Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences
Revue canadienne des sciences de l’administration
32: 238–251 (2015)
Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/CJAS.1353
Understanding social change through catalytic
innovation: Empirical findings in Mexican social
entrepreneurship
Caroline Auvinet*
Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México
Abstract
Christensen, Baumann, Ruggles, and Sadtler (2006) proposed
that organizations addressing social problems may use cata-
lytic innovation as a strategy to create social change. These
innovations aim to create scalable, sustainable, and systems-
changing solutions. This empirical study examines: (a) whether
catalytic innovation applies to Mexican social entrepreneur-
ship; (b) whether those who adopt Christensen et al.’s (2006)
strategy generate more social impact; and (c) whether they
demonstrate economic success. We performed a survey of 219
Mexican social entrepreneurs and found that catalytic innova-
tion does occur within social entrepreneurship, and that those
social entrepreneurs who use catalytic innovations not only
maximize their social impact but also maximize their profits,
and that they do so with diminishing returns to scale. Copyright
© 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Keywords: social entrepreneurship, catalytic innovation,
strategy, Mexico, social change
Poverty and inequality in the world are the source of
serious social problems. Traditionally, governments and
philanthropists have been responsible for finding solutions
to such social problems, but their efforts have been ineffec-
tive (Prahalad, 2010). Social entrepreneurship, as a new
mechanism created by civil society to address the most
pressing social problems, has struck a chord; it combines a
social mission with business discipline, innovation, and
determination (Dees, 2001).
The authors wish to acknowledge support by Asociación Mexicana de
Cultura, A.C.
*Please address correspondence to: Caroline Auvinet, Instituto Tecnológico
Autónomo de México, Business School, Río Hondo No. 1, Col. Progreso
Tizapán, Del. Álvaro Obregón, Mexico City, 01080 Mexico. Email:
caroline.auvinet@me.com
Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Antonio Lloret
Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México
Résumé
Christensen, Baumann, Ruggles et Sadtler (2006) proposent
que les organisations qui s’occupent de problèmes sociaux,
peuvent utiliser l’innovation catalytique comme une stratégie
visant à créer un changement social. Ces innovations
cherchent à créer des solutions évolutives, durables, et qui
changent le système. Cette étude empirique examine : (a) si
l’innovation catalytique peut s’appliquer dans le domaine de
l’entrepreneuriat social mexicain; (b) si les entrepreneurs
qui adoptent la stratégie de Christensen et al. (2006), donne
lieu à un impact social; et (c) si elle démontre engendrer un
succès économique. Nous avons effectué un sondage à 219
entrepreneurs sociaux mexicains et avons constaté que
l’innovation catalytique se produit au sein des entreprenariats
sociaux, et que les entrepreneurs sociaux qui utilisent des
innovations catalytiques maximisent non seulement l’impact
social, mais aussi leurs profits et qu’ils le font avec des
rendements à échelle décroissante. Copyright © 2015 ASAC.
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Mots-clés : entrepreneuriat social, innovation catalytique,
stratégie, Mexique, changement social
Entrepreneurship itself, of course, is not a new mecha-
nism; historically, entrepreneurship has been related to eco-
nomic growth (Landes, Mokyr, & Baumol, 2010). In the
18th century, J.B. Say defined the entrepreneur as one who
transfers resources from an area of low productivity to high
productivity and return (Say, 1971). Centuries later,
Schumpeter described the entrepreneur as the innovator of
the processes of “creative destruction” of capitalism
(Schumpeter, 1950): the entrepreneur identifies a commer-
cial opportunity and organizes a venture to implement it.
Successful entrepreneurship will provoke a series of reac-
tions, encouraging other entrepreneurs to emulate and spread
innovation to reach “creative destruction,” a state in which
the new venture and all related ventures render existing
products, services, and business models become obsolete
(Schumpeter, in Martin & Osberg, 2007). The entrepreneur
Can J Adm Sci
238 32(4), 238–251 (2015)
SOCIAL CHANGE THROUGH CATALYTIC INNOVATION
will have the force required to drive economic progress,
without which the economy would remain static,
immobilized structurally, and subject to decay (Martin &
Osberg, 2007). Entrepreneurs, according to Say (1971) and
Schumpeter (1950), are agents of change in an economy—
the catalysts and innovators behind economic progress
(Dees, 2001).
When talking about social entrepreneurship, the word
social adds a new component to the definitions given above.
A social entrepreneur shares the characteristics of a conven-
tional entrepreneur, but has the specific challenge to solve a
range of social problems. (Alvord, Brown, & Letts, 2004).
For the social entrepreneur, the mission-related impact
becomes the main criterion while the creation of wealth
becomes a means to an end (Dees, 2001). The social entre-
preneur seeks to generate social value in scale with transfor-
mational benefits; these benefits serve a segment of society
that is otherwise underserved, neglected, or highly disadvan-
taged and has no financial or political means to achieve a
transformative benefit on its own (Martin & Osberg, 2007).
Social entrepreneurship, according to Bornstein and
Davis (2010, p. 1), is a process in which citizens build and
transform institutions to bring solutions to social problems
such as poverty, disease, illiteracy, environmental destruction,
human rights abuses, and corruption. Creating a new social
equilibrium is not easy. As a response to this challenge,
Christensen, Baumann, Ruggles, and Sadtler, (2006) proposed
the catalytic innovation strategy to create scalable and sustain-
able social change that provides systems-changing solutions.
The subject of social entrepreneurship has gained
importance within the international academy. Multiple
authors have studied different aspects of social entrepre-
neurship: its origins; what makes these organizations dif-
ferent from other enterprises; their goals; the structures
they adopt; and the parts of the value chain in which they
are involved. In addition to the growing body of research
on its organization and behaviour, theories are also emerg-
ing that suggest strategies to help these companies achieve
their goals more effectively. One of those theories is
catalytic innovation, from Christensen et al. (2006). This
theory suggests that to be more efficient, a social entrepre-
neur should seek innovations that are scalable, sustainable,
and promote system change.
Although social entrepreneurship research has been de-
veloping over the last twenty years, it remains in an "em-
bryonic" phase because of the lack of empirical studies
(Short, Moss, & Lumpkin, 2009). We address this gap in
the research with an empirical study examining whether
Christensen et al.’s (2006) catalytic innovation theory ap-
plies to Mexican social entrepreneurs. Our results show that
catalytic innovations do occur within social entrepreneur-
ship in Mexico, and that those social entrepreneurs who
use catalytic innovations not only maximize their social im-
pact but also maximize their profits at diminishing returns to
scale. Our study has significant implications for the Mexican
Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
AUVINET AND LLORET
context, where 45.5% of the population lives in multidimen-
sional poverty, of which 9.8% is considered extreme poverty
(CONEVAL, 2013). As far as we can determine, this study is
the first of its kind, and aims to move beyond the case-study
approach to offer a theory of social entrepreneurship based
on empirical data.
Social refers to everything that belongs to a community or
society (Kickul & Lyons, 2012). Entrepreneurs, according to
Dees, Emerson, and Economy (2002, p. 4), “are innovative,
opportunity-oriented, resourceful, value-creating change
agents.” Social entrepreneurs, therefore, seek to create social
value as a main objective.1
Apart from their aim of creating social value, social en-
trepreneurs share certain characteristics with conventional
entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship describes a context that
combines an opportunity, a set of personal characteristics
required to identify and pursue this opportunity, and the cre-
ation of a particular outcome. In the case of social entrepre-
neurship, social entrepreneurs are agents of change in the
social sector: adopting a mission to create and sustain social
value (not just private value); recognizing and tirelessly pur-
suing new opportunities to serve the mission; engaging in a
process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning;
acting boldly without being limited by resources they have;
and displaying a high level of accountability to the constit-
uencies served and the results achieved (Dees in Praszkier
& Nowak, 2012).2
In addition, the term social change is important because
it refers to a long-term and sustainable social change that is
the result of social innovation (Praszkier & Nowak, 2012).
Mulgan, Tucker, Ali, and Sanders (2007, p. 7) defined
social innovation as "new ideas that work to meet pressing
unmet needs and improve people’s lives." Scholars have
defined social entrepreneurship in many different ways,
but all agree that social entrepreneurship has a social mission,
which is to solve social problems sustainably for the long term.
To achieve this, social entrepreneurs use business mechanisms
to seek new solutions to old problems through social innova-
tion. Social innovation is indeed one of the key elements for
the success of social entrepreneurship.
Innovation in Social Entrepreneurship
In a globally competitive business world, innovation is
a critical tool necessary to ensure a company’s market
share. In the context of social entrepreneurship, as opposed
to that of business enterprise, innovation is not about im-
proving competitiveness but rather about seeking different
approaches to the major social challenges of the 21st cen-
tury (Vernis, 2009). Civil society organizations must seek
innovative approaches to unresolved social problems and
investigate and propose answers for the new social chal-
lenges that lie ahead (Vernis, 2009). Social innovation
Can J Adm Sci
239 32(4), 238–251 (2015)
SOCIAL CHANGE THROUGH CATALYTIC INNOVATION
can occur as a process or a product that is adopted, devel-
oped, or disseminated by an organization that aims to create
lasting social change.3
Sustaining, Disruptive, and Catalytic Innovation
There are different approaches to innovation within an
organization, whether it is for a social or business purpose.
Christensen (1997, p. xv) argued that businesses have two
options when wanting to innovate: sustaining innovation or
disruptive innovation.
Sustaining and disruptive innovation. Sustaining
innovation has to do with the improvement (either radical
or incremental) of existing products and processes within
the value chain of an organization. The innovations with
this approach usually do not disrupt the current business
model. Most innovations are sustaining products and
services; they provide better quality or additional function-
ality to the most demanding customers of an organization.
Some sustaining innovations are incremental improve-
ments, while others are more revolutionary products or
services.
When faced with competition from new entrants, com-
panies that are leaders in the market often react by adding
new features to the product to make it different and more so-
phisticated while also obtaining a higher sales margin. An
example of this is the case of mobile phones, increasingly
sophisticated in terms of functionality and increasing prices.
Manufacturers have been introducing successive sustained
innovations in the design of the terminals to maintain their
market leadership and increase the profitability of their busi-
ness. But this sustaining innovation strategy reaches its limit
when users no longer perceive the new features of the
product as a differential advantage (because they do not
need them). Having reached this point, leading companies
are vulnerable, and not only because the price becomes the
main decision criteria when choosing which product to
buy. The worst threat comes from other disruptive innova-
tions, which compete with more established technologies
(Christensen, 1997).
Disruptive innovations cause a rupture within a market.
Although in the short term, they offer a worse performance
than the product or process they replace. In the long term,
they triumph as a result of their increased capacity for evolu-
tion. Although in traditional sense disruptive innovations do
not meet the needs of existing customers as well as the prod-
ucts and services currently available (e.g., these disruptive
innovations may lack certain features or capabilities of
existing products), they are judged adequate for those people
that were underserved. They are simpler, more convenient,
and less expensive, so they attract new or less demanding
customers (Christensen, 1997).
This kind of innovation, by definition, will not
emerge from the usual channels within the organization.
Some of these disruptive innovations have had a major
Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
AUVINET AND LLORET
impact on the structures of many sectors and have often
led to social changes in the process, although that is not
their ultimate goal. Such innovations can bring social, en-
vironmental, and/or economic impact. Social changes
caused by disruptive innovations are mostly unintentional;
they are simply the by-product of pursuing a business
opportunity.
Catalytic innovation. Social entrepreneurs are facing
great challenges in creating innovations that produce social
change. How can they ensure social impact that is scalable,
sustainable, and that secures a systemic change?
In expanding his 1997 theory of disruptive innovation,
Christensen et al. (2006) considered organizations address-
ing social problems in a fundamentally new way and creat-
ing scalable, sustainable, and transformative systems
solutions. Their method of catalytic innovation shares its
main features with the disruptive innovation model. These
authors explained that the problem with traditional
approaches to social problems is that they are often very
focused projects that cater to small groups of the population.
It is necessary, therefore, to find an innovative way to deal
with large groups of people so that the social impact is
greater (Christensen et al., 2006, p. 1).
Catalytic innovations can transcend the status quo by
delivering adequate solutions to inadequately address social
problems. They are disruptive innovations that challenge
established players in an industry by offering simple alter-
natives sufficient for a group of underserved customers.
These catalytic innovations are a subset of disruptive inno-
vations, distinguished by a primary focus on social change,
often at a national level. For catalytic innovations, social
change is the main objective. According to Christensen
et al. (2006), an innovative idea cannot survive without a
solid business model.
The catalytic innovations share five qualities:
1. They create systemic social change through scaling and
replication.
2. They meet a need that is either overserved (because the
existing solution is more complex than many people
require) or not served at all.
3. They offer products and services that are simpler and less
costly than existing alternatives, which may be perceived
as having a lower level of performance, but which users
consider adequate.
4. They generate resources, such as donations, grants,
volunteer manpower, or intellectual capital, in ways that
are initially unattractive to incumbent competitors.
5. They are often ignored, disparaged, or even encouraged
by existing players for whom the business model is
unprofitable or otherwise unattractive and who therefore
avoid or retreat from the market segment (Christensen
et al., 2006, p. 3).
Generally, both catalytic and disruptive innovations
emerge from new players; existing players find disruptive
Can J Adm Sci
240 32(4), 238–251 (2015)
SOCIAL CHANGE THROUGH CATALYTIC INNOVATION
innovation too costly, or more commonly, they do not want
to sabotage their current offerings with a simpler, less expen-
sive, and more accessible service. Considering these con-
straints, it is almost impossible for existing businesses to
disrupt themselves.
Catalytic innovations can help to serve those cus-
tomers who are not target customers of established players:
they can bring new benefits to more people. Consider the
large number of people worldwide, and specifically in
Mexico, living in poverty at the base of the economic pyr-
amid. This segment of the population is largely under-
served and would offer a large market for businesses
practicing catalytic innovation. The social impact generated
by businesses that target this population with this type of
long-term catalytic innovation may be greater than that
generated by already established products and services. Re-
gardless of the structure social entrepreneurship adopts
(whether nonprofit, for-profit, or hybrid), catalytic innova-
tion can offer a higher return on social impact because of
the sheer number of people it can reach.
This leads us to hypothesize:
H1: Social entrepreneurs who pursue catalytic innova-
tion have adopted a hybrid structure.
H2: Social entrepreneurs have focused on lower socio-
economic levels of the population.
H3: Social entrepreneurs are guided by resource gen-
eration such as donations, grants, volunteers, and intel-
lectual capital in such ways that are unattractive
initially by established competitors.
In 2011, Westley added that:
When a social innovation has a broad or durable
impact, it will be disruptive and catalytic (Christensen
et al., 2006); it will challenge the social system and
social institutions that govern people’s conduct by
affecting the fundamental distribution of power and re-
sources, and it may change the basic beliefs that define
the system or the laws and routines which govern it.
While many smaller innovations are continually intro-
duced at all scales, it seems most important to consider
those innovations that have the potential to disrupt and
change the broader system. To do so, a social innova-
tion must cross multiple social boundaries to reach
more people and different people, more organizations
and different organizations, and organizations nested
across scales (from local to regional to national to
global) and linked in social networks. The capacity of
any society to create a steady flow of social innova-
tions, particularly those which re-engage vulnerable
populations, is an important contributor to overall so-
cial and ecological resilience. In the broadest sense,
social innovation is urgently needed to solve the com-
plex social-ecological problems facing the world.
(Westley, 2011, p. 4)
Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
AUVINET AND LLORET
This leads us to the development of the following
hypotheses:
H4: Social entrepreneurs who pursue catalytic innova-
tion and economic success have social impact.
H5: Social entrepreneurs use different components of a
catalytic innovation to pursue their goals.
H6: The probability of having greater social impact
depends on having both catalytic innovation and eco-
nomic success.
In Mexico, there are several examples of catalytic
innovations. One is Iluméxico, a social enterprise that seeks
to solve the lack of electrification in low-income communi-
ties through renewable energy, specifically using solar en-
ergy. In Mexico there are 640,000 households without
access to electricity, so they continue to rely on candles
and kerosene for light at night (Iluméxico, 2012). Electrifi-
cation in remote areas would be the best possible solu-
tion, but electrifying all these areas represents a high
cost that the government has not covered. Through the
use of solar cells, Iluméxico fills a need not previously
covered. They provide communities with a simple and
adequate solution for the lack of electricity, generating
systemic change. This innovation allows communities to
have evening activities (doing homework, household
chores, or handicrafts). It is a cheaper solution—it works
through a solar energy system so there are no electrical
bills, and it is a model replicable for the entire country.
This project is not considered a competitor for electric
companies, for whom the electrification of isolated areas
represents an unattractive business.
Another example of hybrid social enterprise is Biodent,
which has taken the traditional dental clinic and evolved it
into a dental health authority in marginalized communities
in Oaxaca, México (Ashoka México y Centroamérica,
2014). Dental care in México has long been an important
health issue because dental care is limited to higher eco-
nomic classes in society and because of the lack of dental
health education. As a result, a shocking 61.8% of children
in Mexico are in need of cavity repair by the age of six; by
the age of 60, 80% of all adults with extremely poor dental
hygiene have less than ten teeth. The Biodent methodology
expands the reach of dental clinics through public educa-
tion, broadening access, and changing the infrastructure in
the dental sector. It thereby reduces the need for extensive
dental care and makes high-quality dental care more acces-
sible through its franchise network of low-cost dental clinics
located in poor rural areas (Ashoka México y
Centroamérica, 2014; López, 2014). Biodent gives a
cheaper, simpler, and more convenient solution for people
at the base of the pyramid that were unserved in dental
health.
Can J Adm Sci
241 32(4), 238–251 (2015)
SOCIAL CHANGE THROUGH CATALYTIC INNOVATION
Globally, there are many other examples such as:
Swayam Krishi Sangan (SKS), a microlender in India for
the poor unbanked sector (Mohan & Potnis, 2010);
LifeSpring, a network of hospitals centered in maternity
services offering affordable high-quality services to low-
income communities in India (Andrade, 2011a); KickStart,
a social enterprise that provides affordable tools to increase
the productivity and profitability of rural microentrepreneurs
in the East and Central African Region; and Asembis, a so-
cial enterprise that provides medical services to Costa Rica
through call centre technology and affordable pricing
(Andrade, 2011b). These social enterprises focus on
emerging markets, have products or services that are
cheaper, simpler, and more convenient, and use resources
such as donations, grants, volunteer manpower, or intellec-
tual capital in ways that are initially unattractive to incum-
bent competitors. This leads us to the development of our
next hypothesis:
H7: Greater social impact is likely to happen more often
in the primary sector and with hybrid organizations.
It is important to consider the limitations of catalytic
innovations. Taking into account the different existing
types of social entrepreneurship, and the different struc-
tures that can be adopted, not all social innovations can
adopt this business model. According to Kickul and Lyons
(2012), not all social entrepreneurship can or should be
scalable. Certain entrepreneurship covers very local needs
or is very focused on a certain context (Kickul & Lyons,
2012). On the other hand, social innovations are not merely
cheap products to be sold to those in greatest need: there are
technological innovations, products, and processes that can
create a social impact, regardless of their price (Morales
Figueroa, 2012). However, if social entrepreneurship is
looking to obtain the greatest social impact by creating sys-
temic change, the model proposed by Christensen et al.
(2006) can be a good strategy.
One of the points that led Christensen et al. (2006) to
devise the catalytic innovation strategy was the fact that dis-
ruptive innovations had originated unintentional social
changes in the process:
Disruptive innovations have had a major impact on
industry structures, from travel to computer retailing to
communications, and have often given rise to social
change in the process. But the social changes caused
by disruptive innovations are largely unintended; they
are simply the by-products of pursuing a business
opportunity. With catalytic innovations, however, social
change is the primary objective. (Christensen et al.,
2006, p. 3)
This leads us to ask whether there is a correspondence
in the other direction: can catalytic innovation increase the
Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
AUVINET AND LLORET
economic success of an organization, despite it not being
its primary purpose? We therefore hypothesize:
H8: Social entrepreneurship that uses catalytic innova-
tion has greater social impact and economic success in
diminishing returns.
Considering the relevance of social entrepreneurship,
and the fact that catalytic innovation has shown signs of a
plausible strategy at the case level, we aimed to test whether
catalytic innovation is actually embedded in firms with a
social mission in Mexico. In particular, should these firms
use catalytic innovation strategies, we would like to assess
their economic and social impact. Therefore, we developed
the following research question to guide our analysis: In
Mexican social entrepreneurship, are there signs of catalytic
innovation, a strategy that not only maximizes potential
social impact but also increases the economic success of
the organizations?
Hypothesis Development
In the development of our hypotheses, our main goal is
to understand what the drivers of catalytic innovation in
Mexican social entrepreneurs are. Given the several types
of firm structure (for profit, nonprofit, or hybrid), the degree
of development phase (from emergent to declining) and the
type of sectors they attend (Dees & Battle, 2002, p. 4) allow
us to know the likely structure of firms and their main drivers.
This knowledge then provides an understanding as to how
these firms have used the five attributes of a catalytic innova-
tion from Christensen et al. (2006): (a) They create systemic
social change through scaling and replication; (b) They meet
a need that is being overserved (because the existing
solution is more complex than many people require) or not
served at all; (c) They offer products and services that are
simpler and less costly than existing alternatives, and that
could be perceived as offering a lesser performance, with
users considering it adequate; (d) They generate resources
such as donations, grants, volunteer manpower, or intellectual
capital in ways that are initially unattractive to established
competitors; (e) They are often ignored, disparaged, or even
encouraged by established competitors for whom the busi-
ness model is not profitable or attractive (labelled T1 to T5
in the scheme) (Gundry, Kickul, Griffiths, & Bacq, 2011).
We assessed whether there is a statistically significant relation
between the catalytic innovation strategies and the level of
success, either economic and/or social, in social entrepreneur-
ship firms.
Figure 1 shows how these hypotheses help us under-
stand how catalytic innovation creates both social and
economic value in the context of Mexican social
entrepreneurs.
Can J Adm Sci
242 32(4), 238–251 (2015)
SOCIAL CHANGE THROUGH CATALYTIC INNOVATION
Figure 1. Hypothesis development for catalytic innovation in Mexican social entrepreneurship
Method
To test our hypotheses, we surveyed Mexican social
entrepreneurs whose activities were shown to have some
level of sustainability, social impact, or environmental
impact. These organizations were distributed across all
regions in the country, from different economic sectors
and with a for-profit, nonprofit, or hybrid structure, and
all with business strategies in place to achieve a social or
environmental mission. This sample was considered to be
our population under the general definition of social
entrepreneurship.
To test our methodology, we conducted a pilot survey of
45 social entrepreneurs during the XIII National Social
Enterprise Fair, Expo FONAES 2011.4 During our test we
fine-tuned the appropriate questions to ensure that the
responses gave us the information we were seeking. After
testing the survey, we sent it to 2967 social entrepreneurs:
members of the “Páginas Verdes,” a directory of organiza-
tions with an environmental or social oriented mission
(Páginas Verdes, 2011); members listed in ECODIR, an en-
vironmental business directory (ECODIR, 2011); organiza-
tions supported by FONAES, (Fondo Nacional de Apoyo a
Empresas Sociales,5FONAES, 2011); participants in the
Latin American Forum on Impact Investing (Foro
Latinoamericano de Inversión de Impacto, FLII, 2011); and
other social entrepreneurship organizations that met some
level of sustainability. Of the 2967 surveys sent, 17% of the
emails were returned due to incorrect or nonexistent email
addresses. We received 278 completed surveys, which is
considered significant, with a confidence level of 90%. After
a thorough review of the responses, we discarded those sur-
veys that were incorrectly completed or that showed clear
evidence the questions had not been answered accurately.
Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
AUVINET AND LLORET
The final number of accurately completed surveys was 219.
We obtained responses from most regions in Mexico and
from different sectors and types of organizations (for-profit,
nonprofit, hybrids). The 219 responses were compiled and
sheltered on a secure database on a server to protect the con-
fidentiality of participants.
Measures
We constructed measures of social and environmental
impact, measures of catalytic innovation strategies, and mea-
sures of economic success of the organizations as follows
(see Appendix):
• The social impact: The social impact was measured by
identifying what kind of impact the organizations sought
to achieve (social or environmental), clarifying the main
objectives of the organization, and asking who benefited
from their products or services. The main objective of
these questions was to understand what impact they sought
to generate, how they tried to do it, and whether seeking
that impact was their main purpose. For each of the ques-
tions, entrepreneurs had to answer how much they agreed
or disagreed with the statements that were represented on
a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Agree, 5 = Strongly
Disagree). This gave a total composite score for shaping
the index measuring social impact (Auvinet & Lloret,
2011).6 An overall composite score of all the characteris-
tics to comprise social impact was then developed and used
in subsequent analyses.
• Catalytic innovation score: In order to detect possible
catalytic innovations solutions to social problems that
are not effectively addressed by existing organizations
using traditional methods, we relied on the five attributes
Can J Adm Sci
243 32(4), 238–251 (2015)
SOCIAL CHANGE THROUGH CATALYTIC INNOVATION AUVINET AND LLORET

of a catalytic innovation from Christensen et al. (2006): Control Variables

(a) They create systemic social change through scaling
and replication (T1) ; (b) They meet a need that is being We used control variables that could influence social
overserved (because the existing solution is more com- entrepreneurship with catalytic innovations, as follows:
plex than many people require) or not served at all
• Developmental stage of the organization: Whether the com-
(T2); (c) They offer products and services that are more
pany is in a stage of introduction, development, consolida-
simple and less costly than existing alternatives, which
tion, maturity, or decline influences the innovation capacity.
could also be perceived as offering diminished perfor-
• Socioeconomic status: To which sector of the population
mance while still being considered adequate (T3); (d)
the company directs its products or services. To create
They generate resources such as donations, grants, volun-
systemic social change according to the catalytic innova-
teer manpower, or intellectual capital in ways that are ini-
tion, ideally a company targets low and middle socioeco-
tially unattractive to established competitors (T4); (e)
nomic levels in order to have a greater impact and a
They are often ignored, disparaged, or in contrast, en-
greater number of people.
couraged by established competitors for whom the busi-
• Size of the firm: As measured by the number of full-time
ness model is not profitable or attractive, and therefore
employees.
who avoid or withdraw from the market segment (T5).
• Sector in which the firm operates: Whether primary, sec-
For each of the characteristics, entrepreneurs had to
ondary, or tertiary, the sector in which it concentrates its
answer how much they agree or disagree with the state-
activities may have an impact on social innovation.
ments that were indicated on a five-point Likert scale
• Technology: The level of access to technology influences the
(1 = Strongly Agree, 5 = Strongly Disagree). This gave a
level of impact achieved. By technology we mean website
total composite score for shaping the index measuring
capabilities, online presence in social networks, and so forth.
all the characteristics necessary for a catalytic innovation
• Age of the organization: Younger organizations may be
(Gundry et al., 2011).
more likely to generate catalytic innovations than older ones.
• The economic success of organizations: In order to iden-
tify which organizations were more successful economi-
cally and test whether those with more catalytic Assumption Analysis
characteristics have greater economic success, we devel-
oped several questions related to the growth and stability To tests for the robustness of the models and validity of
of the organization (Auvinet & Lloret, 2011). An overall the results, we performed tests for multicollinearity, autocor-
composite score of all the characteristics to comprise eco- relation, heteroskedasticity, and normality. We found no
nomic success was then developed and used in subsequent signs of strong correlation among the variables as shown
analyses. in Table 1.

Table 1
Correlation Coefficients

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1 Catalytic innovation 1
index
2 Emergent 0.038 1
3 Developmental 0.057
0.273** 1
stage
4 Consolidation stage
0.064
0.458**
0.458** 1
5 Maturity stage 0.016
0.170*
0.170*
0.285** 1
6 Hybrid 0.111
0.015 0.053
0.014
0.011 1
7 For profit 0.071 0.019
0.019 0.059
0.106
0.264** 1
8 Higher
0.115
0.172* 0.089 0.043 0.073
0.104
0.192* 1
socioeconomic
market
9 Employees
0.059
0.226** 0.024 0.093 0.195
0.075 0.064 0.181** 1
10 Age
0.044
0.343**
0.180** 0.157* 0.375**
0.065 0.077 0.049 0.385** 1
11 Secondary sector
0.023 0.078 0.053
0.104 0.043
0.038
0.026
0.032 0.020 0.078 1
12 Terciary sector 0.019
0.043
0.066 0.086
0.046
0.088 0.080 0.116
0.081
0.077
0.742* 1
13 Technology 0.072
0.011 0.093 0.030
0.102
0.120 0.042 0.215**
0.009
0.187 0.043 0.087 1

*Correlation significant at 0.01 **Correlation significant at 0.05

Can J Adm Sci

Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 244 32(4), 238–251 (2015)
SOCIAL CHANGE THROUGH CATALYTIC INNOVATION AUVINET AND LLORET

We performed Park homeoscedasticity tests for the
models and confirm that the variance errors are indepen-
dently distributed. Because our survey was collected at a
specific point in time, there was no need to perform autocor-
relation tests. Finally, and to verify that the errors are inde-
pendently and normally distributed, we performed the
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test on all our models and found that
nondichotomous variables were independent and normally
distributed.
Analysis
To test H1, H2, and H3, we modelled catalytic innova-
tion with a regression as a function of social entrepreneur de-
velopmental stage, structure, sector, technology, size, and
age of the firm as control variables. In the model, we found
a low tolerance level of some variables in the collinearity
tests; we concluded that there was multicollinearity, and thus
we ran the analysis again without the collinear variables.
Once we corrected for collinearity, including control vari-
ables, the only significant variable was hybrid structure.
All other variables did not have a clear role in the determi-
nants of catalytic innovation; however, the fact that the
hybrid structure is significant suggests that there are some
signs of catalytic innovation in Mexico, as indicated in the
results shown in Table 2, Column 1.
Next, to find more detail about the determinants of
catalytic innovation, we broke down the different compo-
nents of catalytic innovation into components numbered
T1 – T5, as discussed in the Catalytic Innovation subsec-
tion. (See Table 2).
To test for these determinants, we regressed the cata-
lytic innovation score with each of the catalytic innovation
components and found that T3 and T4 seemed to be the main
components of the different elements of catalytic innovation.
We analyzed T4 with several independent and control vari-
ables and found that both structure and the targeted socio-
economic market are significant. The resources and
donations component is consistent in most models.
We then concluded that there were indeed features of
catalytic innovation in Mexican social entrepreneurship.
These companies adopted a hybrid structure and targeted
consumers in the medium to low socioeconomic levels.
The driver of such catalytic innovation is the generation of
resources such as donations, grants, volunteer manpower,
or intellectual capital in ways that are initially unattractive
to incumbent competitors.
Next we tested H4 and H5 to know whether firms that
use catalytic innovation and show economic success have
social impact as well. We constructed a model using an in-
dex of economic success and catalytic innovation as depen-
dent variables as a function of the components of catalytic
innovations, the social impact index, and control variables.
As shown in Table 3, we found that for an organization to
be economically successful and use catalytic innovation
simultaneously, it must have achieved a certain level of
growth, used different components of catalytic innovation,
and aimed to create social impact.
In H6 and H7, we tested for the probability of having
greater social impact given catalytic innovation and economic

Table 2
Regression Results for Catalytic Innovation Determinants

Catalytic
innovation Catalytic innovation Catalytic innovation Catalytic innovation Catalytic innovation Catalytic innovation
Variables Index component T1 component T2 component T3 component T4 component T5

(Constant) 70.383* 15.621* 12.509* 13.753* 16,660* 13.613*

Emergent .424
.105
.165 .629
.445 .527
Hybrid 2.617*
.001 .087 .875* 1.366* .046
For profit 2.643 .178
.194 .571 1.909*
.400
Higher
2.103
.824*
.649*
.862*
.922*
.104
socioeconomic
background
Employees
.441 .140
.081
.026 .579
1.059*
(ln)
Age .004
.004
.026 .004
.030 .038
Secondary
.259 .046
.004 .543
1.154 .643
sector
Terciary sector .333 .229
.054 .426
.474 .221
Technology 2.369 .103 .356 .910* 1.221*
.242
R2 .043 .021 .034 .052 .102 .071
R2 adjusted .002
.020
.007
012 .063 .030

*Correlation is significant at 0.1

Can J Adm Sci

Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 245 32(4), 238–251 (2015)
SOCIAL CHANGE THROUGH CATALYTIC INNOVATION AUVINET AND LLORET

Table 3 Finally, in H8 we tested for the interaction among cata-

Regression Results for Catalytic Innovation and lytic innovation, social impact, and economic success. We
Economic Success Components constructed three different models: (a) we aimed to compre-
hend the interaction among economic success, catalytic inno-
Economic success index by Typified vation, and control variables; (b) We constructed a model to
Variables catalytic innovation index coefficient test for catalytic innovation, size, and age of the organization
as control variables; (c) we modelled interaction amongst so-
(Constant)
2124.170*
cial impact, catalytic innovation, and control variables.
Employees 9.391* 0.515
Our results in Table 5 show that the level of catalytic in-
Technology
46.802
0.052
Secondary sector 13.658 0.16
novation invested in a firm has decreasing returns to scale in
Terciary sector 51.174 0.065 the level of economic success. Therefore, catalytic innova-
Social impact index 2.683* 0.105 tion is effective as we increase it, but has limitations; that
T1 302.558* 0.157 is, catalytic innovation allows social entrepreneurs to
T2 193.125* 0.099 achieve greater success, but the economic success has a
T3 238.056* 0.161 maximum level at which additional catalytic innovation will
T4 432.303* 0.255 decrease economic success.
T5
9.207
0.006 Furthermore, we noticed that there is an optimum age
R2 0.569 for organizations to present economic success via catalytic
R2 adjusted 0.548 innovation, which starts to decrease as time passes. Social
*Correlation is significant at 0.1 impact tends to decrease over time or when the organizations
start becoming too big; however, the more catalytic innova-
success, as Table 4 shows. We found that greater social impact tion, the more social impact firms achieve.
is likely to happen more often in the primary sector and with These results support Christensen et al.’s (2006) theory
hybrid organizations. The model used was a probit regression that argues it is usually new actors who generate both cata-
in which we constructed a (0,1) measure of social impact lytic and disruptive innovations; it is too costly to implement
based on the social impact score. The new variable served a catalytic innovation for established actors (or actors of a
as a dependent variable regressed as a function of catalytic certain age) because it would be disruptive to the company
innovation, economic success, and control variables. In (Christensen et al., 2006, p. 3). We can also conclude that
addition, we observed how social impact increases when those organizations that use catalytic innovation have a cor-
entrepreneurship achieves economic success with catalytic relation with economic success and a greater social impact.
innovation in place. Impact tends to decline as firms grow We observed a direct relation between social impact and
and or belong to the secondary and tertiary sectors; that catalytic innovation: the greater the catalytic innovation, the
is, those organizations that focus on the primary sector larger the social impact. Initially, greater catalytic innovation
are more likely to have social impact as they use catalytic will produce greater economic success, but once it reaches a
innovation. In addition, hybrid organizations have more im- certain point, the excess catalytic innovation decreases eco-
pact than for-profit organizations. nomic success at decreasing rates. On the other hand, we

Table 4 Table 5
Probit Regression of the Probability of Having a Regression Results between Economic Success,
Greater Social Impact Social Impact, and Catalytic Innovation

Coefficients (a) Economic Social impact Social impact

Variables success index index index
Independent variables Coefficients z P > IzI
(Constant)
0.365 27.212 35.274*
(Constant)
1.628941
1.88 0.06* Catalytic innovation .397* .712 .477*
Catalytic innovation index 0.0241061 2.41 0.016* index
Economic success index 0.046302 1.85 0.064* Catalytic innovation
.002*
.002
Employees
0.0224447
3.28 0.001* index 2
Secondary sector
0.7046422
2.11 0.035* Age .469* .890* .885*
Terciary sector
0.967311
3.08 0.002* Age2
.007*
.018*
.018*
For profit 0.2833027 0.9 0.370 Employees .109*
.106*
.106*
Hybrid 0.4498694 2.33 0.02* R2 0.521 .136 .136
R2 adjusted 0.509 .116 .120
*Correlation is significant at 0.1 a.Dependent variable: Social Im-
pact Index *Correlation is significant at 0.1

Can J Adm Sci

Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 246 32(4), 238–251 (2015)
SOCIAL CHANGE THROUGH CATALYTIC INNOVATION
observed that the younger and smaller the company, the
more social impact it will have; as it grows in size and
age, its social impact will decrease.
Using the information displayed in Table 5 and based
on our data, we constructed a model that summarizes our
main finding that economic success and catalytic innovation
can be expressed in a quadratic form as:
Economic success index ¼ 0:397 IC þ 0:002 IC2
And by merging the information from Column 3 in
Table 5, we can affirm that the correlation between social
impact and catalytic innovation can express itself with an
equation in the form of:
Social Impact index ¼ m þ 0:478IC
We have interpreted the figure to demonstrate that eco-
nomic success factors significantly for for-profit organiza-
tions. For them, economic success is more important than
the social impact they can generate. On the other hand,
nonprofit organizations strive for social impact with little
to no importance placed on economic success. There are
also hybrid organizations, which seek both a social and
economic benefit. Along the horizontal axis of Figure 2,
all combinations are possible. An organization must choose
for itself which combination best meets its goals.
In trying to explain the reason for this decrease in cata-
lytic innovation, we examined its different components. We
observed that the continued growth of social impact is due to
T4 (T4: Generate resources, such as donations, grants,
volunteer manpower, or intellectual capital, in ways that
are initially unattractive to incumbent competitors). On the
other hand, T1 and T3 are characteristics that explain the
Figure 2. Relation of economic success and the social
impact inside social entrepreneurship with catalytic
innovation
16
14
Economic success
12
10
8
6
4 40
2 20
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Catalytic Innovation
For-Profit Hybrid
Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
AUVINET AND LLORET
decrease of economic success. (T1: Create systemic social
change through scaling and replication; T3: Offer products
and services that are simpler and less costly than existing al-
ternatives and may be perceived as having a lower level of
performance, but which users consider adequate.). In this
sense, if an organization grows too much and sells products
or services too simple or inexpensive, its economic success
will be compromised.
Discussion
Summary
We observed that the organizations most successful in
implementing catalytic innovations are hybrid organizations
that are dedicated to the primary sector, focused on the mid-
dle and lower socioeconomic levels, and guided by resource
generation such as grants, scholarships, and volunteer or in-
tellectual capital in ways that are initially unattractive to
established competitors. The success of catalytic innovation
also depends on the size of the firm; as a firm grows larger,
social impact tends to decline, whereas economic impact in-
creases. Social entrepreneurs that have catalytic innovation
in place and experience economic success also have a social
impact. Despite not being included in the first sector, both
Iluméxico and Biodent illustrate our findings. They focus
on lower socioeconomic levels and use resource generation
such as grants, volunteers, and intellectual capital in ways
that are unattractive to established competitors. They are cre-
ating a big social impact and also have economic success
(Ashoka México y Centroamérica, 2014; Iluméxico, 2002).
This leads us to conclude that catalytic innovation strategy
applies to the Mexican case.
In addition, our findings support the results found by
Gundry et al. (2011) who argued that while innovation ecol-
ogy is associated with Catalytic Innovation, it is mediated by
the role and degree of bricolage “using what’s at hand to do
good” (Gundry et al., 2011, p. 6) that is characteristic of
social entrepreneurs. That is, bricolage, as implemented by
180
social entrepreneurs, results in novel approaches to attracting
160
and distributing resources, identifying overserved or un-
140 served market segments, and offering products and services
that are simpler, less costly, and “good enough” (Gundry
Social Impact
120
100 et al., 2011, p. 17).
80
60 Contributions to Scholarship
The poverty and inequality that exist in Mexico are a re-
sult of deficiencies in education, health, housing, and food.
120 140
Economic Success
Social Impact
At the beginning of the century, social entrepreneurship
Non-profit
emerged in Mexico as an alternative solution for addressing
unresolved social problems and ensuring the sustainability
of organizations seeking to generate social or environmental
Can J Adm Sci
247 32(4), 238–251 (2015)
SOCIAL CHANGE THROUGH CATALYTIC INNOVATION
impact. Today, social entrepreneurship is a growing global
phenomenon with the potential to make great impact, but
the scarcity of empirical studies leaves research on it in an
"embryonic" phase (Short et al., 2009).
Our work contributes to the developing field of social
entrepreneurship in three ways:
1. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to provide
empirical proof that Christensen et al.’s (2006) theory
does work.
2. We are the first to study social entrepreneurship in Mexico.
Previous work has focused on Latin America as a whole.
3. We have sought to expand the case study to offer a theory
of social entrepreneurship strategy based on empirical data.
Applied Implications
Testing our hypothesis shows that catalytic innovation
represents a viable strategy that allows social entrepreneurs
to achieve both greater economic success and greater social
impact. One of the main results in our research has been that
social entrepreneurs using catalytic innovation have greater
social impact and increased economic success, but that such
economic success decreases as more catalytic innovation is
used. This means that from an economic standpoint, cata-
lytic innovation has a limit; beyond this limit, economic
success decreases. This decrease occurs when the product
or service is too simple and inexpensive, or when the
organization has grown too much. We then found that the
younger organizations have greater social impact. The orga-
nization must be able to stay agile in order to adopt future
innovations and prevent disruption from new players.
Our results suggest that the best way to find balance
between social impact and economic success is through the
hybrid structure of the organization. As observed in Figure 1,
social entrepreneurs can focus on achieving social impact,
albeit at the expense of economic success, and then adopt
a nonprofit structure. On the other hand, social entrepreneurs
who focus more on economic success will lose social
impact.
For organizations seeking both social and economic
success, we suggest that they adopt the following catalytic
innovation strategies:
1. Structure as a hybrid organization to generate money and
receive support such as donations or volunteering at the
same time.
2. Focus their activities in the primary sector, that is, on the
exploitation of natural resources such as agriculture, live-
stock, forestry, fishing, and hunting.
3. Choose a target population located within the middle and
lower socioeconomic levels.
4. Enable expansion and scale innovation while being
aware of pitfalls of significant expansion.
Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
AUVINET AND LLORET
Limitations and Future Research Directions
While this research contributes in important ways to the
study of social entrepreneurship, it is not without certain
limitations. We would like to increase the sample size and
find greater representation in the north of the country.7 We
were also limited by the lack of adequate, standardized mea-
surements of social and environmental impact for the field
of social entrepreneurship. The impact measurement system
is in an early phase, and although there are initial methods to
measure social and environmental impact in place, these dif-
ferent methodologies have not yet standardized the indices.
Additionally, organizations must adopt those methodolo-
gies with the aim of checking results and identifying possi-
ble improvements.
The study of social entrepreneurship is emerging and so
there are many opportunities for future research. Social en-
trepreneurship depends largely on its economic, political,
geographic, legal, social, cultural, or historical context.
Much research has yet to be done on how these contextual
pressures affect the decision making of social entrepreneurs
as they balance their objectives between economic success
and the creation of social or environmental impact.
Notes
1 Several authors define social entrepreneurship in that way. Ac-
cording to Bill Drayton, founder of Ashoka, the main feature of
a social entrepreneurship is to have new ideas to solve critical
social problems (Praszkier & Nowak, 2012). For Bornstein
and Davis (2010), social entrepreneurship is a process by which
citizens build and transform institutions to bring solutions to so-
cial problems, such as poverty, disease, illiteracy, environmen-
tal destruction, human rights abuses, and corruption, with the
goal of creating a better life for many. Academics, practitioners,
and philanthropists describe it as a profession, field, and motion
(Bornstein & Davis, 2010). According to Alvord, Brown, and
Letts (2004), the challenge of social entrepreneurship is to
solve a whole range of social problems through the sustainable
reduction of health, education, economic development, and po-
litical issues, as well as cultural factors associated with long-
term poverty (Alvord et al., 2004).
2 According to Martin and Osberg (2007), entrepreneurs are skilled
at detecting and acting upon opportunities and at thinking outside
the box in order to create or produce something new in the world
(Martin & Osberg, 2007). Kickul and Lyons (2012) also ex-
plained that a social entrepreneur uses processes, business tools,
and techniques from business entrepreneurs, identify with their
entrepreneurial spirit. They seek a growth strategy in order to
expand market reach and increase the benefits of their business.
Social entrepreneurs are strategic in how they build networks
among their investors, suppliers, and customers in order to
achieve their business goals. While they are not necessarily risk
takers, they are certainly risk managers; this ability to manage
risk enables them to withstand greater risks than most business
people (Kickul & Lyons, 2012). Alvord et al. (2004) added that
social entrepreneurs create innovative solutions to immediate
social problems and mobilize the ideas, skills, resources, and so-
cial arrangements required for sustainable social transformation
(Alvord et al., 2004).
Can J Adm Sci
248 32(4), 238–251 (2015)
SOCIAL CHANGE THROUGH CATALYTIC INNOVATION
3 Phills, Deiglmeier, and Miller (2008, para. 3) defined social in-
novation as "a new solution to a social problem that is more ef-
fective, efficient, sustainable, or fairer than existing solutions."
For his part, Mulgan et al. (2007, p. 8) defined social innovation
as "innovative activities or services that are motivated by the
aim of covering a social need and are predominantly developed
and diffused through organizations whose primary purpose is
social.” The Ministry of Quebec (Canada) for research, science,
and technology defined social innovation in 2000 as "… any
new approach, practice or intervention, or any new product cre-
ated to improve a situation or solve a social problem and that has
been adopted by institutions, organizations or communities" (as
quoted in Ponce & Airola, 2007, p. 2).
4 The results of the survey can be consulted in Auvinet (2011)
Dirección Estratégica, the business magazine of ITAM,
September 2011, or in the page: http://direccionestrategica.
itam.mx/?p=2058&page=2
5 FONAES (now INAES) is a federal government agency and a
subdivision of the Treasury that supports social enterprises
such as business projects, finance rural population, peasant
and indigenous groups, and urban social sector.
6 Variables to measure social and environmental impact were re-
taken from the call from New Ventures Mexico 2011 to evaluate
the best social and environmental enterprises. (New Venture
México, 2011). (http://www.nvm.org.mx/formulariobreve.html)
7 Twenty-four states were represented from a total of 32 states that
comprise the Mexican Republic.
JEL Classifications: L2, M1, O35
References
Alvord, S.H., Brown, L.D., & Letts, C.W. (2004). Social entrepre-
neurship and societal transformation: An exploratory study.
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 40(3), 260–282.
Andrade, C. (2011a). Disruptive innovation in service of social
business growth (Part 1). Next Billion 2.0 development
through enterprise. Retrieved from http://www.nextbillion.
net/blogpost.aspx?blogid=2217
Andrade, C. (2011b). Disruptive innovation in service of social
business growth (Part 2). Next Billion 2.0 development
through enterprise. Retrieved from http://www.nextbillion.
net/blogpost.aspx?blogid=2225
Ashoka México y Centroamérica. (2014). Retrieved from http://
mexico.ashoka.org/fellow/edgar-martinez
Auvinet, C. (2011). La Estrategia de las Empresas Sociales: Su
impacto en el Corazón de la Empresa. Dirección Estratégica,
Edición No. 38, Septiembre 2011. ITAM. Retrieved from
http://direccionestrategica.itam.mx/tag/empresas-sociales/
Auvinet, C., & Lloret, A. (2011). Catalytic innovation as a strategy
for social change and economic success. The case of Mexico.
Madrid, Spain: Cuadernos de Estudios Empresariales, 21,
115–135.
Bornstein, D., & Davis, S. (2010). Social entrepreneurship, what
everyone needs to know. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Christensen, C. (1997). The innovator´s dilemma. When new tech-
nologies Cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Christensen, C., Baumann, H., Ruggles, R., & Sadtler, T. (2006).
Disruptive innovation for social change. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Business Review. December 2006.
Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
AUVINET AND LLORET
CONEVAL. (2013). Medición de la Pobreza en México y en las
Entidades Federativas. Retrieved from http://www.coneval.
gob.mx/Informes/Coordinacion/Pobreza_2012/RESUMEN_
EJECUTIVO_MEDICION_POBREZA_2012.pdf
Dees, J.G. (2001). The Meaning of “Social Entrepreneurship”.
Durham, NC: Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepre-
neurship. Duke. Fuqua School of Business. Reformatted and
Revised, May 30, 2001. Retrieved from https://centers.fuqua.
duke.edu/case/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/03/
Article_Dees_MeaningofSocialEntrepreneurship_2001.pdf
Dees, J.G., & Battle, A. (2002). Blurring sector boundaries: Serv-
ing purpose through for profit structures (CASE Working
Paper No. 2). Durham, NC: Center for the Advancement of
Social Entrepreneurship. Duke University. Fuqua School of
Business.
Dees, G., Emerson, J., & Economy, P. (2002). Strategic Tools for
Social Entrepreneurs. Enhancing the performance of your En-
terprising Nonprofit. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
ECODIR. (2011). Directorio Ambiental. Retrieved from http://
ecodir.com.mx
FLII. (2011). Foro Latinoamericano de inversión de impacto.
Retrieved from http://www.inversiondeimpacto.org
FONAES. (2011). Fondo Nacional de Apoyo para Empresas en
Solidaridad. (Now INAES) Retrieved from http://www.inaes.
gob.mx
Gundry, L.K., Kickul, J., Griffiths, M.D., & Bacq, S.C. (2011).
Creating social change out of nothing: the role of entrepre-
neurs´catalytic innovations. WA, UK: Social and Sustainable
Entrepreneurship, Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emer-
gence and Growth, 13, 1–24, Esmerald Group Publishing
Limited.
Iluméxico. (2012). Retrieved from http://ilumexico.mx/en/
Kickul, J., & Lyons, T. (2012). Understanding social entrepreneur-
ship, the relentless pursuit of mission in an ever changing
world. New York, NY: Routledge.
Landes, D.S., Mokyr, J., & Baumol, W. J. (2010). The invention of
Enterprise; Entrepreneurship from ancient Mesopotamia to
Modern Times. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
López, J. (2014). Biodent: Que todos los niños tengan una boca sana.
Forbes México. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com.mx/sites/
biodent-que-todos-los-ninos-tengan-una-boca-sana/
Martin, R., & Osberg, S. (2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case
for definition. Stanford, CA: Stanford Social Innovation
Review.
Mohan, L., & Potnis, D. (2010). Catalytic innovation in microfinance
for inclusive growth: Insights from SKS microfinance. UK: Jour-
nal of Asia-Pacific Business, 11, 218–239. Taylor & Francis
Group, LLC. Routledge.
Morales Figueroa, A. (2012). Innovación social: el mercado de la
base de la pirámide es sólo parte de la cancha. Next billion en
español. Retreived from http://nextbillion.net/spanish/blogpost.
aspx?blogid=2850
Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R., & Sanders, B. (2007). Social Inno-
vation. What it is, why it matters and how it can be acceler-
ated. Oxford, UK: Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship,
Oxford Said Business School. Unpublished manuscript.
New Venture México. (2011). Convocatoria New Ventures 2011.
Retrieved from http://nvgroup.org/
Páginas-Verdes. (2011). Las Páginas Verdes. Retrieved from http://
www.laspaginasverdes.com
Can J Adm Sci
249 32(4), 238–251 (2015)
SOCIAL CHANGE THROUGH CATALYTIC INNOVATION AUVINET AND LLORET

Phills, J., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. (2008). Rediscovering social
innovation. Stanford, CA: Stanford Social Innovation Review,
Fall 2008, 37.
Ponce, Y., & Airola, R. (2007). Empresas sociales e innovación social
desde la perspectiva teórica del Tercer Sector. Paper presented at
the Octavo Congreso Nacional y Cuarto Internacional de la Red
de Investigación y Docencia sobre Innovación Tecnológica.
Prahalad, C.K. (2010). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid,
eradicating poverty through profits. New Jersey: Wharton
School Publishing.
Praszkier, R., & Nowak, A. (2012). Social entrepreneurship. Theory
and practice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Say, J.-B. (1971). A treatise on political economy or the produc-
tion, distribution and consumption of wealth. New York,
NY: A.M. Kelley Publishers. First edition 1803.
Schumpeter, J. (1950). The process of creative destruction. In J.
Schumpeter (Ed.), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy
(3rd ed.). London, UK: Allen and Unwin.
Short, J.C., Moss, T.W., & Lumpkin, G.T. (2009). Research
in social entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future
opportunities. Lubbock, TX: Startegic Entrepreneurship
Journal, 3, 161–194, Published online Wiley
InterScience.
Vernis, A. (2009). Innovación social local a través del mercado en
las organizaciones de la sociedad civil en Iberoamérica.
Madrid, Spain: Revista Española del Tercer Sector, 13
(Septiembre-diciembre), 99–132.
Westley, F. (2011). Strategies for scaling social innovation for
greater impact. ON, Canada: The Innovation Journal: The
Public Sector Innovation Journal, 15(2), article 2.

Appendix
Measurement Indexes

Indexes Criteria

Catalytic Innovation[1]
T1: Creating systemic social change through
scaling and replication
T2: Meeting a need that is either overserved or not
served at all
T3: Offer products and services that are simpler
and less costly than existing alternatives, and are
considered “good enough”
T4: Generate resources, such as donations, grants,
volunteers, or intellectual capital ways that are
unattractive to incumbent competitors
T5: They are often ignored, belittled or even
encouraged by established players for whom the
business model is not profitable or attractive, and
therefore avoid or withdraw from the market
segment
Economic success
“Our approach allows us to serve potencially large groups of people.”
“The individuals or groups we serve have traditionally been underserved by alternative
services or organizations.”
“We are able to serve people whose access is otherwise limited.”
“We are able to improve our offerings by expending market reach.”
“Our services or solutions meet our clients´needs in ways more traditional providers did not.”
“Our offerings are simpler and therefore more effective as solutions than others that
were traditionally avialable.”
“Our clients were not served at all by traditional offerings.”
“Our products and services are less complex than existing alternatives.”
“Our products and services are less complex than existing alternatives.”
“Our products and services are perceived as more convinient to new clients.”
“Our products and services are perceived by new clients as less costly than alternatives.”
“We are able to attract donors and funding based on our business model.”
“We would decline funding that requires us to alter our business model.”
We are able to attract grants for our business model.”
“We are able to attract volunteers to our organization.”
“Organizations with more traditional offerings would not be likely to obtain the
knowledge or information (intellectual capital) that we have obtained.”
“Business that offer more traditional services tend to ignore our business, or its
services.”
“Existing players have encouraged us to provide offerings for our market segment.”
“Existing players disparage the work we do because they believe it is unprofotable.”
Year of creation
Local, regional, national, national and intenational opearation
Stage of Organization: Introduction, development, consolidation, maturity, decreasing
Number of employees
Evolution since its inception in size of the organization, number of employees, number of
products or services.

(Continues)

Can J Adm Sci

Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 250 32(4), 238–251 (2015)
SOCIAL CHANGE THROUGH CATALYTIC INNOVATION AUVINET AND LLORET

Appendix
(Continued)

Indexes Criteria

Profit in the past 12 months

Cash flow
Dependence of the organization of the entrepreneur
Social Impact[2] Social, environmental or economic focus of the organization
Social objectives of the organization (energy, financial services, education, affordable
housing, capacity building, community development, prevention and mitigation of
specific diseases, employment generation, providing food security, providing heath,
increase productivity and income)
Environment objectives of the organization (conserve a protected area, conserve energy
and fuel, Conserve natural resources, provide efficient water managment, use of
sustainable energy, land use in sustainable manner (sustainable tourism, certified
practices, reforestation, organic agriculture, habitat regeneration)
Main beneficiaries of the product or service
Method for measuring social or environmental impact
Sector of the population wich products and services are addressed

Can J Adm Sci

Copyright © 2015 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 251 32(4), 238–251 (2015)