Firms with social purpose, either embedded inside the legacy firm or spun out as mission subsidiaries and foundations, face a persistent challenge: how do we recognize, support, and scale the truly innovative efforts? Traditional innovation yardsticks (R&D spend, patents, lab breakthroughs) rarely capture the kinds of progress most social ventures make: service redesigns, new delivery models, and behavior-changing brands.

This study proposes a deceptively simple proxy that’s already public, low-cost to check, and surprisingly telling: trademarks. The research demonstrates that, within a large and heterogeneous population of social enterprises, those filing trademarks tend to be more innovative, both in what they offer and in how they pursue social impact.

What We Studied

The authors assembled a comprehensive sample of 706 German social enterprises, drawing from national networks, legal-form filters, and impact investment databases to avoid selection bias. They then:

• Measured innovativeness through website text: a web-crawler mapped innovation-related and impact-related keywords across ~26,000 subpages (median 23 per firm), building two indices—one for innovation (e.g., innov, new, technol) and one for social impact.
• Matched in trademark data: from the German Patent and Trade Mark Office, focusing on active marks filed up to 15 years before the crawl to ensure correct temporal ordering.
• Ran multivariate models: seemingly unrelated regressions showed how the number of active trademarks correlates with both innovation and impact indices while controlling for age, size, legal form (for-profit/nonprofit), sector (NACE codes), SDG focus, and website size.
• Validated with a survey: 108 enterprises (leaders/founders) provided direct answers on whether their most important product/service was novel and impact-oriented; the survey also probed motives to register (or not register) trademarks.

Key Insights

1) Trademarks track real innovativeness

• Across 706 organizations, more trademarks were strongly associated with higher scores on both the innovation and social impact text indices found on company websites. The relationship holds after accounting for firm size, age, legal form, industry, SDG focus, and website length.
• In the survey of leaders (n=108), each additional trademark increased the odds of being innovative (novel offering + social/environmental aim) by a multiple (odds ratio ≈ 3.6).

So what? For firms that struggle to “see” service and model innovation, trademarks are a practical signal: ventures that invest in defining and protecting names, logos, and program brands are also likelier to be doing something new and impactful.

2) Why social enterprises trademark

From the motives analysis (innovative subsample), three clusters dominate:

• Protection: Prevent brand imitation; protect products/services; ensure quality protection of social impact (a standout SE-specific motive).
• Market orientation: Strengthen company image; support marketing; enhance customer loyalty; increase negotiation power.
• Scaling social impact: Use marks to codify standards, enable social franchising, and expand reach while preserving quality of outcomes.

Conversely, organizations that do not trademark most often cite process effort, cost, or low economic downside from imitation, less so a principled desire to remain “open” to imitation for impact.

So what? Trademarks can be mission tools, not just market tools, helping firms protect fidelity to a program’s impact logic as they scale across branches, licensees, or partners.

3) The pattern holds

• The association between trademarks and innovativeness remained when limiting to recent filings (suggesting timeliness), for profit-oriented SEs, and for younger firms (often even stronger).
• Patents were rare in this population, which underscores why trademarks are the more useful proxy for service-heavy, organizational, and model innovations.

So what? If you’re scanning a portfolio of social ventures, trademark data provide a consistent, comparable signal, even where patents are sparse.

Takeaways

1) Use trademarks as a portfolio screening metric

• Add “active trademark count” to your innovation dashboard when comparing mission ventures. It’s public, simple to retrieve, and, per this study, predictive of innovativeness. Prioritize deeper diligence for ventures with recent filings, as these correlate even more strongly with current innovative effort (robustness results on page 16).

2) Treat brand protection as impact protection

• When your impact depends on replicable practices (e.g., social franchising, standard-setting programs), a registered mark can be the governance spine that protects method integrity across partners. Consider program-level marks (not just corporate names) with clear brand usage manuals.

3) Build a brand architecture for scaling

• Map a master brand, endorsed program brands (flagship initiatives), and affiliated partner marks. Register strategically in priority jurisdictions (where your partners operate), and align marks to impact measurement frameworks (SDGs, outcomes) to make the brand a carrier of standards.

4) Balance openness and stewardship

• If your theory of change benefits from broad imitation, trademarks don’t force exclusion. You can grant open, royalty-free licenses conditioned on impact quality criteria (e.g., measurement protocols, beneficiary safeguards). This preserves program identity and social quality while allowing wide uptake.

5) Strengthen fundraising and stakeholder trust

• Investors, donors, and public agencies read trademarks as market readiness and downstream capability signals. Combine registered marks with transparent impact claims on program pages, and your website content (which this study also leverages) becomes a credible public dossier of innovation intent and delivery.

Impact

The study reframes trademarks from “just marketing” to organizational infrastructure for innovation and impact. Trademarks can:

• Differentiate mission programs in crowded social problem spaces.
• Coordinate multi-site execution with quality controls.
• Accelerate partner onboarding via clear identity and usage rights.
• Attract aligned talent (“employer visibility” appears among notable motives) and values-driven customers.

Looking ahead, the authors highlight the need for cross-country tests (since welfare regimes and legal forms vary), longitudinal designs (to trace timing and causality), and deeper dives into trademark characteristics (e.g., breadth, classes, geography) that might explain who scales fastest and with the most reliable impact.

Recommendations

1. Add trademark reviews to your impact investment memos. Record active marks, filing dates, Nice classes, and territories. Flag recent filings (recency matters).
2. Codify your signature interventions as trademarked program brands. Pair each with a how-to standards guide (brand + method + metrics). Require adherence in partner agreements; use licensed marks to monitor fidelity.
3. Design for scale with a licensing ladder. Start with pilot partners on a restricted license, graduate to open licenses with guardrails for vetted networks, and retire licenses that fail impact QA.
4. Use your website intentionally. The study’s text approach implies stakeholders (and algorithms) read your innovation and impact language. Audit pages for clarity, specificity, and evidence. Embed consistent terminology tied to your program marks.
5. Budget for registration and upkeep, then measure ROI in impact. Track whether trademarked programs scale faster, retain quality, and attract partners compared to unmarked ones. Treat legal costs as mission infrastructure.

‍