NATO Innovation Fund

Ellen Vanderhoven, Artur Steiner, S. Teasdale, F. Caló

The Social Innovation Fund (SIF) - funded by Scottish Government and the European Social Fund - adopts a ‘public venture capital’ model to support socially innovative organisations. This article critically explores the use of public venture capital programmes to fund and grow the social economy through the case study of Heavy Sound Community Interest Company. We conclude that, while SIF funding helped Heavy Sound to scale-up an effective intervention in the short term, further significant scaling might undermine the project’s success and long-term sustainability was not assured. We call for further research into the long-term consequences of public venture capital programmes coming to an end, including coordinated evaluation of the SIF.

S. Steadman, V. Ellis

ABSTRACT Drawing on data from a study of the changing landscape for teachers’ professional development (PD) in England, this paper addresses the provision of PD for teachers in schools serving high-poverty communities designated as ‘Opportunity Areas’. Beginning with critical examination of relationships between teaching quality and social mobility, the paper reports on the analysis of organisations that won funding in the first round of the Teaching and Leadership Innovation Fund (TLIF), offered by the UK government in 2017. The paper shows how an economistic link between teaching ‘quality’ and the political imperative of ‘social mobility’ has restricted the provision of continuing PD for teachers in public schools, narrowing the scope of training to practices that have the capacity to further disadvantage children and young people experiencing economic and social inequity. As such, the CPD provision for teachers in these areas has the potential to reproduce rather than transform existing educational opportunities.

Malak Trabelsi Loeb

T. Aas, Marius Rossfjord, Krisander Østlie

This study investigates how different types of investors — Venture Capitalists (VC), Private Equity (PE) investors, and Equity Fund (EF) managers — evaluate and prioritise innovation capabilities in their investment decisions. Contrary to initial assumptions, EF managers display varied approaches to valuing innovation, with differences rooted in investment strategy and risk tolerance. The findings reveal that VC investors prioritise innovation as central to their investment criteria, relying on qualitative indicators. In contrast, PE investors and EF managers view innovation as a component among broader financial metrics, often using historical and quantitative data. The research highlights significant variations in how investors utilise innovation, shaped by their risk appetites and strategic goals, offering insights not extensively explored in previous literature. This study contributes to understanding the nuanced role of innovation across investor types, suggesting avenues for further research into broader cultural and demographic impacts.

R.V. Hasyn, Olga Ivasechko, M.V. Zdoroveha