Ciencia y Sociedad, Vol. 49, No. 2, abril-junio, 2024 • ISSN (impreso): 0378-7680 • ISSN (en línea): 2613-8751

EMERGING TRENDS: DIALOGUES BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY IN THE MANAGEMENT OF SOCIAL INNOVATION PROJECTS FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE

Tendencias emergentes: diálogos entre la sostenibilidad ambiental en la gestión de proyectos de innovación social para un futuro sostenible

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22206/cys.2024.v49i2.3034

Carlos David Martíez Ramíez
Corporación Universitaria Agustiniana
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0313-0113
carlos.martinezr@uniagustiniana.edu.co

Dustin Tahisin Gómez Rodríguez
Corporación Universitaria de Asturias
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5359-2300
dustin.tgr@gmail.com

Ehyder Mario Barbosa Pérez
Corporación Universitaria Minuto de Dios
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0039-3356

Zulma Julieth Avellaneda Avellaneda
Corporación Universitaria Agustiniana
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4199-8711

Recibido: 11/1/2024 • Aprobado: 30/5/2024

Cómo citar: Martíez Ramíez, C. D., Gómez Rodríguez, D. T., Barbosa Pérez, E. M. & Avellaneda Avellaneda, Z. J. (2024). Tendencias emergentes: diálogos entre la sostenibilidad ambiental en la gestión de proyectos de innovación social para un futuro sostenible. Ciencia y Sociedad, 49(2), 77-87. https://doi.org/10.22206/cys.2024.v49i2.3034

Introduction

The management of social innovation projects represents a crucial discipline in the current landscape, where communities seek creative and sustainable solutions to address social problems (OCDE, 2020). This approach combines elements of traditional project management with the imperative to generate a positive impact on society (Gómez et al., 2023). Throughout this text, the fundamentals, challenges, and best practices associated with the management of social innovation projects are explored. Indeed, social innovation involves the application of novel solutions to address social challenges and improve the quality of life. It is distinguished by its focus on collective well-being and the creation of social value (Satalkina & Steiner, 2022; Navarro, 2017). In the management of social innovation projects, the process begins by identifying social issues and proposing solutions that are not only effective but also sustainable in the long term (López, 2014).

The management of social innovation projects often involves professionals from various disciplines, such as sociology, engineering, psychology, and more (Matus, 2020). Interdisciplinary collaboration allows for holistic approaches and comprehensive solutions, leveraging the expertise and unique perspectives of each field (Téllez et al., 2020; Maldonado, 2018). Consequently, the relationship between environmental sustainability and the management of social innovation projects is essential in the quest for effective and sustainable solutions to contemporary social challenges (Springer & Domanski, 2016; MahdaviMazdeh et al., 2021). Focusing on addressing social issues, the management of social innovation projects has the unique opportunity to integrate sustainable practices that benefit not only directly affected communities but also the environment at large (Barbosa, Rojas y Gómez, 2021; Hernández y Arizamontes, 2016).

Environmental sustainability involves the efficient use of resources, reducing ecological footprints, and preserving biodiversity. In the management of social innovation projects, the design of sustainable solutions aims to address social problems without compromising natural resources and minimizing negative environmental impacts (Téllez, et al., 2022; Vries et al., 2016). This could include the implementation of green technologies, sustainable agricultural practices, or eco-efficient construction methods (Arora et al., 2020; Deng et al., 2022).

Consequently, the overall objective of this article is to analyze emerging trends at the intersection of environmental sustainability and the management of social innovation projects, with the purpose of identifying meaningful dialogues that contribute to the design and implementation of projects promoting a future. The hypothesis is that within the context of emerging trends involving environmental sustainability and the management of social innovation projects, the effective integration of sustainable principles in project planning and execution can generate significant synergies. It is expected that the convergence of these two elements will provide a robust framework for the development of initiatives that not only address current social challenges but also promote environmental preservation, thus contributing to the construction of a sustainable future.

Methodology

The present research was framed within a qualitative approach, aiming to understand the relationship between Social Innovation and Environmental Sustainability. To achieve this, two complementary methods were employed:

The first method involved creating a search equation in the WOS, Scopus, Scielo, Redalyc, and DOAJ databases. The search equation included the analytical categories of Social Innovation and Environmental Sustainability (see table 1 and 2). The observation period spanned 20 years, from 2002 to 2022. Bibliometric analysis allowed the identification of scientific production on the research topic, as well as emerging trends and research lines (Cañas et al., 2013; Princhard, 1969). In total, 987 articles were identified, with 901 being research articles, 25 institutional documents, and 61 reviews. Indeed, search equations play a crucial role in information retrieval in databases, specifically in data fusion and mining processes. In this context, these equations were initially integrated with the Vantage Point program, dedicated to data analysis and text mining, along with the datasets from each database (Bensman & Leydesdorff, 2009; Rushforth, 2016).

Subsequently, 9 common fields were selected between the two main information sources of the research, Scopus and Web of Science (WoS), to consolidate all relevant documents. For the same purpose, documents present in both databases were identified, leading to the elimination of duplicates and the initiation of the information cleaning process. This procedure addressed the normalization of author names, institutions, countries, and keywords. Lack of uniformity in publication metadata led to duplications in the mentioned fields (Aguilera et al., 2020; Barbosa et al., 2020).

Both Web of Science and Scopus host publications with globally recognized impact factors, considered of high academic quality. Precisely, interest in the dissemination, measurement, production, and use of science has experienced a notable increase in recent decades, thanks to information systems contributing to the analysis of scientific production (Camacho et al., 2023; Gómez, Barbosa & Téllez, 2021).

The second method involved a documentary review supported by matrices to synthesize the articles identified during the initial search. This review focused on analyzing divergences and convergences among authors, drawing on references from various academic sources (Paramo, 2008; Cerda, 1988). The presentation of results was structured in a matrix, arranged in an Excel sheet with distinct columns for each key element. The first column was dedicated to identifying the overall objective through the search equation, providing a clear understanding of the argumentative line. Next, another column established the methodology used, offering information about the adopted approach. Subsequently, a results column summarized the findings, followed by one dedicated to the author's synthesis, providing a unique perspective from each author. Finally, a column was dedicated to the overall synthesis of the article, consolidating essential information supporting the present document (Bensman & Leydesdorff, 2009; Gómez et al., 2016; Camacho et al., 2023).

Results

Next, the results of the investigative exercise are presented, starting with Table number 3, which establishes a triangulation between the overall objective of the article, using analytical and emerging categories as a guide. The latter represents the synthesis obtained from the documentary review conducted through the search equations.

Community Participation and Environmental Awareness

The management of social innovation projects encourages active community participation in problem identification and resolution. In this context, environmental awareness, and the adoption of sustainable practices at the community level can be promoted. For example, projects addressing waste management, conservation of water resources, or the promotion of renewable energies can bring about positive changes in communities and contribute to environmental sustainability (Florez & Melo, 2018). Similarly, ethics play a fundamental role in these projects as they directly impact communities and vulnerable groups. Transparency, equity, and respect are key principles. Project managers must ensure that all actions align with the ethical and cultural values of the involved communities (Gómez et al., 2018; Laverde et al., 2020).

Integration of Innovative Technologies

Social innovation is often associated with the application of innovative technologies to address social problems. In this context, project management can focus on adopting technologies that not only improve the quality of life in communities but are also environmentally friendly (Hale et al., 2019). Examples include renewable energy technologies, intelligent resource management systems, and sustainable agricultural practices (OCDE and Eurostat, 2018). Examining successful cases in the management of social innovation projects provides valuable lessons learned (Garzón et al., 2022; Christensen et al., 2015). Projects like digital inclusion initiatives in marginalized communities or sustainable solutions for water access have demonstrated the positive impact that can be achieved through effective management and careful implementation (Villa & Melo, 2015; Rendón & Gómez, 2022).

Partnerships and Collaborations for Sustainability

The management of social innovation projects often involves various stakeholders, including non-profit organizations, businesses, governments, and the local community (Garzón et al., 2023; Lozano et al., 2016). Forming partnerships and collaborations can enhance the ability to implement sustainable solutions and address environmental challenges comprehensively. Strategic partnerships can provide resources, expertise, and necessary support to ensure the long-term sustainability of projects (Acevedo & Dassen, 2016; Del Castillo, 2016).

Long-Term Impact

Environmental sustainability focuses on ensuring that current actions do not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Lindkvist & Sánchez, 2008). In the management of social innovation projects, the aim is to create a long-term impact that not only addresses immediate problems but also promotes resilience and sustainability over time (Gieske et al., 2016; Gómez, 2023). This involves carefully considering the long-term consequences of implemented solutions (Barbosa, Gómez y Téllez, 2021; Jurguen & Domanski, 2016).

Discussion

The dialogues between environmental sustainability and the management of social innovation projects represented a unique opportunity to comprehensively address current challenges. The incorporation of sustainable practices in project management not only contributes to environmental preservation but also strengthens the capacity of social initiatives to generate long-term positive impacts (Bason, 2018; Verdejo, 2019; Gómez, 2021). Environmental sustainability can act as a catalyst for social innovation, providing an ethical and practical framework for decision-making in project planning and execution (Eizaguirre, 2012; 2016). This convergence can generate more effective and holistic solutions benefiting both communities and the natural environment (Acevedo & Dassen, 2016; OCDE, 2020; Rodríguez et al., 2021).

The results of this article aligned with the propositions of Morales (2014); Purvies et al., (2019 and Gómez, Aldana & Rodríguez, (2021) when stating that, although integrating environmental sustainability into the management of social innovation projects is valuable, it is essential to consider potential tensions and challenges that may arise. In some cases, budget constraints and immediate demands of social projects may conflict with the investments and timelines required for implementing sustainable practices. Additionally, there is a risk that the added complexity of incorporating environmental criteria may dilute social objectives, leading to a more efficiency- and economically focused approach rather than social equity (Maldonado, 2017; 2023). This delicate balance requires careful consideration to avoid compromising the fundamental objectives of social projects (Van der Panne et al., 2003; Ramírez, 2011).

Similarly, the investigative exercise corresponded with the observations of Hinkelammert & Mora, (2008); Zurbriggen & González, (2014); Maldonado, (2014) when suggesting that effective reconciliation between environmental sustainability and social innovation involves a balanced approach that leverages synergies and mitigates potential conflicts. The adoption of integrative approaches and the identification of complementary areas can overcome challenges. Moreover, it is crucial to involve all stakeholders, from the local community to funders, to ensure a common understanding and commitment to both, social and environmental goals (Vega, 2017). Technology and innovation can play a key role in offering solutions that improve efficiency and reduce negative environmental impacts. Ultimately, continuous dialogue and adaptability are essential to progress toward a sustainable future where the management of social innovation projects and environmental sustainability coexist harmoniously (Gómez et al., 2017; FEN Universidad de Chile y Laboratorio de Gobierno, 2018).

Conclusions

The incorporation of environmental sustainability into the management of social innovation projects is not only desirable but also essential to effectively address contemporary social issues. By adopting sustainable practices, fostering environmental awareness, and seeking solutions that respect environmental limits, social innovation projects can play a crucial role in creating a more sustainable and equitable future.

Social innovation projects should adopt practices that not only address immediate problems but also contribute to building a more sustainable and equitable future. The intersection between sustainability and social innovation emerges as fertile ground for the development of initiatives that not only address pressing social issues but also respect and protect the natural environment. An integral approach to project management, where environmental sustainability and social innovation strategically merge, is advocated. Only through this synergy can projects fulfill their maximum potential, generating positive impacts on both society and the environment and thus contributing to the creation of a sustainable future.

The management of social innovation projects is a dynamic field that continues to evolve. The combination of business and social approaches enables the effective tackling of complex issues. As social awareness grows, the management of social innovation projects is expected to play an even more prominent role in creating sustainable and meaningful solutions for global challenges.

References

Acevedo, S. & Dassen, N. (2016). Innovando para una mejor gestión: La contribución de los laboratorios de innovación pública. Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. https://publications.iadb.org/es/publicacion/17174/innovando-para-una-mejor-gestion-la-contribucion-de-los-laboratorios-de

Aguilera, M., Rincón, M. & Gómez, D. (2020). Bioeconomía, una alternativa de investigación en administración y afines. En M. Aguilera-Prado y M. Rincón-Moreno (eds.). Temas y métodos de investigación en negocios, administración, mercadeo y contaduría (pp. 193-218). Bogotá: Editorial Uniagustiniana. https://doi.org/ 10.28970/9789585498426.06

Arora, A., S., Sivakumar, K. & Burke, G. (2020). Strategic sustainable purchasing, environmental collaboration, and organizational sustainability performance: The moderating role of supply base size. Supply Chain Management, 25(6), 709–728. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-07-2019-0284

Bason, C. (2018). Leading public sector innovation: Co-creating for a better society. Policy Press.

Barbosa, E., Gómez, D., & Téllez, C. (2021). Logística e internacionalización de las empresas antes y durante la pandemia del Covid-19. Breve revisión de literatura especializada. Ciencia, Economía y Negocios, 5(1), 71-96. https://lc.cx/RQt6-g

Barbosa, E., Rojas, J., & Gómez, D. (2021). Prueba piloto del Plan Nacional de Fomento de la Economía Solidaria y Cooperativa Rural - PLANFES. Estudio del caso del municipio de San Antero, Córdoba, Colombia. Otra economía: revista latinoamericana de economía social y solidaria, 14(25), 77-94. https://lc.cx/PiUD5V

Barbosa, E., Vargas, H. & Gómez, D. (2020). Breve estudio bibliométricos sobre economía solidaria. Cooperativismo y Desarrollo, 28(118), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.16925/2382-4220.2020.03.05

Bensman, S. & Leydesdorff, L. (2009). Definition and identification of journals as bibliographic and subject entities: Librarianship versus ISI Journal Citation Reports methods and their effect on citation measures. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(6), 1097–1117.

Camacho, M., Rojas, J. & Santillán, A. (2023). Análisis bibliométrico de la producción científica sobre cooperativas agropecuarias en países hispanoparlantes. Cooperativismo y Desarrollo, 31(126), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.16925/2382-4220.2023.02.01

Cañas, G., Mazarrón, F., Pou, M., Calleja, P. & Díaz, R. (2013). Bibliometric analysis of research activity in the “Agronomy” category from the Web of Science, 1997–2011. European Journal of Agronomy, 50, 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.05.002

Cerda, H. (1988). Los elementos de la investigación. El Búho.

Christensen, C., Raynor, M. & McDonald, R. (2015). What is disruptive innovation? Harvard business review, 93(12), 44–53.

Del Castillo, J. (2016). Innovación social: Forjando territorios de paz y ciudades para la vida. [Universidad Tecnológica de Bolívar]. https://repositorio.utb.edu.co/bitstream/ handle/20.500.12585/1216/0069820.pdf?sequence=1yyisAllowed=y

Deng, H., Li, C. & Wang, L. (2022). The Impact of Corporate Innovation on Environmental Performance: The Moderating Effect of Financing Constraints and Government Subsidies. Sustainability Switzerland, 14(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811530

Eizaguirre, S. (2012). Innovación social i governança urbana. Entitats socialment creatives a Barcelona i Bilbao. En Tesi doctoral, Departament de Teoria Sociològica, Filosofia del Dret i Metodologia de les Ciències Socials. Universitat de Barcelona.

Eizaguirre, S. (2016). De la innovación social a la economía solidaria. Claves prácticas para el desarrollo de políticas públicas. CIRIEC-España, Revista de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa, 88, 201-230.

FEN Universidad de Chile y Laboratorio de Gobierno. (2018). Experiencias de Innovación Pública. Ediciones CEA-FEN Universidad de Chile. https://innovadorespublicos.cl/documentation/publication/35/

Florez, L. & Melo, L. (2018). El Taller de innovación social: Propuesta metodológica para la generación y priorización de ideas en innovación social. Revista Internacional de Ciencias Sociales Interdisciplinares, 7(1), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.18848/2474-6029/CGP/v07i01/57-67

Garzón, B., Barbosa, E. & Gómez, D. (2022). Política pública en la pandemia desde la economía solidaria: circuitos cortos de comercialización-C.C.C. en Colombia (2020-2021). Apuntes de Economía y Sociedad, 3(1), 25-36. https://doi.org/10.5377/aes.v3i1.14287

Garzón, B., Barbosa, E., & Gómez, D. (2023). Las organizaciones comunales como gestoras de reactivación económica: mercados campesinos solidarios en el municipio el Playón, Santander. Revista CIRIEC Colombia, 1(1), 245-257. https://lc.cx/UcqnSt

Gieske, H., Buuren, A. & Bekkers, V. (2016). Conceptualizing public innovative capacity: A framework for assessment. Innovation Journal, 21(1), 1–25.

Gómez, D. (2021). Sostenibilidad. Apuntes sobre sostenibilidad fuerte y débil, capital manufacturado y natural. Inclusión y Desarrollo, 8(1), 131-143.

Gómez, D. (2023). Metabolismo social de la agroindustria de la palma de aceite en el territorio de Aracataca Magdalena Colombia (1965-2018). Tesis doctoral. Universidad de la Salle. Bogotá: Colombia. https://ciencia.lasalle.edu.co/doct_agrociencias/14

Gómez, D., Aldana, K. & Rodríguez, R. (2021). Antropologías del desarrollo, enfoques alternativos y pos desarrollo. Breve revisión de conceptos y apuntes críticos. Población y Desarrollo, 27(52), 108-122. https://revistascientificas.una.py/index.php/RE/article/view/957

Gómez, D., Ariza, E., & Velasco, N. (2018). Apuntes desde las ciencias económicas. Diálogos entre la economía ecológica y la bioeconomía caso Colombia. Editorial Bonaventuriana.

Gómez, D., Barbosa, E. & Téllez, C. (2021). Transitions against the Problems of the 21 st Century the Ecological Economy. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics y Sociology, 39(9), 76-84.

Gómez, D., Barbosa E., y Téllez, C. (2023). Política pública en Colombia: La innovación social como estrategia de la Economía solidaria (2018-2022). En Innovación social y pública: experiencias y aproximaciones a la complejidad contemporánea. Editorial Universidad de Chile.

Gómez, D., Carranza, Y. & Ramos, C. (2016). Revisión documental, una herramienta para el mejoramiento de las competencias de lectura y escritura en estudiantes universitarios. Chakiñan, Revista de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, 1, 46–56.

Gómez, D., Pérez, E. & Rojas, W. (2017). El Biodesarrollo como ruptura de la categoría desarrollo. Revista Ciencias económicas, 13(2), 75-87.

Hale, J., Legun, K., Campbell, H. & Carolan, M. (2019). Social sustainability indicators as performance, Geoforum, 103, 47–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.03.008

Hernández, J. & Arizamontes, A. (2016). El concepto de innovación social: Ámbitos, definiciones y alcances teóricos. Revista de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa, 88, 165–199.

Hinkelammert, F. & Mora, H. (2008). Hacia una economía para la vida. Preludio para una reconstrucción de la economía. San José de Costa Rica: Editorial Tecnológica de Costa Rica.

Jurguen, H. & Domanski, D. (2016). Innovación Social como el Motor del Cambio Social en Innovación social Efectiva: Una propuesta de evaluación para Programas Sociales (F. Cortez-Monroy y T. Matus, Eds.). Editorial Libros de Mentira Ltda.

Laverde, M., Almanza, C., Gómez, D. & Serrano, C. (2020). El Capital Relacional como Recurso Diferencial y Valioso para las Empresas. Revista Podium, 37, 57–70. https://doi.org/10.31095/podium.2020.37.5

Lindkvist, K. & Sánchez, J. (2008). Conventions and innovation: A comparison of two localized natural resource-based industries. Regional Studies, 42(3), 343–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400701291567

López, G. (2014). Innovación: Lo social le es inmanente. Revista Facultad de Ciencias Económicas: Investigación y Reflexión, 22(2), 123–158.

Lozano, M., Mendoza, M., Rocha, F. & Welter, Z. (2016). La apropiación social de la ciencia, la tecnología y la innovación (ASCTI): Políticas y prácticas en Chile, Colombia, Ecuador y Perú. Trilogía, 8(15), 25–40.

MahdaviMazdeh, H., Saunders, C., Hawkins, R. W. & Dewald, J. (2021). Reconsidering the dynamics of innovation in the natural resource industries. Resources Policy, 72, 102044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2021.102044

Maldonado, C. (2014). Biodesarrollo y complejidad. Propuesta de un modelo teórico. En M. Eschenhaguen, Alternativas al desarrollo (pp. 71-94). Bogotá: UR-PUB.

Maldonado, C. (2017). La extraña idea del desarrollo. Genealogía de un concepto. Pensamiento Americano, 10(18), 144-160.

Maldonado, C. (2018). Bioeconomía, Biodesarrollo y civilización. Un mapa de problemas y soluciones. En Epistemologías del Sur para germinar alternativas de desarrollo. Debate entre Enrique Leff, Carlos Maldonado y Horacio Machado (pp. 57-81). Editorial Universidad del Rosario.

Maldonado, C. (2023). La bioeconomía como un enfoque de complejidad y crítico de la función de producción. En Rincón-Ruiz A. (Ed). 2023. Bioeconomía: Miradas múltiples, reflexiones y retos para un país en crisis estructural. Un libro sobre economías diversas, y economías “otras” para la vida. Centro Editorial – Facultad de Ciencias Económicas. Universidad Nacional de Colombia.

Matus, T. (2020). Innovar la innovación: Una propuesta para trabajar lo social. Revista de Treball Social, 219, 13–52.

Morales, D. (2014). Innovación social y acción colectiva, un estudio de caso: Ecoagricultores del Sur. Estudios políticos, 33, 75–95.

Navarro, F. (2017). Innovación Pública en América Latina: Conceptos, experiencias exitosas, desafíos y obstáculos. Revista de Gestión Pública, 6(1), 5–18.

OCDE. (2020). Panorama de las Administraciones Públicas América Latina y el Caribe 2020. OCDE Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1256b68d-es

OCDE y Eurostat. (2018). Oslo manual 2018: Guidelines for collecting, reporting and using data on innovation. OCDE publishing.

Paramo, P. (2008). La Investigación en las Ciencias Sociales. En Técnicas de recolección de Información. Universidad Piloto de Colombia.

Princhard, J. (1969). Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? Journal of Documentation, 25(4), 348-349

Purvis, B., Mao, Y. & Robinson, D. (2019). Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins. Sustainability Science, 14(3), 681–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5

Ramírez-Alujas, A. (2011). Sobre la aplicación y desarrollo del concepto de innovación en el sector público: Estado del arte, alcances y perspectivas. Revista Circunstancia, 26, 1–37.

Rendón, J. & Gómez, D. (2022). Paisaje, territorio y agroindustria. En: Las agrociencias en la dimensión de paisajes sostenibles. En L. Jaramillo (Ed.), Cuadernos de seminario 13. Universidad de la Salle.

Rodríguez, D., Laverde, M. & Pérez, E. (2021). Short Commercialization Circuits in Local Supply Chains: Economic Revival in the Pandemic. South Asian Journal of Social Studies and Economics, 12(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.9734/sajsse/2021/ v12i230299

Rushforth, A. (2016). All or nothing? Debating the role of evaluative bibliometrics in the research system. Research Evaluation, 25(2), 230-231. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvw004

Satalkina, L. & Steiner, G. (2022). Social Innovation: A Retrospective Perspective. Minerva, 60, 567–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09471-y

Springer, H. & Domanski, D. (2016). Innovación social como el cambio del motor social. En F. Cortez-Monroy y T. Matus (Eds.), Innovación Social Efectiva, Una propuesta de evaluación para programas sociales (pp. 25–49). Librosdementira.

Téllez, C., Gómez, D., & Ramos, C. (2022). Corporate social responsibility of hotels in post-conflict: case of Apartadó, Urabá. Revista de Administraçãao da UNIMEP, 19(11), 65-79. https://n9.cl/yilff

Téllez, C., Gómez, D., Ramos, C. & Bernal, E. (2020). Approximation from the Humanist Administration in a Case Study of Hotels in Villa De Leyva, Boyacá. Journal of Environmental Management & Tourism, 11(2), 366-376. https://n9.cl/oq3ux

Van der Panne, G., Beers, C., & Kleinknecht, A. (2003). Success and failure of innovation: A literature review. International journal of innovation Management, 7(03), 309–338. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919603000830

Vega, J. (2017). Innovación social. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT) – Paraguay. https://www.conacyt.gov.py/ sites/default/files/upload_editores/u38/CTS-J.Vega-modulo-7.pdf

Verdejo, D. (2019). Innovación social: Fortalezas y limitaciones estructurales, una observación desde la teoría de sistemas sociales. MAD, 40, 52–68. https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-0527.2019.54835

Vries, H., Bekkers, V. & Tummers, L. (2016). Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda. Public administration, 94(1), 146–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12209

Zurbriggen, C. & González, M. (2014). Innovación y co-creación: Nuevos desafíos para las políticas públicas. Revista de Gestión Pública, III(2), 329–361.