Feasibility, scale, and reach are not technical luxuries in social innovation; they determine whether a social product or service remains merely an inspiring pilot or becomes a systemic contribution to justice and well-being (Huysentruyt, 2015; Mulgan, 2019).
The viability of social products and services goes far beyond simply "balancing the books," because social organizations need to balance financial resilience with mission integrity in often volatile funding contexts (Teasdale, 2012). Empirical studies on social enterprises show that long-term viability tends to be associated with diversified revenue streams, strong stakeholder trust, and clear value propositions for both beneficiaries and funders (Cooper et al., 2024; Ormiston & Seymour, 2011). In parallel, the measurement of social and environmental performance has become increasingly essential for continuity, as funders and regulators demand proof that resources translate into concrete results (Nicholls, 2018; OECD, 2015). This has led many organizations to invest in impact management systems that are proportionate to their scale but robust enough to guide strategy, learning, and accountability (Cooper et al., 2024). In practice, a social service that cannot credibly demonstrate its contribution to well-being, equity, or empowerment tends to have difficulty surviving, no matter how convincing its narrative may be (Nicholls, 2018).
The idea of scale is perhaps one of the most controversial in the social field, because “growing” does not automatically mean “generating more positive impact” (Dees et al., 2004). Recent literature distinguishes between scaling “upward” (influencing institutions and policies), scaling “outward” (replicating or franchising models), and scaling “in depth” (transforming cultures, relationships, and values) (André & Pache, 2016; Santos et al., 2015). Non-profit organizations and social enterprises combine these strategies in various ways, from highly standardized expansion models to flexible affiliate networks that adapt the solution to the local context (Santos et al., 2015). Evidence from European and international studies suggests that factors such as institutional context, leadership, partnership choices, and political “windows of opportunity” condition which scaling path is effectively viable at any given time (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014; Howaldt & Schwarz, 2017). At the same time, scaling can generate significant risks—mission deviation, excessive standardization, loss of community ownership—particularly in hybrid organizations that combine social and commercial logics (Santos et al., 2015; Zhao & Han, 2020).
Reach, understood as who is actually served and to what depth, makes the political dimension of social innovation visible (Evers & Laville, 2004). Smaller community organizations have demonstrated a remarkable capacity to quickly reach marginalized populations and work sensitively to their realities, as was clear during the COVID-19 response in England and Wales (Teasdale & Sinclair, 2024). Their local insertion, linguistic and cultural proximity, and working methods based on trust allow them to build bonds that more bureaucratic structures hardly achieve (Teasdale & Sinclair, 2024; Vita & Wilson, 2025). However, this “value of small” also means that many of the most trusted actors operate on a limited scale and with fragile resources, producing unequal geographies of access to essential services (Teasdale & Sinclair, 2024). Therefore, reach is not just a matter of "how many beneficiaries," but above all of who defines the priorities and design criteria for products and services (Nicholls, 2018; Social Economy Gateway, 2024).
Impact measurement has become the hinge that articulates viability, scale, and reach, even though theory and practice are still evolving (Cooper et al., 2024). New approaches, from multidimensional sustainability indices for social enterprises to well-being-based valuation methods such as WELLBY, seek to capture complex, long-term outcomes that escape more traditional metrics (Bagnoli & Megali, 2011; Fujiwara, 2013). At the European level, public policy guidelines emphasize stakeholder participation, proportionality, and clarity of objectives as principles for transforming impact measurement from a bureaucratic burden into a strategic learning tool (OECD, 2015). Nevertheless, data gaps, methodological inconsistencies, and resource constraints mean that many organizations continue to under-measure, or measure in an unhelpful way, their civic and social contribution (Cooper et al., 2024; Armitage & Beer, 2025). These blind spots end up distorting funding flows, favoring what is easy to quantify at the expense of what is socially transformative (Nicholls, 2018; OECD, 2015).
For civil society and the social economy, the central challenge is to design products and services that are viable enough to endure, scalable enough to have systemical relevance, and broad enough to address structural exclusions, without sacrificing relational depth or democratic accountability (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014; Evers & Laville, 2004). This requires a portfolio logic, where not all initiatives need to scale in the same way: some models work better when anchored locally, others are geared towards replication, and others towards political influence (Dees et al., 2004; Santos et al., 2015). For their part, funders and public decision-makers need to overcome the obsession with rapid growth and support infrastructures for learning, collaboration, and experimentation, paying special attention to smaller organizations (Huysentruyt, 2015; OECD, 2016). When viability is analyzed holistically, scale is understood as a plural concept, and reach is treated as a matter of justice, not marketing, social products and services can become real levers of collective resilience and democratic renewal (Nicholls, 2018; Social Economy Gateway, 2024).
References (APA)
André, K., & Pache, A.‑C. (2016). From caring entrepreneur to caring enterprise: Addressing the ethical challenges of scaling up social enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics, 133(4), 659–675.
Bagnoli, L., & Megali, C. (2011). Measuring performance in social enterprises. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 149–165.
Cajaiba‑Santana, G. (2014). Social innovation: Moving the field forward. A conceptual framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 82, 42–51.
Cooper, K. B., Frijters, P., & Tropeano, E. (2024). Impact measurement for social enterprises. Social Enterprise Journal.
Dees, J. G., Anderson, B. B., & Wei‑Skillern, J. (2004). Scaling social impact: Strategies for spreading social innovations. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 1(4), 24–32.
Evers, A., & Laville, J.‑L. (Eds.). (2004). The third sector in Europe. Edward Elgar.
Fujiwara, D. (2013). A general method for valuing non-market goods using wellbeing data: Three-stage wellbeing valuation. CEP Discussion Paper, London School of Economics.
Huysentruyt, M. (2015). Taking the impact of social entrepreneurs to scale. Stockholm School of Economics.
Mulgan, G. (2019). Social innovation: How societies find the power to change. Policy Press.
Nicholls, A. (2018). Measuring social impact: The challenge of complexity. In A. Nicholls & J. Murdock (Eds.), Social innovation: Blurring boundaries to reconfigure markets (pp. 222–245). Palgrave Macmillan.
OECD. (2015). Policy brief on social impact measurement for social enterprises: Policies for social entrepreneurship.
Ormiston, J., & Seymour, R. (2011). Understanding value creation in social entrepreneurship: The importance of aligning mission, strategy and impact measurement. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 125–150.
Santos, F. M., Pache, A.‑C., & Birkholz, C. (2015). Understanding the diverse scaling strategies of social enterprises. Business & Society, 54(2), 211–239.
Teasdale, S. (2012). What's in a name? Making sense of social enterprise discourses. Public Policy and Administration, 27(2), 99–119.
Teasdale, S., & Sinclair, S. (2024). The role of smaller nonprofit human service organizations during COVID‑19. Voluntas, 35(2), 301–320.
Vita, J., & Wilson, T. (2025). Civil society and volunteering: A force for good. Pro Bono Economics.
Zhao, M., & Han, J. (2020). How and why do social and sustainable initiatives scale? A systematic review of the literature on social entrepreneurship and grassroots innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(3), 140–155.
