Since the turn of the twenty-first century, we have witnessed an increasing academic interest in phenomena such as social innovation and social entrepreneurships, which have led to a plethora of definitions. For example, Mulgan et al.(2007, p. 2) define social innovation as “new ideas that address unmet social needs–and that work”. This definition points at innovation processes targeted for a “social goal”. Similar interpretations abound within the entrepreneurship field as well, where it is, for example, understood as “the innovative use and combination of resources to pursue opportunities to catalyse social change and/or address social needs”(Mair & Marti, 2006, p. 37). Within this field, scholars focus on the conditions for social entrepreneurship to happen, on the opportunity recognition skills, on specific obstacles such as financing and networking, by referring back to, for example, the institutional perspective as a theoretical lens (Kimmitt & Muñoz, 2018). This overall tendency has been echoed by public institutions, which have designed research and development (R&D) funding programmes to gather solutions for social goals–more recently placed under the banner of Grand Challenges (Kuhlmann & Rip, 2018; Mazzucato, 2018). Examples can be found as early as 2010, when a European Union coming out of a financial crisis was remarking once again on the necessity of putting innovation “at the heart of the Europe 2020 strategy”. Here, the “social” element was highlighted as a new (or rediscovered) category for innovation and entrepreneurship. In the Innovation Union initiative document,“social innovation” is described as being about “tapping into the ingenuity of charities, associations and social entrepreneurs to find new ways of meeting social needs which are not adequately met by the market or the public sector (…) to tackle the major societal challenges”(European Commission, 2010, p. 21).