Advancing Urban Social Innovation across Europe: A Closer Look at Turin’s Ecosystem

From the 5th to the 7th of November, 68 participants from 19 EU Member States gathered in Turin, Italy, for the Community of Practice on Social Innovation onsite event ‘ESF+ SI Ecosystem: Collaboration Model Between Key Stakeholders – Analysis of a Local Urban Social Innovation Ecosystem’. Organised in close partnership with the Italian ESF+ authorities and the National Competence Centre, the event aimed to deepen understanding of the collaborations and enabling factors that build and sustain social innovation ecosystems, with particular attention to the role of ESF+ funding and the key stakeholders who manage it, or benefit from it. The study visit programme featured expert presentations, engaging roundtables, three project visits, and workshop sessions, offering participants different and complementary insights.

‘Social innovation tends to originate locally. Across the EU, we have numerous examples of local collaborations leveraging the knowledge, skills, and passion of individuals and organisations to meet local community needs. When we focus on local social innovation, the impact becomes personal, tangible, and profound,’ explained Laura Mangeng, Policy Officer at the Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (European Commission), in her welcome remarks.

Developing Urban Social Innovation Ecosystems: Insights from Mario Calderini’s Keynote

In his inspirational keynote, ‘How to Develop an Urban Social Innovation Ecosystem?’, Professor Mario Calderini of Politecnico di Milano stressed the vital role of the social economy in Europe and offered recommendations for better supporting it at the EU level. He recalled that urban social innovation ecosystems can be built in very diverse contexts. Turin’s social innovation ecosystem is now recognised as a European prototype for effectively blending financial, technological, and policy resources, providing a thriving model for urban social innovation. Professor Calderini highlighted the key factors behind the success of ‘Torino Social Impact’, an open platform and collective brand created in 2017 by 12 founding promoters, where social needs are addressed by combining emerging technologies, new financial tools, social entrepreneurs, and social innovation. The model integrates social and economic growth policies within a multiplayer, cluster-based framework, and intentional impact is embedded across the entire ecosystem. Today, ‘Torino Social Impact’ includes 350 partners.

He pointed to the need for highly innovative initiatives, such as a ‘Social Impact Stock Exchange’, the ‘Social Procurement’ programme in the private sector, and the ‘Centre of Competence for Impact Measurement’ as examples that drive innovation and city-wide impact. He underscored the need for shared capacity, open governance, and strong networking, advocating for visionary leaders to initiate these transformative efforts. Calderini’s keynote presented a clear roadmap for cities aiming to foster sustainable urban development through inclusive social innovation ecosystems.

Round Table among Italian Urban Stakeholders: How Italian Cities Use ESF/ESF+ and ERDF to Support Social Innovation

The session involved Italian cities: Turin, Bari, Milan, and Naples, supported by the National Programme for Metropolitan Cities, which combines ESF+ and ERDF funding. This programme reinforces the territorial strategy approach adopted during the 2014-2020 programming period.

These initiatives form part of broader municipal-level policies on inclusion and urban regeneration. A national ecosystem of local urban authorities implementing social innovation policies and projects includes 14 metropolitan cities and 39 mid-sized cities in Southern Italy, with the latter identified by the Managing Authority as new beneficiaries of dedicated social innovation funding.

Shared experiences have led these cities to create an informal network aimed at mutual learning, the exchange of practices, and support in administrative processes. In addition, 39 mid-sized cities from Southern Italy received targeted capacity-building from the National Competence Centre for Social Innovation last year, enabling policymakers and city officers to enhance their skills.

As the host city, Turin, together with the three invited cities, presented notable initiatives that have significantly impacted urban life and residents’ quality of life.

Turin presented the project ‘Torino Social Factory’, the first initiative by an Italian city to use ESF to support social innovation projects with local impact, focusing on social inclusion and job creation. Driven by third sector organisations in socio-economically affected target areas, the city supported 15 approved projects with ESF funding.

The City of Naples presented four different approaches to social innovation: a publicly funded approach, a systemic public approach, a fully private approach, and a blended approach. A public-funded initiative, ‘I Quartieri dell’Innovazione’, also supported by ESF, was implemented in four areas marked by significant physical degradation and socio-economic marginalisation. More than 60 projects were selected, with 35 receiving funding across sectors such as culture and tourism, social welfare, training, and job creation.

The City of Bari adopted an urban development strategy encompassing the entire city, aimed at transforming neighbourhoods into social innovation laboratories. Supported by several policies and ESF funding, budgets were allocated to each of the city’s 12 neighbourhoods based on demographic and socio-economic indicators. This led to the creation of ‘urban civic networks’, 12 social innovation laboratories promoting community projects across neighbourhoods, with half the participants coming from small associations previously uninvolved in public policy.

The City of Milan, a rapidly growing city facing significant inequalities, adopted a ‘civil economy approach’ centred on innovation, inclusion, and proximity. It presented ‘Scuola dei Quartieri’, a well-known initiative focused on creating a civic school of innovation and social entrepreneurship. Free and open to all citizens regardless of age, nationality, or educational level, this initiative has funded 65 projects involving 61 local organisations to date.

One key insight that emerged from the discussion was the importance of involving local communities in the co-design and co-delivery of projects, so that they are not merely beneficiaries but the principal actors. In Italian cities, the European Social Fund serves as a catalyst for new ideas and projects, enabling those with direct knowledge of unmet social needs to develop impactful solutions from the grassroots level. The growth of a vibrant local ecosystem is both a prerequisite for the emergence of effective initiatives and a result of this funding opportunity. A critical challenge that remains is ensuring the long-term sustainability of the organisations and projects that introduce innovative solutions.

Competence Centres for Social Innovation: Roles and Enabling Factors in Urban Ecosystems – Insights from Italian and EU National Competence Centres

In addition to the comprehensive background note shared prior to the event, each representative from the Italian, Belgian, and Irish National Competence Centres (NCCs) briefly presented insights into their respective Centres and the unique characteristics of their social innovation ecosystems. In Italy, the fragmented social innovation landscape shows that only two regions prioritise social innovation in their strategies, underscoring the importance of public administration in fostering open, collaborative dialogue. In Flanders, Belgium, support for social entrepreneurship is now more balanced, with a growing emphasis on social innovation; however, better integration between public and private support systems is needed to establish a cohesive framework. Meanwhile, Ireland’s social innovation ecosystem is vibrant but lacks a clear structure, limiting opportunities for collaboration and scalability. Developing a shared understanding among stakeholders is essential to improving coordination.

All Centres face similar challenges within their ecosystems, particularly fragmentation, which leads to a lack of cooperation and missed opportunities for collaboration. Another shared challenge is a lack of awareness and understanding, with a strong need for unified recognition of social innovation and its transformative potential. This gap in awareness can hinder effective stakeholder cooperation. Significant challenges also exist in linking public and private support systems, as regulatory barriers add complexity. Strengthening these connections is crucial for creating a more supportive environment for social innovation.

The panellists discussed strategies to address these challenges and highlighted three key enabling factors that require reinforcement: enhancing stakeholders’ capabilities through targeted training and support initiatives; conducting awareness campaigns with strategic communication to emphasise the importance of social innovation at all societal levels; and developing collaborative models across sectors (public, private, and civil society) to foster a more supportive environment for social innovation.

The Italian Reform of the Third Sector Code: Advancing Shared Administration

Gianluca Salvatori, Secretary-General of EURICSE, presented insights on Italy’s innovative approach to public administration, as encapsulated in the Italian Reform of the Third Sector Code. This reform introduces the concept of shared administration, which aims to prioritise the general interest and collaborative principles over narrow, exclusive interests, establishing a framework where public, private, and civil society stakeholders work together to address societal needs.

Salvatori highlighted that social economy and social innovation hold transformative potential to reshape the relationship between the economy, politics, and society. By rebuilding a robust public sphere that mitigates the democratic crisis and addresses social disengagement, these sectors can bridge the widening gap between elites and the general public while restoring a shared sense of citizenship.

The shared administration model marks a significant departure from the traditional ‘client-provider’ approach to public administration, where governmental entities assume sole responsibility for delivering public services. This new model proposes a collaborative paradigm in which all stakeholders, including public authorities, social organisations, and civil society, participate on an equal footing. In this system, the duty to address issues of public concern no longer rests exclusively with public authorities. Instead, problem-solving becomes a cross-cutting responsibility shared by a diverse group of stakeholders who bring unique perspectives, capabilities, and resources to the table.

Salvatori emphasised the crucial role of civil society in this framework. The contributions of civil society organisations (CSOs) are valued not only for their dedication to public welfare but also for their ability to address complex social challenges sustainably. To do so, CSOs leverage a blend of motivations —both monetary and non-monetary, self-oriented and pro-social —and utilise a combination of organisational structures, operational expertise, and financial resources. Through shared administration, CSOs and other partners have the opportunity to apply their distinct competencies in a way that enhances public service provision and fosters resilience within communities.

This innovative model also redefines governance. Public administration is no longer viewed simply as an authority that dictates or issues orders. Instead, it becomes a partner collaborating closely with citizens and social organisations to co-design solutions for issues of shared concern. As such, social organisations are positioned as key agents in both identifying and implementing solutions that align with public interest objectives.

The impact of this shared administration approach is both extensive and transformative. By fostering a culture of shared responsibility and cooperation, this model not only enhances the effectiveness of public services but also introduces a new, forward-thinking approach to governance. Salvatori pointed out that this collaborative approach is not intended as a cost-saving measure; rather, it is a strategic partnership aimed at achieving the most effective and impactful outcomes for society as a whole.

Through the Italian Reform of the Third Sector Code, Salvatori illustrated a pathway that could serve as a model for other countries striving to enhance the relationship between public institutions and the social economy. This approach offers a sustainable and equitable vision of public service provision that benefits from the unique strengths of both public administration and civil society, working together to realise a shared vision for the public good.

Co-Programming Social Services for the City of Turin

Federica Giuliani of the Social Policies Area in the City of Turin outlined the city’s pioneering initiative, the Social Inclusion Plan. ‘The primary aim of this initiative is to address poverty and inequality while simultaneously strengthening community bonds through the principles of shared administration: co-planning and co-design.’

This collaborative approach unites public administration and third-sector organisations to assess community needs, set objectives in the co-planning phase, and work together on project development. By sharing experiences and fostering mutual understanding, public and third-sector partners are able to prioritise projects rooted in cooperative partnerships. The programme further extends its impact by leveraging a variety of funding sources —European, national, local, and private.

Giuliani highlighted the innovative nature of this method, stating, ‘Using the tools of shared administration, co-planning and co-design, represents a reversal of the paradigm in the relationship between the public sector and the non-profit sector; it is an ongoing process that requires flexibility, shared responsibility, and mutual trust.’

Lessons Learned and Key Takeaways from the Parallel Discussions

All participants were divided into three groups to reflect on the observations from the study visit and explore aspects that could be partially adapted and implemented in other Member States (MS). The strengths identified outweighed the challenges, highlighting the robustness of Turin’s SI ecosystem as a model for other MS.

Many of these strengths relate to the social fabric of Turin and its culture of collaboration between local actors and networks:

• A collaborative mentality and sense of solidarity appear to be cultural traits, supported by a strong urban and neighbourhood social fabric. By contrast, in other MS, individualism tends to prevail, making the development of collective initiatives more challenging, though with some notable exceptions.
• Local end-users are viewed as active contributors rather than passive beneficiaries, embodying a ‘commons’ approach where individuals both benefit from and contribute to the community. Their involvement in the design and implementation of social initiatives ensures that social innovation addresses local needs directly. Furthermore, there is no stigmatisation of vulnerable populations, with services and spaces made accessible to all citizens.
• Public authorities are highly engaged, co-designing and co-delivering services alongside local communities.
• The ability to establish collaborative platforms or networks with strong public leadership is important. Participants agreed that the most successful examples of scaling up often involve decentralised platforms or networks of actors.
• Intermediary organisations play a key role in connecting local communities with public policies, while philanthropic organisations are also of significant importance.

Another strong dimension is the specific national legal framework applied in Turin:

• The recent reform of the Third Sector Code and the application of the subsidiarity principle encourages ‘shared administration’ between public and private entities, including social economy organisations. This marks a shift from the traditional ’client-provider’ model of public administration, enabling processes of co-creation and co-delivery which are otherwise uncommon. Civil society’s contribution is recognised for its capacity to address complex social problems efficiently and effectively over time.
• Turin benefits from a specific taxation framework and the presence of regulatory sandboxes, fostering an environment conducive to experimentation and collaboration.

The institutional framework is another key factor. Local public authorities play a strong role, ensuring continuity in Turin’s approach to social innovation across the European Social Fund (ESF) programming periods of 2014 –2020 and 2021 –2027. Urban development strategies prioritise social innovation as a cornerstone of city development, adopting a municipal rather than regional or state-driven approach, which is more common across Europe. The practical application of the ‘commons’ as an operational strategy, rather than merely a theoretical concept, was also emphasised.

In terms of resources, Turin integrates a variety of funding sources, including EU contributions such as ESF+, ERDF, and FEAD, to support social innovation initiatives. Resources are provided not only in the form of financial aid but also as public spaces and other forms of ‘in-kind’ assistance, which enhance the capacity of local actors. This contrasts with limitations experienced in other MS, where philanthropic resources are less available.

The primary challenges noted include the lack of a regional level of engagement and the highly contextualised nature of Turin’s ecosystem, which can limit the scalability of its social innovations or their adoption into public policy beyond the city level. Another challenge lies in the need to attract additional private actors beyond the foundations established by banking institutions.

Turin’s approach to social innovation represents a robust model rooted in local collaboration, a strong legal framework, and diverse resources. While challenges remain, particularly regarding regional integration and scalability, the Turin model provides valuable lessons for other cities seeking to develop resilient and inclusive social innovation ecosystems.