(Boateng et al. 2014; Lim et al. 2013; Ray and Kanta Ray
2011).
Therefore, by setting prices that are appropriate to the
Discussion and Implication for Theory
local reality, social innovation ventures could create win–
win relationships by enabling the product or service offered
In the prior section, we sketched the main strategies that
while also gaining from the marketing of the good. This
assist in building better relations between social innovation
win–win relationship holds that business can be good for
ventures and poor communities based on the facts that have
both companies and customers and all other network
emerged from our data. In this section, we will discuss
partners (Anderson et al. 2010).
those five strategies against the background of existing
In the case investigated in this study, the establishment
literature and make a proposition for each strategy.
of a win–win relationship between the parties (residents
and legal owners) is only possible from the performance of
Social Innovation Venture Reputation
a third party (the Homes for All Enterprise). This third part
mediates the relationship by presenting a market solution
It has been found that there is general widespread mistrust
for the existing market failure. This causes the owners to
on the part of the poor to consider whether small or large
benefit from receiving a ‘‘real value’’, below the market
companies are interested in helping to reduce poverty or at
value, but finally (after years or decades) receives some-
least improve their quality of life. These arguments are in
thing for their occupied property. This also makes it pos-
line with some more critical studies that argue that the
sible for the community to legalize their homes and
primary interest of firms in low-income markets would be
achieve a higher standard of quality of life. The third part,
related only to marketing strategies to reach new markets
the Homes for All Enterprise, appropriates a percentage of
and increase their profitability rather than issues related to
the values that would be destined to the owner for the
social development of poor populations (Jaiswal 2008;
maintenance of its structure. The entire process is carried
Jenkins 2005; Karnani 2007; Landrum 2007).
out in a transparent and official manner via contracts
In considering this negative image in part of the needy
between the three parties.
population, social innovation ventures should seek strate-
However, it can be emphasized that this study con-
gies to improve their reputation in these environments and
tributes to the literature by arguing that fair prices are
thereby succeed in two proposals, since Austin et al. (2006)
important elements to bring the relationship between social
advocate the idea that social entrepreneurs should base
innovation ventures and poor communities closer together.
their relationships on trust and reputation so that their
In addition, there is a need for the social innovation venture
actions are efficient and lasting. It should be emphasized
to conduct surveys on the ability of poor people to pay,
that this study contributes by adding the explanation that
including the opportunity for financing for those people,
this trust relationship is generally fragile at the beginning
since investing resources usually requires the sacrifice of
of the partnership but tends to be strengthened if the social
those people. This proximity and the co-creation of a value
innovation venture takes steps to improve it. Indications
proposition (in financial terms) for payment of the property
from other communities, proximity to poor individuals, as
can assist in the establishment of greater trust between the
well as winning prizes and titles can make the reputation of
parties. This can lead to future actions of co-creation, as in
social innovation venture stronger, achieve greater legiti-
the construction of structures of common use in commu-
macy and help in the development of a more efficient and
nities (such as the place used for the meeting of the Resi-
lasting social innovation proposal. We therefore conclude
dents’ Association, for example). We assume the
the following:
following:

123
Voluntas (2020) 31:966–980
Proposition 2 Appropriate prices help establish a win–
win relationship between communities and social innova-
tion ventures, bringing them together and creating a
mutual relation of reliability.
In our empirical study, this win–win relationship affects,
in addition to communities and the social innovation ven-
ture, landowners. In this way, the three actors involved are
benefiting from the implementation of the proposal.
Close personal Relations with the Community
The third finding of this research is related to the need for
close actions between the social innovation venture and
members of poor communities. This issue of close relations
between the actors has already been revealed as relevant
for the social innovation process to occur in a collaborative
way (Dawson and Daniel 2010), social entrepreneur’s work
is almost never isolated (Phillips et al. 2015).
In this sense, it was verified that, by constructing close
relations with the poor communities and helping in their
social development, the organizations could be part of the
solutions and not of the problems that these communities
face. Specifically, this study concludes by specifying that
this process of proximity can occur in two ways. The first
of these is related to the altruistic thought in which the
entrepreneur and other members of the social innovation
ventures seek to put themselves in the place of the other
and to understand their point of view. The second form of
proximity is related to program elements, such as con-
ducting lectures within the community or within the social
innovation venture structure. Such forms can help to
guarantee greater proximity between the actors for a more
efficient social innovation proposal. We therefore assume
the following:
Proposition 3 Close personal relationships, obtained
through altruistic or programmed actions, help to establish
an environment of trust between social innovation ventures
and members of poor communities, which leads to a closer
relationship between the parties.
Proximity of Structure
The fourth finding of the research indicates that there is a
need to approximate the structure of the social innovation
venture to members of poor communities. Such emphasis is
related to the need to maintain in-depth dialogues with the
poor to inform them about all the specified products and
services (Pervez et al. 2013; Reynoso et al. 2015). Besides,
as they relate roughly, organizations and poor populations
can develop innovative products and services in a co-cre-
ated way (Pansera and Owen 2015).
977
Although some theoretical contributions have already
investigated cooperation between organizations and poor
communities, the emphasis in structures that seek to bring
these two actors closer has not been found in the literature.
Given this, this study contributes to the theory by high-
lighting the relevance of taking part in the social innova-
tion venture structure to the assisted communities.
Answering stations can help members of the community
have easy access to social innovation venture information
and can close deals with greater convenience. In addition,
social innovation venture structures in the context of
communities can help make the proposal more ‘‘real’’ for
the context, reducing the sense of mistrust among mem-
bers. Hence we assume the following
Proposition 4 Local structures from social innovation
ventures located in poor communities helps to gain the
trust of poor people as it gives a greater sense of reality to
those involved while facilitating service and negotiations,
resulting in greater proximity among them.
Winning the Community Leadership’s Trust
The fifth proposition indicates that achieving the commu-
nity leader’s trust helps the social innovation venture in the
implementation of the proposals among poor communities,
acting as a bridge between the parties since the leader has
been chosen as a legitimate representative by the members
of the community. So, the local leaders are considered
important as they hold the confidence of the poor com-
munities and help deal with the challenges of the com-
munity (Majee et al. 2017). This confidence is gained over
time and strengthens relationships with the community.
Thereby, the present study contributes to the theory by
highlighting the role of the community leader as a bridge
between the community and the social innovation venture,
being an important aspect, since as indicated by Delannon
et al. (2016) the more stable the relationship is between
local communities and organization, the better the benefits
for the individuals who inhabit them. The reason for this is
the fact that the community leader has gained confidence
among the members of the community (Cleveland and
Cleveland 2018) and therefore has the ability to influence
the community in its decisions (McMillan and Chavis
1986). The social innovation ventures can take advantage
of the position of the local leader to start and/or strengthen
their relations with the community, diminishing the feeling
of distrust in the organization.
Proposition 5 Winning the community leadership’s trust
helps social innovation ventures to build a trust-based
connection between business and poor communities
123
978
Finally, based on the empirical results, we suggest that
the process of bringing together social innovation ventures
and poor communities can encompass these five strategies;
we hope that the actions developed to improve stakeholder
proximity will facilitate the creation of more efficient
social innovations in low-income contexts capable of
improving the quality of life of these communities.
Conclusion
Historically, companies and communities with few
resources available for purchases are not close. This
problem stems primarily from the little funds available for
purchases; however, often poor communities distance
themselves from opportunistic organizations based on past
experience. This has led to the development of a negative
corporate image by poor communities.
Even in the case of social innovation ventures, which
seek to satisfy social needs and improve the quality of life
of populations based on market logic, this problem persists,
hampering actions that would benefit these communities.
Given this practical problem and allied to the need for
discussions on the subject in the social innovation litera-
ture, this study sought to answer the following research
question: What strategies would help to bring social
innovation ventures closer to poor communities?
According to our empirical results, we conclude that
social innovation ventures could consider strategies related
to social innovation ventur’s reputation, appropriate prices
to the population’s reality, close relations with the com-
munity, proximity of structure, and winning the community
leadership’s trust.
Our contribution to the practices is related to the five
strategies that could be considered by entrepreneurs to try
to bring their proposals closer to disadvantaged commu-
nities. This may assist them in their implementation,
negotiation and proximity to the communities.
Moreover, we offer theoretical contributions to the
social innovation literature by at least four points. First, by
revealing the five strategies to approach social innovation
ventures and poor communities, new perspectives on how
the beneficiary communities perceive and are affected by
the social innovation proposals were described. Second, by
investigating a poorly explored actor in the social innova-
tion literature (the beneficiary communities) our study may
draw the attention of other researchers in the field to this
relevant topic. Third, by presenting in detail how social
innovations are implemented in marginalized communities,
our study clarifies this topic in the literature that is often
neglected, focusing only on the stages of development of
social innovation. And fourth, our study contributes to the
literature by presenting an empirical case in an emerging
123
Voluntas (2020) 31:966–980
economy, while much of the literature only explores cases
in developed contexts, mainly in Europe and North
America.
However, it is necessary to emphasize the limitations of
this study. The first is more related to the limitations of the
method regarding case studies, which seeks to investigate
in depth, a smaller number of cases, which does not allow
the generalization of the results. The second limitation
observed is related to the need for deeper contact with poor
communities’ members. In our data collection, there were
some obstacles to access information, mainly due to the
difficulty of access to the communities, restrictions on
visiting times and the lack of availability of the intervie-
wees. In addition, we found some resistance in the conduct
of interviews by the lack of contact of these people with
external researchers. Therefore, methods of investigation
that create closer relations between the researcher and
those investigated, such as ethnography, could be used in
the future.
Due to the limitations of this study, mainly related to the
difficulty of access to the data, we seek to clarify in an
initial way the complex relationship between social inno-
vation ventures and poor communities. Our intention is to
open research avenues for further studies, with other social
innovation initiatives and other communities, so that our
findings can be confirmed, refuted or improved.
Additionally, even as suggestions for future studies, we
believe that several approaches still require new contribu-
tions that seek to re-evaluate the strategies presented here
from qualitative or quantitative methods. The proximity of
some of the five elements identified can be interpreted as
elements of the same construct (endogenous variables).
Even that in our study, these elements have emerged from
the field as independent variables, future studies can
analyse if, how, and how much these elements are con-
nected. Besides, other research questions still require
answers: How does the process of joint creation of social
innovations between disadvantaged communities and
social innovation ventures occur? What is the role of other
actors, as well as NGOs and government, to facilitate these
relationships? These and other issues involving marginal-
ized populations and social innovation still demand
answers in studies that include the ecosystem in which
these innovations are developed.
Funding Funding was provided by Brazilian Federal Agency for
Support and Assessment of Postgraduate Education
(CAPES) and National Council for Scientific and Technological
Development (CNPq).
Voluntas (2020) 31:966–980
References
Anderson, J., Kupp, M., & Vandermerwe, S. (2010). Good business
makes poor customers good customers. Business Strategy
Review, 21(4), 46–51.
Ansari, S., Munir, K., & Gregg, T. (2012). Impact at the ‘‘bottom of
the pyramid’’: The role of social capital in capability develop-
ment and community empowerment. Journal of Management
Studies, 49(4), 813–842.
Austin, J. E. (2002). Apresentação. In R. M. Fischer (Ed.), O Desafio
da colaboração (pp. 19–20). São Paulo: Editora Gente.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and
commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? En-
trepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22.
Ayob, N., Teasdale, S., & Fagan, K. (2016). How social innovation
‘‘came to be’’: Tracing the evolution of a contested concept.
Journal of Social Policy, 45(4), 635–653.
Bardin, L. (1993). L’analyse de contenu. Paris: Presses Universitaires
de France Le Psychologue.
Bhatt, P., & Altinay, L. (2013). How social capital is leveraged in
social innovations under resource constraints? Management
Decision, 51(9), 1772–1792.
Boateng, R., Hinson, R., Galadima, R., & Olumide, L. (2014).
Preliminary insights into the influence of mobile phones in
micro-trading activities of market women in Nigeria. Informa-
tion Development, 30(1), 32–50.
Brest, P., & Born, K. (2013). When can impact investing create real
impact. Standford Social Innovation Review, 21(4), 33–48.
Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014). Social innovation: moving the field
forward. A conceptual framework. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 82, 42–51.
Casini, A., Bensliman, R., Callorda Fossati, E., Degavre, F., &
Mahieu, C. (2018). Is social innovation fostering satisfaction and
well-being at work? Insights from employment in social
enterprises providing long-term eldercare services. VOLUNTAS:
International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,
6(29), 1–17.
Clarkin, J., & Cangioni, C. (2016). Impact investing: A primer and
review of the literature. Entrepreneurship Research Journal,
6(2), 135–173.
Cleveland, M., & Cleveland, S. (2018). Building engaged commu-
nities—A collaborative leadership approach. Smart Cities, 1(1),
155–162.
Collier, D., Hidalgo, F. D., & Maciuceanu, A. O. (2006). Essentially
contested concepts: Debates and applications. Journal of Polit-
ical Ideologies, 11(3), 211–246.
Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneur-
ship: A critique and future directions. Organization Science,
22(5), 1203–1213.
Dawson, P., & Daniel, L. (2010). Understanding social innovation: A
provisional framework. International Journal of Technology
Management, 51(1), 9–21.
Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2017). Fundamentals for an interna-
tional typology of social enterprise models. VOLUNTAS:
International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,
28(6), 2469–2497.
Delannon, N., Raufflet, E., & Baba, S. (2016). Corporate community
engagement strategies and organizational arrangements: A
multiple case study in Canada. Journal of Cleaner Production,
129, 714–723.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2006). A disciplina e a prática da
pesquisa qualitativa. In N. K. Denzin (Ed.), O planejamento da
pesquisa qualitativa: teorias e abordagens. Artmend: Porto
Alegre.
979
Domenico, M. L., Haugh, H., & Tracey, P. (2010). Social bricolage:
Theorizing social value creation in social enterprises. En-
trepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 34(4), 681–703.
Drucker, P. F. (1987). Social innovation—Management’s new
dimension. Long Range Planning, 20(6), 29–34.
Edwards-Schachter, M. E., Matti, C. E., & Alcántara, E. (2012).
Fostering quality of life through social innovation: A living lab
methodology study case. Review of Policy Research, 29(6),
672–692.
Fossati, E. C., Degavre, F., & Nyssens, M. (2017). How to deal with
an ‘‘essentially contested concept’’ on the field? Sampling social
innovations through the Delphi method. European Public &
Social Innovation Review, 2(1), 45–58.
Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of
the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167–198.
Gershuny, J. (1983). Social innovation and the division of labour.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Glanzel, G., & Scheuerle, T. (2016). Social impact investing in
Germany: Current impediments from investors’ and social
entrepreneurs’ perspectives. VOLUNTAS: International Journal
of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(4), 1638–1668.
Groot, A., & Dankbaar, B. (2014). Does social innovation require
social entrepreneurship? Technology Innovation Management
Review, 4(12), 17–26.
Hart, S. L. (2005). Capitalism at the crossroads: The unlimited
business opportunities in solving the world’s most difficult
problems. New Jersey: Pearson Education.
IBGE. (2013). Censo Demográfico 2010: Aglomerados Subnormais -
informações territoriais. http://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/visualiza
cao/periodicos/552/cd_2010_agsn_if.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2019.
Jäger, U. P., & Schröer, A. (2014). Integrated organizational identity:
A definition of hybrid organizations and a research agenda.
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
Organizations, 25(5), 1281–1306.
Jaiswal, A. K. (2008). The fortune at the bottom or the middle of the
pyramid? Innovations, 3(1), 85–100.
Jenkins, R. (2005). Globalization, corporate social responsibility and
poverty. International Affairs, 81(3), 525–540.
Kanter, R. M. (1999). From spare change to real change: The social
sector as beta site for business innovation. Harvard Business
Review, 77(3), 122–132.
Karnani, A. (2007). The mirage of marketing to the bottom of the
pyramid: How the private sector can help alleviate poverty.
California Management Review, 49(4), 90–111.
Kolk, A., & Lenfant, F. (2015). Cross-sector collaboration, institu-
tional gaps, and fragility: The role of social innovation
partnerships in a conflict-affected region. Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, 34(2), 287–303.
Landrum, N. E. (2007). Advancing the ‘‘base of the pyramid’’ debate.
Strategic Management Review, 1, 1–12.
Lautermann, C. (2013). The ambiguities of (social) value creation:
Towards an extended understanding of entrepreneurial value
creation for society. Social Enterprise Journal, 9(2), 184–202.
Le Ber, M. J., & Branzei, O. (2010). (Re)forming strategic cross-
sector partnerships relational processes of social innovation.
Business and Society, 49(1), 140–172.
Lettice, F., & Parekh, M. (2010). The social innovation process:
Themes, challenges and implications for practice. International
Journal of Technology Management, 51(1), 139–158.
Lim, C., Han, S., & Ito, H. (2013). Capability building through
innovation for unserved lower end mega markets. Technovation,
33(12), 391–404.
Majee, W., Goodman, L., Reed Adams, J., & Keller, K. (2017). The
We–Lead model for bridging the low-income community
leadership skills-practice gap. Journal of Community Practice,
25(1), 126–137.
123
980
Mandell, M., & Steelman, T. (2003). Understanding what can be
accomplished through interorganizational innovations The
importance of typologies, context and management strategies.
Public Management Review, 5(2), 197–224.
Marques, P., Morgan, K., & Richardson, R. (2017). Social innovation
in question: The theoretical and practical implications of a
contested concept (pp. 1–17). Environment and Planning C:
Politics and Space.
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A
definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14(1),
6–23.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Morais-da-Silva, R. L., Takahashi, A. R. W., & Segatto, A. P. (2016).
Scaling up social innovation: A meta-synthesis. RAM. Revista de
Administração Mackenzie, 17(6), 134–163.
Moulaert, F. (2009). Social innovation: Institutionally embedded,
territorially (re)produced. In D. MacCallum, F. Moulaert, J.
Hillier, & S. V. Haddock (Eds.), Social innovation and
territorial development (pp. 11–24). London: Routledge.
Mulgan, G. (2006). The process of social innovation. Inovations, 1(2),
145–162.
Neumeier, S. (2012). Why do social innovations in rural development
matter and should they be considered more seriously in rural
development research?—Proposal for a stronger focus. Sociolo-
gia Ruralis, 52(1), 48–69.
Nicholls, A., & Murdock, A. (Eds.). (2012). Social innovation:
Blurring boundaries to reconfigure markets. Basingstoke: Pal-
grave Macmillan.
Nicholls, A., Simon, J., & Gabriel, M. (2015). Introduction:
Dimensions of social innovation. In A. Nicholls, J. Simon, &
M. Gabriel (Eds.), New frontiers in social innovation research
(pp. 1–29). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ojo, A., & Mellouli, S. (2018). Deploying governance networks for
societal challenges. Government Information Quarterly, 35(4),
106–112.
Pansera, M., & Owen, R. (2015). Framing resource-constrained
innovation at the bottom of the pyramid: Insights from an
ethnographic case study in rural Bangladesh. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 92, 300–311.
Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A
critical review of the concept. Journal of World Business, 41(1),
56–65.
Pervez, T., Maritz, A., & Waal, A. De. (2013). Innovation and social
entrepreneurship at the bottom of the pyramid—A conceptual
framework. South African Journal of Economic and Manage-
ment Sciences, 16(5), 54–66.
Phillips, W., Lee, H., Ghobadian, A., O’Regan, N., & James, P.
(2015). Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: A
123
Voluntas (2020) 31:966–980
systematic review. Group and Organization Management,
40(3), 428–461.
Phills, J., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. (2008). Rediscovering social
innovation. Stanford Social Innovation, 6(4), 34–43.
Pol, E., & Ville, S. (2009). Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring
term? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(6), 878–885.
Ray, S., & Kanta Ray, P. (2011). Product innovation for the people’s
car in an emerging economy. Technovation, 31(5/6), 216–227.
Reynoso, J., Kandampully, J., Fan, X., & Paulose, H. (2015).
Learning from socially driven service innovation in emerging
economies. Journal of Service Management, 26(1), 156–176.
Rogers, P. P., Jalal, K. F., & Boyod, J. A. (2008). An introduction to
sustainable development. London: Earthscam.
Santos, F., Pache, A.-C. C., Birkholts, C., & Birkholz, C. (2015).
Making hybrids work: Aligning business models and organiza-
tional design for social enterprises. California Management
Review, 57(3), 36–58.
Stake, R. E. (1998). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 86–105). California:
Sage Publications.
The World Bank. (2016). Poverty headcount ratio at $3.10 a day.
http://beta.data.worldbank.org/?end=2014&indicators=SI.POV.
2DAY&locations=BR&start=1960. Accessed 17 Dec 2018.
Turker, D., & Vural, C. A. (2017). Embedding social innovation
process into the institutional context: Voids or supports.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119, 98–113.
Van der Have, R. P., & Rubalcaba, L. (2016). Social innovation
research: An emerging area of innovation studies? Research
Policy, 45(9), 1923–1935.
Van Dyck, B., & Van den Broek, P. (2013). Social innovation : a
territorial process. In F. Moulaert, D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood,
& A. Hambouc (Eds.), The international handbook on social.
Collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research
(pp. 131–141). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Westley, F., & Antadze, N. (2010). Making a difference: Strategies
for scaling social innovation for greater impact. The Innovation
Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 15(2), 1–19.
World Bank Group. (2017). Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90 a day
(% of population). https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.
DDAY?view=chart. Accessed 12 July 2018.
Yunus, M. (2007). Creating a world without poverty: Social business
and the future of capitalism. New York: Public Affairs.
Ziegler, R. (2017). Social innovation as a collaborative concept.
Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research,
30(4), 388–405.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.