Conceptual paper develops the EGCC framework to enhance collaboration for social impact in SMEs, indicating new opportunities for integration.
Purpose This conceptual paper aims to develop the small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) Employees-GenAI Collaborative Creativity (EGCC) concept and its multi-level framework to explain how SME employees and generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) jointly co-create novel, socially responsible outcomes in SMEs. This generates social impact by creating value for SME employees and broader stakeholders, increasing well-being, inclusion and equitable participation. Design/methodology/approach This paper adopts an integrative theory synthesis approach to incorporate literature on human–AI collaboration, affordance theory and socio-technical systems to develop a multi-level framework of the drivers of EGCC. Findings This study conceptualizes EGCC as a dynamic, collaborative process in which SME employees and GenAI co-create, refine and evaluate ideas to generate both novel and ethical and socially responsible outcomes. The framework theorizes how creative affordances are realized through human–AI interaction, influenced by individual (SME employee agency and GenAI competence), task (domain knowledge and task compatibility), and systemic factors (socio-technical and institutional conditions). Research limitations/implications The framework is a foundation for future empirical research to examine the key relationships. Practical implications The paper provides SMEs with practice-grounded scenarios and a practical tip sheet to guide the integration of GenAI into SME practices. Social implications The EGCC framework contributes to access, well-being and equitable participation for SME employees, customers and the broader community. Originality/value This paper develops the concept of EGCC as an affordance-based process and identifies its multi-level drivers, leading to socially responsible creative outcomes as a pathway to social impact
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Leo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: