IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i3p1277-d1332174.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Redesigning Meso-Institutions in the Social Economy to Deal with Uncertainty: The Case of CGM Network

Author

Listed:
  • Francesca Battistoni

    (Social Seed s.r.l., 40126 Bologna, Italy)

  • Giulio Quaggiotto

    (Independent Researcher, Dubai P.O. Box 212000, United Arab Emirates)

  • Flaviano Zandonai

    (Consorzio Nazionale CGM, Via Ermanno Barigozzi 24, 20138 Milan, Italy)

Abstract

How can institutions in the social economy adapt to become more effective in dealing with the uncertainty of system transformation? This article focuses on “meso-institutions”, which we define as those that originated neither from a bottom-up (grassroots) approach nor from a top-down mandate (bureaucracy). In particular, it examines the case of CGM, a network of 600 social enterprises in Italy, to investigate how it is renewing its institutional configuration and mandate to better respond to both external and internal changes. CGM has the ambition to be a “reconfigurator” of multi-local systems that can establish new rules of the game in front of the main societal challenges. This entails adopting an innovative approach to define its strategy (from a classic “five-year plan” to a “compass”), reconfiguring its role (from a solution provider to a backbone organisation) and encouraging its members to embrace digitalisation, open innovation and a new business model (platform-based). The article will focus on the tensions and opportunities that this process is surfacing while pointing to broader lessons for institutional innovation.

Suggested Citation

  • Francesca Battistoni & Giulio Quaggiotto & Flaviano Zandonai, 2024. "Redesigning Meso-Institutions in the Social Economy to Deal with Uncertainty: The Case of CGM Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-11, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:3:p:1277-:d:1332174
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/3/1277/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/3/1277/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Foster, 2005. "From simplistic to complex systems in economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 29(6), pages 873-892, November.
    2. Carlo Borzaga & Silvia Sacchetti, 2015. "Why Social Enterprises Are Asking to Be Multi-stakeholder and Deliberative: An Explanation around the Costs of Exclusion," Euricse Working Papers 1575, Euricse (European Research Institute on Cooperative and Social Enterprises).
    3. Coenen , Lars & Hansen , Teis & Rekers , Josephine V., 2015. "Innovation Policy for Grand Challenges. An Economic Geography Perspective," Papers in Innovation Studies 2015/13, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Davide Consoli & Pier Paolo Patrucco, 2011. "Complexity and the Coordination of Technological Knowledge: The Case of Innovation Platforms," Chapters, in: Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 8 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Janssen, Matthijs J. & Abbasiharofteh, Milad, 2022. "Boundary spanning R&D collaboration: Key enabling technologies and missions as alleviators of proximity effects?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    3. Dodgson, Mark & Hughes, Alan & Foster, John & Metcalfe, Stan, 2011. "Systems thinking, market failure, and the development of innovation policy: The case of Australia," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1145-1156.
    4. Burmaoglu, Serhat & Sartenaer, Olivier & Porter, Alan, 2019. "Conceptual definition of technology emergence: A long journey from philosophy of science to science policy," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    5. Ron Boschma & Ron Martin, 2010. "The Aims and Scope of Evolutionary Economic Geography," Chapters, in: Ron Boschma & Ron Martin (ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Fraske, Tim, 2025. "Experimenting with Meaning: Reallabor as a Travelling Concept in Germany’s Innovation Landscape," EconStor Preprints 322478, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    7. Antoine GODIN & Emanuele CAMPIGLIO & Eric KEMP-BENEDICT, 2017. "Networks of stranded assets: A case for a balance sheet approach," Working Paper d51a41b5-00ba-40b4-abe6-5, Agence française de développement.
    8. Christoph Friedrich & Daniel Feser, 2024. "Combining knowledge bases for small wins in peripheral regions. An analysis of the role of innovation intermediaries in sustainability transitions," Review of Regional Research: Jahrbuch für Regionalwissenschaft, Springer;Gesellschaft für Regionalforschung (GfR), vol. 44(2), pages 211-236, June.
    9. Elsner, Wolfram & Heinrich, Torsten, 2009. "A simple theory of 'meso'. On the co-evolution of institutions and platform size--With an application to varieties of capitalism and 'medium-sized' countries," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 843-858, October.
    10. Foster, John, 2011. "Energy, aesthetics and knowledge in complex economic systems," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 88-100.
    11. Fontana, Magda, 2010. "Can neoclassical economics handle complexity? The fallacy of the oil spot dynamic," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 584-596, December.
    12. Félix-Fernando Muñoz & María-Isabel Encinar, 2019. "Some elements for a definition of an evolutionary efficiency criterion," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 919-937, July.
    13. Jonas Heiberg & Christian Binz & Bernhard Truffer, 2020. "The Geography of Technology Legitimation. How multi-scalar legitimation processes matter for path creation in emerging industries," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2034, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Aug 2020.
    14. Iris Wanzenböck & Koen Frenken, 2018. "The subsidiarity principle: Turning challenge-oriented innovation policy on its head," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 1806, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Jan 2018.
    15. Mirella Schrijvers & Niels Bosma & Erik Stam, 2022. "Entrepreneurial Ecosystems and Structural Change in European Regions," Working Papers 2202, Utrecht School of Economics.
    16. Pier Paolo Patrucco, 2012. "Innovative Platforms, Complexity and the Knowledge Intensive Firm," Chapters, in: Michael Dietrich & Jackie Krafft (ed.), Handbook on the Economics and Theory of the Firm, chapter 26, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Iuliana Raluca Gheorghe & Victor Lorin Purcarea & Consuela Madalina Gheorghe, 2018. "Consumer eWOM Communication: The Missing Link between Relational Capital and Sustainable Bioeconomy Ii Health Care Services," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 20(49), pages 684-684, August.
    18. Anthony Asher & Tracy Wilcox, 2022. "Virtue and Risk Culture in Finance," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 179(1), pages 223-236, August.
    19. Foster, John & Metcalfe, J. Stan, 2012. "Economic emergence: An evolutionary economic perspective," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 420-432.
    20. Elsner, Wolfram, 2015. "Policy Implications of Economic Complexity and Complexity Economics," MPRA Paper 63252, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:3:p:1277-:d:1332174. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.