## 4 Conclusions  
This study examines the status of SI in HEIs using the organizational dimensions and the model proposed by [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] et al. [13]. To better understand SI processes and practices in HEIs, we need to consider different legislative and political frameworks at the regional, national and European levels. While European HE policies can be influential in terms of promoting social engagement, member states interpret and implement these policies in line with their national contexts and needs. National policies are further distilled by HEIs to reflect their interdisciplinary, the types of activities they undertake, their areas of focus and pedagogical traditions, and their partnerships. This paper presents a case study of two southern European public universities in Portugal (UMinho) and Spain (UPV). The findings highlight the diversity among SI initiatives in both universities; however, the cases exhibit common features. The UMIinho and UPV cases show that formal definition of SI is required for the development of SI training and activities in HEIs. The ambiguity of the SI concept is a concern and has implications for an initiative's development--that is, what the initiative does and why. SI initiatives essentially derive from academic staff who tend to be young, locally oriented and mainly outwardly focused to address social issues beyond the university. However, ambiguity is also an obstacle for outside actors to understand the initiative, including funders, policymakers, and potential participants, creating confusion about what constitutes SI versus conventional projects or programs. This suggests that SI activities lack legitimization and recognition at the formal institutional and governmental levels, which remains an important challenge. Alignment of SI practices with the universities' strategic plans would increase the relevance of SI in the universities, as shown by the evidence of [PERSON] and [PERSON] (2015) [16], and would support broader versions of innovation (in addition to technological innovation), and better understand the way that university knowledge processes can support SI in various ways [9]. The data also confirm the dependence of SI activities on internal HEIs' revenue [8; 17; 18], which is a major barrier to SI. Since HEIs are only part-funded by the state, they depend on the value and revenue generated by their teaching and research activities. In addition, there is intense pressure for academic institutions to improve their teaching and research quality [16; 19], which forces these institutions to invest in what appears to be the most strategic and achievable aims, and the most likely to generate direct tangible returns [8]. This means that SI activities would have to show a worthwhile economic return to reshape incentives within the HEI to support faculty research that responds to real-life challenges. Without support at the institutional level, most researchers have little professional incentive to participate in partnerships or address questions more in line with local contexts. Then, teaching and research mission overload combined with lack of recognition at the university level affect academics' engagement in SI actions. The historical and social contexts and the established organization culture also seem to influence recognition of SI. The UMIinho case shows that the needs of the regional context influence the university's interest in SI, its educational offers and its impact on the organizational culture. SI issues are an explicit part of the UMIinho's strategic plans. However, this does not apply to the UPV case. In UPV, SI activities are related to local government initiatives such as the \"_Jovesolides_\" association, which encourages students to work with social entities, and the organization of two-year SI forums to foster an SI network.