For years, Nordic countries have consistently topped global rankings in happiness, quality of life, and trust in public institutions (Martela et al., 2020). While culture, size, and history all play a role, one core reason is often overlooked: the way these nations practice capitalism. Their model is not solely defined by quarterly earnings or top-line growth - it is built on a foundation of sustainability, stakeholder trust, and cross-sector coordination. And for leaders in the social impact sector, there’s much to learn.

Developing Ecosystems

The Nordic model’s secret is not just producing great ideas; it is in surrounding those ideas with ecosystems that help them thrive. It’s a brand of capitalism that understands something critical: no innovation, however promising, can scale sustainably in isolation. For social entrepreneurs, nonprofit leaders, and mission-driven organizations, this mindset shift is urgent. It is not enough to build a great solution. You must also build the conditions around it for that solution to flourish.

Consider something as seemingly simple as Copenhagen being a bike-friendly city. It’s not just about bike lanes. It’s about shared norms, integrated transportation planning, public incentives, design coordination, and a culture that values environmental responsibility. City buses and trains are built with bike storage. Offices provide facilities for cyclists. Citizens are educated early on cycling safety. The result is not just fewer cars - it is instead healthier communities, cleaner air, and a shift in how people relate to public space.

A more complex example can be found in Ørsted, the Danish energy company once reliant on fossil fuels. Today, it is a global leader in offshore wind energy. However, Ørsted did not pivot by simply building turbines. It worked with governments to secure permits and funding mechanisms. It partnered with ports and shipping industries to coordinate infrastructure. It also leaned on international agreements to ensure long-term policy alignment (Neubert & Tryggestad, 2020). Its success is a case study in systemic innovation - a private company reshaping an entire field through collaboration, not isolation.

These ideas align closely the findings that that successful innovation depends not only on the capabilities of a firm itself, but also on the sequence and structure of interdependent innovations across a broader ecosystem (Adner & Kapoor, 2010). Success is dependent on multiple actors whose roles are interdependent. Innovation at scale is rarely a solo endeavor; rather, it is a collaborative act embedded in an entire ecosystem.

Opportunities for Social Impact Organizations

Social impact organizations frequently miss this. Too many operate under the myth that excellence alone will attract attention and investment. But even the most groundbreaking nonprofit initiative risks stalling out if it’s not embedded in a supportive system. The lesson from the Nordics is that success comes not just from building the product or service, but from constructing the environment around it - through partnerships, policy alignment, and cultural buy-in.

Many have also suggested that social impact organizations (SIO) should ‘share their secret sauce’ (Cushing, 2023). They argue that SIOs too often guard their best practices, treating their operational models as competitive advantages rather than opportunities for collective growth. This mindset may work in specific instances in the private sector, but it stifles progress in the social space. To solve problems at scale - whether early childhood education, healthcare access, or food insecurity - a field-level approach that mirrors the ecosystem thinking of Nordic capitalism is required.

So how does an entire sector get there? First, social impact leaders must intentionally build multi-stakeholder frameworks. This means working with local governments not just as funders but as co-creators. It means viewing other nonprofits as allies in shaping the operating environment, rather than just competitors for grants. And it means involving community members from the start - recognizing that adoption and trust are outcomes of inclusion, not just persuasion.

Second, there must be a greater investment in infrastructure - not just physical, but organizational and social. That includes the “boring” things such as capacity-building, foundational strategy, monitoring and evaluation systems, and regulatory compliance. It also means training talent, creating knowledge-sharing platforms, and building public narratives that reinforce the intended change.

Third, there must be a parting with the idea that scale always means replication. Sometimes, the better path is adaptation - letting local players shape the model to fit their context, while preserving the core mission. It can also be thought of as a concept of ‘zig-zagging’, where leaders alternate between expanding reach and deepening impact, which requires strategic partnerships and adaptations (Rangan & Gregg, 2019). The Nordics don’t try to clone solutions across borders or take a one-size-fits-all approach. They align around shared principles - sustainability, dignity, equity - and then allow diverse actors to implement those principles in ways that fit.

Supporting Scale

The takeaway is simple: for social impact innovations to scale, they must be more than great ideas. They must be anchored in ecosystems. As the Nordic model has proven, the real work begins not at the moment of invention, but at the moment of integration.

Social innovators should ask themselves: Is there an ecosystem to support the solution? Have the right partners been engaged, and have they influenced the right policies and created the right cultural cues? If not, even the best ideas may remain small.

If this entire sector can commit to a broader, bolder view of social innovation, then it will be possible to reach the point which the Nordic countries have mastered: not only better outcomes, but the kind of systemic trust and resilience that allows those outcomes to endure.

References

Frank Martela, Bent Greve, Bo  Rothstein, and Juho Saari, “The Nordic Exceptionalism: What Explains Why the Nordic Countries Are Constantly Among the Happiest in the World.” World Happiness Report, 2020, ed. J. F. Helliwell, R. Layard, J. Sachs, and J.-E. De Neve (Sustainable Development Solutions Network, 2020), 129–46.

Martin Neubert (Interviewee) and Christian Tryggestad (Interviewer), “Ørsted’s Renewable‑Energy Transformation.” McKinsey & Company, February 27, 2020.

Rahul Adner and Ron Kapoor, “Value Creation in Innovation Ecosystems: How the Structure of Technological Interdependence Affects Firm Performance in New Technology Generations.” Strategic Management Journal, 31/3 (2010): 306–33.

Elizabeth Cushing, “Nonprofit Scaling Through Partnership: Sharing Your Secret Sauce.” Stanford Social Innovation Review, November 2, 2023.

V. Kasturi Rangan and Tricia Gregg, “How Social Entrepreneurs Zig-Zag Their Way to Impact at Scale.” California Management Review, 62/1 (2019): 53–76.