Fostering Social Innovations in the Nonprofit Sector in an Uncertain Environment

One of the uncertainty management tools used by nonprofit organizations (NPO) is the development of social innovations, allowing the organization to take a proactive position in relation to changes occurring in society. However, in practice, not all nonprofit organizations manage to effectively engage in innovative activities within the framework of implementing their main social mission. The aim of this article is to identify the features of creating social innovations in conditions of a high degree of uncertainty of the external environment. The Lean Impact and organizational ambidexterity discussed in the article have sufficient potential to ensure the innovation process in NPOs. Following the basic principles of Lean Impact (think bigger, start small and relentlessly seek impact), as well as the practical implementation of the “build — measure — learn feedback” loop contribute to increasing the efficiency of NPO innovation activities, shortening the innovation cycle and reducing the likelihood of failure. The concept of organizational ambidexterity focuses on finding a balance between basic and incremental innovations in NPOs in the context of achieving a three-pronged goal: implementing a social mission, adapting to the needs of beneficiaries and donor requirements, and maintaining financial sustainability. The main stages of implementing organizational ambidexterity in a nonprofit organization are: initial restructuring, collaborative ecosystem work, and launching a joint project by partner organizations. The key to successfully finding a balance between basic and incremental innovations in NPOs is the organic combination of three types of ambidexterity: structural (creating appropriate units responsible for experimenting with MVPs, implementing programs, and scaling them), contextual (strategic hiring and coordinated management efforts), and interorganizational (collaborating with partner organizations to create innovative solutions). The use of Lean Impact and organizational ambidexterity in the nonprofit sector will help improve internal organizational dynamics, maintain social effectiveness, and strengthen financial sustainability.

1. Abbas J., Bresciani S., Subhani G., De Bernardi P. (2024) Nexus of Ambidexterity and Frugal Innovation for Enhanced ESG Performance of Entrepreneurial Firms. The Role of Organizational Capabilities. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. Vol. 21. DOI: 10.1007/s11365-024-01062-5

2. Bettin C., Ziyun F., Eriksson P. (2025) Open Social Innovation. In: Eriksson P., Montonen T., Laine P-M., Hannula A. (eds.) Elgar Encyclopedia of Innovation Management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. P. 113–116. DOI: 10.4337/9781035306459.00038

3. Cannaerts N., Steijn B., Duijn M. (2025) Public Managers, Drivers of Ambidexterity in Public Service Delivery. The Perceived Impact of Red Tape and PSM on Ambidexterity. International Journal of Public Sector Management. Vol. ahead-of-print. DOI: 10.1108/IJPSM-04-2024-0120

4. Chang A.M. (2020) Lean Impact: How to Innovate for Radically Greater Social Good. Moscow: ANO Portal “Takye dela”.

5. Chesbrough H.W. (2003) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

6. Chijere Z. (2024) An Overview on Social Enterprises and Nonprofit Organizations. In: Nonprofit Social Enterprises. Lessons from Africa. Cham: Springer. P. 1–7. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-60234-4_1

7. Dansero E., Battisti L., Cuomo F., Pettenati G., Sanesi G., Spano G. (2025) Benefits from social innovation. In: Barbero S., Timpe A. (eds.) Nature-Based Solutions for Urban Renewal in Post-Industrial Cities. New York: Routledge. Р. 189–206. DOI: 10.4324/9781003474869-12

8. Dover G., Lawrence T.B. (2011) The Role of Power in Nonprofit Innovation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. Vol. 41. Is. 6. P. 991–1013. DOI: 10.1177/0899764011423304

9. Frumkin P. (2002) On Being Nonprofit: A Conceptual and Policy Primer. Cambridge (Mass.), London: Harvard University Press.

10. Hamblin R., Plimmer G., Badar K., Lasthuizen K. (2024) Organizational Ambidexterity: A Bibliometric Review and Framework for Future Public Administration Research. Public Performance & Management Review. Vol. 47. P. 1073–1109. DOI: 10.1080/15309576.2024.2373178

11. Janus K.K. (2019) Social Startup Success. Hoe the Best Nonprofits Launch, Scale Up, and Make a Difference. Moscow: ANO Portal “Takye dela”.

12. Khan A., Chen L.-R., Hung C.-Y. (2021) The Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Supporting Second-Order Social Capital and Sustainable Innovation Ambidexterity. Sustainability. Vol. 13. Is. 13. DOI: 10.3390/su13136994

13. Krasnopol’skaya I., Skokova Yu. (2024) Tsifrovizatsiya i II v rabote NKO: novyye trendy i perspektivy [Digitalization and AI in NPO operations: Emerging trends and perspectives]. Moscow: “DPK Press”.

14. Kumalaningrum M.P., Wibowo B.S. (2024) Innovation Culture and Ambidexterity: Strategies to Deal with Environmental Uncertainty. COSTING: Journal of Economic, Business and Accounting. Vol. 6. Is. 7. P. 2176–2187.

15. Kupryashin G.L. (2023) Political-Administrative Capacities of Governance in Conditions of Turbulence and Uncertainty. Gosudarstvennoye upravleniye. Elektronnyyvestnik. No. 97. P. 174–189. DOI: 10.24412/2070-1381-2023-97-174-189

16. Livshin A.Ya. (2023) Nonprofit Organizations in the System of Interethnic Relations: History and Contemporary Developments. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 21 . Upravlenie (gosudarstvo i obshchestvo). Vol. 20. No. 4. P. 119–139. DOI: 10.55959/MSU2073-2643-21-2023-4-119-139

17. March J.G. (1991) Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science. Vol. 2. Is. 1. Р. 71–87.

18. Minnigaleeva G.A. (2016) Innovativeness of the Russian NGOs: Scope of Implementation and Correlations with Management Characteristics. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: Ekonomicheskie I sotsial’nye peremeny. No. 4. P. 67–78. DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2016.4.05

19. Moulaert F., MacCallum D., Mehmood A., Hamdouch A. (eds.) (2013) The International Handbook on Social Innovation. Collective Action, Social Learning and Transdisciplinary Research. Cheltenham / Northhampton: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

20. Murray R., CaulierGrice J., Mulgan G. (2010) The Open Book of Social Innovation. London: National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts; Young Foundation.

21. O’Reilly C.A., Tushman M. (2013) Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present, and Future. Academy of Management Perspectives. Vol. 27. Is. 4. Р. 324–338. DOI: 10.5465/amp.2013.0025

22. Phills J.A., Deiglmeier K., Miller D.T. (2008) Rediscovering Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review. P. 34–43.

23. Popov E.V., Omonov J.K., Naumov I.V., Veretennikova A.Y. (2018) Trends in the Development of Social Innovation. Terra Economicus. Vol. 16. No. 3. P. 36–59. DOI: 10.23683/2073-6606-2018-16-3-35-59

24. Rhodes M.L., McQuaid S., DonnellyCox G. (2021) Social Innovation and Temporary Innovations Systems (TIS): Insights from Naturebased Solutions in Europe. Social Enterprise Journal. Vol. 18. Is. 2. P. 252–270. DOI: 10.1108/SEJ0120210001

25. Seo D., Bryson J.M., Williams M. (2025) Nonprofit Sector Ambidexterity: A Framework for Understanding Innovation and Strategy Change in Nonprofit Organizations. Public Management Review. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2025.2452880

26. Shafique I., Kalyar M.N., Shafique M., Kianto A., Beh L.-S. (2022) Demystifying the Link between Knowledge Management Capability and Innovation Ambidexterity: Organizational Structure as a Moderator. Business Process Management Journal. Vol. 28. Is. 5/6. P. 1343–1363. DOI: 10.1108/BPMJ-11-2021-0713

27. Shahriman M.F., Omar R. (2025) The Triadic Edge: Balancing Innovation, Risk, and Organizational Ambidexterity. Advances in Nonlinear Variational Inequalities. Vol. 28. Is. 5s. P. 79–93. DOI: 10.52783/anvi.v28.3652

28. Shier M.L., Turpin A., Graham J.R. (2024) Partnership Dynamics That Support Social Innovation by Nonprofits. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. Vol. 35. P. 491–502. DOI: 10.1007/s11266-023-00612-9

29. Sidorova A.A. (2023) Organizational Ambidexterity: Conceptual Foundations and Modern Approaches. Gosudarstvennoye upravleniye. Elektronnyy vestnik. No. 98. P. 86–95. DOI: 10.24412/2070-1381-2023-98-86-95

30. Soares J.L., Arantes A. (2021) Mediating Effect of Management Control Systems in The Interaction Between Ambidexterity and Organizational Learning in Brazilian NPO. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation. Vol. 16. Is. 2. P. 56–69. DOI: 10.4067/S0718-27242021000200056

31. Úbeda-García M., Claver-Cortés E., Marco-Lajara B., Zaragoza-Sáez P. (2020) Toward a Dynamic Construction of Organizational Ambidexterity: Exploring the Synergies between Structural Differentiation, Organizational Context, and Interorganizational Relations. Journal of Business Research. Vol. 112. Р. 363–372. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.051

32. Veretennikova A.Yu., Omonov Zh.K. (2018) Development and Introduction of Social Innovations in the Civil Society. Zhurnal ekonomicheskoy teorii. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 84–95.

33. Voronov A.S., Isaeva A.E. (2023) Business Ecosystem and Its Impact on Public Administration of Business Activities: Theoretical Overview of the Subject Area. Gosudarstvennoye upravleniye. Elektronnyy vestnik. No. 97. P. 138–154. DOI: 10.24412/2070-1381-2023-97-138-154

34. Zub A.T. (2011) Ekvifinal’nost’ v organizatsionnom proyektirovanii [Equifinality in organizational design]. Aktual’nye voprosy ekonomicheskikh nauk. No. 19. P. 10–19.