Why social entrepreneurship struggles to shape research and innovation

The difficulty is not that social entrepreneurs have not yet entered the field of scientific research. It is that the field itself is not structured for them to enter.

This is why these collaborations remain the exception, not the norm.

A system designed around other actors

Scientific research and technological innovation do not take place in a neutral environment. They are embedded in institutional, financial, and political systems that define who can participate, under what conditions, and for what purposes.

Public research is often presented as open and oriented toward the common good. Political initiatives reinforce this narrative. When Emmanuel Macron launched #MakeOurPlanetGreatAgain in 2017, the message was clear: science must mobilize to address global challenges. In the end, the initiative only funded 42 researchers at best. That is not much for one of the most important issues of our century. Beyond the signal, the structure remains largely unchanged.

Even when new spaces emerge, such as the Innovation Campus for the Planet at IRD, the Societal Impact community launched by CEA, the D-Lab at MIT, or Tech4Impact at EPFL, they remain peripheral to the core functioning of research systems.

They create openings. But they do not redefine the rules.

Those who are able to engage with research are still those who already master its codes: large corporations, well-funded startups, and institutional actors. Others struggle to even enter the conversation.

Social enterprises, NGOs, and non-profit organizations rarely fit these models. The research world has little to no understanding of the concerns of civil society actors on the field. “Localized research on an issue specific to a territory or carried out by civil society, is of little interest to classic funders of research because the knowledge generated is less universally applicable” reminded us Lionel Larqué, Director General of Alliance Science-Société (ALLISS) during the Summer University of the Impact France Movement in 2020.

This is not an explicit exclusion. It is a system effect.

What gets built, and what does not

These structural conditions shape the direction of technological development. When research agendas are defined within specific institutional and economic constraints, the range of possible innovations narrows. Some questions are explored extensively. Others remain at the margins.

As Christophe Roturier highlights, Delegate for Science in Society at INRAE*, the evaluation of research does not encourage researchers to develop research collaborations in partnership with civil society. In France, the multi-annual planning which guides research budgets until 2030 does not mention (and therefore does not encourage) collaborations with citizens and civil society (NGOs, social entrepreneurs).

Technologies aligned with industrial demand are more likely to be developed. The result is not necessarily “bad” technology. It is a partial one.

And that partiality matters. Because what is not developed is as important as what is.

The limits of downstream action

In this context, social entrepreneurship tends to intervene where it can. Most initiatives operate downstream: using existing technologies, adapting them, building services around them, or attempting to mitigate their negative effects.

Some initiatives attempt to move upstream. For instance, programs such as The Future Of, developed by SoScience and recognized by the United Nations as a Good Practice for the Sustainable Development Goals, aim to connect researchers and social entrepreneurs to co-develop research projects rooted in social and environmental needs.

These experiments show that other configurations are possible. But they also reveal their limits. They require navigating institutional constraints, accessing funding mechanisms that are not designed for them, and building legitimacy in environments where impact is not the primary evaluation criterion.

Support and investment strategies do not include the social and environmental dimension in the criteria grid used for rating and funding research projects. Social impact is perceived as a positive externality of research projects, but it is not what sets the creation of research consortia in motion.

Support staff inside knowledge transfer offices and innovation department at universities are very well versed on economic return on investment. They mainly have to answer to economic policies, and do not know how to integrate the societal impact on society. The economic KPIs exist: economic growth, job creation, spin-off creation. The social KPIs are non-existent, or not well-known, and therefore the societal impact is not thought through.

Funding rules are not adapted to social entrepreneurs who want to invest in science and the barriers for scientists to collaborate with them are very high.

Beyond collaboration: a question of power

Calls for more collaboration between researchers and social entrepreneurs are increasing. They are necessary, but they do not address the core issue.

The problem is not only access. It is power.

Who defines research priorities? Who decides which problems deserve attention? Who controls the resources that make certain developments possible?

As long as these questions remain unchanged, new forms of collaboration risk remaining peripheral, integrating social actors sporadically without allowing them to shape the system.

Engaging with science and technology therefore requires more than exceptional partnerships. It requires the ability to influence agendas, to participate in decision-making processes, and to redefine what counts as success.

Tackling social and environmental challenges through research will not happen just through good will and public announcements. The research and innovation system has to favor collaboration with society, including social entrepreneurs, and integrate social and environmental criteria to the evaluation process.

The question is often framed as follows: how can social entrepreneurship engage more with science and technology?

A more accurate formulation would be:

What would it take for the research and innovation system to be shaped by a broader set of actors and values?

This is not a question of inclusion. It is a question of transformation. And it is, ultimately, a political question. Pressing challenges such as climate change forces us to rethink our innovation model. The social role of universities is being challenged and new ways to interact with society are needed. I therefore envision that answering this question will soon become inevitable.