Abstract

This study intends to carry out a bibliographic review on innovation and social entrepreneurship, in order to contribute to the studies of the state of the art of both categories. From a theoretical point of view it is based on the contributions of Hernández, Tirado and Ariza, (2016), Howaldt and Schwarz, (2010); Godin, (2012); Moulaert et al., (2010), Arenilla and García, (2013); Estrada, (2014), Lepoutre, (2011); among others. From the methodological point of view it is limited to a bibliographical investigation in which a review of the literature that addresses these issues has been made. The selection of the definitions obeys a chronological criterion from 1997 to 2014, citation criteria were taken (that is, those definitions that are incorporated into published works are taken). For these purposes, a review was made, through a manual search in key journals of the main databases, using the keywords “social innovation” as terms of reference. According to the results obtained: while social innovation contributes to well-being social from a larger scope, not only from the change in companies, but also in organizations, institutions or society as a whole, social entrepreneurship is focused on contributing to society from initiatives developed in the field of the company and business. The present work has revealed that there is an intimate correlation between the concrete definitions of the concept of social innovation and social entrepreneurship, the historical development of these concepts and their disciplinary implications.

Keywords: social innovation, social entrepreneurship, literature review.

Resumen

Este estudio pretende realizar una revisión bibliográfica sobre innovación y emprendimiento social, a los fines de aportar a los estudios del estado del arte de ambas categorías. Desde el punto de vista teórico se fundamenta en los aportes de Hernández, Tirado y Ariza, (2016), Howaldt y Schwarz, (2010); Godin, (2012); Moulaert et al., (2010), Arenilla y García, (2013); Estrada, (2014), Lepoutre, (2011); entre otros. Desde el punto de vista metodológico se ciñe a una investigación bibliográfica en la que se ha hecho revisión de la literatura que aborda estos temas. La selección de las definiciones obedece a un criterio cronológico de 1997 a 2014, se tomaron criterios de citación (es decir se toman aquellas definiciones que se incorporan en obras publicadas). A tales fines, se hizo una revisión, mediante una búsqueda manual en revistas clave de las principales bases de datos, utilizando como términos de referencia las palabras clave “innovación social.” De acuerdo con los resultados obtenidos: mientras la innovación social contribuye al bienestar social desde un ámbito mayor, no solo a partir del cambio en las empresas, sino también en las organizaciones, instituciones o en la sociedad en su conjunto, el emprendimiento social está centrado en contribuir a la sociedad a partir de las iniciativas desarrolladas en el ámbito de la empresa y los negocios. El presente trabajo ha puesto de manifiesto que existe una íntima correlación entre las definiciones concretas del concepto de innovación social y emprendimiento social, el desarrollo histórico de dichos conceptos y sus implicaciones disciplinares

Palabras clave: innovación social; emprendimiento social; revisión bibliográfica.

Resumo

Os padrões internacionais de informação financeira constituem um instrumento normativo internacional no qual os critérios técnicos para a apresentação de informações financeiras são compartilhados, que podem ser compartilhados de forma intercambiável onde estão. O objetivo deste ensaio é realizar uma análise das perspectivas sobre a implementação das normas internacionais de relatório financeiro no Equador. Para esse fim, a implementação desses regulamentos é feita internacional e especificamente na América Latina e no Equador. Os prós e contras que essas regulamentações apresentaram neste país, de acordo com relatórios apresentados pelo próprio Estado, são indicados os desafios que as empresas devem assumir no processo de adaptação e treinamento de seus funcionários. O mesmo acontece no caso da aplicação dessas normas nas informações tributárias, aspecto que vem avançando no Equador por meio de resoluções e leis que regulam esse assunto. Esses avanços se tornam conquistas para o Equador porque permitem que as empresas se expandam sem restrições de natureza financeira, como aspectos tributários. Segundo as fontes consultadas, esse processo não tem sido fácil, devido às defasagens na constituição de algumas empresas e aos ajustes regulatórios no país em que está envolvida.

Palavras-chave: inovação social, empreendedorismo social, revisão de literatura.

Introducción

The theme of social innovation has been configured in a multifactorial construct that has gained relevance and interest over time, especially in the field of "political, economic and social" (Abreu, 2011 in Hernández, Tirado and Ariza (2016) This growing prominence is due to the fact that, among other things, this thematic topic has received various contributions from the academic world, with the consequent innovative practices of diverse nature, such as corporate social responsibility, collaborative economy; as well as the promotion from various social movements.

In addition to the above, social entrepreneurship has been approached by different authors from different edges of knowledge, such as from Sociology, Economics, Anthropology and Psychology. The economic sciences have linked it to development, from an eminently economic approach; while the sciences of Psychology, Anthopology and Sociology have analyzed it from a predominantly social approach. From the different edges in which entrepreneurship is studied, social entrepreneurship has been discussed, for example, about which there are not many agreements that are said, there are authors for whom it is a matter of beneficence and there are others who relate it to Economic development and social responsibility. This article intends to present a bibliographic review on social innovation and on social entrepreneurship, in order to clarify both categories from the perspective of several authors, in order to contribute to the revision of the state of the art of both constructs for future research.

For this purpose, at least 30 bibliographic references from various texts, such as articles, books from 1997 to 2014 were reviewed. This review is based on the contributions made by authors from 2009 onwards, without dismiss the classic contributions made from previous years, in order to be able to have references and perform an analytical work weighted from the academic and scientific point of view. It should be noted that, the main objective of this article is to conduct a bibliographic review on social innovation and social entrepreneurship from a purely conceptual and theoretical perspective.

Materials and methods

This section includes the respective theoretical support referred to social innovation and social entrepreneurship, from economic, business and sociological approaches. At least 30 bibliographic references were taken between articles and texts dealing with the subject, and definitions and concepts are taken, both from the social innovation phrase and from the social entrepreneurship phrase. All this in order to present a theoretical contribution on the state of the art of both constructs to contribute to scholars on this subject.

Theoretical references

Although the phrase social innovation is a current category and current relevance, in the specialized literature on the subject there is no exact agreement regarding its meaning. In contrast to this, it is a conception that adopts various approaches and edges, which can be treated from totally different perspectives and referential frameworks. This terminological scope is emphasized, given the prevalence of innumerable practices that survive in society, which makes it impossible to determine systematic paradigms that enable rigorous scientific research. This, despite the fact that this thematic topic has recently been incorporated into public programs and policies, both by movements and by organizations linked to social change.

The above, realizes that this phrase is a construct that is still in development towards the meeting of some kind of consensus of the authors on its definition. Currently, it is defined more by the area in which social innovation is developed than by its own peculiarities and characterization; However, to understand the concept of social innovation it is necessary to start from the cultural framework from which it comes. (Echeverría, 2012). This very relevant element has hardly been addressed in the literature dealing with this subject.

From this analytical point of view, assuming that SI is a cultural process, as a result of interaction in a specific community, this leads to establishing the variables of cultural systems and the actions of interaction and social participation that foster the development of innovation. If we assume this perspective of analysis, considering social innovation as a cultural process product of a specific community, forces us to objectify what would be the variables of cultural systems and social action processes that drive the development of innovation in each specific context . This consideration of social innovation as a "cultural product" needs to recognize the "historical context" in which it arises. Likewise, the principles that are reflected in these definitions and the structural elements that are articulated in the form of the features that integrate it.

In order to contextualize and better understand the term social innovation, it is necessary to clarify, in the first instance, that most authors agree that the innovative process begins with an unmet need along with the intention of satisfying it. As a way to illustrate this aspect, Mulgan has to be (2006: p. 37) contributes that innovation is the process by which diverse, creative and new ways are sought to meet the needs not yet met, poorly met or emerging

On the other hand, almost all the approaches and disciplines that address innovation as an object of study and research, give the SI a relevance such that they have come to qualify as the “engine” of the “social evolution” process, of “change social ”or“ development ”. This conception is radical in some authors such as Durkeheim, Weber or Marx, who relate it to the development of socio-cultural formations such as capitalism. For its part, classical sociology has developed some proposals to "analyze what were the mechanisms by which societies made the transition from tradition to modernity and how the transformations materialized in each social moment." Hernández, Tirado and Ariza (2016).

Finally, it can be evidenced that in this author's proposal innovation will be the secret to understanding and explaining development processes, being configured in an aspect of great importance to analyze the processes that generate changes in the field of social welfare. For their part, authors such as Howaldt and Schwarz (2010) combine these definitions, ideas and notions and also add the time variable, so that innovation helps shape parts of the change that will become relevant in the future. Looking back and paying attention to the most rigorous sphere of the economy, Hagenstrand (1952), in The propagation of innovation waves, treats innovation from economic geography, analyzing the diffusion of innovation in the territory as a form of economic growth. Later, Drucker (1986) addressed innovation as a form of development for organizations, having as reference the proximity of the market and the management style. In that order of ideas, this author infers that innovation changes something, a process, someone's behavior, therefore, innovation must always be close to the market, focused on the market and directed towards the market.

From this referential framework, innovating is not limited only to the ability to do something new, it is to transcend to achieve its concretion and commercialize it successfully, which involves not only technological innovation, but also organizational, managerial and commercial changes.

A very relevant reference and worth considering when analyzing innovation from an economic perspective lies in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In its Oslo Manual (1997), in which it is pointed out that innovation is not an objective or end in itself but a way through which production and productivity can grow, as well as contributing to increasing competitiveness of a company, and can help reduce production costs and be present in new markets.

In this order of ideas, and on the subject of the above, the European Commission's Green Paper for Innovation (1995) explains that innovation is assumed as synonymous with the production, adoption and exploration of a novelty, in the economic and social spheres, in a way that gives unprecedented and immediate solutions to problems and manages to respond to the needs of people and society. This assumption allows establishing a direct link between innovation and ways to better meet the needs of society, considering that this perspective has an economic and productive approach.

By continuing with the innovation line from a market trend and product function, Freeman (1997) suggests that innovation is the process of interaction in which attempts will be made to develop or improve a product, process or product. system. Therefore, innovation from an economic approach is configured in the consolidation of a new product, process or improved system.

In general, it could be said that, within the framework of economic discipline, innovation is a complex process that brings notions to the market in the form of new or improved products or services. All this would be composed of two aspects: the first, specialized in knowledge, while the second is mainly dedicated to its application. In this regard, Hernández, Tirado and Ariza (2016), report what is presented in a row:

Although a first approach to the term innovation seems to conceive it as the manifestation of invention and creativity in new forms of markets and economic values, its development and impact on the social fabric will imply a wide range of economic and productive activities that highlight its purpose, which is none other than the continuous improvement of the product, the market, the organization, the society, the environment and, ultimately, the well-being of people and society. (P. 09)

Hence, the noun phrase social innovation is a term that extends far beyond mere invention and creativity to undertake and develop market activities, its scope of action transcends far beyond that, which implies the optimization of all production processes, marketing, economic and financial processes betting on the scope of the achievement of the well-being of people and society in general.

Main definitions of the concept of social innovation

There are authors such as Godin, (2012) for example, who assume that the beginnings of the concept of social innovation can be considered since the nineteenth century, specifically since the French revolution. On the other hand, other authors mark the origin of social innovation as an object of study, based on the works of Weber and Schumpeter, (Hillier et al., 2004) and, and there are even those who place it in much more contemporary times, placing the beginnings of this concept towards the decade of the seventies of the last century (Cloutier, 2003). However, another team of researchers placed the emergence of social innovation in the direction of alleviating the gaps in economic and technocratic theories, which obviated in their analysis the aspects of social and territorial cohesion (Moulaert et al., 2010). From this framework and without a doubt, it is considered that the context of economic and financial crisis that develops in the world since 2008, bringing with it the need to make deep budgetary restrictions on public spending and the consequent weakening of the welfare state , has stimulated the theoretical reflection, at the same time that it has generated spaces of social action that the State and the market do not cover adequately.

In the light of the above considerations, in order to make a significant revision of the conception of the term social innovation, the most relevant definitions about social innovation are presented in Table No. 1.

Table No. 1. Main definitions of concept of social innovation according to various authors and institutions from 2009 to 2014.

Author / Institution / year Definition

OECD, 2009 The term "social innovation" is used to describe the development and implementation of new ideas (products, services or models) to meet social needs. As in other fields, social innovation is different from "improvement" or "change" ... It suggests an increase in creativity and invention vital to innovation ... Although there is an overlap between improvement, change, innovation, entrepreneurship and creativity.

Red Six (Social Innovation Exchange and Young Foundation) 2010 Innovations that are social, both in their ends and their means.

Howaldt and Schwarz, 2010 These are new combinations and / or configurations of social practices in certain areas of action or social contexts, promoted by certain actors or constellation of actors in an intentional way with the objective of better satisfying needs and problems.

Hubert, 2010 These are new ideas (products, services and models) that simultaneously satisfy social needs (more effectively than alternatives) and that create new social and collaborative relationships, fostering social capacities for action.

Cahill, 2010 Social innovation is an initiative, product, process or program that profoundly changes the basic routines, resources, flows of authority or beliefs of any social system (for example, individuals, organizations, neighborhoods, entire communities and society).

Andrew and Clein, 2010 Social innovation implies the desire to do things differently to think in terms of transformations to social institutions and practices. Social innovation requires learning and the institutional capacity to learn. They are the “learning regions,” therefore, critical elements in the processes of social innovation.

Dawson and Daniel, 2010 Social innovation can be described in general terms as the development of new concepts, strategies and tools that support groups to achieve the goal of improving well-being; Social innovation is how to solve social problems and the fulfillment of social objectives to improve social welfare

Sinergiak, 2011 Attitudes, ideas, initiatives, activities, organizations, services or products that are motivated to respond to social, economic, cultural or organizational needs and can also pursue and produce social benefits

Agnés Hubert, BEPA, CE, 2011 Social innovations are innovations that are social both in their ends and in their media. Specifically, we define social innovations as products (new ideas, services and models), which simultaneously meet social needs (more effective than other alternatives) and create new social relationships or collaborations. They are innovations that are not only good for society but also improve the ability to act in society.

Rockefeller Foundation, 2011 What seems most useful as a definition is that social innovation really refers to innovation in the social sector - in other words, innovation applied to environmental, social and health problems, as opposed to business . Social innovation may be associated with social entrepreneurship, but I think that is a very narrow definition. I think that social innovation comes in four categories. It is not product innovation, which is what most people think when they think of innovation ... there is process innovation. How to make things, not just what you do. Thus, aesthetics, not only a new thing, but it can be doing old things in new ways ... Thirdly, there is market innovation, which is really transforming the functioning of markets, and in the social space , as in the for-profit sector, those are very powerful ways to innovate ... and then the fourth category is organizational innovation. Also in this case, I think people don't usually have that kind of mentality when they think about what innovation means. But another is a very powerful way.

OECD, 2011 Social innovation is what can affect a conceptual, process or product change, an organizational change as well as changes in financing, and can cope with new relationships with stakeholders and territories ... social innovation seeks to find answers to

social problems through:

a- The identification and delivery of new services that improve the quality of life of individuals

and the communities

b- The identification and implementation of new labor market integration processes,

new skills, new jobs and new forms of participation as well as various elements that each contribute to improve the position of individuals in the active population

Harayama and Nitta, 2011 New strategies, concepts, ideas and organizations that respond to social needs of all kinds (from working conditions, education for community development and health) that extend and strengthen civil society.

European Union, 2012 Social innovations are new ideas, institutions or ways of working that meet social needs more effectively than existing methods. Often, social innovation consists in the reconstruction and reuse of existing ideas: the new application of an old idea or the transfer of an idea from one part to another

Arenilla y García, 2013 Development of innovative products or processes that are geared towards solving the most pressing problems of people and satisfying their main needs, implying an improvement of the previous conditions as well as a transformation of the social environment and relationships human

Estrada, 2014 An innovation of this type is the set of plans, policies, agreements, social mechanisms, forms of civil society organization, which creates new and successful services and processes aimed at solving specific social problems, in the political organization and social, in justice, health, work, citizen participation, access to public services, education, access to culture, rest, recreation and a healthy environment, at local, regional levels , national or global. All this with indicators and verifiable goals regarding its impact

and to the social transformation by the application of the innovation, and that fulfills the limits of consensus, that is to say, that respects, like minimum, the agreements of the UN in the fields of application, or less, that are not incompatible with these.

Source: Hernández, Tirado and Ariza (2016). Own Edition (2019)

The other term to analyze in this work lies in the so-called social entrepreneurship, which today has been formed in a field of interest and active action in the development of scientific research during the last three decades (Lisetchi & Brancu, 2014; Zahra et al., 2009). Thus, as various researchers have highlighted the attractiveness of the approach to the study and analysis of this social construct, specifically in the subject and business approach (Austin, et al., 2006; Certo & Miller, 2008; Peredo & McLean, 2006; Peredo & Chrisman, 2006; Schendel & Hitt, 2007).

This thematic topic on social entrepreneurship is not only interesting for researchers, but also for the economic field (Gangemi, 2006), and for entrepreneurs (Bornstein, 2007; Hemingway, 2005) and even for those who hold roles and roles in public policies that involve this matter. (Korosec & Berman, 2006). However, although this topic enjoys this growing interest, the guild formed by academics and professionals is far from reaching an agreement regarding the semantics of the term. This is to determine in a consensual way the real meaning of social entrepreneurship. In that order, Dacin et al., (2010) affirm that the status quo of conceptual anarchy precludes further progress in this area of knowledge.

One of the reasons that makes consensus among the authors that have offered their contributions and considerations on the topic so difficult is that this is a phrase that is characterized by its versatility (Bacq & Janssen, 2011; Nicholls, 2008; Weerawardena & Mort , 2006). On the other hand, from a praxis perspective, the implementation of various businesses of a social nature may be referred to. Generally, what is stipulated is that the State, through the government grant support from the main foundations in the field such as Ashoka, Skoll Foundation, or Schwab Foundation, which have been of capital relevance for its progress. That is why the government designs and proposes the organizational context, in order to encourage the generation of new business and social ideas through their financial support.

A point that coincides with all researchers is that social entrepreneurship has as its ultimate goal and main mission to contribute to the welfare of society (Austin et al., 2006; Dees, 1998; Lasprogata & Cotten, 2003; Peredo & McLean, 2006; Perrini & Vurro, 2006; Sharir & Lerner, 2006), successfully face the social problems that arise (Alvord et al., 2004; Bornstein, 2007; Light, 2006) and emerge victorious solutions to reduce to a minimum , the pressing social needs (Mair et al., 2006; Mair & Marti, 2006; Seelos & Mair, 2005). And it is even the consideration of some students of the subject to think that social enterprises have the potential to produce important transformations in “the perception, the formulation of policies, or the application of social changes in the public sector.” (Waddock & Post, 1991).

Una de las consecuencias de la confusión y variedad de la definición conceptual del término es considerar que el emprendimiento sea potestad exclusivamente de aquellas organizaciones que asumen el emprendimiento sin fines de lucro. (Lasprogata & Cotten, 2003), frente a otras consideraciones que sugieren que el emprendimiento social puede desarrollarse por empresas lucrativas si y solo si se hallan a cargo de organizaciones sin fines de lucro (Wallace, 1999), “como organizaciones con pérdidas financieras permanentes.” (Baron, 2007), que efectúan “acciones de tipo filantrópico” (Ostrander, 2007), o” como aquellas actividades empresariales con un objetivo social” (Certo & Miller, 2008; Van Slyke & Newman, 2006; Ven, Sapienza, & Villanueva, 2007).

Among the most widespread and accepted definitions in the scientific field of this phrase, the one developed by Mair and Martí (2006) stands out, who assume social entrepreneurship as “a process of creating value through new combinations of resources”. These combinations of resources are primarily intended to explore and exploit opportunities to create social value, stimulate social change or meet new social needs. (Alonso, González and Nieto, 2015).

Below is presented in table Nº 2, some of the most relevant definitions in the field of social entrepreneurship, from 1997 to 2014:

Table 2. Main definitions of social entrepreneurship according to authors from 1997 to 2014

Leadbeater (1997) Business conduct for social purposes and not for profit, in which the benefits generated by market activities are used for the benefit of a particular disadvantaged group.

Dees & Elias; Of is. (1998) Agent of change in the social sector that: 1) Adopts the mission of creating and sustaining social value, 2) Recognizes and pursues new opportunities to achieve that mission, 3) Participates in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation and learning, 4) Act with courage and without being limited by the available resources, and 5) It is transparent and presents greater accountability.

Thompson et al. (2000) A person who detects an opportunity and who meets any need not met by the State, and who gathers the necessary resources (usually people, often volunteers, money and other assets) and uses them to generate social change.

Alvord et al. (2004) The creation of innovative solutions that solve the immediate social problems and mobilize the ideas, capacities, resources and social agreements necessary to achieve a sustainable social transformation.

Light (2006) An individual, group, network, organization or alliance of organizations that seeks sustainable change on a large scale through the application of new ideas. These ideas are different from those applied by governments, non-profit organizations, and companies to deal with social problems.

Austin et al. (2006) It defines social entrepreneurship in an innovative way, such as the creation of social value from activities that can occur inside or outside of lucrative or non-profit organizations, private or public.

Mair and Martí (2006) A process of value creation through new combinations of resources

Peredo and McLean (2006) An organizational person or group that aims to create social value, through innovative activities that take advantage of the capabilities and resources available to them, and assume a certain risk for the activities they carry out.

Martin and Osberg (2007) Define social entrepreneurship as: 1) the identification of the current context 2) the identification of the opportunity and the development of a new proposal of social value to challenge the balance, and 3) the establishment of a new balance that alleviates the needs of the most disadvantaged groups through imitation and the creation of a stable ecosystem that ensures a better future for the group and society.

Nicholls (2008) A socio-moral motivation of the entrepreneur or a business activity that has a social mission

Zahra et al. (2009) Those activities and processes carried out, which manage to discover, define and take advantage of opportunities that improve social wealth through the creation of new companies or the management of existing organizations in an innovative way.

Dacin et al. (2010) Individual characteristics, processes and social activities that inevitably lead to discussion and debate. These activities are difficult to solve, since they are applied to all types of social business activities in all contexts.

Lepoutre (2011) A process of value creation through new ways of combining resources. These resources are primarily intended to explore and take advantage of opportunities to create social value and stimulate social change or meet social needs. In addition, it implies the offer of services and / or products, but it can also refer to the creation of new organizations.

Gatica et al. (2012). The process and the opportunity to create value for society, generating a change or impact in the community, either through the creation of products and services, or through new business models or new organizations. These activities are promoted based on the actions of an individual, a group or various organizations that operate in a specific context.

Schwab Foundation (2014) The application of practical, innovative and sustainable approaches that benefit society in general, and place emphasis on those who are marginalized and poor.

Source: Alonso, González and Nieto, (2015). Own Edition (2019).

Methodological foundations

This topic specifies the methodological procedures followed to carry out the literature review on the categories of social innovation and social entrepreneurship from a theoretical point of view, presenting the definitions of various kinds and connotations according to the authors, reviewing at least 30 texts among bibliographic material. and heterogeneous; as well as the web from 1997 to 2014, as explained below:

Methodological procedures of scientific-research rigor

The selection of these definitions is based on a chronological criterion from 1997 to 2014, citation criteria were taken (that is, those definitions that are incorporated in published works are taken), relevance (those that give rise to more or less elaborated theoretical frameworks) and genuineness (that is, it provides elements of great impact, either due to the fact that they have been consolidated within schools of thought, or because they belong to reference institutions in the field of social innovation).

 For these purposes, a bibliographic review was carried out, through a manual search in key journals of the main databases (such as: ISI Web of Knowledge, SCOPUS), using the keywords “social innovation” and other combinations as terms of reference ("Social innovation is defined", "definition of social innovation", "social innovation refers to", "social innovation is conceptualized", "dimensions of social innovation", and "research on social innovation"). It was also considered as a criterion that the languages of the most relevant publications were English and Spanish, as they were the most influential areas of the subject under study. A first result of this search yielded a total of 1,986 records. On this initial catalog it was decided to apply a more restrictive filter consisting of the explicit definition of social innovation in the body of the article. Using this criterion, the ratio was reduced to a total of 62 articles, which resulted in 48 different definitions, of which 30 articles were taken from which a definition was taken, obtaining 15 definitions per phrase, that is 15 definitions of social innovation and 15 definitions of social entrepreneurship

Analysis and discussion of results

The definition of the social innovation construct includes different aspects judging by the conceptions of the authors from before 2009 to 2014. In this regard it can be seen that innovation involves creativity, inventive new products, goods and services models to solve problems that afflict society; which implies changes from a business vision, innovation is also conceived as new combinations of social practices, it is also seen as initiatives of organizations in products and programs that change the basic routines of any social system.

In turn, social innovation is conceived as the desire to do things in different terms, it is thought instead of social practice; in the development of new strategies to achieve well-being, to solve problems and meet objectives of collective well-being; attitudes, activities, organizations, whose motivation is to respond to social, economic, cultural and organizational problems to achieve social benefits; new ideas, services and models that meet social needs more efficiently than other alternatives, innovation applied to the environment, health from 4 dimensions: process innovation, market innovation, and organizational innovation; organizational and financial change to respond to social problems by improving the quality of life and new processes of integration into the labor market; development of innovative products aimed at solving problems, transforming the social environment and interpersonal relationships. Finally, social innovation is seen as a set of social plans, policies and mechanisms and forms of social organization that create new services and processes aimed at solving special processes.

On the other hand, the conceptions of the phrase social entrepreneurship also present a great diversity of definitions, so things in this construct have been defined as business conduct with social but non-profit purposes, in which the benefits generated will be provided to groups disadvantaged social; It is also defined as an agent of change in the social sector to create and sustain social value; social entrepreneurship seen as a person who detects an opportunity and meets social needs not resolved by the State and gathers the necessary resources to generate the desired change.

Social entrepreneurship is also conceptualized as the creation of innovative solutions that solve immediate social problems and achieve sustainable social transformation; It is also defined as an individual, group, network, or alliance of organizations that seek sustainable change on a large scale, through new ideas other than government and nonprofit organizations to address social problems. Social entrepreneurship is also conceived as the creation of a social value, through various combinations of resources; as the identification of the context, of the opportunity, development of social value, to alleviate the needs of the most disadvantaged social groups through a stable ecosystem that ensures a better future for the group and society.

In turn, social entrepreneurship is also defined as the socio-moral motivation of the entrepreneur or company that has a social mission, which performs activities and processes that improve social wealth through the creation of companies and management of organizations in an innovative way; It is also defined as the process of creating social value, social change and coverage of social needs, through the creation of new products and services and organizations.

Together with the above definitions, this is included: social entrepreneurship as the processes of social value creation, through new products and services and new organizations promoted by individuals, groups or diverse organizations in a given context; as the application of practical, innovative and sustainable approaches that benefit society in general with an emphasis on the marginalized and the poor.

This article presents a review of the literature on social innovation and on social entrepreneurship (Choi & Majumdar, 2014; Kirwan et al., 2013; Short et al., 2009). Thus, after the presentation of these concepts, there has been some confusion that has been revealed in this study. Among the contributions of this study are the different concepts and definitions of both constructs. From the analysis carried out, it can be affirmed that although social innovation and social entrepreneurship pursue the same objective, the well-being of society (Alvord et al., 2004), these concepts reflect different aspects (Westley & Antadze, 2010). While social innovation contributes to social welfare from a larger scope, not only from the change in companies, but also in organizations, institutions or society as a whole, social entrepreneurship is focused on contributing to society from of the initiatives developed in the field of business and business. In this way, the scope of social entrepreneurship is smaller than that of social innovation. (Phills et al., 2008).

Conclusions

In short, this work has revealed that there is an intimate correlation between the concrete definitions of the concept of social innovation and social entrepreneurship, the historical development of these concepts and their disciplinary implications. On more occasions than would be desirable the study of social innovation and social entrepreneurship has been carried out from a partial perspective, without the holistic approach that this issue requires. Precisely, this work brings new nuances, perspectives that contribute to a better knowledge of the phenomenon and to build bridges between the tree of social innovation, social entrepreneurship and the forest of the model of society that is intended to be built in today's society.

References

Abreu, (2011) ABREU, J. (2011): “Innovación social, conceptos y etapas”, Daena, International Journal of Good Conscience, 6 (2), 134-148.

Alonso, D.; González, N. & Nieto, M. (2015): "Emprendimiento social vs innovación social", Cuadernos Aragoneses de Economía, vol. 24, nº 1-2, (119-140).
Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation an exploratory study. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(3), 260-282.

Ashoka. (2014). Ashoka - innovators for the public. Retrieved from https://www.ashoka.org/
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei‐Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1-22.
Arenilla and García, (2013)): Innovación Social. La integración social en la administración pública, Editorial Netbiblo, La Coruña.
Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(5-6), 373-403.
Baron, D. P. (2007). Corporate social responsibility and social entrepreneurship. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 16(3), 683-717.
Certo & Miller, (2008) Certo, S. T., & Miller, T. (2008). Social entrepreneurship: Key issues and concepts. Business Horizons, 51(4), 267-271.
Choi, N., & Majumdar, S. (2014). Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 29(3), 363-376.)
COMISIÓN EUROPEA (1995): El libro verde de la innovación, En: ec.europa.eu/research/.../com_2011_0048_csf_green_paper_es.pdf

Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization Science, 22(5), 1203-1213.
Dacin, P. A., Dacin, M. T., & Matear, M. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: Why we don't need a new theory and how we move forward from here. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), 37-57

14. Dawson, P., Daniel, L., & Farmer, J. (2010). Editorial. International Journal of Technological Management, 51(1), 1-8.

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

16. Dees, J. G., & Elias, J. (1998). The challenges of combining social and commercial enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 8(1), 165-178.

Dees, J. G. (1998). Enterprising nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, 76, 54-69.
Drucker, P. (1986): La innovación y el empresario innovador, Editorial Norma, Bogotá
Durkheim, (1982) DURKHEIM, E. (1982): La división del trabajo social, Akal, Madrid.
Echaverría, J. (2008): “El Manual de Oslo y la innovación social”, ARBOR, Ciencia, Pensamiento y Cultura, CLXXXIV 732, Julio-Agosto, 609-618.

Echeverría, j. & Gurrutxaga, A. (2012): La luz de la Luciérnaga, Plaza y Valdés, Madrid.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (2011): “Innovation Union”, Brussels. En línea: http://ec.europa.eu/research/ innovation-union/index_en.cfm. (Consulta: 13-07-2019).

European Commission. (2014a). Europe 2020. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_en.htm
European Commission. (2014b). Oslo manual. THE MEASUREMENT OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ACTIVITIES. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/science/inno/2367580.pdf

European Commission. DG Regional and Urban Policy. (2013). Guide to social innovation. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/presenta/social_innovation/social_innovation_2013.pdf

Friedman, M. (2007). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York:

EUROPEAN COMISSION (2012): “Barriers to Social Innovation, FP 7 Project TEPSIE”. Brussels. En
línea: http://www.tepsie.eu/images/documents/tepsie.d3.1barrierstosocialinnovation.pdf (Consulta: 13-07-2019).

Freeman, C. (1997): The Economics of Industrial Innovation, MIT Press, IllinoisEuropean Union, (2012)
Gangemi, J. (2006). Green growth areas for entrepreneurs. BusinessWeek Online.
Gatica et al. (2012). La innovación social en chile y el rol del estado en su desarrollo. Escuela de Administración Pontificia
Godin, B. (2012): Social innovation: Utopias of innovation from 1830 to the present. Project on the intellectual History of innovation, INRS, Montreal, Working paper No. 11.

Hagenstrand, T. (1952): The propagation of innovation waves, Royal University of Lund
Hemingway, C. A. (2005). Personal values as a catalyst for corporate social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 60(3), 233-249.

Hochgerner, J. (2010). Considering the social relevance of innovations, preface at howaldt. J.and Schwarz, M.(2010) Social Innovation: Concepts, Research Fields and International Trends, IMO International Monitoring
Hernández, Tirado and Ariza, (2016) “El concepto de innovación social: ambitos, definiciones y alcances teóricos”, CIRIEC-España, Revista de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa, 88, 165-199.
Hillier, J., Moulaert, F. & Nussbaumer, J. (2004): “Trois essais sur le rôle de l’innovation sociale
dans le développement territorial”, Géographie, Économie, Société, 2(6), 129-152.

Hochgerner, J. (2011): “The Analusis of Social Innovations as Social Practice”. En línea: http
//www.socialinnovation2011.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/The-Analysis-of-Social-Innovationsas-Social-Practice.pdf (Consulta 13-07-2019).

Howaldt, J. & Schwarz, M. (2010): Social Innovation: Concepts, research fields and international trends. En línea: http://www.asprea.org/imagenes/IMO%20Trendstudie_Howaldt_englisch_Final%20.pdf
(Consulta: 13-07-2019).

Hubert, A. (2010): “Empowering people, driving change: Social innovation in the European Union”. En línea: http:// www.net4society.eu/_media/Social_innovation_europe.pdf (Consulta: 13-07-2019).
Lepoutre, J., Justo, R., Terjesen, S., & Bosma, N. (2013). Designing a global standardized methodology for measuring social entrepreneurship activity: The global entrepreneurship monitor social entrepreneurship study. Small Business Economics, 40(3), 693-714.
Lettice, F., & Parekh, M. (2010). The social innovation Libro Verde de la Innovación de la Comisión Europea
Lepoutre, J., Justo, R., Terjesen, S., & Bosma, N. (2013). Designing a global standardized methodology for measuring social entrepreneurship activity: The global entrepreneurship monitor social entrepreneurship study. Small Business Economics, 40(3), 693-714. (1995)
Light, P. C. (2006). Reshaping social entrepreneurship. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 4, 47-51.
Lisetchi, M., & Brancu, L. (2014). The entrepreneurship concept as a subject of social innovation. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 124(0), 87-92.
Mair, J., Robinson, J., & Hockerts, K. (2006). Social entrepreneurship Palgrave Macmillan New York.
Mair, J., Battilana, J., & Cardenas, J. (2012). Organizing for society: A typology of social entrepreneuring models. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 353-373.
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36-44.

52. Martin and Osberg (2007) Martin, R. L., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 5(2), 28-39.

Moulaert, F., Maccallum, D., Mehmood, A., & Hamdouch, A. (2010): Social Innovation: Collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research, Katarsis, EU‘s Framework Program 6, Final Report.
Mulgan, G. (2006): “The process of social innovation”, Innovations, 7(1), 145-162.

Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R. & Sanders, B. (2007): Social innovation: what it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated, The Young Foundation, London.
Nicholls, A. (2008). Social entrepreneurship: New models of sustainable social change Oxford University Press.
OECD. (2010). Entrepreneurship and innovation. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/cfe/smesentrepreneurshipandinnovation.htm
OECD. (2014). LEED forum on partnerships and local development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/
Ogburn, W. F., & Duncan, O. D. (1964). On culture and social change: Selected papers University of Chicago Press
Organización para la Cooperación y Desarrollo Económico (1997) OCDE (1996): Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico, Manual de Oslo, European comission.

OCDE (2008): Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económico, Manual de Oslo,
European Comission.
Ostrander, S. A. (2007). The growth of donor control: Revisiting the social relations of philanthropy. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 356.

Pache, A., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972. Peredo &
Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6, 34-43.
Pol, E., & Ville, S. (2009). Social innovation: Buzz word or enduring term? Journal of Socio - Economics, 38(6), 878.
Pot, F., & Fietje Vaas. (2008). Social innovation, the new challenge for europe. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 57(6), 468-473.
Sahlman, W. A. (1996). Some thoughts on business plans. In W.A. Sahlman, H. Stevenson, M.J. Roberts, & A.V.Bhide (Ed.), The entrepreneurial venture (pp. 138-176). Boston: Harvard Business School Press: Harvard Business School Publ.

Schendel, D., & Hitt, M. A. (2007). Introduction to volume 1. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1-2), 1-6.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1912). Theorie der wirtschaftlichen entwicklung. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

Schwab Foundation. (2014). Schwab foundation for social entrepreneurship. Retrieved from http://www.schwabfound.org/

Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2005). Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to serve the poor. Business Horizons, 48(3), 241-246.

Seyfang, G., & Smith, A. (2007). Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics, 16(4), 584-603.

Sharir, M., & Lerner, M. (2006). Gauging the success of social ventures initiated by individual social entrepreneurs. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 6-20.

Sharra, R., & Nyssens, M. (2010). Social innovation: An interdisciplinary and critical review of the concept. Université Catholique De Louvain Belgium,

Short, J. C., Moss, T. W., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2009). Research in social entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 3(2), 161

77. Simmel, (1986) SIMMEL, G. (1986): Sociología, estudios sobre las formas de socialización, Schwab Foundation. (2014). Schwab foundation for social entrepreneurship. Retrieved from http://www.schwabfound.org/

78. Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2005). Social en Alianza, Madrid

79. Thompson et al. (2000) Thompson, J., Alvy, G., & Lees, A. (2000). Social entrepreneurship - a new look at the people and the potential. Management Decision, 38(5), 328-338.

80. Van Slyke & Newman, (2006) Van Slyke, D. M., & Newman, H. K. (2006). Venture philanthropy and social entrepreneurship in community redevelopment. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 16(3), 345-368.

Ven, A. H. V. d., Sapienza, H. J., & Villanueva, J. (2007). Entrepreneurial pursuits of self- and collective interests. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(3/4), 353.

Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Waddock, S. A., & Post, J. E. (1991). Social entrepreneurs and catalytic change.
Wallace, S. L. (1999). Social entrepreneurship: The role of social purpose enterprises in facilitating community economic development. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 4(2), 153-174.
Weber, M. (1944): Economía y sociedad, FCE, México.
Weerawardena, J., & Mort, G. S. (2006). Investigating social entrepreneurship: A multidimensional model. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 21-35. Weerawardena & Mort, (2006)
Westley & Antadze, (2010) 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
Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 519

©2019 por los autores. Este artículo es de acceso abierto y distribuido según los términos y condiciones de la licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).