The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

Social
Exploring the social innovation innovation
process in a large market based process

social enterprise
A dynamic capabilities approach 1399

Martine Vézina Received 31 January 2017

Revised 22 October 2017
Département Management, HEC Montréal, Montreal, Canada 22 February 2018
22 April 2018
Majdi Ben Selma 10 May 2018
Canada-Research Group on Strategic Innovation and Governance, Accepted 30 May 2018

École des sciences de la gestion, Université du Québec à Montréal,

Montreal, Canada, and
Marie Claire Malo
Département Management, HEC Montréal, Montreal, Canada

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the organising of social innovation in a large
market-based social enterprises from the perspective of dynamic capabilities and social transformation.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper analyses the process by which Desjardins Group launched
the Desjardins Environment Fund as the first investment fund in North America to integrate environmental
screening. It uses longitudinal single case analysis and a theoretical framework based on Teece’s three
dynamic capabilities.
Findings – Results show that dynamic capabilities can be conceived as stages in the process of social
innovation. Sensing refers to the capability to identify a societal demand for social transformation. Seizing
capability is about shaping societal demand into a commercial offer. Reconfiguring concerns organisational
innovation to integrate actual and new knowledge through innovative routines. Microprocesses of both path
dependency and path building are in action at each of the three stages.
Practical implications – This paper shows that managing dynamic capabilities is central to social
innovation in the context of a large social business and provides genuine managerial input via an analysis of
the microprocesses at work in the social innovation process.
Originality/value – This paper contributes to the operationalization of Teece’s dynamic capabilities model.
In mobilising a framework in the field of management of innovation, it contributes to the understanding
of the process of social innovation and develops the organisational mechanism for multiscalarity of social
innovation as a condition for social transformation.
Keywords Dynamic capabilities, Responsible investment, Financial cooperative,
Large market-based social enterprise, Social innovation process
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
During the last decade, social innovation has emerged as a popular topic for scholars,
businesses and public institutions. The field of study has encompassed a wide variety of
perspectives on social innovation (Nussbaumer and Moulaert, 2007; Rüede and Lurtz, 2012),
and displayed some ambiguity and uncertainty in the definition of this concept. Moreover,
social innovation has been largely associated with social entrepreneurship (Dees et al., 2004),
intrinsic to which is the context of newly established ventures (social enterprises),
emphasising both the novelty of the product/service and the challenges that new businesses
Management Decision
Vol. 57 No. 6, 2019
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier pp. 1399-1414
drafts of this manuscript. This work was funded by Alphonse and Dorimène Desjardins International © Emerald Publishing Limited
0025-1747
Institute for Cooperatives of HEC Montreal. DOI 10.1108/MD-01-2017-0090
MD encounter in terms of financial resource acquisition, impact measurement and network
57,6 building. One may question the salience of these challenges, especially that of resource
acquisition, when the agent of social innovation is a large market-based social enterprise
whose accumulated resources and competencies as well as mature structures and processes
may raise different types of challenges in the social innovation process. We argue that large
social purpose businesses also have the potential to create social innovation, through their
1400 social mission, accumulated resources and management capabilities. However, how these
organisations can and do contribute to social innovation are questions that have attracted
very little attention.
This study analyses the process by which Desjardins Group (DG), a large Canadian
cooperative financial institution, launched the Desjardins Environment Fund (DEF), the first
investment fund in North America to integrate environmental evaluation in the investment
process, in 1987. At the time, the Brundtland Commission had just published its eponymous
report that defined, for the first time, the concept of sustainable development in the three since-
acknowledged dimensions (economic, environmental and social) of development, making DEF
an innovation in the area of retail investment. The theoretical framework draws on that of
dynamic capabilities (Teece, 2007) in that it is concerned with leveraging and developing
knowledge and organisational capabilities in the innovation process. This study looks at how
social innovation happens in a large business and the kind of capabilities that are needed and
developed in the process. As such, this approach implies the perspectives of both path
dependence and path building inherent to the social innovation process (Klein et al., 2016).
In the sections to follow, we introduce the issue of social innovation within the social
enterprise context, the theoretical approach taken in this research and the methodology.
The findings regarding each of the three dynamic capabilities (sensing, seizing and
reconfiguring) are then reported, together with their respective microprocesses. The last
section specifies the contribution of this study and proposes some managerial implications.

2. Social innovation and social enterprise

Simply put, social innovation is defined as solutions to social problems that are resolved
poorly or insufficiently by institutional and organisational frameworks in place. The social
issues in question may be diverse (poverty, exclusion, health, education, employment, rights,
environment, etc.) (Moulaert et al., 2015).
Social innovation remains a polysemous concept (Phillips et al., 2015). Termed by some
as a “quasi-concept” (Harrison and Jensen, 2013), it is currently referred to both by social
actors who engage in it, and by academic researchers who study it. In recent years,
academics have developed numerous typologies of social innovation (Nussbaumer and
Moulaert, 2007; Rüede and Lurtz, 2012; Tepsie, 2014; Nicholls and Murdoch, 2016). In our
view, the typology of Nicholls and Murdoch (2016) is particularly relevant to the
organisational perspective of social innovation.
Nicholls and Murdoch (2016) identify three levels of social innovation, each imbued with
visions of social change of varying intensity. First, there are incremental innovations in
goods and services, aimed at addressing social needs. Charities and not-for-profit
commercial firms are typical instigators of this type of innovation, which fits the definition
of a good business opportunity. Second, there is institutional innovation, which connotes
institutional change. It serves to reframe social and economic structures so as to generate
new social value and outcomes. An example is Fair Trade, which aspires to modify current
market structures to deliver new or additional value. Finally, there is disruptive social
innovation, whose goal is system change. Social movements and self-consciously political
actors, groups and networks drive this kind of social innovation, which envisages a change
in power relations and the reframing of social hierarchies to the benefit of otherwise
disenfranchised groups (Nicholls and Murdoch, 2016).
 Thus, within the incremental perspective, the central figure in terms of organisation is Social
the social enterprise. Social innovation is as much a response to a social need as is the innovation
enterprise itself, a hybrid organisation combining a social mission with an economic process
purpose (Tepsie, 2014). As both the product and the producer of social innovation, the social
enterprise undertakes initiatives that pertain to its own emergence as well as to the
challenges posed by its hybrid character. At the core of this perspective is an individual, the
social entrepreneur, the trailblazer on whom each initiative relies heavily in terms of impetus 1401
and capabilities. From this perspective, social innovation appears mainly concerned with the
social entrepreneur who creates a small-scale social purpose enterprise. The enterprise is
thus understood as a social innovation. Hence, implicit in the perception of social innovation
as social entrepreneurship seems to be the assumption that social innovation occurs during
the firm start-up phase.
The institutional approach (Nicholls and Murdoch, 2016; Bouchard et al., 2015; Moulaert
et al., 2015) highlights the multi-scalar nature of social innovation, which is generated in the
course of interaction between arenas and actors. Empirically speaking, little research
(Lévesque et al., 2001; Hafsi and Thomas, 2005; Mumford, 2002; Malo and Vézina, 2004) has
applied the institutional approach to social innovation within an organisational setting.
Interestingly, these scant studies tend to feature organisations whose purposes combine
individual, collective and public interests, such as large cooperatives, mutual or public
enterprises and other types of collective enterprises such as union funds (Lévesque, 2017).
These studies show that social innovation takes the form of new governance models and
management processes. Unique to such large organisations is the integration of both business
and social actors in structures of governance and operations. This contributes in reducing
theses actors’ biases with one another and increasing the organisation capacity for action in
the perspective of social change (Lévesque et al., 2001; Hafsi and Thomas, 2005).
Nonetheless, results emanating from research using the institutional approach pertain
mainly to the social innovation generated by a social enterprise at an advanced stage of its
development. Further, the social innovation potential of large social enterprises has been
subject to criticism. Some growing cooperatives or non-profit organisations have dramatically
relaxed their social purpose in order to assume a business posture closer to that of prevailing
competitors (Richez-Battesti et al., 2006). Research conducted within the framework of the
institutional approach suggests, however, that these large social purpose organisations could
generate even more far-reaching social innovation than newly created innovative ventures,
while benefiting from a path dependence trajectory (Malo and Vézina, 2004).
This research aims to explore the social innovation potential of a large market-based
social enterprise, from the perspective of dynamic capabilities. We introduce the expression
LMBSE to identify the social enterprise sub-type of interest to us. Each word refers to a
specific aspect of the LMBSE: large (the scale which it has attained over time, in terms of
accumulated resources, acquired competencies, mature structures and processes, etc., its
potential and its boundaries/points of inflexibility); market-based (the commercial rationale
of the economic sector within which it has evolved); social (its social purpose, which may
even involve social transformation); and enterprise (its pursuit of economic activities).
Few studies have looked at social innovation from the standpoint of the resources and
competencies that large businesses require to undertake social innovations. For example,
Malo and Vézina (2004) show that the social purpose business that has reached maturity
faces a major challenge, namely, of innovating to avert the tendency to go mainstream.
The authors argue that a hybrid process combining standardisation and innovation is key
to renewal. Internal resources engaged in the process of standardisation are inadequate to
foster innovation. The business must be capable of mobilising external factors in
accordance with its vision of renewal. The process of such social innovation in the context of
large social purpose businesses remains unexplored.
MD 3. A dynamic capabilities framework for social innovation
57,6 In this research, we investigate the social innovation process of the large market-based
social enterprise from the standpoint of the resources and organisational competencies
mobilised by such an organisation. Specifically, we explore how a large business with a
social purpose organises its activities to create products and services that characterise a
social innovation. We assert that the two main challenges a social enterprise faces when
1402 creating a social innovation are to preserve and exploit an accumulated base of resources
and competences, and to develop new ones. Indeed, it is precisely these challenges on which
the dynamic capabilities approach is built. Breznik and Hisrich (2014) define dynamic
capabilities as the capability of a business to create, grow and modify its base of tangible or
intangible resources and competencies. Originally, the concept was an offshoot of the notion
of path dependence, yet key definitions of dynamic capabilities (Eisenhardt and Martin,
2000; Zollo and Winter, 2002) share one major reference point: the crucial notion of change in
organisational capabilities (Ambrosini and Bowman, 2009; Winter, 2003). The evolution of
resources and competencies (Wang and Ahmed, 2007) is thus at the heart of the dynamic
capabilities approach. Several researchers define dynamic capabilities in terms of the
transformation of resources and competencies (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000; Zollo and
Winter, 2002). In contrast, we adopt Teece’s (2007) model. Prominent in research concerning
the innovation process, it identifies three dynamic capabilities in the innovation process:
sensing, seizing and reconfiguring (which he also terms “managing threats/transforming”).
Although the dynamic capabilities approach sheds light on innovation through the lens
of organisational resources and competencies (Murovec and Prodan, 2009; Kim et al., 2014),
sceptics point to the weak operational value of the approach. When trying to innovate, it is
difficult for practitioners to interpret and evaluate resources and competencies (Eriksson,
2013). More specifically, the mechanisms by which dynamic capabilities influence
innovation have received little scrutiny. In fact, Powell (2014) criticises the tendency of
recent strategic management studies to distance themselves from managers’ practical
problems. Instead, they present abstract concepts without delving more deeply into
underlying mechanisms. In consequence, the analysis of microfoundations has made little
progress in management sciences research (Felin et al., 2012), particularly the analysis of the
microfoundations that underlie dynamic capabilities of innovation.
The analysis above is the goal of Teece’s (2007) model of dynamic capabilities.
Teece models the dynamic capabilities underlying the capacity of businesses to achieve
technological innovation. His model puts forward three dynamic capabilities (sensing,
seizing and reconfiguring) and articulates the microprocesses underlying each capability.
First, the sensing capability’s general microprocesses are found in analytical systems
and individual capacities to learn, as well as to sense, filter, shape and calibrate
opportunities. Teece identifies four other specific microprocesses: directing internal R&D
and selecting new technologies; tapping supplier and complementor innovation; tapping
developments in exogenous science and technology; and identifying target market
segments, changing customer needs and customer innovation.
The general microprocesses underlying the capability to seize opportunities take the
form of enterprise structures, procedures, designs and incentives. In the context of
technological innovation, general microprocesses are typically complemented by
microprocesses for: delineating the customer solution and the business model; selecting
decision-making protocols; selecting enterprise boundaries to manage complements and
“control” platforms; and building loyalty and commitment.
Finally, the reconfiguring capability refers to the continuous alignment and realignment
of specific tangible and intangible assets. Underlying this capability, Teece identifies four
microprocesses: decentralisation and near decomposability; governance; cospecialization;
and knowledge management.
 Although Teece’s model is based on the observation of major corporations in a context of Social
innovation of a technological nature, it may also be valuable within the context of social innovation
innovation generated by a large business such as DG, for two reasons. First, authors have process
compared the two types of innovation (technological and social) in terms of the process of
emergence, diffusion and management (Lévesque, 2006), which suggests proximity in their
respective dynamics. Second, Teece’s (2007) analytical framework of dynamic capabilities
has been cited extensively for its proposed articulation of the organisational microprocesses 1403
underlying the innovation process, which allows us to circumvent the macro-level
analyses frequently seen in the field of social innovation. We also will build on Teece’s (2007)
model in order to understand the process of organising social innovation in the context of a
large social business. Whereas recent studies have built on this approach with regard to
technological innovation, to our knowledge, none has looked at social innovation from this
perspective. The following section sets out the methodology of this study.

4. Methodology
4.1 Applying qualitative methodology to a case study
The goal of this study is to examine a specific case of a social innovation process in a large
market-based social enterprise. We mobilise the dynamic capabilities framework to understand
how that process was organised (“organising”). Longitudinal qualitative research (Yin, 1994)
makes it possible to retrace the stages of that process. Not only does this work address the
limitations of much of the research on dynamic capabilities, which uses a quantitative method
(Eriksson, 2013) but it also responds to the call for a longitudinal study formulated by
Easterby-Smith et al. (2009). The qualitative method is also pertinent considering how dynamic
capabilities are rooted in organisational routines and processes (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000)
and are therefore difficult to identify via a quantitative methodology. The choice of a case-study
approach was dictated by the principle of theoretical representativeness described by Yin (1994).
DG was selected as an example of a large market-based social enterprise. DG is the largest
cooperative financial institution in Canada (www.desjardins.com), dating back over 100 years.
It is democratically owned and governed by its customers (individual investors and
borrowers). The network of nearly 400 credit unions is grouped in a provincial federation that
controls the corporate entities. This diversified financial group is integrated, from the
manufacture of a large range of financial products to their commercialisation in both the
institutional and the retail markets through credit unions and specialised corporate entities.
The unit of analysis is the process that gave rise to the DEF more than 30 years ago. As a
product, this mutual fund is a social innovation; its social purpose is to contribute to the
protection of the environment. The initiative particularly involved Desjardins Trust (DT),
a wholly owned subsidiary of the cooperative group at the time of these events. Its core
business was the manufacture of financial products like the mutual fund. With the DEF, the
DG became a pioneer of socially responsible investment in the retail market, where it still
occupies a leading position.

4.2 Data collection

The case study focusses on the very intensive phase of creation of DEF in the years
1987-1990 inclusively. However, our data collection covered the entire trajectory of that
social innovation, including the diffusion and the maturity phases: the period of 1987-2016.
Data collection took place from 2014-2016. We first conducted unstructured interviews
(Musca, 2006) to precisely grasp the subject matter from data describing contextual factors
(Langley, 1999). We conducted 14 in-depth interviews and met with eleven people, including
four interviews with a DG manager (resource person). This enabled us to perform a more
detailed analysis of the period 1987-1990. Most participants worked for the DG in various
positions (marketing, finance, communication, secretary general, sustainable development,
MD portfolio manager, etc.) and at various levels (senior vice president, vice president,
57,6 managers, senior advisors, advisors, etc.), all directly involved at different moments in the
process. We also met with two environmental experts and members of the original DEF
governance structure (the advisory committee (AC)). Finally, we met with two external
service providers involved in developing and implementing the evaluation process for DEF
securities. We first asked each informant to recount the process in place at the DEF, from
1404 opportunity identification through to obtained outcomes. The survey included open
questions such as “What happened then?” The informants were asked to describe DEF’s
analytical and administrative work and the role which different stakeholders played in it.
All the interviews were recorded and transcribed in full. To reinforce the validity of the
research, we followed Golden’s (1992) recommendations by supplementing the primary data
from the interviews with secondary sources that include annual reports, DEF brochures and
newspaper articles concerning the responsible investment activities of the case in question.
We thus obtained over 200 pages of additional data.

4.3 Data analysis

In the initial phase, numerous conversations among research team members and the DG
resource person made it possible to assimilate the interview data and reconstruct the
narrative weave of the involvement of the financial group in responsible investment.
This enabled us to clarify the context and the subject matter and to describe its main stages
in chronological order (Langley, 1999). A second phase of data analysis focussed on the
period of 1987-1999 in order to refine the narrative of the process of creating the DEF.
The contents were validated as necessary by key actors involved in the process. The final
text constituted the process data to be coded.
A manual analysis of the data was undertaken regarding the three dynamic capabilities,
“sensing”, “seizing” and “reconfiguring”. The microfoundations of the dynamic capabilities,
both general and selected (Teece, 2007, p. 1342), served as indicators of social innovation
process (DEF creation process) organising.
The research methodology is hybrid: both inductive and deductive. Both the lack of
research on the social innovation process in large social businesses and the opportunity to
mobilise an analytical framework drawn from the realm of technological innovation in large
corporations drove this methodological choice. This inductive approach allowed us to
interpret the categories articulated by Teece in light of the specifics of social innovation,
whose process of emergence and diffusion, as well as the expected results, arguably diverge
from those related to technological innovation (Dandurand, 2005; Lévesque, 2006).
To summarise, the data analysis was a two-part process: recount the steps involved in
the creation of the DEF in narrative form; and determine how instrumental the capabilities
of sensing, seizing and reconfiguring were to organising the process.

5. Case study findings

This section presents and discusses the results of our analysis of dynamic capabilities
(sensing, seizing and reconfiguring) in terms of the microprocesses that led to the creation
of DEF.

5.1 Microprocesses of the sensing capability

According to Teece (2007), the sensing capability entails the identification (or creation) of new
opportunities by individuals who make use of organisational analytical systems “to learn, sense,
filter, shape, and calibrate opportunities”. Teece’s model states that the sensing capability rests
on such processes of directing internal R&D, tapping developments in exogenous environment
and internal network interest as well as identifying target markets and segments.
 In the case studied, the process of sensing the social opportunity is bottom-up and Social
driven by an internal inclusive consultative process. The process started in 1987, with the innovation
adoption of a resolution on environmental protection at the confederation’s annual general process
meeting (AGM).
The resolution was promoted by the president of a local credit union, an environmental
expert and academic as well as an elected director at the regional federation level.
This region is particularly concerned by environmental issues as its economy is mostly 1405
reliant on natural resources. Entitled “Proposal No. 2 (environmental protection)”, the
proposition was discussed by the 3,000 delegates representing the 400 local credit unions
who then adopted it. The AGM suggested that the Desjardins Confederation undertake a
study to outline some courses of action related to environmental protection, and that the
results be tabled at upcoming AGMs.
The opportunity is singular; it might even be termed “non-market” or social opportunity.
The need to protect the environment, which the 1987 resolution identifies, corresponds to a
societal need that, while of general interest, has yet to be articulated and commodified.
In the year following the March 1987 AGM, the newly elected president of the DG
pondered how to follow up on this unusual resolution. He was torn between launching a big
project, with proposals for concrete action, or letting the diverse constituents of the DG put
forth their own initiatives.
After two years of reflection, discussion and consultation, the Confederation proposed a
directive, the Desjardins Environmental Option (DEO), to the delegates of the DG 1989
AGM. More of a general agenda than an organisational policy, the DEO emphasised a
bottom-up approach to shaping and calibrating (Teece, 1987) the opportunity to engage in
environmental protection. The DEO was primarily an appeal to credit unions, regional
federations, the Confederation and all DG subsidiaries to develop initiatives adapted to their
local or business reality. DG was assigned a leading role: as a prominent employer and
financial institution of numerous businesses, it was to set an example in this environmental
area. The preamble to DEO, signed by the DG’s president, clearly states this engagement:
“Education being fundamental to any major shift in mindset, that is means by which
Desjardins has chosen to act. First and foremost, the principles put forward in the
Desjardins Environmental Option are an educational guide for the entire population
of Québec”.
The AGM delegates adopted the DEO two years after the initial proposition by the local
credit union president during the AGM.
In this process, DG did not rely on any formal, analytical system of data collection,
analysis and processing (Short et al., 2009) to identify this social, non-market opportunity.
Rather, its sensing capability was supported by a two-step, bottom-up process. First, in a
learning and sensing process at the local level of the DG governance structure, it was
initiated by a volunteer – but not just any volunteer. He was an internationally renowned
expert in the field of the (albeit vague) opportunity and his proposition. The members’ quick
response and delegation of the resolution to the central governance structure suggest that
the status of the proponent, as a member and an expert, may have helped legitimise a
proposition that, while aligned with values supported by the organisation, seems remote
from its core business. Sensing is exercised in the association of environmental and
cooperative values. Filtering takes the form of a bottom-up process of proposition, followed
by resolution.
The second step is the shaping and calibrating of the opportunity derived from the sensing
process. It was managed from the very summit of the governance structure but involved a duo
of a DG top manager sensitive to environmental issues and a locally elected member who also
acted as an expert in the environment. In the process of shaping and calibrating the
opportunity, while consulting, the managers sensed the real intent and readiness of the many
MD DG entities to undertake changes in the name of environmental involvement. Through this
57,6 two-year process of sensing and calibrating, significant awareness is raised regarding the
relevancy of taking action in terms of environmental protection.
No process for tapping exogenous developments or identifying potential market segments
was undertaken at this point. The issue of financial performance was not addressed. Instead,
the process and the nature of the data collected concern the internal components of the DG.
1406 Whereas the bottom-up governance structure of DG played an important role in identifying
this social opportunity, so did the culture and history of the organisation. Indeed, the preamble
to the 1987 proposition reveals a process of path dependency in action. Both propositions
are expressed not only in terms of environmental issues, but also with reference to cooperative
values of community engagement and civic education. Moreover, despite the large scale of DG,
the capability to sense social opportunity hinged on the cognitive and creative capabilities of a
few individuals (Adner and Helfat, 2003) whose initiatives progressed through a decentralised
decision-making structure (Teece, 1987).
The results inform that the capability to sense a social opportunity relied on both
individuals and organisational processes. These aspects are by no means random.
The sensing capability rested on individuals whose profiles were aligned with the nature of
the opportunity (environment), their role in the organisation (elected office, manager) and
the level of the intervention (local, global). The sensing capability also involved a bottom-up
decision-making process supported by an extended consultative process. Shaping and
calibrating the social opportunity (to engage in environmental protection) took the form of
an inspirational corporate text (Environmental Option) validated by the central governance
structure and ratified down.

5.2 Microprocesses of the seizing capability

Teece (2007) advances that the seizing capability enables the development of new products,
processes or services related to the identified opportunity. Enterprise structures, procedures,
designs and incentives support the microprocesses needed to seize the products or service to
develop. These seizing microprocesses allow firms to delineate the customer solution and
the business model, select the enterprise boundaries and decision-making protocols, and
build loyalty and commitment around the new solution.
Interestingly, subsequent to the adoption of the general environmental agenda (DEO) by
the AGM, no specific policy or incentives were introduced at the top level of DG. Instead,
commitment to the values of the organisation was intended to stimulate initiatives
throughout the DG. A variety of projects (reducing paper usage, contests, etc.) were initiated
and managed by local credit unions and some subsidiaries. The design of these initiatives
was generally simple and involved few changes and little investment. Moreover, few (if any)
projects were directly linked to the role of DG as a financial services provider. Whereas such
flexibility might be seen as characteristic of a period of exploration, pending the emergence
of a dominant design (Teece, 1987), the weak diffusion of these initiatives suggests instead a
period of internal appropriation of the social opportunity. The incentive, seemingly, is to act
in accordance with DG values, an incentive that the Group’s decentralised structure served
to strengthen.
One of the initiatives, came from a Desjardins subsidiary. In 1990, in an interview with a
journalist, the chief of staff of the president of the DG mentioned that Desjardins might soon
launch an environmental investment product directed at retail customers while in fact, no
project of this sort was going on at DG. This article ended up on the desk of the first
vice-president of marketing and communications (FVPM) of DT, the branch in charge of
product development for the whole DG felt particularly concerned. The FVPM was well
known in the DG. He had worked there for several years. He and two Confederation senior
managers, the one who helped develop DEO and the aforementioned chief of staff,
then jointly began delineating the product features and the business model supporting it. Social
To do so, they established a small multi-talented team of DT in-house specialists innovation
( finance, marketing and corporate communications), who would further the initiative in the process
coming years.
A market study did not find anything remotely like an environmental investment fund in
North America. Discussions within the team suggested the development of a mutual fund
aimed at individual investors. This new product, which would bear the name “Desjardins 1407
Environment Fund” (DEF), posed many challenges, including devising a business model
that integrates environmental filters while meeting investors’ financial performance targets.
An innovative process of boundary redefinition then took place. This process played out
at two levels. More than a project team, the internal interdisciplinary team acted as a sort of
think tank, members were involved upstream in defining the nature of the product, and
downstream in managing the AC to be created. In addition, a decision was taken to create an
ad hoc structure to complement the fund’s legal governance body. The DEF AC’s role was to
define the environmental filter of the new investment product, as well as developing and
applying a new methodology to score companies according to environmental practices.
What is most original is that, in consultation with the DG president cabinet, the AC
would be constituted of environmental experts external to DG. For the first time,
non-Desjardins staff would take charge of an operational process generally reserved for
in-house financial experts.
At Desjardins, the efforts of a branch manager were crucial to sensing this social
opportunity and rallying his staff around it. Their only incentive was that of their shared
values. They had no precise idea of the form the project might take – after all, the product
was not even intended to satisfy a need expressed by Desjardins members. As the manager
puts it:
I told myself that volunteers were essential to the organization if Desjardins was to keep on
improving in its role as a cooperative financial institution. In the organization as a whole, there will
always be folks who refuse to go outside their immediate mandate. My instinct at the time was
always to find a way to make things happen. And there were a lot of us at the Desjardins Trust
with this instinct. (Armand, First Vice-President, Marketing and Communications, Desjardins
Trust (DT))

The sensing capability is also characterised by the building of staff loyalty and engagement
(Sanzo-Perez et al., 2015). The formation of a project team very early on in the process in
support of this social innovation is indicative of the manager’s concern to foster
commitment among his closest colleagues. Even this microprocess was important to
rallying staff around this breakthrough innovation in a sector where innovations are most
likely to occur at the margins. The cross-disciplinary competencies targeted in DG’s
recruitment process support innovation by reducing the impact of standard procedures, and
by favouring administrative routines that “do not exacerbate decision-making biases
against innovation” (Teece, 1987, p. 1334).
To summarise, the capability to seize a social opportunity follows a decentralised process
consistent with that of the sensing capability. The procedures, structures, incentives and
decision-making protocols do not seem central to the seizing capability in the context of
social innovation. Instead, innovative boundary management plays a pivotal role here.
To achieve openness at different levels (senior management, staff team, product
management, etc.), the boundary management process in the context of social innovation
enables the design of the product to be broadly delineated, consistently with organisational
standards. It also permits the definition of the architecture that would frame the process of
the development of the final product. When the process of boundary opening requires new
alliances, it is supported by initiatives in engagement building.
MD 5.3 Microprocesses of the reconfiguring capability
57,6 Reconfiguring capability for innovation involves a continuous alignment and realignment of
specific tangible and intangible assets (Teece, 1987). As stated by Teece (2007), four specific
microprocesses of reconfiguring are brought to bear in the realignment of resources in the case
of DEF: decentralisation and decomposability of decision, management of co-specialisation,
governance and knowledge management.
1408 The composition and the role assigned to the AC reflects a significant decentralisation in
management of the DEF. Five of the seven DEF AC members are external to DT.
The selection of these external experts is a very delicate issue. An inappropriate choice
could jeopardise the success of the operation and Desjardins’ reputation.
The creation of the AC as a sub-unit of the governing structure of the mutual fund
demonstrates management’s ability to identify and implement decomposable subunits of
experts that can enhance performance (Teece, 1987). Its non-hierarchical composition, as
well as the collaborative management style of the small project team dedicated to it, allows
its work to be integrated into the mainstream activities of DT mutual fund experts.
The process of resource cospecialization is central to the reconfiguring capability that
occurs around the linkage of expertise related to investment fund management and
environmental management. The creation of the DEF essentially led to a separation of
functions between the financial specialists and the environmental experts: experts develop
the methodology and are responsible for environmental screening whereas DT financial
experts take charge of portfolio management. For reasons of legitimacy, the structure limits
the contacts between the two groups assuring the independence of environmental screening.
However, DEF calls for the integration of both spheres of knowledge.
In addition, DEF’s innovative governance proves to be of central importance in
both its internal and external legitimation. Governance is entrusted to actors who have
acknowledged expertise in society and others who occupy top management responsibilities
at DM, while being strongly recognised as sharing its values. Further, the presidency of AC
is entrusted to an actor whose neutrality is affirmed in that he/she is both an elected
president and an environmental researcher renowned in his field.
The efforts of AC generate new insights into the screening methodology. This process of
knowledge development dispels the pessimistic convictions and certainties of financiers and
environmentalists alike, notably with respect to the performance of a firm and an
investment fund. In this process of knowledge sharing and development, the small
multi-talented DT team’s involvement reveals central as it plays roles of intermediary,
go-between and organiser right from the beginning and more specifically when tensions rise
between environmental and DEF financial experts.
The reconfiguring capability seems to have been very strong. Less than six months passed
between the decision and the launch of this social innovation. During this short and intensive
period, AC and DT continuously aligned and realigned competencies. Numerous microprocesses
supported the reconfiguring capability. The process of new governance building was key to the
innovation process. It enabled new ways of thinking and measuring business performance while
divergent and enduring visions were at stake. The co-specialisation process was instrumental in
combining the exploitation of mastered knowledge (regarding the management of mutual funds)
and the building of new knowledge (regarding the management of an environmental investment
fund). Some original mechanisms of knowledge management (e.g. early involvement of a small
multifunctional team) were conceived far in advance. This assured that they would be ready
when needed. Other mechanisms (AC training, informal conversation, dialogue) were introduced
progressively as the need arose. This result shows that reconfiguring in the context of social
innovation is not so much a capability oriented towards reacting to external threats (Teece, 1987)
as a specification of a final product through microprocesses that enable internal convergence and
learning through the combination of mastered and emerging organisational competencies.
6. Discussion and implications Social
The goal of this study was to add knowledge about the process through which a large innovation
market-based social enterprise sets about achieving social innovation. To this end, we process
performed a single case study and applied Teece’s dynamic capabilities framework in a
flexible manner. This framework recognises three generic capabilities inherent to
innovation: sensing, seizing and reconfiguring. This study makes several contributions to
the fields of social innovation and dynamic capabilities in innovation. 1409
In the introduction we questioned the relevance of research on social entrepreneurship
(Dees et al., 2004) to understand social innovation in the context of large social enterprises.
The social entrepreneurship perspective concentrates on financial resource acquisition,
impact measurement and network building as the main challenges encountered by the new
social business. In contrast with these external contingencies, our research suggests that the
perspective of organisational capabilities is highly relevant to understand social innovation
generated by a large commercial social enterprise.
The results show that in the context of this study, Teece’s dynamic capabilities are, in
fact, stages in the process of organising social innovation. As shown in Table I, these stages
can be characterised in terms of the nature of dynamic capability, demonstration of social
innovation and dominant organisational process.
The first stage points to a sensing capability that allows the social business to identify a
social demand. This demand is translated into an ambitious objective to generate socio-cultural
transformation (Lévesque, 2006). Whereas social innovation is generally associated with a
product or a service to respond to unsatisfied needs, the sensing capability involves a visioning
component that far precedes the conception of a product or service. Instead, as portrayed by the
institutional perspective, the social opportunity involves social transformation in reframing
social and economic structures in order to generate new social value and outcomes (Nicholls and
Murdoch, 2016). For that to happen, the social transformation aim has to be connected to the
organisation’s mission. At DG, the mobilisation for a social transformation purpose appears
from the outset, in the reaffirmation of its mission and of the principle of educating society and
its members, which has guided its actions since its inception.

Dynamic Expression of social Dominant organising

Stage capability innovation capability processes Key questions for managers

1 Sensing: capability Social transformation: Governance and What is the social dimension of
to identify an capability to identify a mission-led the mission?
opportunity societal demand for Bottom-up and What is the social demand that
social transformation deliberative is not satisfied?
What are the possible social
transformation projects?
2 Seizing: capability Social innovation: Decentralised process How can the social demand be
to seize the capability to shape of boundary product satisfied by our operations?
opportunity societal demand into a definition What social innovation is
new product/service Corporate-business needed to meet this social
unit ongoing dialogue demand?
3 Reconfiguring: Organising Operational How can this social innovation
capability to innovation: capability cospecialization be fostered by our (tangible and
reconfigure to integrate actual and connecting mecanisms intangible) resources?
resources new knowledge Mission committed What new knowledge is needed?
through innovative culture and employees What organisational innovation Table I.
routines would allow new knowledge to A three stages model
be integrated, consistently with of the social
the enterprise’s mission? innovation process
MD This first stage is governance-led in a bottom-up and consultative process. Multiple
57,6 platforms for deliberation create fertile ground for the recognition of social opportunity. In the
case studied, the existing governance structure and an organisational culture of deliberation
act as structural resources for sensing social opportunity. Within a large market-based social
enterprise, at this early stage of the social innovation process, the capability to sense and
calibrate a social opportunity rests on activating the cultural system rather than what Teece
1410 calls the analytical system. This first-stage manifestation of social innovation takes the form
of a general commitment to principles of social transformation in ways to be defined.
The second stage in the process of social innovation implies the seizing capability.
It entails translating the social demand into some new products or services that become the
visible part of social innovation. What is pre-eminent at this stage is the microprocess of
establishing the general boundaries of the product or service. The process of boundary
definition of social innovation is framed around the corporate product strategy. However,
within the perspective of socio-cultural change conveyed by social innovation, the market
development outlooks do not necessarily mesh with conventional corporate performance
objectives. This is why the seizing capability involves both a decentralised process of
boundary product definition by the business unit responsible for the social innovation and
an ongoing dialogue with the corporate level.
The last stage involves reconfiguring capabilities. While research on dynamic capabilities
has paid scant attention to the capability to reconfigure resources (Zollo and Winter, 2002),
this study underscores the third stage as a key component of the capacity of DG, as a large
social business, to organise its activities to implement social innovation. Social innovation
entails developing new solutions to address complex problems (Lévesque et al., 2001) in a
perspective of social change. It involves a process of co-building and knowledge sharing
among diverse actors according to their respective social objectives (Bouchard et al., 2015).
In the context of a large social business, this process calls for organisational innovations.
A cospecialization process occurs as external experts are brought into the operational
activities, blending mainstream and unconventional knowledge. The reconfiguring stage is
thus both crucial and risky and calls for organisational innovations. These innovations
materialise in a complementary operational structure of experts. But cospecialization also
involves the design and creation of mechanisms inside the enterprise that prevent
polarisation and knowledge dissipation. The ability to craft work specifications, attract and
retain committed people and develop corporate culture may contribute to blunt the
formation of coalitions (Teece, 1987). This is the kind of managerial capacity DEF’S
case study demonstrate at DM. The commitment around DM mission of numerous
individuals throughout the corporate and business level structure, including the
multifunctional team dedicated to support the relations between the two structures,
facilitate the cospecialization process.
The present study of the process of organising social innovation within a large market-
based social enterprise sheds light on how the multi-scalar nature of social innovation is
manifested in the context of a large social business and how it contributes to social
transformation. Klein et al. (2016) and Moulaert et al. (2015) argue that social innovation is
generated in the interaction between individuals, organisations, social actors and institutions.
We use the organisation as a starting point, yet the dynamic capabilities approach can
identify organisational mechanisms that favour interaction between these levels. Such
mechanisms are exemplified by the process of deliberative governance that includes actors of
civil society; engagement and concrete involvement at all decision-making levels, at each stage
of advancement of social innovation; operational structures that integrate representatives of
groups of social actors involved in social innovation; and internal teams (individuals) who
share the mission of promoting the general interest of the organisation. Klein maintains that
the multiscalarity of social innovation is a condition of social transformation. Our study shows
that whereas the large market-based social enterprise is sensitive to market performance, Social
multi-scalar construction of the organisational mechanisms of social innovation may innovation
constitute a condition of its sustainability. process
7. Managerial implications
Our research shows that managing dynamic capabilities is central to social innovation in the
context of a large social business. Nonetheless, the dynamic capabilities approach has been 1411
criticised for its lack of concrete managerial implications (McGrath et al., 1992). Felin et al. (2012)
contend that the difficulty in leveraging managerial inputs from the study of dynamic
capabilities derives from the problematic understanding and identification of the
microfoundations that foster innovation. Our research thus provides genuine managerial
input via an analysis of the microprocesses at work in the social innovation process, starting
with a societal opportunity and ending with the launch of a new, leading-edge product.
The three-step model of social innovation capacity can be used as diagnostic tool for a large
market-based social enterprise. Table I breaks down the three dynamic capabilities into key
questions that can inform managers who seek to carry out social innovation. The first series of
questions concerns the organisation’s capacity to identify an opportunity for social
transformation. It starts with a questioning of the social nature of its mission along with
whether an unsatisfied social demand exists related to this social mission and whether an
opportunity exists to carry out a project to meet this demand. The following three questions
can evaluate the organisation’s capacity to translate social demand into a product or service
that would be compatible with its knowhow as a business. Finally, the organisation must verify
its existing organisational resources and the organisational innovations it requires in order to
put a socially innovative offer in place and integrate it in its normal activities.

8. Limitations of the study and future research

Some limitations of this study should be noted. First, the research design led to a sample
involving only one case. As with any qualitative research, we cannot ensure complete
transferability of our findings. We chose the case for reasons of appropriateness, rather than
representativeness (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Also, the cases may have idiosyncratic
characteristics, and future research could use a comparative setting (see Langley, 1999) in
order to increase the generalisability of the results. Based on more comprehensive
qualitative data, researchers may develop further hypotheses on the relationships between
dynamic capabilities and social innovation, and test them empirically.
Second, the data come from a case in the financial service sector. It would be interesting
to find out how sensing, seizing and reconfiguration capabilities are manifested in other
industries, and how they differ from those identified in this study.
In addition, because this study concerns the phase of social innovation creation, further
studies are necessary to determine how the process is organised during the phase of social
innovation diffusion.

References
Adner, R. and Helfat, C. (2003), “Corporate effects and dynamic managerial capabilities”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 10, pp. 1011-1025.
Ambrosini, V. and Bowman, C. (2009), “What are dynamic capabilities and are they a useful construct
in strategic management”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 29-49.
Bouchard, M.J., Trudelle, C., Briand, L., Klein, J.-L., Lévesque, B. and Longtin, D. (2015), “A relational
database to understand social innovation and its impact on social transformation”, in Nicholls, A.,
Simon, J., Gabriel, M. and Whelan, C. (Eds), New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research,
Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 69-85.
MD Breznik, L. and Hisrich, R.D. (2014), “Dynamic capabilities vs. innovation capability: are they related?”,
57,6 Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 368-384.
Dandurand, L. (2005), “Réflexion autour du concept d’innovation sociale, approche historique
et comparative”, Revue française d’administration publique, Vol. 115 No. 3, pp. 377-382.
Dees, G.B., Battle Anderson, B. and Wei-Skillern, J. (2004), “Scalling social innovation. Strategies for
spreading social innovations”, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 24-32.
1412 Easterby-Smith, M., Lyles, M. and Peteraf, M. (2009), “Dynamic capabilities: current debates and future
directions”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000), “Dynamic capabilities: what are they?”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 21 Nos 10-11, pp. 1105-1121.
Eriksson, T. (2013), “Methodological issues in dynamic capabilities research – a critical review”, Baltic
Journal of Management, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 306-327.
Felin, T., Argyres, N., Foss, N.J. and Zenger, T. (2012), “The organizational economics of organizational
capabilities: a research agenda”, Organization Science, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 1213-1226.
Golden, B.R. (1992), “The past is the past-or is it? The use of retrospective accounts as indicators of past
strategy”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 848-860.
Hafsi, T. and Thomas, H. (2005), “Strategic management and change in high depency environments:
the case of a philanthropic organization”, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 329-351.
Harrison, D. and Jensen, J. (2013), “Social innovation research in Europe: approaches, trends and future
directions”, paper Commissioned for the European Commission and the WILCO Project,
European Commission, Brussels.
Kim, M., Song, J. and Triche, J. (2014), “Toward an integrated framework for innovation in service:
a resource-based view and dynamic capabilities approach”, Information Systems Frontiers,
Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 533-546.
Klein, J.-L., Camus, A., Jetté, C., Champagne, C. and Roy, M. (2016), La transformation sociale par
l’innovation sociale, PUQ, p. 460.
Langley, A. (1999), “Strategies for theorizing from process data”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 691-710.
Lévesque, B. (2006), “Le potentiel d’innovation sociale de l’économie sociale: quelques éléments de
problématique”, Revue Économie et Solidarités, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 13-48.
Lévesque, B. (2017), Fondaction, un fonds pleinement engagé dans la finance socialement responsable,
PUQ, Montréal, p. 360.
Lévesque, B., Bélanger, P.R., Bouchard, M. and Mendell, M. (2001), Le Fonds de solidarité FTQ, un cas
exemplaire de nouvelle gouvernance, Fonds de solidarité, Montréal, p. 107.
McGrath, R.C., MacMillan, I.A. and Tushman, M.L. (1992), “The role of executive team actions in
shaping dominant designs: towards the strategic shaping of technological progress”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. S2, pp. 137-161.
Malo, M.-C. and Vézina, M. (2004), “Governance and management of collective ubased enterprises:
value-creation strategies and organizational configurations”, Annales de l’économie publique,
sociale et coopératives/Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 113-137.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D. and Hillier, J. (2015), “Social innovation: intuition, precept, concept,
theory and practice”, in Moulaert, F., MacCallum, Mehmood, A. and Hamdouch, A. (Eds), The
International Handbook on Social Innovation, Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA, pp. 13-23.
Mumford, M.D. (2002), “Social innovation: ten cases from Benjamin Franklin”, Creativity Research
Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 253-266.
Murovec, N. and Prodan, I. (2009), “Absorptive capacity, its determinants, and influence on innovation
output: cross-cultural validation of the structural model”, Technovation, Vol. 29 No. 12, pp. 859-872.
Musca, G. (2006), “Une stratégie de recherche processuelle: L’étude longitudinale de cas enchassés”, Social
Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 145-168. innovation
Nicholls, A. and Murdoch, A. (2016), “The nature of social innovation”, in Nicholls, A. and Murdoch, A. process
(Eds), Social Innovation: Blurring Boundaries to Reconfigure Markets, Palgrave Macmillan,
New York, NY, pp. 1-32.
Nussbaumer, J. and Moulaert, F. (2007), “L’innovation sociale au cœur des débats publics et
scientifiques”, in dans Klein, J.-L. and Harrisson D. (Eds), L’innovation sociale. Émergences et 1413
effets sur la transformation des sociétés, PUP, Montréal, pp. 71-88.
Phillips, W., Lee, H., Ghobadian, A., O’regan, N. and James, P. (2015), “Social innovation and social
entrepreneurship”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 428-461.
Powell, T.C. (2014), “Strategic management and the person”, Strategic Organization, Vol. 12 No. 3,
pp. 200-207.
Richez-Battesti, N., Gianfaldoni, P., Glovkoviezoff, G. and Alcaras, J.R. (2006), “Banques coopératives et
innovations sociales”, Recma, No. 301, pp. 26-41.
Rüede, D. and Lurtz, K. (2012), “Mapping the various meanings of social innovation: towards a
differentiated understanding of an emerging concept”, EBS Business School Research Paper
Series No. 12-03, EBS Business School, Oestrich-Winkel.
Sanzo-Perez, M.J., Álvarez-González, L.I. and Rey-García, M. (2015), “How to encourage social innovations:
a resource-based approach”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 35 Nos 7-8, pp. 430-447.
Short, J., Moss, T. and Lumpkin, G. (2009), “Research in social entrepreneurship: past contributions
and future opportunities”, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 161-194.
Teece, D. (1987), “Profiting from technological innovation: implications of integration, collaboration,
licensing and public policy”, in Teece, D. (Ed.), The Competitive Challenge: Strategies for
Industrial Innovation and Renewal, Harper & Row, New York, NY, pp. 185-221.
Teece, D.J. (2007), “Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of enterprise
performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 13, pp. 1319-1350.
Tepsie (2014), “Social innovation theory and research: a guide for researchers”, p. 45, available at:
www.tepsie.eu/images/documents/research_report_final_ web.pdf
Wang, C.L. and Ahmed, P.K. (2007), “Dynamic capabilities: a review and research agenda”,
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 31-51.
Winter, S.G. (2003), “Understanding dynamic capabilities”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24
No. 10, pp. 991-995.
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Zollo, M. and Winter, S. (2002), “Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities”,
Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 339-351.

Further reading
Altintas, G. (2015), “Les facteurs explicatifs de la modification récurrente des ressources et
compétences: le cas de la capacité dynamique d’acquisition d’entreprise”, Management &
Avenir, Vol. 6 No. 6, pp. 69-93.
Benner, M.J. (2009), “Dynamic or static capabilities? Process management practices and response to
technological change”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 473-486.
Côté, D. (2001), Les holdings coopératifs: évolution ou transformation définitive, Éditions De Boeck
Université/CIRIEC international, Bruxelles, p. 413.
Davister, C. (2006), “La gestion des ressources humaines en économie sociale”, Les Cahiers de la Chaire
Cera, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-86.
Franco, M. and Haase, H. (2009), “Entrepreneurship: an organisational learning approach”, Journal of
Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 628-641.
MD Hamel, G., Doz, Y. L. and Prahalad, C. K. (1989), “Collaborate with your competitors and win”, Harvard
57,6 Business Review, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 133-139.
Helfat, C.E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M.A., Singh, H., Teece, D. J. and Winter, S.G. (2007),
Dynamic Capabilities: Understanding Strategic Change in Organizations, Blackwell, Oxford.
Howaldt, J. and Schwarz, M. (2010), “Social innovation: concepts, research fields and international
trends”, in Henning, K. and Hees, F. (Eds), Studies for Innovation in a Modern Working
Environment-International Monitoring, Vol. 5, Edition, Aachen, Dortmund, pp. 1-82.
1414
Jiménez Jiménez, D. and Sanz Valle, R. (2011), “Innovation, organizational learning and performance”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 408-417.
Kyrgidou, L.P. and Spyropoulou, S. (2013), “Drivers and performance outcomes of innovativeness: an
empirical study”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 281-298.
Langley, A. (1997), “L'étude des processus stratégiques: Défis conceptuels et analytiques”,
Management International, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 37-50.
McEvily, B. and Marcus, A. (2005), “Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 11, pp. 1033-1055.
Mulgan, G. (2006), “The process of social innovation. Innovations: technology, governance,
globalization”, MIT Press Journals, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 145-162.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-266.
Narayanan, V.K., Colwell, K. and Douglas, F.L. (2009), “Building organizational platforms in the
pharmaceutical industry: a process perspective on the development of dynamic capabilities”,
British Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 25-40.
Newey, L.R. and Zahra, S.A. (2009), “The evolving firm: how dynamic and operating capabilities
interact to enable entrepreneurship”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 20 No. S1, pp. 81-100.
Peteraf, M. (1993), “The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 179-188.
Regnér, P. (2015), “Relating strategy as parctie to the resource-based view, capabilities perspectoves
and the micr-foundation approach”, in Golsorkhi, D., Rouleau, L., Seidl, D. and Vaara, E. (Eds),
Strategy as Practice, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 301-316.
Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A. and Ireland, R.D. (2007), “Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to
create value: looking inside the black box”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 273-292.
Tarek, B.H, Adel, G. and Sami, A. (2016), “The relationship between competitive intelligence and the
internationalisation of North African SMEs”, Competition & Change, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 326-336.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 1319-1350.
Teece, D.J., Rumelt, R.P., Dosi, G. and Winter, S.G. (1994), “Understanding corporate coherence: theory
and evidence”, Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 1-30.
Vézina, M. and Messier, C. (2009), “L’apprentissage interorganisationnel et la pérennisation de la
collaboration partenariale: Le cas d’une banque solidaire”, Cahier de recherche, Chaire en
management de services financiers, UQAM, Montreal, p. 28.

Corresponding author
Majdi Ben Selma can be contacted at: ben_selma.majdi@uqam.ca

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.