Social Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Business Models

The Case of India

Anirudh Agrawal, Payal Kumar, Anirudh Agrawal, Payal Kumar

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9783319744872
• eBook ISBN: 9783319744889
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business Ethics
• Index: Business

Addressing the need for further theorisation and operationalisation of social entrepreneurship in India, this edited collection provides a critical and deeper understanding of the social entrepreneurial ecosystem. Covering topics such as entrepreneurial intentions, empathy, impact investment and standardised social measures, the contributors explore the potential of social entrepreneurship and sustainable business models in an Indian context. Offering empirical cases and presenting a realistic perspective of the social entrepreneurship landscape in India, this collection will undoubtedly be of value to those interested in creating a social and sustainable impact in business and society.

Part ITheoretical Contextualization

© The Author(s) 2018

Anirudh Agrawal and Payal Kumar (eds.)Social Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Business Modelshttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74488-9_1

Begin Abstract

1. Embedding Diversity in Social Entrepreneurial Research: India’s Learning Laboratories

C. Shambu Prasad¹ and V. Joseph Satish²

(1)

Professor, General Management (Strategy and Policy) Area, Institute of Rural Management Anand, Anand, Gujarat, India

(2)

Centre for Knowledge, Culture and Innovation Studies, University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India

Abstract

The Indian social entrepreneurial ecosystem is acknowledged by many as a site for emerging business models that could simultaneously address the challenges of poverty and inequitable growth. But the spurt in social entrepreneurial activity has not been matched by conversations on the diversity of approaches that make Indian social entrepreneurial initiatives unique. We suggest that situating social entrepreneurship within narratives such as ‘fortune at the bottom of the pyramid’ or ‘social business’ discounts the rich ways in which social entrepreneurship has been shaped by actors in India including the well-known Ashoka foundation, which began its journey in India. India has been an important site for experiments, a learning laboratory where a vibrant civil society has led social innovation and also demonstrated the role of communities as social entrepreneurs. In this chapter, we suggest that social entrepreneurship in India needs to be explored within a longer narrative of social innovation in India that precedes in many ways the rise of social entrepreneurship as a phenomenon in the twenty-first century in Europe and the United States. In this chapter, we first present a quick overview of some of the recent initiatives in the social entrepreneurial landscape in India presenting some gaps in understanding the social sector from the much-hyped governmental initiatives on Startup India as well as by presenting a case for a rethink on social entrepreneurship in India. We situate the diversity of Indian social entrepreneurship by theoretically grounding it within the larger context of social movements. Second, we look more closely into the idea of producer-owned cooperatives, which emerged in the Indian civil society space, and how these unique social enterprises demonstrate principles of social entrepreneurship quite different from the dominant narratives.

Keywords

Social movementsCivil societySocial innovationEntrepreneurial ecosystem

End Abstract

Introduction

Global interest in social innovation and social entrepreneurship has grown considerably since the 1990s, prompting several educational institutions, governments, philanthropic foundations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to engage with the phenomenon (Chell, Nicolopoulou, & Karataş-Özkan, 2010). The role of social entrepreneurship in addressing the needs of the marginalized and adding value to society has been widely acknowledged (Rey-Martí, Ribeiro-Soriano, & Palacios-Marqués, 2016), and social entrepreneurship has been celebrated as ‘one of the most alluring terms on the problem-solving landscape today’ (Light, 2008).

We believe that moving the field forward requires a shift from who undertakes social innovation to how to undertake social innovation (Phillips, Lee, Ghobadian, O’Regan, & James, 2014). Addressing this research gap will require exploring a range of heterogeneous contexts with diverse socio-economic histories and political ideologies, informed by perspectives from practice and outside the traditional technological domain (Shaw & de Bruin, 2013). This is particularly so since the academic literature indicates a near absence of perspectives and authors from developing countries. It has also been suggested that synthesizing social entrepreneurship research with social movement approaches could provide conceptual clarity in understanding institutional patterns across cultural categories (Dacin, Dacin, & Tracey, 2011). The evolution of social entrepreneurship in developing countries like India with its alignment to advocacy and social movements (Nicholls, 2006) provides a suitable and fresh context for social entrepreneurship research in developing countries.

A general tendency in social entrepreneurship research is a reference to a supposed ‘trans-Atlantic’ divide (Bacq & Janssen, 2011) between two groups: a European group with the United Kingdom as leader and an Americas group with the United States of America heading it (Granados, Hlupic, Coakes, & Mohamed, 2011). Several reviews of social entrepreneurship definitions have failed to identify any definition conceptualized by academicians in developing countries (Dacin et al., 2011; Rey-Martí et al., 2016; Zahra, Gedajlovic, Neubaum, & Shulman, 2009). A bibliometric analysis of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise literature from 1991 to 2010 reveals that only 10% came from the developing world (Asia, Africa and South America put together). This study also found that 53% of all articles on social entrepreneurship were covered under the management and business disciplines with social sciences accounting for only 4.5% (Granados et al., 2011). Within innovation studies, scholars have warned against ‘backing the winners’ in looking at innovation for development. Soete (2011) informs us that the process of innovation is actually much more complex and challenging in a developing country context. This domination of research on social entrepreneurship by a few countries and disciplines has led scholars from outside the United States and Europe to seek diverse international perspectives which account for various social, cultural and political considerations (Chell et al., 2010).

This chapter makes two contributions: (1) submits a case for greater recognition of diversity of social entrepreneurial models, both historically and spatially, and (2) presents the implications of this diversity for India and the world to further the agenda for practice and research in the field of social entrepreneurship. We address the following key research questions:

1. 1.
   What is the general thrust of the dynamic and changing current social entrepreneurship landscape in India?
2. 2.
   How do ideas on social innovation and social entrepreneurship in India relate to each other?
3. 3.
   How can an understanding of the historical context of social innovation in India contribute to social entrepreneurship research and practice?

Engaging with the Concept of Social Entrepreneurship in India

India today is known both for its increasing number of billionaires (Datta, 2016) and for being home to some of the largest number of poor and hungry in the world (UNDP, 2016). This ironical context has established India as an important site for debates on social entrepreneurship among developing countries. Indian fellows in the Ashoka network of social entrepreneurs (who form the largest contingent from a single country in the network) have helped shape the discipline since the early days of the discipline. Many celebrated case studies on social entrepreneurship are from India (say Aravind Eye Hospital; Hartigan, 2006; Rangan & Thulasiraj, 2007). Although there is an increasing interest from Indian scholars working on social entrepreneurship and social innovation (Prasad, 2016), it is incommensurate with the growth in the field as well as the need for a more plural understanding of the phenomenon in India. A study that analysed 72 empirical articles on social entrepreneurship had only 4 within a geographic setting in India (Short, Moss, & Lumpkin, 2009).

This chapter adopts the ‘inheriting’ approach to research on social entrepreneurship as this offers an alternative beyond definitional issues and debates (Steyaert & Dey, 2010). The ideas suggested under the ‘inheriting’ approach—contextualizing, historicizing and connecting—are useful in understanding social entrepreneurship in the developing world. To implement this approach, we utilize a series of methods to offer greater clarity and analytical insights. We use a narrative analysis of a predominant Indian magazine on social entrepreneurship in India and the operations of the Ashoka network in the country. We use the case study of Villgro Innovations to show how Indian social entrepreneurship has shifted from the broader conception of social innovation to a narrower understanding of scalable, social enterprises. Finally, we trace the history of social innovation in India and explain the need for placing social entrepreneurship within the broader school of social innovation. By providing a range of methods for our analysis, we offer fresh analytical insights and theoretical contributions to the field of social entrepreneurship.

Capturing the Social Entrepreneurship Landscape in India

The Hidden Narrative Behind Forums and Magazines

The emerging picture of social entrepreneurship in India cannot be assessed accurately as the literature continues to be silent on the Indian context (Rey-Martí et al., 2016). However, the field of social entrepreneurship, like the parent discipline of entrepreneurship, is constructed ‘within and through social processes’ (Lewis, 2013) and informed by a vibrant presence of debates in the form of mega-events and magazines. Figure 1.1 provides a representative picture of the various actors (and mechanisms) in which the social entrepreneurship landscape operated in India (as of 2013). Table 1.1 lists some of the national-level events on social entrepreneurship in India from 2008 to 2015.

Fig. 1.1

Social entrepreneurship ecosystem in ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• Part I. Theoretical Contextualization
• Part II. Sustainable Business Models and Impact Investing
• Back Matter