Social Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Business Models The Case of India 1St Ed Edition Anirudh Agrawal All Chapter

Social Entrepreneurship and
Sustainable Business Models: The

Case of India 1st ed. Edition Anirudh
Agrawal
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/social-entrepreneurship-and-sustainable-business-m
odels-the-case-of-india-1st-ed-edition-anirudh-agrawal/
EDITED BY
ANIRUDH AGRAWAL
PAYAL KUMAR
SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND

SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS MODELS
The Case of India

Social Entrepreneurship and Sustainable
Business Models
Anirudh Agrawal • Payal Kumar
Editors
Social
Entrepreneurship
and Sustainable
Business Models
The Case of India
Editors
Anirudh Agrawal Payal Kumar
Copenhagen Business School BML Munjal University
Copenhagen, Denmark Haryana, India
ISBN 978-3-319-74487-2 ISBN 978-3-319-74488-9 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74488-9
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018936908
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and trans-
mission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer International Publishing
AG part of Springer Nature.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
This book is dedicated to all social entrepreneurs who make it their
business to transform society.
Foreword
India is a land of contrasts: while it is one of the fastest growing econo-

mies with increasing GDP, it also features amongst the lowest on Human
Development index, Hunger Index and Multi-Dimensional Poverty.
While the country boasts of the third largest technically qualified man-
power, it is unable to provide basic primary education to its children. As
a food-surplus nation, it also hosts the largest proportion of malnour-
ished children in the world. India features among the countries with the
largest number of millionaires, but it also has about one-third of its pop-
ulation living below the poverty line of Rs 47/day. It is one of the “young-
est countries” with the advantage of demographic dividends, but most of
its youth are also uneducated, unskilled and unemployable. Moreover,
during the last few decades, this gap has widened since the government
has been decreasing its welfare role in providing services to the “bottom
of the pyramid” segments. In order to help address these massive prob-
lems, social entrepreneurship is one of the most favourable strategies for
both society and the government.
Unlike traditional entrepreneurship literature, where the definition is
widely understood and established, social entrepreneurship as a construct
is struggling to establish well-defined boundaries in academia. Both as an
area of research and as practice, the diversity of its manifestation poses a
challenge in arriving at a uniformly accepted definition of what social
entrepreneurship is.
vii
viii Foreword
If one goes through the profiles of people who have been recognized,
celebrated and quoted in research and case studies as social entrepreneurs
(e.g., Ashoka Fellows, recipients of Schwab Social Entrepreneur of the Year,
Echoing Green Fellow), it is difficult to find a common conceptual thread.
These individuals work in very diverse fields (energy, human trafficking,
agriculture, worker’s rights, rural markets, etc.); use very different strate-
gies to make the social impact they intend to achieve (e.g., providing
affordable access to social goods and services, building value chains, or
social mobilization, activism and advocacy); and create different kinds of
organizational entities which range from pure for-profits to donation-
based NGOs while they have dissimilar backgrounds in terms of their
educational qualifications, work experience and family. It is not surpris-
ing that the academic discipline too is replete with very different defini-
tions of social entrepreneurship. As Broader (2009, p. 30) observed:
“Social entrepreneurship is allergic to definitions, many of us can’t describe
social entrepreneurship, but we know it when we see it.”
There are many reasons why defining social entrepreneurship is such
an important task. As a field of academic study, social entrepreneurship is
still in its formative stage. Researchers in the field represent a wide range
in their academic background (e.g., public policy, economics, marketing,
finance, social development, agriculture), and are guided by the lenses of
their disciplines in understanding the phenomenon. In addition, the
practice of social entrepreneurship itself is evolving with the emergence
of newer social issues and problems (e.g., impacts of climate change, refu-
gee crisis) which need be to be, and can be, addressed by individuals.
But perhaps the most important reason for this diversity of definitions
is that by its very nature, social entrepreneurship is embedded, and finds
manifestation, in the local social and cultural context. Societies differ in
terms of the significant social problems, which need to be addressed, and
therefore provide different kind of opportunities to the social entrepre-
neurs (Mair, 2010). Many problems, which are significant in the Indian
context (e.g., caste discrimination, substantial size of the ultra-poor seg-
ment, lack of access to basic social services such as primary education or
health care) would not be irrelevant in many other countries. Moreover,
societies also differ in terms of the enabling ecosystem mechanisms (e.g.,
sources of funding, regulatory environment, social and institutional
Foreword
ix
structures) which both constrain and enable the kind of solutions which
are possible and relevant in the local context.
While the term ‘social entrepreneurship’ is of recent origin and its aca-
demic pursuit even more recent, the practice of social entrepreneurship in
India has a long history (Shukla, 2010a). As a culture which reinforces
the values of “giving” and duty towards the collective well-being, Indian
society provides a fertile ground for active engagement with social issues.
Moreover, historically, the Independence Movement in pre-independent
India, and later social movements led by Vinoba Bhave and Jai Prakash
Narain, provided a strong impetus to building an empowered society
through creating social leaders who would facilitate economic and social
change. Many individuals who participated in such movements or got
inspired by them went on to establish social organizations which were
later recognized as social entrepreneurial ventures (e.g., SEWA, Amul,
Barefoot College, Sulabh International). These ventures have influenced
many social enterprises in other regions of the world.
* * *
It is in this background that this volume aims to provide a more contex-

tual understanding of social entrepreneurship in the Indian socio-
economic-political discourse. While Indian society shares many social
issues and venture models with other regions (e.g., microfinance, solar
energy enterprises), it is also characterized by its specific socio-economic
problems and institutional voids. This collection of studies provides a
more nuanced insight into this distinctiveness.
This volume is very much needed, given that the academic discipline
of social entrepreneurship has started growing in India. Many academic
institutes have started offering a full-time course (e.g., Tata Institute of
Social Sciences, Ambedkar University, Delhi) or specific courses (e.g.,
IIM Ahmedabad, IRMA, XLRI) on the subject. Furthermore, research
scholars have started doing their doctoral thesis specifically on social
entrepreneurship, thus creating the first generation of academicians with
a specialization in the discipline. This book may mark the beginning of
more such India-centric academic books on social entrepreneurship.
x Foreword
A large number of social entrepreneurial opportunities exist in socio-

economic disequilibrium. Indian social entrepreneurship is primarily
focused on addressing these large social and economic disparities. A large
number of Indian social entrepreneurial ventures work on the issue of
“providing access” to basic social goods and services (e.g., education,
health care, markets, energy, water) to the less-resourced and low-income
communities. These “markets of the poor” pose unique challenges, since
they are mostly characterized by low and irregular income, low savings
and access to credit, are often remote, dispersed and lack basic infrastruc-
ture, and so on. The challenge is even more for Indian social entrepre-
neurs since they mostly operate with limited funding and investments.
Therefore, to service these markets, the social entrepreneurs have to inno-
vate new solutions and models, which are unique in the Indian scenario.
In her chapter, Runa Deepika (“What Kind of Business Models Lead
Social Enterprises to Sustainability?”) compares two such business mod-
els which aim to negotiate these ambiguities.
Another major reason for definitional dilemma within social entrepre-
neurship is the lack of shared and standardized impact measures. Social
value creation and impact generation is the defining characteristic of
social entrepreneurship. However, without the shared impact measure or
normalized social impact measures, the definitional dilemma will con-
tinue to persist. In this context, the chapter by Anar Bhatt (Why Worry
About Your Impact? Rationale, Challenges, and Support for Indian Social
Enterprises’ Impact Measurement) discusses different impact measures
and highlights the bridging point in this very conceptual conversation.
In a larger context, if social entrepreneurship as a practice has to make
any noticeable impact on the society, it needs people with empathy and
motivation to engage in social entrepreneurship. There is a need to attract
more talent who can leverage on the opportunity/gaps, develop large-
scale solutions and address these disparities in access. This makes the
question, “why do people become social entrepreneurs?” quite relevant in
a societal context. The chapter by Preeti Tiwari (“Foremost Motivational
Factors to Become a Social Entrepreneur”) explores this issue and high-
lights how tapping into the potential of youth as social entrepreneurs can
make a significant contribution in solving these societal problems.
Foreword
xi
Provision of public goods through private for-profit social enterprises,

however, also highlights a moral and political dilemma, which is relevant
in contemporary India. Constitutionally and legally many of these ser-
vices (e.g., education, health care) are basic rights of the people, and the
state is mandated to provide them. Providing these services even for a
small fee/price, which the social enterprises do, goes against the spirit of
the rights-based approach. Isabel Salovaara (“Is Social Enterprise the
Panacea for School-Education-for-All in India?”) explores this debate
between private provision versus basic rights in the context of primary
education. Education in India is getting privatized creating gaps in the
quality of education delivered to children from lower income families. A
social entrepreneurial lens on education in India is vitally important.
The large inequalities and disproportionate distribution of access in
India has also given rise to another model of social entrepreneurship.
These are social ventures in which bridging the rich-poor, urban-rural,
and class-, gender- and caste-based disparities is a key mission. They aim
to build empowered, self-sustaining communities and do so by social
mobilization and collectivization of communities to become self-reliant
in meeting their own needs. This empowerment of less-resourced and
disadvantaged communities has also given rise to the uniquely Indian
phenomenon of “collective entrepreneurship” or “community-based
entrepreneurship”. The study by Balram Bhushan (“A Need-Based
Innovation Cycle to Serve the Poor: A Case of the Mann Deshi Mahila
Group”) provides interesting examples of such innovation in empower-
ing the community through collective action. The study by Ashok Prasad
and Mathew J Manimala (Circular Social Innovation: A New Paradigm for
India’s Sustainable Development) gives useful insights into how collective
entrepreneurship, social innovation and circular economy creates the
ground for more sustainable development. These studies are uniquely
Indian in context and practice, and one may observe knowledge external-
ity in other contexts and practices.
In fact, one of the very unique and indigenous social innovations in
India are the Self-Help Groups (SHGs). These are small groups of the
poor, which tap into their social capital and thus empower them to make
changes in their own lives. SHGs started emerging during the 1970s–1980s
xii Foreword
through the initiatives of a number of organizations such as Mysore

Resettlement and Development Agency (MYRADA), Deccan
Development Society (DDS), Association of Sarva Seva Farms (ASSEFA),
Professional Assistance for Development Action (PRADAN), and so on,
by mobilizing village communities (mainly women) to form small groups
to help each other and take collective community actions. Later in the
1990s, with the facilitation from NABARD and government, these
SHGs started proliferating and have morphed into an invisible, yet pow-
erful, social movement for social change (Shukla, 2010b). Presently, there
are about 9 million SHGs covering more than 100 million (or more than
40%) households in India. Many of these SHGs have also transformed
themselves into social enterprises which cater to the needs of local devel-
opment through sustainable models.
While SHGs have been studied in the context of poverty alleviation
and financial inclusion, their role as vehicles of social change has not been
fully explored in the research on social entrepreneurship. In this volume,
the study on two SHGs by Sangita Dutta Gupta (“Social Entrepreneurship
Through Micro Entrepreneurs of Self-Help Groups”) looks at this aspect
of SHGs as social entrepreneurial ventures.
One distinctive aspect of social entrepreneurship in India is the emer-
gence of the support ecosystem. For social enterprises, even with proven
innovative models, it is essential to scale up to make any significant social
impact. For this they need financial support mentoring and access to the
market. Traditionally, such support used to come in the form of grants
from the government or the donor agencies, government-organized
events or just plain hard work. However, these traditional systems of eco-
systems are gradually receding and are getting replaced by the impact
investors and accelerators who provide holistic ecosystem approach to
social entrepreneurial development.
In particular, the impact-investing firms use venture capital like invest-
ment method while navigating the competing logics of financial pru-
dence and social impact creation. One article in this volume explores the
nuances of impact investing in India and its impact on sustainable devel-
opment. The study by Anirudh Agrawal (“Effectiveness of Impact
Investing at the Bottom of the Pyramid”) identifies the operating prin-
ciples of successful impact investing and the qualities they focus on in the
Foreword
xiii
ventures, which create social impact while giving the financial returns to
the investor. Similarly, the chapter by Shambu Prasad and Joseph Satish
V (“Embedding Diversity in Social Entrepreneurial Research: India’s
Learning Laboratories”) provide an insightful narration of how such
social movements form the backdrop of social entrepreneurship in India.
Given the emergence of impact investing, sustainable accelerators and
the role these new forms are likely to play in the scaling up of social ven-
tures in India, these studies provide useful pointers towards developing a
social entrepreneurial ecosystem in India.
This book aims to open a conversation on social entrepreneurial studies,
its impact and its possibilities in the government policy. However, there
are many things that the book does not cover, and I hope it would in the
later volumes. Some of the things that are not covered in the book are how
automation and digitalization will impact the social fabric; how and what
strategies Indian policy makers must choose to leverage the social impact
bonds in social value creation, how government policies can rejuvi-
nate micro-entrepreneurs in India and what role can social entrepreneur-
ship play in job creation in India. Finally, the field needs more quantitative
studies on social impact and externalities. These studies would further
resolve the definitional dilemmas and would also move the field ahead.
* * *
Overall, this book is a useful contribution to research literature on social

entrepreneurship with a specific focus on the Indian context. It covers a
vast canvas of areas and issues which form a distinctive feature of the
Indian landscape of this practice and discipline. More importantly, it
delves into those aspects of Indian social entrepreneurship which nor-
mally do not feature in studies on this subject. As one goes through the
chapters and studies, they open up new perspectives and lenses through
which one can, and needs to, understand this sector in India.
XLRIMadhukar Shukla
Jamshedpur, India
xiv Foreword
References
Broader, G. (2009, Fall). Not everyone’s a social entrepreneur, beyond profit,
30–32.
Mair, J. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: Taking stock and looking ahead.
Working Paper, WP-888, IESE Business School, University of Navarra.
Shukla, M. (2010a). Landscape of social entrepreneurship in India: An eclectic
inquiry. Paper presented in the 2010 Research Colloquium on Social
Entrepreneurship (June 22–25, 2010), Said Business School, University of
Oxford.
Shukla, M. (2010b, January 4). An invisible revolution in rural India. Wall
Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/
SB126258063197814415.html
Preface
There are many reasons that inspired us to put our heads together to
bring out this edited volume. The overriding driver was that India has
some distinctive social, economic and cultural characteristics that provide
a contextualization of the social entrepreneurship that is fairly unique.
In recent times, India has been moving towards a market-driven econ-
omy, which means that government-sponsored public services and public
subsidies are slowly diminishing. This, coupled with rising inflation, has
caused tremendous stress among those living below the poverty line in
India. The question that arises is, what market-driven solutions can be
devised to alleviate their hardships? Furthermore, the forces of climate
change are having an adverse effect on agriculture, weather and fresh
water availability. The agricultural sector accounts for 60% of employ-
ment in India. So how do we address the increasing problems of people
associated with agriculture?
To add to the complexity, the public healthcare system in India is
poorly managed while private healthcare is expensive. Any individual on
the margins may lose his entire savings if his loved once gets sick and
needs to be treated in a private hospital. Again, how can one create sim-
ple, efficient healthcare solutions to ensure that people do not get ensnared
in the poverty trap? Finally, dwindling resources and a rising population
in general, coupled with massive migration to cities such as Delhi,
Mumbai and Bengaluru, have created huge social problems. How can the
xv
xvi Preface
people and the government address these problems? We believe that one
of the most prominent strategies to address these multifarious problems
is innovative social entrepreneurship. It has been acknowledged that
social entrepreneurship, using sustainable development models, can
address these problems and help society greatly (Hockerts, 2010; Hockerts
& Wüstenhagen, 2010; Mair, Mart, Iacute, Ignasi, & Ventresca, 2012).
Historically, India has led the way in social entrepreneurship through
the Sulabh Toilet Project, Seva Café, SEWA and also a plethora of self-
help groups. Most recently, social enterprises like the TAPF, CRY and
Aravind Eye Care are striving hard to innovate and address social issues
in an effective manner. The increasing acceptance of social entrepreneur-
ship as a viable option can be seen not just from the rise of such enter-
prises but also by the trend in the top higher educational institutions in
the country, such as IRMA, TISS, IIT Chennai, IIM Bangalore, IIM
Calcutta, which have developed dedicated programmes on social
entrepreneurship.
Much of the work by scholars on social entrepreneurship in the Indian
context was published after the seminal book, The Fortune at the Bottom
of the Pyramid, by C. K. Prahalad (2004). The book considered the poor
as a potential market and explained how firms should innovate business
models and products to monetize this market. Since then social entrepre-
neurial research looked at social business models addressing goods and
services to the poor (Linna, 2012; Olsen & Boxenbaum, 2009; Seelos &
Mair, 2007). The downside of this research was that many firms ended up
marketing inconsequential products and services to the poor, of little
utility, such as Fair and Lovely Cream and microfinance products, lower-
ing their savings (Garrette & Karnani, 2009; Karnani, 2009).
More social entrepreneurial research came to light after the IPO of
SKS microfinance (Gunjan, Soumyadeep, & Srijit, 2010). In both the
Bottom of the Pyramid (BOP) business models (Karnani, 2011; Seelos &
Mair, 2007) and the SKS microfinance case (College & Baron, 2011;
Joshi, 2011), the social impact was considered implicit to the business
model. In other words, if a firm creates socially and sustainably relevant
products and services and sells them to the poor, this was considered to
constitute social entrepreneurship. The downside is that it does not cover
baseline studies and impact measurement post intervention, which is an
Preface
xvii
essential element for the legitimacy of the field in India. The work by
Sonne (2012) dwells on the emerging class of social entrepreneurs and
impact investment, which provides a neoliberal market perspective on
the emergence of the social entrepreneur while the study by Sonne and
Jamal (2014) maps and contrasts various social entrepreneurial
initiatives.
Recent institutionalization of social entrepreneurship practice and
impact investment in the UK and Europe (Harkiolakis & Mourad, 2012;
Heyman, 2013; Spear, Cornforth, & Aiken, 2009), clarifying financial
disclosures, social impact and development of both the social and market
space, calls for further theorization and operationalization of various ele-
ments of social entrepreneurship. Drawing from the institutionalized his-
tory of social entrepreneurship in the UK and Europe, this edited volume
strives to present empirical and theoretical peer-reviewed chapters, in
order to provide a deeper understanding of the social entrepreneurial eco-
system in India for scholars, entrepreneurs and policy makers (ICSEM,
2017). In terms of scholarship, this volume is a humble beginning, lim-
ited to exploratory and qualitative studies. We hope it will contribute in
some way to inculcating both the social entrepreneurial intentions and
social entrepreneurial business acumen across strata, from school and
university level, to village management and central government level
initiatives.
This volume is divided into two sections: Theoretical Contextualization
on Social entrepreneurship and, Sustainable Business Models and Impact
Investment. Each section has a series of dedicated conceptual and empiri-
cal papers. The chapters in the first part largely focus on conceptual
debates around social entrepreneurship in India, such as entrepreneurial
intentions, entrepreneurial empathy, dilemma around standardized social
entrepreneurial measures and problems with the social entrepreneurial
solutions to primary education in India. The chapters in the second part
study the self-help groups, impact-investing firms, circular economy,
accelerators and disruptive social entrepreneurial themes, weaving emerg-
ing trends and theory with the social enterprise cases from India. We
strive to provide empirical work that not only looks at the social innova-
tion from the market disequilibrium perspective and also presents a more
realistic perspective of the social entrepreneurship landscape in India.
xviii Preface
While this research work is of significant value, India still lacks specific
theorization and robust empirical validation and quantitative research in
social entrepreneurship (British Council India, 2015).
Future studies on social entrepreneurship in the Indian context would
do well to theorize and develop solutions around the following research
gaps. First, research must study different scaling models of social enter-
prises. It must study how social impact by social enterprises can be scaled
without grants or subsidies but through markets. Second, more research
is needed on the cooperative movement in India, beyond the dairy and
agriculture cooperatives, into newer areas of community self-sufficiency
and empowerment like renewable energy, education, healthcare and
water sharing. Finance is an important aspect of social entrepreneurship
and future research could explore newer models of impact investing,
quantitative and risk modelling of impact investing, microfinance and
public-private partnership (PPP) finance models, looking beyond impact
investing to public-private funding of social enterprises and social impact
bonds. Social entrepreneurs need support and guidance.
In this direction, research should also focus on how and what models
can be developed to support social enterprises. One such example is self-
help groups, which can be replicated at different socio-economic levels of
society. Furthermore, we also need to research how to increase the pro-
ductivity and income of the members associated with the SHGs. Another
support mechanism is through the accelerators and incubators focusing
on social entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurship in India is in its
infancy. It needs extensive support and a social movement to develop at
each level of society, including national associations for social enterprise
to engage with government for redefining the tax breaks and incentives in
order to scale up social entrepreneurship.
To sum up, social enterprise addresses social problems and helps those
at the margins by using creative means (Defourny & Nyssens, 2010; Di
Domenico, Haugh, & Tracey, 2010) while simultaneously leveraging the
personality of the social entrepreneur (Smith, Besharov, Wessels, &
Chertok, 2012) and seeking rents both from the social problem and mar-
kets to ensure that the dividends generated while running the enterprise
are used for the benefit of the marginalized and not channelled towards
the shareholders (Yunus & Jolis, 1999). The promise of social
Preface
xix
e ntrepreneurship in a country like India is enormous as there are large

vicissitudes. We hope this volume is a window to that promise.
Copenhagen Business School Anirudh Agrawal

Copenhagen, Denmark
Frankfurt, Germany
BML Munjal University, Haryana, India Payal Kumar
References
British Council India. (2015). Social enterprise: An overview of the policy frame-
work in India.
Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2010). Conceptions of social enterprise and social
entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and diver-
gences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 32–53.
Di Domenico, M., Haugh, H., & Tracey, P. (2010). Social bricolage: Theorizing
social value creation in social enterprises. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
34(4), 681–703.
Garrette, B., & Karnani, A. (2009). Challenges in marketing socially useful
goods to the poor.
Gunjan, M., Soumyadeep, S., & Srijit, S. (2010). IPO in the Indian microfi-
nance industry: A SKS microfinance perspective. Advances in Management,
3(5), 23–30.
Harkiolakis, N., & Mourad, L. (2012). Research initiatives of the European
Union in the areas of sustainability, entrepreneurship, and poverty alleviation
by, 717, 73–79.
Heyman, M. (2013). The emergence and growth of social finance in the UK. Lund,
Sweden.
Hockerts, K. (2010). Social entrepreneurship between market and mission.
International Review of Entrepreneurship, 8(2; interested in the transforma-
tion of a sector induced by social entrepreneurship. More specifically), 1–22.
Hockerts, K., & Wüstenhagen, R. (2010). Greening Goliaths versus emerging
Davids—Theorizing about the role of incumbents and new entrants in sus-
tainable entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 481–492.
ICSEM. (2017, November 25). ICSEM Working Papers. Retrieved from
https://www.iap-socent.be/icsem-working-papers
xx Preface
Karnani, A. (2009). The bottom of the pyramid strategy for reducing poverty: A
failed promise. Economic and Social Affairs, (80).
Linna, P. (2012). Base of the pyramid (BOP) as a source of innovation:
Experiences of companies in the Kenyan mobile sector. International Journal
of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 11(2), 113–137.
Mair, J., Martí, I., & Ventresca, M. J. (2012). Building inclusive markets in rural
Bangladesh: How intermediaries work institutional voids. Academy of
Management Journal, 55(4), 819–850.
Olsen, M., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). Bottom of the pyramid: Organizational
barriers to implementation. California Management Review, 51(4), 100–126.
Prahalad, C. K. (2004). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating
poverty through profits. Wharton School Publishing.
Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2007). Profitable business models and market creation in
the context of deep poverty: A strategic view. Academy of Management
Perspectives, 21(4), 49–63.
Smith, W. K., Besharov, M. L., Wessels, A. K., & Chertok, M. (2012). A para-
doxical leadership model for social entrepreneurs: Challenges, leadership
skills, and pedagogical tools for managing social and commercial demands.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3), 463–478.
Spear, R., Cornforth, C., & Aiken, M. (2009). The governance challenges of
social enterprises: Evidence from a UK empirical study. Annals of Public &
Cooperative Economics, 80(2), 247–273.
Yunus, M., & Jolis, A. (1999). Banker to the poor: Micro-lending and the battle
against world poverty.
Contents
Part I Theoretical Contextualization 1
1 Embedding Diversity in Social Entrepreneurial Research:

India’s Learning Laboratories 3
C. Shambu Prasad and V. Joseph Satish
2 Education Conversations: Situating Social Enterprise

in India’s Education Discourse 31
Isabel M. Salovaara
3 Factors Affecting Individual’s Intention to Become a Social

Entrepreneur 59
Preeti Tiwari, Anil K. Bhat, and Jyoti Tikoria
4 Why Worry About Your Impact? Rationale, Challenges

and Support for Indian Social Enterprises’ Impact
Measurement 99
Anar Bhatt
xxi
xxii Contents
Part II Sustainable Business Models and Impact Investing 117
5 Towards a Better Understanding of Business Models

of Social Enterprise in an Uncertain Institutional
Environment 119
Deepika Chandra Verma and Runa Sarkar
6 Circular Social Innovation: A New Paradigm for India’s

Sustainable Development 141
Ashok Prasad and Mathew J. Manimala
7 Social Entrepreneurship Through Micro-Entrepreneurs

of Self-Help Groups 161
Sangita Dutta Gupta and Susmita Chatterjee
8 Stimulated Innovation Cycle to Serve the Poor: A Case

of Mann Deshi Mahila Group 177
Balram Bhushan
9 Effectiveness of Impact-Investing at the Base

of the Pyramid: An Empirical Study from India 207
Anirudh Agrawal
Index 247
Notes on Contributors
Anirudh Agrawal is a PhD fellow at Copenhagen Business School and a visit-

ing assisting professor at Bennett University. Previously he was a full assistant
professor at Jindal Global University. His areas of interest are social entrepre-
neurship, impact-investing, entrepreneurship, corporate entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurial ecosystems. He teaches entrepreneurship, strategic manage-
ment, CSR and social entrepreneurship. He has published and presented articles
in international journals and conferences. In his previous stint, he was an engi-
neer-product manager with a focus on product development from robotics to
water cleaning machines.
Anil K. Bhat graduated in Mechanical Engineering in 1982 from REC (now

NIT), Srinagar and obtained his doctorate (fellowship) from IIM Bangalore.
His specialization is marketing research and his methodological contribution
has been in the area of ‘cluster analysis of rank-order data’. He is a member of
the Academy of Management (AOM), American Marketing Association (AMA)
and a Fellow of the Institution of Engineers (India). He has more than 80 pub-
lications to his credit and has conceptualized, designed and conducted many
MDPs both for private and for public sector companies. He has served as a
management expert on Union Public Service Commission expert panel. He has
been certified as an Entrepreneur Educator by STVP Stanford, NEN and IIMB.
Anar Bhatt is a PhD fellow at IIM Ahmedabad. Prior to her PhD studies she
worked as a consultant and researcher for many social entrepreneurship and
xxiii
xxiv Notes on Contributors
sustainable development advisory firms. Her last research was with Okapia,
where she published many studies on social entrepreneurship from India. In
addition, she is actively involved with USAID, helping in their developmental
programmes all over India.
Balram Bhushan (Fellow in Management) is Assistant Professor of Human

Resource Management at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences. His research
interest includes social entrepreneurship, employee engagement, training and
development and organizational design. The main theme of his research and
teaching revolves around value creation. Prior to joining the doctoral programme
at XLRI, Jamshedpur, he taught engineering students for two years.
Susmita Chatterjee is Assistant Professor in Economics and also a visiting pro-

fessor at the Department of Commerce for MPhil-PhD course work at the
Maharaja Manindra Chandra College, Kolkata. She studied at the Multipurpose
Government Girls’ School and graduated from Lady Brabourne College, Kolkata
(1997). She completed her M.Sc. in Economics from Calcutta University
through Presidency College (1999) and M.Phil from Calcutta University
(2006). She holds a PhD from the Department of Economics, Calcutta
University (2013). She has done postdoctoral research at IIM Calcutta. She has
a number of publications to her credit with reputed publishers such as Springer,
Emerald, Sage and others.
Sangita Dutta Gupta holds a PhD in Economics from Jadavpur University, India.
She has more than 16 years of teaching experience. She is Associate Professor of
Economics at IFIM Business School, Bangalore. She has a number of publications
to her credit with reputed publishers such as Emerald, Sage and others. She has
presented her research papers in many international and national conferences and
is on the editorial board of two journals and a reviewer of an Emerald journal.
Payal Kumar professor at BML Munjal Univeristy, has rich experience in

senior positions in the higher education and corporate verticals, with a strong
track record in both scholarship and leadership. Some of the senior positions she
has held include professor and registrar at a university in North India, where she
was instrumental in launching the university’s publishing and research division.
In an earlier avatar she worked as vice president, editorial and production at
SAGE India Publications Pvt Ltd. Kumar has published widely in journals, is
the author of five international books on leadership in India, and is also series
Notes on Contributors
xxv
editor of a six-volume book series on Leadership and Followership (Palgrave

Macmillan). Her research interests include gender, diversity, and mentorship.
Mathew J. Manimala (Fellow-IIMA) has served as the director, XIME,

Bangalore, and as a professor and chairperson of OBHRM Area at the Indian
Institute of Management Bangalore (IIMB), where he has also served as the
Jamuna Raghavan Chair Professor of Entrepreneurship and as the Chairperson
of N. S. Raghavan Centre for Entrepreneurial Learning (NSRCEL). His earlier
academic positions were at the Administrative Staff College of India (ASCI) and
Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT). He is a recipient of the
Heizer Award of the Academy of Management for his outstanding research in
the field of new enterprise development and has published several research
papers and books in the areas of entrepreneurship and organizational behaviour.
He is the editor of the South Asian Journal of Management.
Ashok Prasad is the Cofounder of Clothes2Causes—a social enterprise, serves

as a visiting faculty at XIME, Bangalore, and is pursuing doctoral research at
XLRI, Jamshedpur. He holds an MBA from the University of Delhi and has also
completed the Master of Liberal Arts-Sustainability programme from Harvard
University with Honours (Dean’s List). He previously worked as a business man-
ager in India and the Middle East.
C. Shambu Prasad is Senior Professor of Strategy, Public Policy and

Entrepreneurship at IRMA University, Gujarat, India. Previously, he was a full
professor at Xavier Institute of Management. He has published many articles on
social entrepreneurship, rural marketing and innovation in the agricultural sector.
He has taught social entrepreneurship in many national and international univer-
sities. He was a Fulbright scholar at Cornell University in 2013. He obtained his
bachelor’s degree from IIT Delhi and master’s degree and PhD from IIT Madras.
Isabel M. Salovaara is the Assistant Director of the Jindal Centre for Social
Innovation & Entrepreneurship at the O.P. Jindal Global University. She com-
pleted her MPhil in Social Anthropology as a Gates Scholar at the University of
Cambridge and has been the recipient of a Fulbright-Nehru Student Research
Award in India.
Runa Sarkar is Professor of Economics at the Indian Institute of Management

Calcutta. She has co-edited the India Infrastructure Report (IIR) 2010 on
Infrastructure Development in a Low Carbon Economy and IIR 2009 on
xxvi Notes on Contributors
Land—A Critical Resource for Infrastructure. She has authored Environment,

Business, Institutions (2017), and co-edited Essays on Sustainability and
Management: Emerging Perspectives (Springer, 2017).
V. Joseph Satish is a PhD researcher in Science, Technology & Society Studies

(STS) at the Centre for Knowledge, Culture and Innovation Studies (CKCIS),
University of Hyderabad, India. His research focuses on relations between sci-
ence and religion in India. His case study ‘Dharani: Nurturing the earth, foster-
ing farmers’ livelihoods’ won the first prize in the Oikos International Case
Study Competition (2017). He is on the editorial board of Intersect: The Stanford
Journal of Science, Technology and Society.
Madhukar Shukla is Chairperson, Fr Arrupe Centre for Ecology &

Sustainability and a professor (Strategic Management & OB) at the XLRI
Jamshedpur (India). He has served as a member of the advisory council of
University Network for Social Entrepreneurship (founded by Ashoka: Innovators
for the Public and Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship, Oxford University)
and is on the jury for the Oikos Case Competition on Social Entrepreneurship.
Jyoti Tikoria holds a PhD from the Department of Management Studies, IIT
Delhi (2009). She is an assistant professor in the Department of Management at
BITS Pilani—Pilani Campus since July 2009. Her primary areas of interest in
teaching and research are Strategy & Entrepreneurship, Technology Management,
R&D Management and Intellectual Property Rights Management. She has
more than 40 publications in journals and conferences of repute to her credit.
Apart from this, she is Faculty-in-Charge, Center for Innovation, Incubation
and Entrepreneurship (CIIE) at BITS Pilani—Pilani Campus.
Preeti Tiwari is a doctoral research candidate in the Department of

Management, BITS, Pilani. Her scholarly interests are entrepreneurship, social
entrepreneurship and hybrid entrepreneurship. She is active in research and has
authored more than 20 research papers in international journals and conferences
of high repute. She is a regular reviewer for International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behavior & Research and Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research.
Deepika Chandra Verma is a final-year doctoral student in the Economics

Group at the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta.
List of Figures
Fig. 1.1 Social entrepreneurship ecosystem in India (as of 2013).

Source: Authors’ own 8
Fig. 1.2 Incubators in India 2017—Startup and TBI. Source: Collated
by authors from Startup India (2017) and NSTEDB (2016)
for TBIs 19
Fig. 1.3 Technology-based incubators in India—state-wise in 2017.
Source: Collated by authors from Startup India website
(Startup India, 2017) and NSTEDB (2016) for TBIs 20
Fig. 1.4 Zone-wise incubators in India. Source: Collated by authors
from NSTEDB (2016) 20
Fig. 3.1 Proposed social entrepreneurship intention model 69
Fig. 8.1 Representation of second-order coding scheme.
Source: Author’s own 197
Fig. 9.1 The economic pyramid source. Source: Arnold and Valentin
(2013)210
Fig. 9.2 Effectiveness of impact-investing at the BoP segment.
Source: Author’s own 240
xxvii
List of Tables
Table 1.1 National-level social entrepreneurship events in India

2008–20159
Table 3.1 Social entrepreneurial studies in India 63
Table 3.2 Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) and
correlation of the variables used in the study 84
Table 3.3 Measurement model 85
Table 3.4 Overview of hypotheses 86
Table 4.1 Social impact assessment frameworks by academia 101
Table 4.2 Social impact assessment frameworks by funders 107
Table 5.1 PTEC at a glance 127
Table 5.2 Disabling institutional environment and risk 131
Table 5.3 Motivation behind business model changes 134
Table 5.4 Comparison of business model changes 136
Table 8.1 Structural representation of data 188
Table 8.2 Illustrative evidence from bank and foundation: Ms Chetna,
the founder 191
Table 8.3 Illustrative evidence from foundation: Ms Vanita, the CAO 192
Table 8.4 Illustrative evidence from bank: Ms Sushma, the CFO 193
Table 8.5 Cross-unit comparison 195
Table 9.1 Summary of the problems at the BoP segment of the society 212
Table 9.2 Detailed summaries of the cases 220
Table 9.3 Summary of the cross-case analysis 223
xxix
xxx List of Tables
Table 9.4 Discussion on the effectiveness of impact-investing at the

BoP segment 233
Part I
Theoretical Contextualization
1
Embedding Diversity in Social
Entrepreneurial Research: India’s
Learning Laboratories
C. Shambu Prasad and V. Joseph Satish
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 founda-
tion, 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
C. S. Prasad (*)
Professor, General Management (Strategy and Policy) Area,
Institute of Rural Management Anand, Anand, Gujarat, India
V. J. Satish
Centre for Knowledge, Culture and Innovation Studies, University of
Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India
© The Author(s) 2018 3

A. Agrawal, P. Kumar (eds.), Social Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Business Models,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74488-9_1
4 C. S. Prasad and V. J. Satish
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 present-
ing 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.
Introduction
Global interest in social innovation and social entrepreneurship has
grown considerably since the 1990s, prompting several educational insti-
tutions, governments, philanthropic foundations and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) to engage with the phenomenon (Chell,
Nicolopoulou, & Karataş-Özkan, 2010). The role of social entrepreneur-
ship 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 per-
spectives from practice and outside the traditional technological domain
Embedding Diversity in Social Entrepreneurial Research: India’s… 5
(Shaw & de Bruin, 2013). This is particularly so since the academic litera-
ture indicates a near absence of perspectives and authors from developing
countries. It has also been suggested that synthesizing social entrepreneur-
ship 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 entrepre-
neurship 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 biblio-
metric 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. What is the general thrust of the dynamic and changing current social
entrepreneurship landscape in India?
2. How do ideas on social innovation and social entrepreneurship in
India relate to each other?
3. How can an understanding of the historical context of social innova-
tion in India contribute to social entrepreneurship research and
practice?
ngaging with the Concept of Social

E
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 entre-
preneurs (who form the largest contingent from a single country in the
network) have helped shape the discipline since the early days of the disci-
pline. 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 work-
ing 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 geo-
graphic 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 entrepreneur-
ship 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 plac-
ing social entrepreneurship within the broader school of social innova-
tion. By providing a range of methods for our analysis, we offer fresh
analytical insights and theoretical contributions to the field of social
entrepreneurship.
apturing the Social Entrepreneurship

C
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 entrepre-
neurship, 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.
The character of social entrepreneurship has experienced several
changes due to the entry of newer actors, particularly foundations pro-
moting social entrepreneurs and media publications. These actors have
elsewhere been shown to have the resources and have been effective in
shaping the overall agenda of social entrepreneurship (Dacin et al., 2011).
Of particular interest to the Indian context is the magazine Beyond Profit,
which is an initiative of Intellecap, a consulting and investing company
with a mandate to ‘build and scale profitable and sustainable enterprises
dedicated to social and environmental change’ (Intellecap, 2016). The
Annual
Conferences on
SE Ex: Sankalp Social Venture
Forum
Awards for SE Capitalists
Ex: Schwab SEoY Ex: Acumen, Lok
Capital
Social Networks
Volunteer for SE
Fellowship Ex: Honey Bee
Ex: Vilgro, Bhumi Network
Social Make Sense
Entrepreneurship
Ecosystem in
India Foundaons
Youth Forums for Promong SE
SE Ex: Khemka
Ex: Foundaon for Foundaon, Ford
Youth SE Foundaon
Mentorship-
Academic
Business
Instuons with
Development
SE center Government Consultants
Ex: ISB, TISS, IRMA Legal Ex: UnltdIndia
Ex: CAPART, DBT,
DST,DIT
Fig. 1.1 Social entrepreneurship ecosystem in India (as of 2013). Source: Authors’
own
inaugural issue of Beyond Profit was launched in 2009 and saw another 22
issues, with an online readership of more than 30,000 and 7000 subscrib-
ers in more than 130 countries (Intellecap, 2009). The magazine re-
evolved in the form of a new monthly magazine in 2011, Searchlight
South Asia, which emerged after Intellecap became a partner in the
Rockefeller Foundation’s Searchlight Network (Intellecap, 2011).
A closer look at the various issues of Beyond Profit indicates a shift
towards a particular form of social entrepreneurship, namely, for-profit
Table 1.1 National-level social entrepreneurship events in India 2008–2015

No. of
Event Organized by Location events
Sankalp Forum Intellecap Mumbai 7
Khemka Forum on Social Khemka Foundation Indian School of 6
Entrepreneurship Business,
Hyderabad
National Conference on Fr. Arrupe Centre for XLRI, Jamshedpur 7
Social Entrepreneurship Ecology &
Sustainability (FACES)
Villgro Unconvention Villgro Chennai 4
Development Dialogue Deshpande Foundation Hubli 8
Source: Authors’ own
social enterprises. In October 2010, an article titled ‘Is India Really a

Hotbed for Social Enterprise?’ in the magazine begins with cases on
Indian social enterprises, such as Aravind Eye Hospital and Jaipur Rugs,
and goes on to ask ‘Is India better at producing social entrepreneurs than
other countries?’ The answer provided refers to India’s ‘long, rich love
affair (sic)’ with non-profit organizations. Social enterprises are presented
in the article as a graduation from a tryst with NGOs that are not always
‘accountable, transparent or sustainable’. The article concludes stating the
presence of ‘a certain ethos in India which makes it possible for social
enterprise to thrive …. This attitude, a mix of confidence, perseverance,
and “can’t-touch-this,” known as jugaad, is an Indian way of getting
things done using any means, against the odds’ (Clinton, 2010).
As a pioneering social entrepreneurship media publication in India,
Beyond Profit is a good barometer of the enthusiasm and vibrancy in the
sector. However, it also reflects a bias in the way the field is represented.
In its special issue on social entrepreneurship curriculum in 2011, this
bias and the intended audience become quite evident. The issues carried
no insight from academics involved in teaching the subject in India, even
though Ashoka University’s Handbook had identified a minimum of
dozen educational institutions offering courses in the discipline, the same
year (Ashoka, 2011). In a response to the question ‘Why is social entre-
preneurship creating interest in B schools?’, the replies ranged from
‘B-schools [are] … responding to a growing need among large corpora-
tions … to act as responsible corporate citizens globally’ and that ‘MNCs
like Unilever and ITC Limited came out to help people mitigate their
basic market inefficiencies in areas like health, medicine, transportation
and education’ (Callard & Kulkarni, 2011). This clearly reflected a par-
ticular strand in Western academia which neither accurately reflects the
evolution of social entrepreneurship in India nor is it the dominant opin-
ion shared by teachers and researchers of the field in India. (A recent
compendium of Indian courses on social entrepreneurship brings this out
rather clearly.)
Some of the concerns with the assumptions and dominant trends in
the sector have been voiced in many forums. A key concern relates to the
important issue of inclusion and exclusion in social entrepreneurship. In
June 2013, Ashoka, a pioneer in the field of social entrepreneurship with
a 30-year presence and instrumental in popularizing the concepts of
social entrepreneurship (Sen, 2007), had its own major event. Fifty years
ago on his first visit to India, Ashoka’s founder Bill Drayton was influ-
enced by Vinoba Bhave and the Bhoodan (land-gift) movement. His
interest in Mahatma Gandhi and his involvement in the civil liberties
movement in America helped him rethink a global future based on empa-
thy (Bornstein, 2004). At the India Future Forum, Drayton wondered
whether Ashoka could root empathy in its everyday work and ethos.
Ashoka’s rebranding as an organization guided by the principles of empa-
thy needs to be seen not just as an organizational strategy but also as a
lens to understand how different actors interpret social entrepreneurship.
These kinds of variations between how investors and practitioners per-
ceive different strategies to promote the field have resulted in a wider gap
between research and practice, not only in India but elsewhere too (Hand,
2016).
eclaiming Social Innovation for the Diverse

R
Challenges of the Hinterlands
Social innovation has been described as being ‘practice-led where the

“wisdom of practice” is more advanced than theory’ (Mulgan, 2012).
Others have pointed out that the social entrepreneur as a change agent
should not be detached from the society and community in which she is
embedded within; the interaction between the social entrepreneur and

the context is crucial to the understanding of social entrepreneurship.
This reduces characterizations of heroic success stories but rather focuses
on the learning trajectory ‘such as accommodation to the venture, stress,
economic and professional value, ethics’ (Dacin et al., 2011; Mair &
Martí, 2006).
A review of the Indian landscape has several new actors who have
shaped the sector by aligning with several global actors even as many
governmental and non-governmental agencies are unable to provide lead-
ership to the sector (Satish & Prasad, 2011). This globalization of social
entrepreneurship in India has created a vibrant market for social impact
investment but largely only favours urban and English-speaking actors
than rural and vernacular-based social innovators, favouring more
market-centric initiatives than ones that speak of socio-political move-
ments. Reaching India’s hinterlands is still a serious challenge for social
entrepreneurship (Shukla, 2012).
However, the need to focus on social entrepreneurship as a learning
process has been institutionalized quite literally in the Tata Jagriti Yatra—a
unique annual train journey that takes hundreds of young Indians on a
15-day national odyssey, introducing them to unsung heroes of India
with an aim to awaken the spirit of entrepreneurship (Shukla, Farias, &
Tata, 2012). This train journey contextualizes the field for researchers and
potential social entrepreneurs since the diversity of actors in the land-
scape is quite vast; a map of actors by the Centre for Social Innovation
and Entrepreneurship (CSIE) shows more than 300 actors in the land-
scape (CSIE, 2013).
Promoting social entrepreneurship in a developing country like India
thus requires exploration ‘outside of a traditional science and technology
setting’ (Shaw & de Bruin, 2013). This idea has received prominence in
the Indian setting in the past. The decade-long journey of one such orga-
nization—Villgro—indicates how new actors have shaped the entrepre-
neurial ecosystem in India as well as influenced the shift in emphasis in
India in recent times. Villgro, one of the prominent actors in the social
enterprise ecosystem, was founded by Ashoka Fellow Paul Basil. Paul
formed the Rural Innovation Network (RIN) in 2001 as a non-profit
venture to incubate enterprises based on successful rural innovations.
Using a venture capital investment model, RIN identified promising

ideas and mentored the entrepreneurs behind the ideas, helping them
refine, promote and market the ideas (Ashoka, 2002). RIN aimed to cre-
ate rural wealth through local needs and knowledge supplanted by skills
that an incubator could offer. RIN also initiated awards that helped
increase the outreach, and in less than 5 years was able to link with more
than 600 innovators. A rigorous screening process meant that only one in
nine innovators would receive incubation support.
In 2009, RIN was renamed Villgro following a branding exercise and
review. The original mission to ‘sustain the spirit of innovation, encour-
age experimentation and nurture the creativity of rural innovators’ was
revised to a mission that ‘believes in supporting and nurturing sustain-
able, market-based innovations that impact rural households’ (Rural
Innovation Network, 2002). Villgro had ‘shifted its target group from
very early stage incubates to early-late stage incubates’ and ‘seems better
equipped or committed to supporting more mature incubates’ (Villgro,
2012). Although Villgro’s social business incubation in India is com-
mendable and has contributed to inclusive innovation (Sonne, 2012), it
is still a moot point whether this model has wide applicability across
India. Despite recent interest by Villgro and other actors to move to
India’s hinterlands, the absence of an entrepreneurial climate in the
poorer regions of India suggests a need for rethink and greater discussion
on institutional and contextual issues (Raina, 2016). Furthermore,
Villgro’s focus on technology-based innovations has excluded support to
some promising social innovations that work on services and livelihoods
in rural areas but not technology focussed.
The change in Villgro’s mission from generic support for creative social
innovations to one focussed exclusively on market-based innovation is a
reflection of changes in the external environment. Social entrepreneur-
ship in India today is now tilted more towards social enterprises rather
than the larger processes of social innovation. This interest in social enter-
prises tends to frame discussions in particular ways. For instance,
Intellecap in a study defines a social enterprise as fulfilling four criteria:
they are to be for-profit, they are committed to social impact, they have a
base of the pyramid (BOP) focus and they serve a critical-needs’ sector
(Intellecap, 2012). This idea that all social entrepreneurs need to adopt
business practices to become more effective is being increasingly ques-

tioned even in the West. Berger and Kohomban (2013) argue that the
idea that ‘business is the panacea for all that ails nonprofits’ is one-sided
and uninformed and that it might be more useful to explore the cross-
pollination between the profit and non-profit sectors. By contextualizing
social entrepreneurship historically in the Indian context, in the follow-
ing section, we make a case for the plurality of ideas and the need to pay
greater attention to some perspectives in developing countries that often
do not get heard (Gabriel, Engasser, & Bound, 2016). In fact, we suggest
that an important contribution of developing countries to social entre-
preneurship literature is to avoid projecting a particular way, social enter-
prises currently, as the way forward and suggest that there is a need for
different ideas to co-inhabit the social innovation space.
andhian Roots of the Social Innovation

G
Movement in India
This rethinking on social entrepreneurship as part of social innovation we
suggest opens up spaces for a better contextualization of social entrepre-
neurship in developing countries. We shall show below how social inno-
vation in India has had a rich history often rooted in social movements
inspired by Gandhi’s vision for the freedom movement to several initia-
tives such as the technology for development movement. These move-
ments shaped the thinking of many Indian social entrepreneurs in India,
though only few of them were engaged in social enterprises as it is under-
stood today but yet contributed significantly to social change.
The history of social entrepreneurship in developing countries, and
India in particular, is complex and often aligned to advocacy and social
movements (Nicholls, 2006). Such an alignment is often rejected by the
‘Western’ assumption that advocacy cannot be part of social entrepre-
neurship (Light, 2008) which effectively neglects many social innova-
tions in India. However, recent research has provided insights into the
similarities between social movements and social entrepreneurship. Both
are concerned with social transformation; also, the tactics used in social
movements (mobilization of people, dissent, negotiation, etc.) are useful

for social entrepreneurship research and practice (Mair & Martí, 2006).
The best example of the social movement roots of social innovation in
India is seen in Bill Drayton’s founding of Ashoka, which promoted its
first-ever fellow from India in 1982. Bornstein’s (2004) account of
Drayton’s journey indicates the deep influence of Gandhi and his fol-
lower Vinoba Bhave who led a silent revolution for land reforms through
his famous Bhoodan (or land-gift) journey in the late 1950s. In explicitly
recognizing Gandhi and Vinoba Bhave, Drayton reminds us of the his-
torical context of social innovation in India, often forgotten in under-
standing the goals of social entrepreneurship today. The creative impulses
of what is today called social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in
India could be traced to the Indian national movement. Mohandas
Gandhi spearheaded a movement that involved large numbers of Indians
not just in the political struggle for freedom but also in the creation of an
alternate space and vision. Gandhi re-invented the swadeshi (self-
sufficiency) movement as swaraj (self-rule) and, in this process, also cre-
ated a cadre of community workers on a national scale who could run
social enterprises such as a rejuvenated hand-spun hand-made cloth
industry (khadi) that empowered millions. Gandhi’s idea of voluntary
action resulted in institutions which promoted rural livelihoods such as
the All India Spinners Association (AISA) in 1923 and the All India
Village Industries Association (AIVIA) in 1934. It is seldom appreciated
that these movements had nation-wide talent contests and awards for
innovations for the best spinning wheel. The Rs 1 lakh (7700 pounds)
prize for an improved spinning wheel in 1929 by AISA had attracted
several entries, but unlike today the movement did not celebrate the
innovators in these contests as social entrepreneurs. In fact, the contest
had no winners but had created an atmosphere for social change and citi-
zen participation in innovation (Prasad, 2002).
Gandhi’s and the khadi movement’s contribution to social innovation
was not just on the products of innovation but importantly in the process
and the design of innovation as a space for and by civil society in areas
that required ‘tender nursing’ which neither the state nor the market
could institutionally provide for. Social innovation from civil society,
Gandhi believed, was large and had substantial scope for research. Gandhi
developed alternative institutions that would produce and train social

innovators. He viewed his own ashrams (religious hermitages), tradition-
ally associated with spaces for spiritual and religious practice, as laborato-
ries. They not only played an important role in the freedom struggle but
also served as sites for experiments in cotton growing, processing, spin-
ning and weaving, agriculture, rural industries and so on. The ashrams
were also sites for practising experiments in transforming social relations.
In ashrams, more men engaged in spinning, an activity long seen as wom-
en’s domain. The potential of civil society organizations and social move-
ments to bring about institutional innovations of this kind is seldom
recognized in the current literature (Prasad, 2002).
Historically, the ideas of sarvodaya influenced organizations in inde-
pendent India leading to the development of several initiatives focussed
on rural upliftment outside the formal Gandhian movement. Prominent
among these were Baba Amte’s Maharogi Sewa Samiti that transformed
the lives of lepers (founded in 1949), Manibhai Desai’s Bharatiya Agro
Industries Foundation (BAIF) that pioneered innovations in livestock,
Association for Sarva Seva Farms (ASSEFA) in 1969 that worked on
guiding the landless to work on bhoodan lands and Ela Bhatt’s Self
Employed Women’s Association (SEWA) in 1972 that pioneered wom-
en’s empowerment by organizing the poor. These initiatives were varied
in their clientele but had the inspiration of Gandhi in common as well as
the belief in the idea of social innovation as a space for civil society orga-
nizations. Looking at these initiatives from a social change perspective
can throw new light on the potential of social innovations (Prasad, 2002).
Apart from Gandhi, there have been several social innovations from
civil society in their respective institutional contexts. The late 1970s and
early 1980s of the twenty-first century saw several institutions that sprung
up in different parts of India keen to take innovations to rural India. The
Application for Science and Technologies in Rural Areas (ASTRA) at the
Indian Institute of Science Bangalore in 1974, the Murugappa Chettiar
Research Centre in Madras (1977), the Centre of Science for Villages
(CSV) at Wardha (1978), the Centre for Technology and Development
in Delhi and Himachal Pradesh (1982), the Barefoot College (earlier
Social Work and Research Centre) in Rajasthan (in 1980s), Development
Alternatives in Delhi (1983), the Integrated Rural Technology Centre
(IRTC), Mundur closely associated with the People’s Science Movement

in 1987, the People’s Science Institute in Dehradun (1988) and the
Honey Bee Network (1989) are some of the organizations that have
worked in the field of social innovation. The government has also played
an important role in supporting and incubating some of these centres
(Prasad, 2005).
Social innovation in India today can be understood better by exploring
the contemporary revival of ideas such as Swaraj, Trusteeship and
Sarvodaya (or universal upliftment). In 2013, Azim Premji, the billion-
aire owner of the corporate house of Wipro, became the first Indian to
sign the Giving Pledge that commits high net worth individuals to give
generously to philanthropic causes. Premji committed a large volume of
his assets, estimated at about $16 billion, to charitable trusts. He joined
100 others in the new globalization of giving movement, but importantly
in doing so evoked the Indian concept of trusteeship. In explaining his
decision, Premji said, ‘I was deeply influenced by Gandhi’s notion of
holding one’s wealth in trusteeship, to be used for the betterment of soci-
ety and not as if one owned it’ (Bakshi, 2013).
Some of the innovations from these centres have led to social enter-
prises and they have been some of the earliest incubators in India of
social innovations in diverse fields. A few of the founders of some of
these institutions have been recognized as social entrepreneurs and their
work has featured in journals such as MIT’s Innovations (Roy & Hartigan,
2008). There, however, seems to be a discontinuity between the earlier
generation of ‘social innovators’ and the current era of ‘social entrepre-
neurs’. Although the earlier sets chose to source and create ideas locally,
the current trend is more towards using the power of connections to
source globally and diffuses and scales them locally with appropriate
customization.
Social Innovations and the Question of Scale

A key difference between social innovators then and now in India is the
attitude to scale. Earlier initiatives often chose to scale not the organiza-
tions but their models and believed in open-sourcing processes. Today
though, the emphasis on scale is very high on the agenda of social enter-
prises led largely by the current investment scenario. Anil Gupta (2010),
a pioneer in grassroots innovation, has questioned the idea that scale
alone can solve poverty and argued that scale in some contexts can even
be the enemy of sustainability. Social innovations, especially those which
help marginal communities, may remain in a niche but can add value to
their unique local contexts. Gupta suggests a need to evolve a fresh model
of innovations building upon an Indian cultural and social strength. The
ecosystem for innovation at the basic level must have a large diversity of
ideas and innovations to choose from.
The excessive focus on scalable technological innovations and products
can have detrimental effects on policy design and practice. India’s Science,
Technology and Innovation Policy of 2013 (Government of India,
Ministry of Science and Technology, 2013) has largely bypassed social
innovations by individuals and organizations in the citizen sector. This is
only representative of the fact that social innovation arising from Indian
civil society seems to have fallen out of favour due to the inherent bias for
scalable, market-based innovations. As Dees (2013) has suggested, social
innovations of the future have to arise from decentralized problem-
solving, and social entrepreneurship is the epitome of a decentralized
exploration of alternative solutions to social problems.
A good starting point for this is one of the most celebrated cases in social
entrepreneurship world over, the case of the Aravind Eye Hospital (Rangan
& Thulasiraj, 2007). The case became popular with C.K. Prahalad’s Fortune
at the Bottom of the Pyramid (Prahalad, 2005). The video accompanying
the book shows the founder of Aravind Eye Hospital, G. Venkataswamy,
speaking about drawing insights from McDonald’s model of standardiza-
tion. In the book Infinite Vision, however, Mehta and Shenoy (2011) show
how the world’s greatest business case for compassion was carefully con-
structed over decades with the influence of the Indian mystic Aurobindo
and Gandhi guiding Venkataswamy during difficult times. Mehta and
Shenoy’s narration of Kasturi Rangan’s difficulty with his business school
colleagues indicates why practitioner perspectives and theories are impor-
tant in the Indian context. Rangan explains his difficulty in incorporating
ideas of spirituality into the case, even though he felt it was integral to the
case. The success of the powerful case masks its interpretation.
The current accounts of Aravind Eye Hospital tend to suggest that

social enterprises need to follow the ‘McDonald model’ rather than inter-
pretations that suggest a careful construction of a system that is uniquely
Indian which hardwired the spirit of service (Matalobos, 2012). There are
few detailed accounts of practitioner perspectives of social entrepreneurs
in India (say Mirchandani, 2006) which lay out social and cultural context
of these social innovations. Understanding how a business model takes
shape therefore requires a deeper investigation into the social, historical
and cultural context of the innovation which can lead beyond current
understanding of social entrepreneurship. The latter would allow for the
rooting of ideas of decentralized problem-solving, open solutions, resil-
ience thinking and experimentation within the Indian social context.
Startup India and Inclusive Innovation

There has been a significant policy push by the Government of India to
encourage startups in recent times (Subrahmanya, 2015). The Startup
India Action Plan, launched with significant fanfare in January 2016,
seeks to build a strong ecosystem for nurturing innovation and startups
in the country that would drive sustainable economic growth and gener-
ate large-scale employment opportunities. The policy push has yielded
results in terms of the number of startups and incubators created. A
recent estimate by NASSCOM (2017) indicates that India has emerged
as the third largest country in terms of number of incubators to promote
startups with more than 140 incubators and accelerators in the country.
A closer look at the numbers, however, reflects the regional biases in dis-
tribution apart from the focus on technology and a particular version of
innovation that is less inclusive.
Incubators have been supported by the Department of Science and
Technology (DST) through its various schemes and after a few cases of
promoting incubators in academic institutions, DST supported the cre-
ation of technology-based incubators (TBIs) that would be separate enti-
ties that would nurture and invest even in promising ideas that could
become commercial successes. By 2013, there were 54 TBIs across India.
The new initiative of the Indian Government has placed startups within
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
On the lesser urn were the following verses.
Plund’rers with prying eyes, away!

What mean ye by this curious stay?
Hence with your cunning, patron god,
With bonnet wing’d, and magic rod!
Sacred alone to Pluto’s name,
This mighty work of endless fame.
Saint Austin mentions a lamp that was found in a temple,

dedicated to Venus, which was always exposed to the open weather,
and could never be consumed or extinguished. And Ludovicus Vives,
his commentator, mentions another lamp which was found a little
before his time, that had continued burning for one thousand and fifty
years.
It is supposed, that the perpetuity of these lamps, was owing to the

consummate tenacity of the unctuous matter with which the flame
was united, being so proportioned to the strength of the fire, that, like
the radical moisture and natural heat in animals, neither of them
could conquer or destroy the other. Licetus, who is of this opinion,
observes, that in order to preserve this equality of proportion, the
ancients hid these lamps in caverns, or close monuments: and
hence it has happened, that on opening these tombs, the admission
of fresh air to the lamps has produced so great an inequality
between the flame and the oil, that they have been presently
extinguished.
Mr. Addison in his Spectator, relates the
following story of the lamp of Rosicrucius.
“A certain person having occasion to dig somewhat deep in the
ground, where the philosopher Rosicrucius lay interred, met with a
small door, having a wall on each side of it. His curiosity, and the
hopes of finding some hidden treasure, soon prompted him to force
open the door. He was immediately surprised by a sudden blaze of
light, and discovered a very fair vault: at the upper end of it was a
statue of a man in armour, sitting by a table, and leaning on his left
arm. He held a truncheon in his right hand, and had a lamp burning
before him. The man had no sooner set one foot within the vault,
than the statue erected itself from its leaning posture, stood bolt
upright, and upon the fellow’s advancing another step, lifted up the
truncheon in his right hand. The man still ventured a third step, when
the statue with a furious blow broke the lamp into a thousand pieces,
and left his guest in a sudden darkness.”
Upon the report of this adventure, the country people soon came
with lights to the sepulchre, and discovered that the statue, which
was made of Brass, was nothing more than a piece of clock work;
that the floor of the vault was all loose, and underlaid with several
springs, which, upon any man’s entering, naturally produced that
which had happened.
Rosicrucius, say his disciples, made use of this method, to shew
the world that he had reinvented the ever-burning lamps of the
Ancients, tho’ he was resolved no one should reap any advantage
from the discovery.[2]
[2] Note.—Mr. Addison seems to have borrowed this story from
the one related by Dr. Parsons. Vide p. 121.
In the tenth year of Henry II. at the digging of a new foundation in

the church of St. Mary-Hill, in London, there was found and taken up
the body of Alice Hackney, she had been buried in that church a
hundred and seventy-five years before, yet was she there found
whole of skin, and the joints of her arms pliable; her corpse was kept
above ground four days without any inconvenience, exposed to the
view of as many as would behold it, and then re-committed to the
earth.
Baker’s Chronicle.
In the reign of King James, at Astley in Warwickshire, upon the fall

of the church, there was taken up the corpse of Thomas Grey,
Marquis of Dorset, who was there buried the 10th of October, 1530,
in the twenty second year of King Henry VIII, and although it had
been lain seventy eight years, in this bed of corruption, yet his eyes,
hair, flesh, nails, and joints, remained as if he had been but newly
buried.
In the year 1554, there was found in Rome a coffin of marble,

eight feet long, and in it a robe, embroidered with Goldsmith’s work,
which yielded six and thirty pounds weight of gold; besides forty
rings, a cluster of emeralds, a little mouse, made of another precious
stone, and amongst all these precious magnificences, two leg bones
of a dead corpse, known by the inscription of the tomb to be the
bones of the Empress Mary, daughter of Stilicoe, and wife of the
Emperor Honorius.
Robert Braybrook, born at a village in Northamptonshire, was

consecrated Bishop of London, January, 5th, 1381. He was after that
Chancellor of England for six months. He died, anno. 1404, and was
buried under a marble stone, in the chapel of St. Mary, in the
Cathedral of St. Paul’s, London. Yet was the body of this Bishop
lately taken up, and found firm, as to skin, hair, joints, nails, &c. For
upon that fierce and fatal fire in London, September, 2nd, 1666,
which burnt so much of St. Paul’s church, when part of the floor fell
into St. Faith’s, this dead person was shaken out of his dormitory,
where he had lain no less than two hundred and sixty two years. His
body was exposed to the view of all sorts of people for divers days;
and some thousands did behold and poise it in their arms, till by
special order it was re-interred.
Fuller’s Worthies.
In the Reign of King Henry II. anno. 1089, the bones of King
Arthur, and his wife Guenevor were found in the vale of Avalon,
under an hollow oak, fifteen feet under ground, the hair of the said
Guenevor being then whole and fresh, of a yellow colour; but as
soon as it was touched, it fell to powder, as Fabian relateth: this was
more than six hundred years after his death. His shin bone, set by
the leg of a tall man, reached above his knee the breadth of three
fingers.
Baker’s Chronicle.
The body of Albertus Magnus was taken out of his sepulchre, to

be re-interred in the midst of the chancel in a new tomb for that
purpose, it was two hundred years from the time wherein he had
been first buried; yet was he found entire without any kind of
deformation, unless it was this (says a celebrated historian) that his
jaw seemed to be somewhat fallen.
Mr. Brydone in his travels, speaking of a Sicilian Convent, says,
the famous convent of Capuchins, about a mile without the city of
Palermo, contains nothing very remarkable but the burial place,
which is indeed a great curiosity. This is a vast subterraneous
apartment, divided into large commodious galleries, the walls on
each side of which are hollowed out into a variety of niches, as if
intended for a great collection of statues. These niches, instead of
statues, are filled with dead bodies set upright upon their legs, and
fixed by the back to the inside of the niche. Their number is about
three hundred. They are all dressed in the clothes they usually wore,
and form a most respectful and venerable assembly. The skin and
muscles, by a certain preparation, become as dry and hard as a
piece of stock fish: and although many of them have been here
upwards of two hundred and fifty years, yet none are reduced to
skeletons. The muscles indeed, in some, appear to be a good deal
more shrunk in some than in others; probably because these
persons had been more extenuated at the time of their death. Here
the people of Palermo pay daily visits to their deceased friends, and
recall with pleasure and regret, the scenes of their past life. Here
they familiarize themselves with their future state, and choose the
company they would wish to keep in the other world. It is a common
thing to make choice of their niche, and to try if the body fits it, that
no alterations may be necessary after they are dead; and sometimes
by way of a voluntary penance, they accustom themselves to stand
for hours in these niches. The bodies of the princes and first nobility,
are lodged in handsome chests, or trunks; some of them richly
adorned. These are not in the shape of coffins, but all of one width,
and about a foot and a half or two feet deep. The keys are kept by
the nearest relations of the family, who sometimes come and drop a
tear over their departed friends. Some of the Capuchins sleep in
these galleries every night, and pretend to have many wonderful
visions and revelations; but the truth is, that very few people believe
them.
In the philosophical transactions, we find the following account of a
body found in a vault, in the church of Staverton, in Devonshire, by
Mr. Tripe, Surgeon at Ashburton, in a letter to Doctor Huxham, dated
June, 28th, 1750. There having been a great diversity of reports,
says the writer, relating to a body lately discovered in a vault in
Staverton church, I have taken the liberty of communicating to you
the following particulars. As it does not appear by the register of the
burials, that any person has been deposited in this vault since
October, 5th, 1669, it is certain that the body has lain there upwards
of four score years; yet, when the vault was opened, about four
months ago, it was found as perfect in all its parts, as if but just
interred. The whole body was plump and full, the skin white, soft,
smooth, and elastic; the hair strong, and the limbs nearly as flexible
as when living.
A winding sheet, which was as firm as if just applied, enclosed it
from head to foot, and two coarse cloths dipped in a blackish
substance, like pitch, infolding the winding sheet. The body, thus
protected, was placed in an oaken coffin, on which, as it was always
covered with water, was found a large stone, and a log of wood,
probably to keep it at the bottom.
Various have been the conjectures as to the cause of its
preservation; and it has been reported, though probably without
foundation, that the person was a Roman Catholic; there have been
some of that religion, who not having philosophy enough to account
for it from natural causes, have attributed it to a supernatural one,
and canonized him: and, in consequence of this, have taken away
several pieces of the winding sheet and pitch clothes, preserving
them as relics with the greatest veneration.
In my opinion, says Mr. Tripe, the pitch clothes and water
overthrow the miracle, and bring it within the power of natural
agents; from the former by defending the body from the external air;
and the latter by preserving the tenacity of the pitch.
In the year 1448, in the ruins of an old wall of the beautiful church
at Dunfermling in Scotland, there was found the body of a young
man, in a coffin of lead, wrapped up in silk: it preserved the natural
colour, and was not in the least manner corrupted; though it was
believed to be the body of the son of King Malcolm the Third, by the
Lady Margaret.
In the year 1764, the following interesting account

appeared in an Italian paper.
“Letters from Rome say, that they have removed to the
Clementinian College there, some antiquities which were
discovered in a vineyard near the church de St. Cesair,
situated on the Appian way, not far from the ruins of the baths
of the Emperor Caracalla. The workmen who laboured in the
vineyard, struck against a thick vault, which they broke
through with great difficulty. In this vault they found four urns
of white marble, adorned with bass-reliefs, the subject of
which left no room to doubt of their being sepulchral urns.
Under this vault they perceived another, which being broke
through, discovered two magnificent oval basons, the one of a
black colour, mixed with veins of the Lapis Calcedonius; its
greatest diameter, was about six feet and a half, the least,
three feet, and two feet deep. This bason contained a human
body. The second bason was of a greenish colour, of the
same dimensions with the other, except its being but a foot
and a half deep. This was covered with white marble, and
contained the body of a woman very richly cloathed; but it
was hardly opened, before the body and its attire fell wholly
into powder; from which was recovered eight ounces of pure
gold. In the same place was found a small statue of Pallas, in
white marble; the work of which is highly esteemed.”
Alexander Guavnerius, speaking of the old and great city of Kiovia,
near De Borysthenes, “There are,” saith he, “certain subterraneous
caverns extended to a great length and breadth within ground: here
are divers ancient sepulchres, and the bodies of certain illustrious
Russians; these, though they have lain there time out of mind, yet do
they appear entire. There are the bodies of two princes in their own
country habits, as they used to walk when alive, and these are so
fresh and whole, as if they had but newly lain there. They lie in a
cave unburied, and by the Russian Monks are shewn to strangers.”
Some years since, at the repairs of the church of St. Cœcilia,

beyond the river Tiber, there was found the body of a certain
Cardinal, an Englishman, who had been buried there three hundred
years before; yet was it every way entire, not the least part of it
perished, as they report, who both saw and handled it.
At the time Constantine reigned with Irene his mother, there was
found in an ancient sepulchre in Constantinople, a body with a plate
of gold upon the breast of it, and thereon thus engraven.—In
Christum credoqui ex Mariâ Virgine nescetor: O Sol, imperantibus
Constantino & Irene interrem me videbus: that is, I believe in that
Christ who shall be born of Mary a Virgin: O Sun thou shall see me
again, when Constantine and Irene shall come to reign.—When this
inscription had been publicly read, the body was restored to the
same place where it had been formerly buried.
The sepulchre of the great Cyrus, king of Persia, was violated in

the days of Alexander the Great, in such a manner, that his bones
were displaced and thrown out, and the urn of gold that was fixed in
his coffin, when it could not be wholly pulled away, was broken off by
parcels. When Alexander was informed hereof, he caused the Magi,
who were intrusted with the care and keeping thereof, to be exposed
unto tortures, to make them confess the authors of so great a
violation and robbery: but they denied with great constancy that they
had any hand in it, or that they knew by whom it was done. Plutarch
says, that it was one Polymachus, a noble Pellean, that was guilty of
so great a crime. It is said, that the epitaph of this mighty monarch
was to this purpose.
O mortal that comest hither (for come I know thou wilt) know that I
am Cyrus the son of Cambyses, who settled the Persian Empire,
and ruled over Asia, and therefore envy me not this little heap of
earth, where-with my body is covered.
Not long since, at Bononiæ, in the church of St. Dominick, there

was found the body of Alexander Tartagnus, a Lawyer at Imola,
which was perfectly entire, and no way decayed, although it had lain
there from his decease above one hundred and fifty years.
Pausanius makes mention of a soldier, whose body was found

with wounds fresh, and apparent upon it, although it had been buried
sixty two Olympiads, that is no less than two hundred and forty eight
years.
METHODS
OF
EMBALMING.
The ancient Egyptians had three ways of embalming their dead,

and artists were particularly trained up for that purpose: the most
costly method was practised only upon persons of high rank, of
which sort are all the mummies that have remained entire to the
present times: it was done by extracting the brains through the
nostrils, and injecting a rich balm in their stead, then opening the
belly and taking out the intestines, the cavity was washed with palm
wine impregnated with spices, and filled with myrrh and other
aromatics; this done, the body was laid in nitre seventy days, at the
end of which, it was taken out, cleansed, and swathed with fine linen,
gummed and ornamented with various hieroglyphics, expressive of
the deceased’s birth, character, and rank. This process completed,
the embalmer carried home the body, where it was placed in a coffin,
cut in human shape, and then enclosed in an outer case, and placed
upright against the wall of the burying place belonging to the family.
Another less expensive method of embalming was, by injecting
into all the cavities of the body, a certain dissolvent; which being
suffered to run off after a proper time, carried with it whatever was
contained therein liquified; and then the body, thus purged, being
dried by the nitrous process as before, the operation was closed by
swathing, &c. By the third and lowest method of embalming, which
was only in use among the poor, they drenched the body with
injections, and then dried it with nitre.
The Egyptians had a custom among them of pledging the dead
bodies of their parents and kindred, as a security for the payment of
their debts, and whoever neglected to redeem them was held in the
utmost abhorrence, and denied the rights of burial themselves.
They paid extravagant honours to their deceased ancestors: and
there are at this day to be seen in Egypt pompous subterranean
edifices, called by the Greeks Hypogees, representing towns or
habitations under ground, in which there are streets or passages of
communication from one to another, that the dead might have as
free intercourse as when alive.
FINIS.
INDEX
Page.
A.
Athens, Law there to prevent premature interment, 3
Asia, Dead bodies kept there several days before burial, 10
Abbé Provost, remarkable circumstance attending, 24
Ackland, Sir Hugh, and his Brandy footman, Story of, 28
Acilius Aviola, burnt to death, for want of being first examined,

60
Armenius Erus, returns to life, after being apparently dead, 69
Alexander, Dr. Story related by, 69
Aberdeen, remarkable affair happened there, 115
Ancients, remarkable Tombs and Lamps of, 121
Atestes, a Town in Italy, Lamp found there that had been

burning 1500 years, 130
Austin, St., Lamp mentioned by him that continued burning 1050

years, 133
Addison, Mr., his story of the Rosicrucian Lamp, 134

Alice Hackney, her body found perfect after 175 years interment,
136
Arthur, King and his wife, their bodies found after 600 years
burial, 138
B.
Boy, remarkable recovery of after being laid out for dead, 20
Benedictus, Alexander, his story of a Lady buried alive, 31
Baldock, Master, resuscitated, after apparent death, 65
Burying in churches and confined church-yards, danger of, 96
Buchan, Dr., his observations on burying in the midst of Cities,

116
Baptistæ Portæ, account by, of a burning Lamp, secreted before

the advent of Christ, 129
Braybrook, Robert, his body found after 262 years interment,

137
Brydone, Mr., his account of a remarkable burying-place near

Palermo, 140
Body found in a Vault, curious particulars of, ib.
Bononiæ, Church of, a perfect body found there, 150 years after
burial, 149
Body buried sixty two Olympiads, described by Pausanius, 150
C.
Cicero, his observations concerning the Dead, 1

Coach office Director, restored to life after being supposed
dead, 19
Civile, Francis. Remarkable story of, 25
Cardinal Espinolæ, ditto, 23
Cornwall, Lady there, ditto, 70
Colchester, a child there, nearly buried alive, 74
Churches, observations on the pernicious custom of burying

there, 96
Ditto, ditto, ditto, 98
Ditto, ditto, ditto, 104
Contagion from opening new Graves, how to prevent, 107
Cleopatra’s Tomb, account of, 126
Cedrenus, his description of a wonderful Lamp, 128
Constantine Chlorus, burning Lamp found in his tomb, ib.
Constantine and Irene, remarkable sepulchre found in their time,

147
Cœciliæ, church of, body found there, buried upwards of 300

years, ib.
D.
Dead bodies improperly treated, 10 to 18
Death, difficulty of distinguishing when persons are really so, 78
Dead, various methods of burying by different Nations, 83

Dead bodies, how to preserve safe in their graves, 120
Dr. Parsons extraordinary story, 121
Dunfermline Church, body of a young Man found there, 144
Dominick, St. Church of, remarkable body found there, 149
E.
Egyptians particularly careful of their dead, 2
England, people there keep their dead several days before

burial, 9
Espinola, Cardinal, not dead when about to be dissected, 23
Elizabeth a Servant, not dead after long hanging, and ill

treatment, 64
Egyptians embalm their dead, 87
Eastern Countries, practice of burying their dead, 117
Edessa, remarkable Lamp found there, 128
F.
Fever patients ought to be particularly looked after before laid

out as dead, 80
France, King of, prohibits burying in churches, 98
Female, extraordinary resolve of, 119
G.
Greeks, great veneration of, for their dead, 2

Geneva, people appointed there to inspect the dead, 9
Genoa, dead people there, dressed according to their rank, ib.
Godfrey, the Honourable Mrs. remarkable trance of, 43
Green, Anne, remarkable story of, 62
Glover, Mr. story related by, of a person restored to life after

hanging, 73
Greeks, old, singular method of burial, 85
Graves, danger of opening too soon, 107
Grave, opened too soon in Aberdeen, fatal consequence

attending, 115
Grey, Thomas, Marquis of Dorset, corpse found after seventy

years burial, 136
Guavnerius, Alexander, curious account of a subterranean

cavern by, 146
H.
Hawe’s, Dr., extract from his addresses to the public, 80
Hale, Sir Matthew, his observations on burying in churches, 98
Hall, Bishop, extract from his Sermon on church burials, 99
Hackney, Alice, her body found after 175 years interment, 136
I.
Interment, premature, great danger of, 1
Interesting account from an Italian paper, 145

J.
Jews, their manner of burying their dead, 9
Janin, Monsieur, story of a child apparently dead, recovered by,

71
Joseph the Second, prohibits burials in churches, 118
K.
Kiovia, City of, subterranean burying places near, 146
L.
Lady buried alive in Russia, 40
Lamps, ever-burning ones of the Ancients, 121 to 135
M.
Mercier, Monsieur, very remarkable story related by, 31
Mold Church, in Flintshire, singular epitaph there, 98
Montpelier, remarkable circumstance that happened there, 104
Maximus, Olybius, curious Lamp made by, 131
Mary-at-Hill, St., body found there after 175 years burial, 136
Magnus, Albertus, his body found after 200 years interment, 139
Methods of embalming, 151
N.
Navier, Monsieur, observations by, on the danger of burying in

churches, 107
Nevis, Island of, wonderful burning Lamp found there, 129
O.
Olybius, Maximus, curious Lamp made by, 131
P.
Plato, attention by him, recommended to the dead, 1
Primitive church, washed and anointed their dead, 8
Pallas, remarkable burning Lamp of, 129
Philosophical transactions, body found in a vault, described

therein, 142
Pausanius, body mentioned by him, found after 248 years

interment, 150
R.
Romans, great attention paid by them to their dead, 3, 4 and 5
Rouen, siege of, remarkable circumstance happened there, 25
Resuscitation, very extraordinary one, in Sweden, 35
Russia, young lady buried alive there, 40
Retchmuth Adoleh, buried alive, at Cologne, 51
Reanimation of a female in Paris, supposed to be dead, 68
Romans, method of burying their dead, 88
Remarkable fact of Sumovin Feodose, 94
Rosicrucian Lamp, story of, 134

Rome, remarkable coffin and curiosities found there, 137
S.
Syrians, their method of embalming, 2
Spain, method of dressing the dead there, 9
Syncope, sometimes mistaken for death, 21
Schmid, Dr. John, story related by, ib.
Syncope, remarkable story of a person having fallen into one,

22
Scroop, Sir Gervase, story of, related by Dr. Fuller, 29
Sweden, remarkable occurrence there, 35
Spain, lady there, returns to life under the hands of the

anatomist, 59
Sumovin Feodose, remarkable story of, 94
Scripture, quotations from, against burying in churches, 99
Story, remarkable, related by Dr. Parsons, 121
Solomon, King, his servant’s tomb, 126
Sicilian convent, remarkable burial place there, 140
Staverton church, curious particulars of a body found in a vault

there, 142
T.
Turks, scrupulously particular in examining the dead, 7

Trance, remarkable one, of the Honourable Mrs. Godfrey, 43
Tatoreidie, after being laid in a coffin for dead, returns to life, 61
Tissot, Dr. story related by him of a girl returning to life, after

being long in the water, 68
Tossach, Mr. case related by, of a Man recovering, after

apparent death, 69
Tomb of King Edward the First, interesting particulars of

opening, 91
Turks, their burying places, rendered handsome and agreeable,

97
Tombs, fatal consequences frequently happen by opening them

too soon, 107
Tombs, remarkable ones of the Ancients, 121
Temple dedicated to Venus, burning Lamp found therein, 133
Tripe, Mr. story related by, of a body found in a vault, 142
V.
Vesabe, physician, to Philip II. of Spain, opens a body before

dead, 57
Vapour, dreadful effects arising from one at Montpelier, 104
Valentia in Spain, remarkable body found there, 126
W.
Walker, Dr. melancholy account of his being buried alive, 45
Wynne, Dr. William, his epitaph, forbidding church burial, 98

Social Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Business Models The Case of India 1St Ed Edition Anirudh Agrawal All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Business Models The Case of India 1St Ed Edition Anirudh Agrawal All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Entrepreneurship and

Sustainable Business Models: The

SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND

The Case of India

ISBN 978-3-319-74487-2 ISBN 978-3-319-74488-9 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018936908

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018

Printed on acid-free paper

India is a land of contrasts: while it is one of the fastest growing econo-

It is in this background that this volume aims to provide a more contex-

A large number of social entrepreneurial opportunities exist in socio-­

Provision of public goods through private for-profit social enterprises,

through the initiatives of a number of organizations such as Mysore

Overall, this book is a useful contribution to research literature on social

e­ ntrepreneurship in a country like India is enormous as there are large

Copenhagen Business School Anirudh Agrawal

Part I Theoretical Contextualization 1

1 Embedding Diversity in Social Entrepreneurial Research:

2 Education Conversations: Situating Social Enterprise

3 Factors Affecting Individual’s Intention to Become a Social

4 Why Worry About Your Impact? Rationale, Challenges

Part II Sustainable Business Models and Impact Investing 117

5 Towards a Better Understanding of Business Models

6 Circular Social Innovation: A New Paradigm for India’s

7 Social Entrepreneurship Through Micro-­Entrepreneurs

8 Stimulated Innovation Cycle to Serve the Poor: A Case

9 Effectiveness of Impact-Investing at the Base

Anirudh Agrawal is a PhD fellow at Copenhagen Business School and a visit-

Anil K. Bhat graduated in Mechanical Engineering in 1982 from REC (now

Balram Bhushan (Fellow in Management) is Assistant Professor of Human

Susmita Chatterjee is Assistant Professor in Economics and also a visiting pro-

Payal Kumar professor at BML Munjal Univeristy, has rich experience in

editor of a six-volume book series on Leadership and Followership (Palgrave

Mathew J. Manimala (Fellow-IIMA) has served as the director, XIME,

Ashok Prasad is the Cofounder of Clothes2Causes—a social enterprise, serves

C. Shambu Prasad is Senior Professor of Strategy, Public Policy and

Runa Sarkar is Professor of Economics at the Indian Institute of Management

Land—A Critical Resource for Infrastructure. She has authored Environment,

V. Joseph Satish is a PhD researcher in Science, Technology & Society Studies

Madhukar Shukla is Chairperson, Fr Arrupe Centre for Ecology &

Preeti Tiwari is a doctoral research candidate in the Department of

Deepika Chandra Verma is a final-year doctoral student in the Economics

Fig. 1.1 Social entrepreneurship ecosystem in India (as of 2013).

Table 1.1 National-level social entrepreneurship events in India

Table 9.4 Discussion on the effectiveness of impact-investing at the

Abstract The Indian social entrepreneurial ecosystem is acknowledged

© The Author(s) 2018 3

entrepreneurs. In this chapter, we suggest that social entrepreneurship in

 ngaging with the Concept of Social

 apturing the Social Entrepreneurship

The emerging picture of social entrepreneurship in India cannot be

Table 1.1 National-level social entrepreneurship events in India 2008–2015

social enterprises. In October 2010, an article titled ‘Is India Really a

 eclaiming Social Innovation for the Diverse

Social innovation has been described as being ‘practice-led where the

embedded within; the interaction between the social entrepreneur and

Using a venture capital investment model, RIN identified promising

business practices to become more effective is being increasingly ques-

 andhian Roots of the Social Innovation

movements (mobilization of people, dissent, negotiation, etc.) are useful

developed alternative institutions that would produce and train social

(IRTC), Mundur closely associated with the People’s Science Movement

Social Innovations and the Question of Scale

A large number of social entrepreneurial opportunities exist in socio-

e ntrepreneurship in a country like India is enormous as there are large

Copenhagen Business School Anirudh Agrawal

Part I Theoretical Contextualization 1

1 Embedding Diversity in Social Entrepreneurial Research:

2 Education Conversations: Situating Social Enterprise

3 Factors Affecting Individual’s Intention to Become a Social

4 Why Worry About Your Impact? Rationale, Challenges

Part II Sustainable Business Models and Impact Investing 117

5 Towards a Better Understanding of Business Models

6 Circular Social Innovation: A New Paradigm for India’s

7 Social Entrepreneurship Through Micro-Entrepreneurs

8 Stimulated Innovation Cycle to Serve the Poor: A Case

9 Effectiveness of Impact-Investing at the Base

ngaging with the Concept of Social

apturing the Social Entrepreneurship

eclaiming Social Innovation for the Diverse

andhian Roots of the Social Innovation

Social Innovations and the Question of Scale

Startup India and Inclusive Innovation