Summary: 
 

What counts as a social problem – and what counts as a solution – is not fixed. We argue that social innovation is not just about addressing issues, but about shaping how those issues are understood in the first place. Drawing on the concept of social-symbolic work and insights from community sociology, we propose a broader framework for social change – one that goes beyond enterprise to include activism, participation, and political  

engagement. 

Rethinking the Foundations of Social Innovation 

Social innovation is often praised as a new frontier in tackling entrenched global problems –from homelessness to climate change. But how do we decide what actually constitutes a “social problem”? And who gets to decide what a “solution” looks like? 

In our recent paper published in the Journal of Management Studies and available here, we argue that social innovation is not just about solving problems – it’s about constructing them. Using the lens of social-symbolic work, we explore how social innovators shape the meanings of problems and solutions through words, relationships, symbols, and actions. 

Social Innovation Has Become Too Narrow 

Over the past two decades, the idea of social innovation has become almost synonymous with market-based solutions – startups balancing social and commercial goals, or corporations tackling social issues via ESG initiatives. This emphasis on enterprise reflects a neoliberal logic that sees market-based actors as inherently more efficient and scalable than governments or civil society organizations. 

But in practice, we find that lasting social change often comes from outside markets. Whether it’s community land trusts in Boston or judicial reforms in Indonesia, meaningful innovation frequently depends on deep symbolic work: reframing issues, mobilizing marginalized voices, and reshaping institutions. 

A New Framework: Social-Symbolic Organizing 

To better capture the full spectrum of social innovation, we offer a simple but powerful framework that draws on sociologist Jack Rothman’s classic typology of community intervention. We reinterpret his work through a social-symbolic lens and identify three types of social-symbolic work: 

• Social Inclusion Work 
  Participatory practices that build agency within marginalized communities – such as through community organizing and community enterprise. 

• Socio-Political Work 

Efforts to influence legal and political systems – such as through policy advocacy and political engagement (e.g., standing for office). 

• Social Activism Work 

Protest-based organizing that challenges elite power structures and reframes public discourse – such as through awareness campaigns and demonstrations. 

Each form of work constructs social problems and solutions in a distinct way, and each plays a vital role in reshaping what society sees as legitimate and necessary change. 

Implications for Social Innovators 

Our framework is more than a theoretical model – it’s a practical tool. It helps social innovators think more strategically about how to frame their cause, build legitimacy, and choose the right combination of practices for their context. 

More fundamentally, it suggests a move away from the standard definition of social innovation as the creation of more effective solutions to social problems. From a social-symbolic perspective, social innovation entails: the legitimation of 1) a particular understanding of an issue so that it is widely viewed as a problem in society that needs to be addressed, and 2) a particular approach to addressing that issue so that it is widely viewed as an effective solution. 

For example, mental health has long been stigmatized or ignored in organizations – 

framed as a private problem rather than a legitimate workplace concern. In recent years, however, sustained effort by organizations such as Mind and the Mental Health Foundation has successfully reframed mental health as a collective workplace issue with profound implications for both employees and employers – rather than simply an individual failing. 

A range of solutions have been proposed. Some – such as mandatory mental health disclosure or digital monitoring tools – failed to gain traction, clashing with expectations of privacy and trust. Others, including well-being programmes, mental health days, and resilience training, were more successfully framed as responsible and effective responses. Organizations adopting such initiatives often came to be seen as progressive and caring, while those that did not risked being portrayed as irresponsible and out of step. This reframing helped to normalise workplace mental health interventions and integrate them into HR practices and, in some countries, into legal and regulatory frameworks. 

None of this just happened or was in any way inevitable – it required sustained social-symbolic work. People and organizations – social innovators – had to mobilize others with lived experience of mental health issues (social inclusion work), raise public awareness through campaigns and protest (social activism work), and engage with political and regulatory institutions to embed the changes in practice and in law (socio-political work). And this work is, of course, far from complete: many employers have been criticised for adopting mental health policies for symbolic reasons, without meaningful implementation or adequate resource allocation, and many others continue to offer little or no mental health support. 

We don’t argue against market-based approaches. For instance, many social enterprises have played a key role in helping employers deliver and grow their mental health provision. Rather, we suggest that social innovation needs to be more expansive. Entrepreneurship may help scale solutions, but inclusion, activism, and politics often determine whether those solutions take root in the first place. 

Who Should Read the Full Paper? 

If you’re a scholar working on social change, a practitioner navigating the tension between advocacy and enterprise, or a policymaker trying to understand what drives enduring innovation, this paper offers a new lens. We believe the typology has the potential to be widely used in many different types of social change effort.