1. Corporate social innovation: How firms learn to innovate for the greater good☆
Philip Mirvis a,
⁎, Maria Elena Baltazar Herrera b
, Bradley Googins c
, Laura Albareda d
a
Global Network for Corporate Citizenship, USA
b
Asian Institute of Management, Philippines
c
Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship, USA
d
Deusto Business School, Spain
a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 1 February 2016
Received in revised form 1 March 2016
Accepted 1 April 2016
Available online xxxx
This research explores how companies learn to engage in successful social innovation through the acquisition of
tacit knowledge from external parties. The study draws from literature on knowledge transfer, corporate partner-
ships, and corporate social innovation (CSI) and extends the authors' previous research on corporate social
responsibility (CSR) and sustainability-oriented innovation. Observations draw on a five-year longitudinal,
multi-company, multinational study of over 70 firms. The research shows that much of the knowledge ex-
changed in CSI is tacit knowledge that companies develop from shared interactions and experiences. This article
describes CSI relationship platforms along two dimensions: 1) distance of engagement from firm value chain, and
2) intensity of investments and interactions. This research relies on inductive methods and aims at pattern
definition and theory building rather than theory testing. Specific examples explain CSI processes and provide
guidance to managers. The findings have relevance to companies seeking to innovate in the CSR and “shared
value” space, to social entrepreneurs, and to researchers interested in these topics.
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Corporate social innovation
Tacit knowledge
Knowledge transfer
Stakeholder engagement
Collaborative innovation
Co-creation
Emergence
1. Introduction
Multinational corporations (MNCs) today confront two challenges.
First, the past three decades have produced little significant organic
growth and firms have focused on cost cutting, outsourcing, and indus-
try consolidation mergers to meet profit targets. Second, many MNCs
face increased public and stakeholder expectations to take a larger
role in addressing troubling social, economic, and environmental issues
(Mirvis & Googins, 2006; Porter & Kramer, 2011).
To increase growth, MNCs are exploring new innovation sources
(e.g., open-innovation, crowd sourcing, employee engagement, co-
innovation) and methods (e.g., incubators, design thinking, and con-
tests) (Chesbrough, 2013; Prahalad & Krishnan, 2008). Yet many corpo-
rate social responsibility (CSR) programs still emphasize philanthropic
funding and programmatic activities and a significant gap remains be-
tween stakeholder expectations and corporate social performance. In-
novations aimed at the greater good are instead coming from social
entrepreneurs, enterprises, and innovators in non-business sectors
(Phills, Deiglmeier, & Miller, 2008).
A select set of leading firms seeking to both grow and meet stake-
holder expectations are turning to corporate social innovation (CSI).
On the commercial side, this has them using social innovation tools to
enhance their supply chains, reach socially-conscious and green con-
sumers, and tap markets at the base of the pyramid (BoP). The compa-
nies' turn to corporate social innovation also has them supporting and
partnering with social innovators and enterprises to bring business so-
lutions to societal needs.
Corporate Social Innovation (CSI) differs from traditional CSR efforts
in several respects (Mirvis, Googins, & Kiser, 2012). First, traditional CSR
programs result from a philanthropic intent, whereas CSI represents a
strategic investment that companies manage more or less like other
corporate investments. Second, CSR programs involve contributions of
money and manpower, whereas CSI engages a company in societally-
relevant R&D and applies the full range of corporate assets to the chal-
lenges at hand. Third, traditional CSR programs often have companies
contract with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) or community
groups to deliver social services. CSI involves deeper collaboration
across functions within a firm and with external parties to co-create
something new that provides a sustainable solution to social ills. Finally,
whereas CSR can generate goodwill and enhance corporate reputation,
CSI also aims to produce new sources of revenue and to generate a
more socially relevant innovation system and corporate culture that
can be a source of competitive advantage.
This research extends previous research by the authors on CSR, CSI,
and innovations for sustainability. Observations build on a longitudinal,
Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
☆ The authors acknowledge institutional support from Bizkiai Talent and Deusto
University, the Asian Institute of Management, and the Global Network for Corporate
Citizenship, and research support from Pamela Lauren A. Chan. The authors thank
Jikyeong Kang, Asian Institute of Management, for valuable input.
⁎ Corresponding author at: Global Network for Corporate Citizenship, c/o 28 Water St.,
Ipswich, MA 01938, USA.
E-mail address: pmirv@aol.com (P. Mirvis).
JBR-09038; No of Pages 8
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.073
0148-2963/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Business Research
Please cite this article as: Mirvis, P., et al., Corporate social innovation: How firms learn to innovate for the greater good, Journal of Business Re-
search (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.073

2. multi-company, multinational study of over 70 firms lasting over five
years. They reveal diversity among firms, as firms tackle different social
issues, devise different social innovation strategies, join in different
partnership configurations, and develop different kinds of social innova-
tions. Across this array, a common theme arises: companies do not have
an established play-book for innovating in this space and they (and
their partners) must learn together to produce successful innovations.
Expansive literature exists on knowledge transfer and social capital
development across firms in networks (Inkpen & Tsang, 2005;
Mowery, Oxley, & Silverman, 1996) and as partners in mergers and alli-
ances (Junni, Sarala, & Vaara, 2012; Reus, 2012). The literature also in-
cludes volumes on knowledge exchange in R&D (Cummings & Teng,
2003). However, these studies concern mostly business-to-business
(B2B) networks and commercial innovation. Companies' social innova-
tion often involves business-to-nonbusiness (B2N) partnering and also
aims for social impact.
As this volume transposes Kurt Lewin's injunction that “there is
nothing so practical as a good theory” into explorations of how practice
can contribute to theory (c.f., Bradbury, Mirvis, Nielsen, & Pasmore,
2008), this study of CSI is in the theory-generating tradition. This article
proposes inductive frameworks for understanding how firms learn to
produce successful CSI by acquiring, exchanging, and co-creating
knowledge, and recommends avenues for future research.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. Organizational knowledge
Knowledge creates new capabilities and transforms organizations
(Zollo & Winter, 2002). External sources are critical to acquire knowl-
edge significantly different from what exists in a firm (Cohen &
Levinthal, 1990). Through alliances and partnerships, firms can access,
exchange, and co-develop knowledge and technologies (Argote &
Ingram, 2000).
The literature includes many frameworks on forms of knowledge
creation and transfer within and across organizations (Botha, Kourie,
& Snyman, 2014; Nonaka, 1994). Most frameworks address distinctions
between explicit and tacit knowledge, with the former being codified
knowledge that is accessible in forms, manuals, and software programs.
Tacit knowledge, however, is not-yet codified, and may be held within a
person, or experientially produced in action. Experts classify tacit
knowledge into technical (techniques, processes, and methods) and
cognitive forms (values, beliefs, and ideas). In social innovation, organi-
zations exchange both forms (Mulgan, 2006).
2.1.1. Knowledge for social innovation
Four types of knowledge are germane to corporate social innovation.
First, companies need knowledge about the local conditions in their
supply chain or in a market they seek to enter. Non-business partners
often have that knowledge (“know-what”) and can work with business
partners to conduct indigenous research (Hart & London, 2005). Second,
companies need to understand how to produce and implement social
innovations in an unfamiliar culture and context and how to work
with partners. Companies typically develop this capability (“know-
how”) experientially, through the co-creation of social innovations
with partners and/or users (Herrera, 2015a). Third, companies need
legitimacy with and connections to local interests and users. Partner
organizations can facilitate engagement with local communities and
non-traditional customers (Austin, 2000) and provide access to inter-
ests beyond the usual corporate reach (Worley & Mirvis, 2013). This as-
sociation highlights the importance of social ties (“know-who”) in
knowledge acquisition and transfer. Finally, many firms engaged in
CSI explicitly seek to address significant social, economic, and environ-
mental problems. Innovative efforts built on corporate commitment to
social purpose (“know why”) have an added boost of motivation that
can yield perseverance and resilience that organizations need for a
deeper knowledge exchange and co-creation.
2.1.2. Knowledge acquisition processes
Organizations either acquire or create new knowledge (Nahapiet
& Ghoshal, 1998; Seidler-de Alwis & Hartman, 2008). The SECI
framework – socialization, externalization, combination, and inter-
nalization – outlines key steps in knowledge exchange (Nonaka,
Toyama, & Konno, 2000). This research uses four general stages of
exchange in collaborative ventures: initiation, acquisition, transfor-
mation, and assimilation. At each stage, organizations can exchange
knowledge using an explicit, structured, and planned process, or
through more organic, serendipitous, and implicit methods.
2.2. Gaps in the literature
An emerging body of practice-oriented literature describes how
companies engage in CSI. Christensen, Baumann, Ruggles, and Sadtler
(2006) show how “catalytic” innovation models apply to health care,
education, and community economic development. Weiser, Kahane,
Rochlin, and Landis (2004) demonstrate how companies develop inno-
vations for underserved markets. Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004)
document how co-created innovations create value in BoP markets
and are transferable to the developed world. Research also covers “col-
laborative innovation” for sustainability (Albareda & Bree, 2015) and
how institutionalizing firm-specific CSI capabilities creates competitive
advantage (Herrera, 2015b).
The literature includes less information about how companies
“learn” to produce social innovations through knowledge exchange
with partners in CSI. While some studies point to various learning en-
ablers in cross-sector partnerships (Arya & Salk, 2006; Murphy, Perrot,
& Rivera-Santos, 2012), the literature gives scant attention to types of
knowledge exchanged. In addition, since tacit knowledge is “context
specific” and companies need experience for its understanding, research
can help identify how different kinds of innovations and partnerships
arrangements might influence both the content and process of knowl-
edge exchange. This article addresses the following research questions:
What are different contexts for knowledge exchange in CSI? What kinds
of knowledge exchange happen in CSI? What facilitates the exchange of
knowledge in the initiation, acquisition, transformation, and assimila-
tion phases of CSI? How might this differ in planned versus unplanned
knowledge exchange?
3. Method
The sample of firms studied for the illustrative case studies results
from the authors' research networks, encompassing over 70 companies
worldwide, many well known for their leadership in the CSR and CSI
spaces. The longitudinal study examines the full scope of the companies'
CSI activities (N20 companies) or specific social innovations (N50 com-
panies). The findings and case material comes from personal interviews,
field observations, and selected reports, articles, and blogs. Research
methods are inductive and aimed towards pattern definition and theory
building rather than theory testing.
4. Illustrative case studies and observations
The study classifies the cases along two dimensions: 1) distance of en-
gagement from the core of the business—from value chain to societal en-
hancement, and 2) intensity of firm investment and involvement—from
low to high (see Fig. 1).
4.1. Knowledge transfer—value chain enhancement
A considerable amount of corporate social innovation centers on
firms' value chains. This encompasses sourcing or supply chain, and
2 P. Mirvis et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Mirvis, P., et al., Corporate social innovation: How firms learn to innovate for the greater good, Journal of Business Re-
search (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.073

3. development of new business models aimed at the BoP or socially con-
scious and green consumers, through to the acquisition of socially re-
sponsible businesses. Recently, companies engage employees in CSI to
benefit the value chain as well as society overall (Mirvis, 2012).
4.1.1. Pro bono global service: IBM, KickStart, and Dow corning
Since 2008, IBM has sent over 2400 employees on 800 projects to 34
countries for one-month service learning assignments through IBM's
Corporate Service Corps. In Tanzania, the collaboration of IBM teams
with the innovation NGO KickStart develops modular e-training courses
in marketing, sales, and supply chain management for local entrepre-
neurs. This collaboration engaged IBMers in socially-oriented R&D. In
India, Dow Corning teams develop energy-efficient cook stoves for
street vendors. To resolve technical challenges, the team emails, blogs,
and tweets ideas with hundreds of fellow employees back home. This
exchange involves know-what, know-how, and, in reaching out to
other parties, elements of know-who.
4.1.2. Sustainable supply chain: Loblaw, Greenpeace, WWF-Canada, and
MSC
Collaborations on supply chains can involve internal and external
parties. Canadian grocer Loblaw's partnership with Greenpeace, the
World Wildlife Fund-Canada, and the Marine Stewardship Council
(MSC) aims at sustainable fish sourcing, an effort requiring collabo-
rative innovation built on trust. “The initiative required creative
thinking and a leap of faith as sustainable sourcing criteria was
adopted” (Steele & Feyerherm, 2014). Loblaw faces many internal
challenges in implementing sustainable sourcing criteria. In working
together, the grocer learns about marine stocks and documents its
“chain of custody”, while NGOs learn about factors of cost and mar-
gins in the grocery business.
4.1.3. BOP business models: SC Johnson, USAID, and Borlaug Institute
SC Johnson, the world's leading maker of insect control products,
needs a steady supply of pyrethrum. SC Johnson, in partnership with
USAID and Borlaug Institute of Texas A&M, works with Rwandan farm-
ing communities on sustainable farming for pyrethrum. SC Johnson's
partners establish a motorcycle-based distribution system to bring in-
secticides to areas with endemic malaria. In turn, the Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation provides SC Johnson with funding to develop the
market for insecticides in other countries. What does SC Johnson learn
from social innovation? How to move from sustainable sourcing to
developing affordable products to build a full BoP business model that,
in its current iteration, involves promoting farmer's cooperatives, capac-
ity building, and creating community-based marketing and distribution
systems.
4.1.4. Socially responsible business acquisition: preservative and additive
acquisitions
Recent years have seen the acquisitions of the social responsible
business the Body Shop by L'Oreal, Stonyfield Farm by Groupe Danone,
and Ben & Jerry's by Unilever. The Body Shop constitutes a “preserva-
tive” acquisition. Stonyfield is an “additive” acquisition of Danone. The
two companies' teams work together to combine the “best of both” in
the areas of sourcing and product development. The Ben & Jerry's acqui-
sition, by comparison, suffers from political power plays, with the
parent company diluting product quality and pushing away from com-
mitments to pay premiums to local dairy farmers, all to increase mar-
gins (Mirvis, 2008).
4.2. Knowledge transfer—societal enhancement
Some studies also show examples of businesses aiming their social
innovation at solving major societal problems (Eggers & Macmillan,
2013; Volans et al., 2014). Korngold (2014) describes corporate engage-
ments that focus on economic development, climate change, ecosys-
tems, education, health care, and human rights, where innovation
features and benefits accrue to both business and society.
4.2.1. Open innovation and crowdsourcing: Intel and make it wearable
Intel launches the Make It Wearable Challenge to bring external
parties together with industry professionals to generate ideas for wear-
able devices and ubiquitous computing. The winner develops a small
drone, wearable like a wristwatch, and that with a sweep of the arm
can take pictures and video. Intel's challenge contest exemplifies a
variant of open innovation involving co-ideation, sourcing product de-
velopment ideas from external parties. Intel's Luke Filose reflects, “com-
petitions introduce us to creative users and to situations where our
technology can be used in new ways. This gives us a chance to explore
and try out new ideas” (personal interview, October 28, 2015). After
the contest, Intel unveils a button-sized computing system for smart
clothes and other wearables.
Fig. 1. Forms of CSI partnerships.
3P. Mirvis et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Mirvis, P., et al., Corporate social innovation: How firms learn to innovate for the greater good, Journal of Business Re-
search (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.073

4. 4.2.2. Social entrepreneur support: Barclays accelerator
Barclays hosts an innovation accelerator, a 13-week program for fin-
tech startups, run in partnership with Techstars. From over 300 applica-
tions from 50 countries, the company develops eleven ideas, including
an alternative to pay day loans, a next generation credit scoring system,
and a peer-to-peer funding platform for real estate. “It is time to rede-
fine financial services,” says Michael Harte, Barclays' Chief Operations
and Technology Officer. “We're seeking to connect the world's most ac-
tive innovators (…) all while helping to revolutionize the industry.”
(“Barclays News,” July 16, 2015).
4.2.3. Social enterprise partnership: Accenture Development programs
Accenture Development Partnerships (ADP) have undertaken over
600 projects in 55 countries where its professionals, at 50% salary reduc-
tion, work in partnership for up to six months with NGOs to bring busi-
ness solutions to humanitarian problems. In 2010, ADP works with
NetHope, a consortium of over 40 NGOs, to launch the first global IT
help desk for international NGOs. In 2013, the partners conduct a
study of technology use in developing markets, developing insights to
prioritize simpler text-based applications for rural workers use, who
often don't own smart phones.
4.2.4. Social enterprise ‘ownership’: WaterHealth centers
WaterHealth International (WHI) develops and runs decentralized
WaterHealth Centers (WHCs), financially sustainable water treatment
plants that use ultraviolet and reverse osmosis technologies to provide
access to safe and affordable drinking water. Since its foundation in
1995, WHI has installed more than 500 WHCs in rural, underserved
communities in India, Bangladesh, Ghana, and the Philippines. In
2014, The Coca-Cola Company takes a minority equity stake in WHI to
accelerate placement of new WHCs globally, which helps Coke achieve
its goal of replenishing all of the water in its beverages by 2020, using
financially sustainable methods.
5. Findings on knowledge exchange
These cases illustrate considerable exchange of knowledge
among partners to CSI, particularly tacit knowledge. In the SC John-
son case, explicit knowledge (“know what”) on farming practices
and management is teachable, but the implementation of practices
(“know how”) and development of the product distribution system
requires continuous co-learning with the local community. Innova-
tion team immersion in the local situation produces insights on
users' experience of nets versus alternatives (the bundling of insecti-
cides and cleaning products), and culturally compatible marketing
formats, such as WOW clubs. Local partners are crucial to shaping
the WOW club value proposition.
Leveraging local ties (“know-who”) also feature in many innova-
tions. Coca-Cola forms a social enterprise ecosystem to support
women who operate sari-sari stores in the Philippines; the stores are
one of Coca-Cola's main sales channels. Local NGO partners provide
much of the Coca-Cola funded STAR program support, including train-
ing, access to microfinance and merchandising, and peer mentoring.
Complementary knowledge between the partners informs the design
of Coca-Cola's STAR program, but effective implementation requires dis-
tinct and locally embodied knowledge.
The STAR program has spread throughout Southeast Asia and illus-
trates the strong business and societal case (“know-why”) for CSI.
Adel Tamano, vice president for Public Affairs and Communications
(PAC) of Coca-Cola Philippines, reports, “When women are given the
opportunity to earn, they tend to reinvest the income to the education
and health care of their family; it becomes a viable to solution to break-
ing poverty cycles” (Tesda, February 11, 2014).
5.1. Intensity of investment, ties, and social impact
The case studies highlight how knowledge exchange increases as
companies invest more, leverage social ties, and seek increased social
impact in CSI activities. This seems to be true in the case of both value
chain and societal enhancement undertakings (see Fig. 2). In both
arenas, the exchanged knowledge has to do with the local market or
community, and associated issues and opportunities, and the corporates
gain cultural understanding. The exchange of knowledge also benefits
their self-image as do-gooders and their reputations as social innova-
tors, some of which thanks to their associating with legitimating non-
business partners.
Added knowledge accrues as companies increasingly engage in CSI.
In the case of pro bono service learning, corporate volunteers gain
hands-on experience in emerging markets and enhance their global
leadership capabilities (Mirvis, Hurley, & MacArthur, 2014). Innovating
in their supply change teaches companies about meeting global stan-
dards and, in the cases of Loblaw and other firms in food, footwear,
and apparel industries, about how to attain product sustainability certi-
fication from accrediting bodies. Business model innovations yield
product insights and market entry strategies. Mark Martin, VP of Inter-
national Markets for SC Johnson, says: “we do not believe in taking a
‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to entering BoP communities. It is important
for us to have a keen understanding of each market's needs as well as
the time it takes to successfully enter these markets” (SC Johnson,
2014) Acquiring a socially responsible company provides opportunities
for deeper knowledge exchange and a tutorial on what a company
needs to run a socially responsible business.
In regard to societal enhancement, consultations and contests with
social innovators produce product ideas and can enhance the innovative
identity and spirit of a firm. On this count, Intel competes with Google
and Facebook in the “war for talent.” Sponsoring, incubating, and
mentoring social entrepreneurs requires further investment but also
teaches firms how to produce social innovations, connects firms with
an ecosystem of social entrepreneurs, and can spillover into social
intrapreneurship among employees (Davis & White, 2015). A full scale
engagement with a social enterprise opens up knowledge on larger-
scale and more systemic social innovation, which further improves
when a company takes a financial stake in a social enterprise. Shell's
partnership with solar innovator d.light and Credit Suisse's investments
in intermediary micro-finance institutions exemplify how big compa-
nies also gain social legitimacy and a license to grow through CSI in
emerging markets (Mirvis et al., 2012).
5.2. Internal versus external innovation
The literature includes considerable research on factors predicting
the sharing of knowledge between parties to an innovation (Voorberg,
Bekkers, & Tummers, 2015). Murphy et al. (2012) point out that rela-
tional capacity, not just absorptive capacity, influences learning and in-
novation in cross-sectoral alliances. This CSI study opens up three less
well-studied considerations of what increases knowledge exchange:
1) how central the innovation is to the core of the business; 2) how like-
ly the usage of the gained knowledge is in further applications; and
3) how valuable the knowledge is to each of the parties involved.
In general, this study finds stronger knowledge exchange on these
counts when the parties engage in value chain (internal) than with so-
cietal (external) innovation. In both the SC Johnson and Loblaw cases,
the gained knowledge in value chain innovation is relevant to business
units, applicable to future situations, and yields recognition and rewards
to the innovation parties These conditions predict a strong motivation
to share knowledge. This pattern of open information seeking is evident
in other corporate innovations in supply chains and business
models—including Nestlé's “shared value,” Danone's “sustainable agri-
culture,” and Unilever's “sustainable living” platforms.
4 P. Mirvis et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Mirvis, P., et al., Corporate social innovation: How firms learn to innovate for the greater good, Journal of Business Re-
search (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.073

5. However, this research also finds significant knowledge exchange
with external parties even when the innovation is not central to the
core business or to a firm's continued exploitation. John Deere supports
Joint Initiative for Village Advancement (JIVA), an integrated communi-
ty development program, in three rural villages of Rajasthan, India. In
this philanthropic effort, Deere aspires to be more than simply a
monetary donor; the company, according to its executives, is seeking
to be an active partner and catalyst for meaningful development work.
A technical university and community groups have joined the JIVA
partnership—broadening the knowledge exchange.
Another example is Johnson & Johnson's (J&J) Campaign for
Nursing's Future, a response to what doctors and nurses identify as
their most vexing problem. The program includes imaginative advertis-
ing and engages J&J staff and partners. The campaign leads to a signifi-
cant increase in the perceptions of nursing as a good career choice
among 18–24 year olds and general public, and improves recruitment
and retention rates in the nursing profession. J&J's Communications di-
rector, Patrick McCrummen, explains, “J&J doesn't subscribe to the Mi-
chael Porter idea of shared value as the company engages in many
activities which aim to help people and build trust, rather than seeking
a measurable business outcome or quantifiable profitability”
(Christiansen, June 19, 2014). This kind of results highlights the impor-
tance of “know-why” in knowledge transfer and absorption. Several
studies highlight how firms that perceive their roles as “serving society”
more broadly are more likely to recognize the value of B2N alliances and
use alternative success metrics (Mirvis et al., 2012; London, Rondinelli,
& O'Neill, 2005). Generalizing suggests that some purpose-driven
firms treat social innovation as part of their overall mission.
5.3. Knowledge acquisition process: planned versus emergent
Many innovation models emphasize planned (SECI) and structured
information exchange between parties (Szulanski, 2000). Here, the
parties recognize what kind of innovation they need, decide to share
knowledge with one another, and engage in an innovation process
involving formalized interaction, prototyping, evaluation, and data-
based improvement. In the case of many social innovations, however,
the parties may align only a joint interest, rather than a shared goal,
and the relevance of their knowledge may be unknown or even suspect.
Conditions for planned information exchange are often lacking—
problems are ambiguous and value-laden and each party can have a dif-
ferent idea about what sort of innovation will prove effective (Murphy &
Arenas, 2011). This means that knowledge sharing in CSI may result
from an emergent rather than an organized process (Kania, Kramer, &
Russell, 2014).
In some instances, too, knowledge emerges not via exchange but
through collaborative work. In CSI, the parties can confront complex
challenges that do not match their prevailing ideas about problems-
and-solutions. Instead, knowledge emerges from empathic interactions
with local interests in situ, before trial-and-error experimentation. This,
plus power and resource differences and differences in their preferred
cognitive styles and operating cultures, means that knowledge assimila-
tion and transformation may also hinge on less formal methods.
Fig. 3 highlights some of these key differences between the planned
and the organic approach to knowledge transfer. This research observes
significant differences in the degree of planning of the knowledge trans-
fer across the case studies. Specifically, companies that involve in CSI ef-
forts in their value chain are more likely to use a planned approach to
knowledge transfer. In the case of pro bono volunteering, many firms
prepare volunteers for scouting out ideas in their overseas assignments
and harvest lessons from their experiences afterward. SC Johnson par-
ticipates in a collective learning exercise that aims at BoP business de-
velopment with academic partners at the Borlaug Institute, as well as
The Center for Sustainable Global Enterprise at Cornell University. The
most successful acquisitions of the studied socially responsible busi-
nesses have to do with the use of formal merger integration teams, col-
lective review of integration ideas, and co-development of new work
arrangements and offerings.
Nevertheless, the study also finds examples where a more organic
approach yields significant innovation. Commenting on the learning
from their joint R&D, NetHope's Lauren Woodman and Accenture's
Jessica Long write, “it's no longer good enough to arrive in developing
countries and proclaim to have all the answers. We need to refine our
solutions by researching local markets, learning lessons from trial and
Fig. 2. Knowledge exchange in CSI.
5P. Mirvis et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Mirvis, P., et al., Corporate social innovation: How firms learn to innovate for the greater good, Journal of Business Re-
search (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.073

6. error and welcoming feedback and possibilities from those on the
ground” (Woodman & Long, 2014). An SAP employee who was assisting
an NGO in South Africa to develop an investment network remarks a
serendipitous discovery, “We had to learn how to think simpler. Build-
ing sustainable solutions is essential. We had to ask how can we build
templates and process maps that (the NGO) can use after we leave?”
(van der Ploeg & White, 2014).
One way to conceptualize what predicts deeper knowledge-sharing
and co-creation is Austin's (2000) “collaboration continuum.” Austin
and Seitanidi (2012) contend that multi-organizational partnerships
follow a developmental logic and propose that members' relationships
deepen and their work becomes more innovative. As partners move
from a transactional and tactical relationship to deeper levels of collab-
oration, they exchange more information and resources and together,
they must develop collaborative capabilities. This study of CSI observes
a similar progression in knowledge exchange between partners. As rela-
tionships deepen from investment to collaborating to formal partner-
ship, parties are more apt to engage in structured, planned, and
mutual knowledge exchange and to co-create social innovations (see
Fig. 4).
6. Implications
This study has important implications for researchers and managers
with an interest in understanding how CSI collaborations improve CSI
capability through knowledge exchange. The research indicates that
CSI activities, being intensely interactive and experiential, result in
knowledge exchange, even when knowledge acquisition is not an ex-
plicit goal. The results also indicate that much of the knowledge ex-
changed during CSI activities is tacit. The research indicates that
knowledge exchange tends to occur between all parties in CSI collabora-
tions, and that knowledge transfer tends to be bi- or multi-lateral. The
research also indicates that knowledge gained in CSI activities enhances
implementation of future CSI activities, and enhances future knowledge
transfer through improved learning capabilities and increased social
capital. This means that potential for a virtuous cycle exists. The re-
search indicates that knowledge gain includes explicit knowledge
(know-what and some know-how), tacit local knowledge on method
(know-how and know-who), and improved understanding of the im-
portance of CSI (know-why).
Companies and managers can use the study's framework of weak-
strong engagements and external–internal dimensions to contemplate
the challenges involved in accessing tacit knowledge and co-creating in-
novations. On engagements with social enterprises in Africa, Stephane
Bodaika, a doctor who has been serving as a Global Health Fellow with
USAID, says: “it is the duty of the newcomer to learn the rules and cus-
toms of their new environment. These places have values which are
sometimes similar to those from the west, but other values will differ.
And in some cases, we may have the same values, but the way of process-
ing and responding to information differs across culture” (White, 2015).
Finally, to learn to innovate in this new context, companies require
the assimilation of knowledge from CSI efforts and the
Fig. 3. Process of knowledge transfer.
Fig. 4. Knowledge exchange in multi-party collaboration.
6 P. Mirvis et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Mirvis, P., et al., Corporate social innovation: How firms learn to innovate for the greater good, Journal of Business Re-
search (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.073

7. institutionalization of new capabilities. In many planned innovation
models, knowledge integrates across the receiving organization in for-
mal innovation frameworks and procedures. These deliberate ap-
proaches increase assimilation speed and maximize the new
knowledge's effects. However, knowledge assimilation can also be
more organic and implicit via osmosis and through informal networks.
7. Discussion
This research shows that firms gain knowledge for CSI across differ-
ent spectra. The case studies illustrate that some CSI emanates from a
business objective and expands through social considerations, while
others deliberately target social impact and then align to business
needs. This research illustrates that most of the knowledge that CSI
requires is tacit and difficult to transfer. The literature comments on
the strength of “weak ties” in extending an organization's reach and
its opening to new ideas. However, studies of successful multi-
organizational networks and partnerships also stress the importance
of shared interests and mutual trust that regular interactions between
the parties bring about (Peloza & Falkenberg, 2009; Zhang & Huxham,
2009). Forging strong ties is especially important when a multi-party
partnership faces ambiguity in defining its goals and uncertainty in
achieving them (Senge, Dow, & Neath, 2006).
The illustrative case studies attempt to deepen understanding of the
varieties of CSI types and partnership platforms. However, the catego-
ries these case studies cover are not exhaustive and the trends that
this study observes are only suggestive; thus, more focused theorizing
and further studies could refine the understandings of tacit-explicit
knowledge transfer across the different types of social innovations and
the external–internal spectrum. Also worthy of attention are further
studies of the unique challenges, drivers, and mechanisms of knowledge
exchange in CSI partnerships, as opposed to traditional corporate inno-
vation arrangements.
References
Albareda, L., & Bree, F. G. (2015). Building a model of collaborative innovation for sustain-
ability: The emergence of non-profit partners. Bilbao, Spain: Deusto Business School.
Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in
firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150–169.
Arya, B., & Salk, J. E. (2006). Cross-sector alliance learning and effectiveness of voluntary
codes of corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(2), 211–234.
Austin, J. E. (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and business. Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 69–97.
Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. (2012). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering
between nonprofits and businesses: Part I. Value creation spectrum and collaboration
stages. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(5), 726–758.
Barclays News (2015, July 16). Barclays launches Rise global community and first US Ac-
celerator. Retrieved from https://www.home.barclays/news/2015/07/rise.html
Botha, A., Kourie, D., & Snyman, R. (2014). Coping with continuous change in the business
environment: Knowledge management and knowledge management technology. Oxford,
UK: Chandos Publishing.
Bradbury, H., Mirvis, P. H., Nielsen, E., & Pasmore, B. (2008). Action research at work: Cre-
ating the future following the path from Lewin. In P. Reason, & H. Bradbury (Eds.),
Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chesbrough, H. (2013). Open business models: How to thrive in the new innovation land-
scape. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Christensen, C. M., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R., & Sadtler, T. M. (2006). Disruptive innovation
for social change. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 94–101.
Christiansen, N. (2014, June 19). “creating shared value” is lost in translation. Let's reclaim
it (Retrieved from https://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/06/19/CSV-controversy).
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learn-
ing and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.
Cummings, J. L., & Teng, B. S. (2003). Transferring R&D knowledge: The key factors affect-
ing knowledge transfer success. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,
20(1), 39–68.
Davis, G., & White, C. (2015). Changing your company from the inside out: A guide for social
intrapreneurs. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Eggers, W. D., & Macmillan, P. (2013). The solution revolution: How business, government,
and social enterprises are teaming up to solve society's toughest problems. Boston: Har-
vard Business Review Press.
Hart, S. L., & London, T. (2005). Developing native capability. Stanford Social Innovation
Review, 3(2), 28–33.
Herrera, M. E. B. (2015a). Innovation for impact: Business innovation for inclusive growth.
Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1725–1730. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.
2015.10.045.
Herrera, M. E. B. (2015b). Creating competitive advantage by institutionalizing corporate
social innovation. Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1468–1474. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.036.
Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer.
Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146–165.
Junni, P., Sarala, K. M., & Vaara, E. (2012). The dynamics of knowledge transfer in mergers
and acquisitions. In D. Faulkner, S. Teerikangas, & R. Joseph (Eds.), Handbook of re-
search on mergers and acquisitions (pp. 108–146). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kania, J., Kramer, M., & Russell, P. (2014). Up for debate: Strategic philanthropy for a com-
plex world. Stanford Innovation Review, (Summer, 2014), 26–37.
Korngold, A. (2014). A better world, Inc.: How companies profit by solving global problems …
where governments cannot. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
London, T., Rondinelli, D. A., & O'Neill, H. (2005). Strange bedfellows: Alliances between
corporations and nonprofits. In O. Shenkar, & J. J. Reuer (Eds.), Handbook of strategic
alliances (pp. 353–366). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mirvis, P. (2012). Employee engagement and CSR. California Management Review, 54(4),
93–117.
Mirvis, P., & Googins, B. (2006). Stages of corporate citizenship: A developmental frame-
work. California Management Review, 48(2), 104–126.
Mirvis, P. H. (2008). Can you buy CSR. California Management Review, 51(1), 109–116.
Mirvis, P. H., Googins, B., & Kiser, C. (2012). Corporate social innovation. Wellesley, MA:
Lewis Institute, Social Innovation Lab, Babson University.
Mirvis, P. H., Hurley, S. T., & MacArthur, A. (2014). Transforming executives into corporate dip-
lomats: The power of global pro bono service. Organizational Dynamics, 43(3), 235–245.
Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm
knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 77–91.
Mulgan, G. (2006). The process of social innovation. Innovations, 1(2), 145–162.
Murphy, M., & Arenas, D. (2011). Through indigenous lenses: Cross-sector collaborations
with fringe stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(1), 103–121.
Murphy, M., Perrot, F., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2012). New perspectives on learning and in-
novation in cross-sector collaborations. Journal of Business Research, 65(12),
1700–1709.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization
Science, 5(1), 14–37.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI, Ba and leadership: A unified model of dy-
namic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33(1), 5–34.
Peloza, J., & Falkenberg, L. (2009). The role of collaboration in achieving corporate social
responsibility objectives. California Management Review, 51(3), 95–113.
Phills, J. A., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford
Social Innovation Review, 6(4), 34–43.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review,
89(1/2), 62–77.
Prahalad, C. K., & Krishnan, M. S. (2008). New age of innovation: driving co-created value
through global networks. New York: McGraw Hill.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in
value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14.
Reus, T. H. (2012). A knowledge-based view of mergers and acquisitions revisited: Ab-
sorptive capacity and combinative capability. In S. Finkelstein, & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),
Advances in mergers and acquisitions. Vol. 11. (pp. 69–88). Bingley, UK: Emerald
Group Publishing.
SC Johnson (2014). The choices we make: Sc Johnson 2014 Public Sustainability Report. Re-
trieved from http://deres.org.uy/wp-content/uploads/final_2c_scjohnson_pr2014.pdf
Seidler-de Alwis, R., & Hartmann, E. (2008). The use of tacit knowledge within innovative
companies: knowledge management in innovative enterprises. Journal of knowledge
Management, 12(1), 133–147.
Senge, P. M., Dow, M., & Neath, G. (2006). Learning together: New partnerships for new
times. Corporate Governance, 6(4), 420–430.
Steele, B., & Feyerherm, A. (2014). Loblaw sustainable seafood: Transforming the
seafood supply chain through network development and collaboration. In C. G.
Worley, & P. H. Mirvis (Eds.), Building networks and partnerships (organizing for
sustainable effectiveness, volume 3) (pp. 101–132). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.
Szulanski, G. (2000). The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of sticki-
ness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 9–27.
Tesda (2014, February 11). TESDA, Coca-Cola program for women inspires Asian neigh-
bors. Retrieved from http://www.tesda.gov.ph/News/Details/376
van der Ploeg, A., & White, D. (2014, March 31). Social sabbaticals and the new face of
leadership. Retrieved from http://ssir.org/articles/entry/social_sabbaticals_and_the_
new_face_of_leadership
Volans, KPMG, & SIG (2014). Breaking through: How corporate social innovation creates
business opportunity. Retrieved January 6, 2016, from: https://www.kpmg.com/Ca/
en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/5441-KPMG-Social-
Innovation-Report-FY14-web-Final.pdf
Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-
creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public
Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357.
Weiser, J., Kahane, M., Rochlin, S., & Landis, J. (2004). Untapped: Creating value in under-
served markets. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
White, D. (2015, Summerr). The drive for Tri-sector leadership in Global Health. Global
health and diplomacy (Retrieved from http://onlinedigeditions.com/article/The_
Drive_For_Tri-Sector_Leadership_In_Global_Health/2018365/260337/article.html).
7P. Mirvis et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Mirvis, P., et al., Corporate social innovation: How firms learn to innovate for the greater good, Journal of Business Re-
search (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.073

8. Woodman, L., & Long, J. (2014, October 14). How tech innovation leads to sustainable solu-
tions in developing nations. Huffington Post (Retrieved from http://www.
huffingtonpost.com/lauren-woodman/how-evolutions-in-technol_b_5631879.
html).
Worley, C. G., & Mirvis, P. H. (2013). Studying networks and partnerships for sustainabil-
ity: Lessons learned. In C. G. Worley, & P. H. Mirvis (Eds.), Building networks and part-
nerships (organizing for sustainable effectiveness, volume 3) (pp. 261–291). Bingley,
UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Zhang, Y., & Huxham, C. (2009). Identity construction and trust building in developing in-
ternational collaborations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45(2), 186–211.
Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capa-
bilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351.
8 P. Mirvis et al. / Journal of Business Research xxx (2016) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Mirvis, P., et al., Corporate social innovation: How firms learn to innovate for the greater good, Journal of Business Re-
search (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.073