Mapping the Social Innovation Ecosystem in the Netherlands In 2025, Utrecht University published a mapping study of the social innovation ecosystem in the Netherlands as part of the European Social Innovation Alliance (ESIA). The report “Mapping the Social Innovation Ecosystem in the Netherlands” provides an overview of the current state of social innovation in the Netherlands and explores the enabling and limiting factors that shape the development of social innovation initiatives. The study was developed to support the establishment of a National Competence Centre (NCC) for Social Innovation in the Netherlands. It aims to bring together insights on social innovators, community-based initiatives, social enterprises, public actors, funders, knowledge institutions, support organisations and other ecosystem actors. The report shows that social innovation in the Netherlands is no longer a marginal or purely experimental activity. Across the country, a diverse landscape of citizen initiatives, social enterprises, community cooperatives, advocacy groups and hybrid public-civil collaborations is addressing urgent societal challenges. These include poverty, inequality, migration, energy transition, food systems, housing, democratic renewal and the future of care. At the same time, the Dutch social innovation ecosystem remains fragmented and difficult to navigate. Social innovators often work across sectors and policy domains, while existing systems are shaped by complex regulations, sectoral silos, short-term funding cycles and administrative procedures. This makes it difficult for many initiatives to grow, sustain their work and contribute to broader systemic change. The study understands social innovation as new combinations and reconfigurations of social practices, social processes and social relations that aim to solve societal problems or better respond to needs in a specific field of action. In the Dutch context, social innovation is often less about technological invention and more about new forms of ownership, governance, cooperation, knowledge sharing and community building. Key insights were: Social innovators in the Netherlands are strongly mission-driven. They often work from values such as solidarity, equality, ownership, sustainability and community. Their initiatives challenge existing institutional routines and seek to create new ways of organising society. The Dutch ecosystem is rich in initiatives, networks and resources, but it is also fragmented. There are many actors, programmes, funds and support structures, but social innovators often find it difficult to understand where to go, how to access support and how to navigate public institutions. Trust is a foundational condition for social innovation. Initiatives depend on trust from communities, governments, funders and partners. Without trust, experimentation, collaboration and long-term commitment are difficult to sustain. Long-term support is essential. Many social innovations only show meaningful impact after years of development. Short funding cycles, changing political priorities and unstable policy frameworks can therefore weaken promising initiatives. Crises can create momentum for social innovation. The energy crisis, housing shortage, nitrogen crisis and COVID-19 opened space for alternative approaches and accelerated the acceptance of new models in several domains. Social innovators often need to “fit the system” enough to influence it, while still protecting their mission. Institutionalisation can be a sign of success, but it can also create risks of co-optation or loss of transformative potential. The report also identifies several strengths of the Dutch ecosystem. These include the availability of financial capital, the willingness of governments to engage with social innovation, the existence of policies such as social public procurement, and a strong culture of networking and collaboration. However, these strengths do not automatically translate into accessible and effective support for all social innovators. Based on the findings, the report formulates important implications for the Dutch National Competence Centre for Social Innovation. The NCC should act as a bridge-builder between innovators, governments, funders and knowledge institutions. It should help reduce fragmentation, translate between different actors and logics, support capacity building, identify gaps in the ecosystem and promote long-term strategic thinking. The NCC should also be careful not to add new layers of bureaucracy or impose a narrow definition of social innovation. Instead, it should build on what already works, strengthen existing initiatives and support an open and inclusive process that reflects the diversity of social innovation in the Netherlands. The study concludes that the Netherlands has many ingredients for a thriving social innovation ecosystem. However, the full potential of this ecosystem is still constrained by fragmented structures, demanding administrative environments, unstable policies and unequal access to resources. Ultimately, the report shows that social innovation is not just a set of individual projects. It is a way of reorganising society around values such as solidarity, fairness, community and sustainability. A National Competence Centre can help these efforts become more connected, visible and impactful — if it prioritises trust, inclusivity and long-term commitment.

Case Study Report: The Transformative Promise of Social Innovation Practices in the Netherlands As part of the European Social Innovation Alliance (ESIA), CAOP conducted an in-depth case study report on three social innovation practices in the Netherlands. The report, “The transformative promise of three social innovation practices and lessons for policy makers in the Netherlands”, explores how social innovation can contribute to sustainable cross-domain solutions and how government policy can better support these processes. The report builds on previous mapping work on the Dutch social innovation ecosystem, which identified a diverse landscape of citizen initiatives, social enterprises, cooperatives, advocacy groups and public-civil collaborations addressing complex societal challenges such as poverty, inequality, energy transition, housing and democratic renewal. While social innovation is no longer marginal in the Netherlands, the ecosystem remains fragmented and difficult to navigate. Social innovators often face regulatory complexity, unstable policies, short-term funding cycles and unequal access to resources. Against this background, the report investigates three concrete social innovation practices and asks what can be learned from them for policy, governance and the further development of the Dutch National Competence Centre for Social Innovation. The three cases are: Kairos College – social innovation in education Kairos College is a small-scale, inclusive school in Amsterdam-Noord that challenges standardised approaches to secondary education. It works with mixed-ability classes, delays formal ability selection, avoids standardised testing and homework in the first years, and places strong emphasis on personal attention, community and holistic development. The case shows that alternative forms of education are possible within the existing system, but also that such initiatives face significant obstacles. These include bureaucratic procedures, funding uncertainty, institutional resistance from existing schools, and tensions between rapid growth requirements and the ambition to maintain a close-knit learning community. Kansrijke Start Meppel – social innovation in health and early childhood support Kansrijke Start Meppel is a local partnership that brings together midwives, maternity nurses, paediatricians, childcare providers, libraries, social workers and the municipality to support vulnerable pregnant women and young families during the first 1,000 days of a child’s life. The case demonstrates how social innovation can break down silos between healthcare, social care, education and local government. By creating short lines of communication, regular meetings and shared responsibility, the initiative improves early identification of needs, referrals and integrated support for families. At the same time, it remains vulnerable to limited budgets, high workloads and dependence on committed individuals. Maak Oosterwold – social innovation in spatial planning Maak Oosterwold is an experimental urban development project near Almere in which residents are given maximum freedom and responsibility to design and build their own homes, neighbourhoods, roads, green spaces and forms of collective infrastructure. The project reverses the traditional planning logic by placing residents at the centre of area development. The case highlights the potential of citizen-led spatial planning, community building and sustainable development. However, it also shows the difficulties of translating radical freedom into practice. Residents need support to manage collective responsibilities, while cooperation between multiple public authorities can become complex and slow. The case therefore provides important lessons about role clarity, expectation management and adaptive governance. Key insights from the case study were: Social innovation can shift power to communities, open up new forms of collaboration and challenge existing institutional routines. The three cases show how citizens, professionals, municipalities and other actors can create new ways of organising education, care and spatial development. Successful social innovation depends on trust, relationships and local ownership. In all three cases, personal commitment, strong networks, shared identity and supportive municipal roles were crucial enabling factors. At the same time, social innovation often faces structural barriers. These include regulatory complexity, fragmented responsibilities, short-term funding, institutional resistance, dependence on key individuals and time constraints that make it difficult to sustain and scale innovative practices. The report therefore argues that government policy should move from a primarily controlling role towards a more enabling, connecting and learning-oriented role. Governments can support social innovation by reducing unnecessary complexity, creating flexible funding models, enabling experimentation, investing in relationships and using pilot projects as laboratories for institutional learning. The findings also underline the potential role of a National Competence Centre for Social Innovation. Such a centre could act as a bridge-builder, navigator and capacity builder, helping social innovators to connect with relevant actors, share knowledge, navigate the ecosystem and translate lessons from practice into better policy frameworks. By analysing Kairos College, Kansrijke Start Meppel and Maak Oosterwold, this report shows how social innovation can contribute to more inclusive, integrated and sustainable solutions. It also demonstrates that promising local ideas can inform broader policy learning when governments are willing to act as partners, facilitators and learners.

Reflections and lessons learnt from national social innovation ecosystems On 27 February 2025, the European Social Innovation Alliance (ESIA) organised a transnational workshop on “The Future of Support for Social Innovation in Europe”. The workshop brought together representatives from National Competence Centres for Social Innovation, ministries, NGOs, academia, networks and other ecosystem actors to reflect on lessons learnt from national social innovation ecosystems and to discuss future support structures for social innovation in Europe. The workshop was part of ESIA’s transnational work on strengthening the exchange between national competence centres and related European social innovation initiatives. It created a space for cross-country learning, shared reflection and joint discussion on how political, institutional and practical framework conditions for social innovation can be improved at national and European level. The session included inputs from Germany and Estonia. The German input focused on lessons learnt from the analysis of framework conditions in the German social innovation ecosystem and what these mean for the German National Competence Centre for Social Innovation. Key observations included the growing role of public administration at federal and state level, new strategies and funding schemes, an increasing awareness of social innovation in society, and new roles for universities, welfare organisations and other ecosystem actors. At the same time, the German case also showed the continued need for better coordination and clearer entry points for social innovators in a fragmented support landscape. The Estonian input built on the analysis of Estonia’s social innovation ecosystem and reflected on the development of a common vision for social innovation. It highlighted the importance of shared understanding, ecosystem coordination and cross-sector cooperation for strengthening social innovation at national level. The Estonian case also showed how social innovation ecosystems can emerge from bottom-up initiatives while still requiring stronger institutional support, coordination and strategic orientation. The workshop then moved into interactive group discussions. Participants reflected on their experiences with political framework conditions in their member states, how these conditions had helped or hindered their work, what kind of political support for social innovation is needed in the future, and how European support — including funding — can help create better framework conditions for social innovation. Key insights from the workshop were: Social innovation ecosystems across Europe are developing in very different national and regional contexts. This diversity is a strength, but it also means that support structures cannot follow a one-size-fits-all model. Future European support frameworks need to recognise the different stages of ecosystem development, actor constellations and institutional settings across countries. National Competence Centres can play an important role as conveners, connectors and translators between policy, practice, research and civil society. They can help bring together fragmented initiatives, identify common needs, make knowledge more accessible and strengthen the visibility of social innovation within national and European policy debates. Participants underlined the importance of long-term and reliable support structures. Social innovation requires more than short-term project funding. It needs infrastructures for learning, capacity building, experimentation, evidence generation, knowledge transfer and cross-sector collaboration. The workshop also showed that European support can be highly valuable when it enables countries and regions to learn from each other. Transnational exchange helps actors compare different approaches, understand enabling and constraining factors, and develop shared perspectives on what a more supportive environment for social innovation in Europe could look like. At the same time, participants pointed to the need for stronger coordination between EU-level priorities and national implementation contexts. European frameworks should provide orientation and resources, while leaving enough flexibility for local and national ecosystems to adapt support measures to their specific conditions. The results of the workshop contribute to ESIA’s broader dialogue on the future architecture of support for social innovation in Europe. They also connect to ESIA’s advocacy work and to the wider discussion on how National Competence Centres can support the development of sustainable, well-connected and impact-oriented social innovation ecosystems. By documenting the reflections and lessons learnt from this transnational exchange, D005.010 provides a useful resource for policymakers, competence centres, researchers and practitioners working to strengthen the enabling conditions for social innovation in Europe.