Differentiated organisational logics in social and environmental innovation: a comparative analysis between social economy enterprises and conventional enterprises

Abstract

Purpose This article examines how digital maturity, social and environmental practices and collaborative openness drive social and environmental innovation under two different organisational logics: social economy enterprises (SEE) and non-social enterprises (NSEE). The aim is to identify which mechanisms are shared and which diverge between SEE and NSEE, as well as the conditions under which external collaboration enhances these mechanisms. In doing so, we provide comparative evidence to guide managerial decision-making and support policies aligned with sustainable transition in European contexts.

Design/methodology/approach We conduct a cross-sectional comparative study using microdata from Flash Eurobarometer 486 (EU-27). We constructed 1:1 matched subsamples (propensity score) for SEE and NSEE, balancing size, age, turnover, country and sector (n˜578 per group). We estimate a PLS-SEM model linking digital maturity and social and environmental practices with socio-environmental innovation, incorporating interaction with access to partners and plausible mediations. We report explanatory power and predictive validity and perform sensitivity analyses using alternative model specifications and item inclusion/exclusion).

Findings The results show that digital maturity and, especially, environmental practices are consistently associated with social and environmental innovation in both groups, with the effect of digitalisation being more intense among social economy enterprises (SEE). Social practices also contribute to innovation, although with varying intensity depending on the type of enterprise. Regarding external collaboration, access to partners has no direct effect, but plays a significant moderating role by strengthening the relationship between social practices and innovation exclusively in SEE.

Originality/value Using comparable matched subsamples, we demonstrate that the same levers – digital maturity and sustainable practices – generate different returns in SEE and NSEE. We integrate direct and indirect effects, as well as moderation by access to partners, into a single analytical framework, showing that openness adds value only when supported by internal social commitments, particularly in SEE. We therefore reframe social and environmental innovation as a result of contingent combinations of internal practices and external collaboration, as opposed to universal recipes. From a practical perspective, these findings provide managers and policymakers with guidance on how to sequence digital, social, and environmental investments and to design partnership and support policies aligned with the specific organisational logic of SEE and NSEE.