social enterprises

1. A C A D E M I C P A P E R
Mapping of social enterprises in Gujarat: Opportunities and
challenges ahead
Nageswara Rao Ambati
Dean, Research and Publication Division,
Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar,
India
Correspondence
Nageswara Rao Ambati, Dean, Research and
Publication Division, Gujarat National Law
University, Gandhinagar-382426, Gujarat,
India.
Email: nageshcu@gmail.com; ambathi.
nageswar@gmail.com
Funding information
Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar
Social entrepreneurship is a rising field of academic and practical activity worldwide
and social entrepreneurs become drivers of inclusive growth and sustainable devel-
opment and also provide opportunities for new models of social business to bring
changes in the lives of communities those who are living at the bottom of the pyra-
mid. Recognizing the importance and diversity of social entrepreneurial organizations
(not for profits, for profits, and hybrid), this study chooses to map the existing social
enterprises that have a social, economic, and environment goals and also look at the
existing social enterprise ecosystem in Central Gujarat. The main contribution of this
paper is to evaluate the opportunities and challenges of social entrepreneurial activi-
ties in Central Gujarat, India. Moreover, analysis and discussion would help the
researcher to draw reasonable conclusions, provide a number of insights on lessons
and challenges with which a social enterprise sector can be expected to face in near
future.
1 | INTRODUCTION
The field of social entrepreneurship is a relatively young as an aca-
demic subject, knowledge-intensive area and a social practice of inter-
est to scholars since the late 20th century (Gras, Moss, &
Thomas, 2014; Maria, 2014; Younis et al., 2020). Social entrepreneur-
ship uses social business models and innovation strategies with the
aim of generating benefits with the purpose of creating social value
(Kickul & Lyons, 2012). They undertake various entrepreneurial activi-
ties for benefit of society and/or public; adopt innovations for brining
change; and apply market-based solutions to address the problems
(Brouard & Larivet, 2010,2021). Hence, Social entrepreneurs have
recently garnered much attention in academia and politics over past
three decades due to the failure of state machinery and market to
respond to the economic crisis (Sassmannshausen & Volkmann, 2018;
Sundararaj, 2016, 2019a, 2019b; Sundararaj et al., 2020; Sundararaj,
Muthukumar, & Kumar, 2018).
The term “Social entrepreneurship” refers to “the practice of
combining innovation, reorganisation of opportunity and resources
to address social, economic and environment problems” (Scholtz,
2010). A number of researchers, academicians, and practitioners
are trying to promote the field of social entrepreneurship which
is in its nascent stages in terms of legitimacy and recognition
(Mair & Martì, 2006). In addition, the review of literature indicates
that there is a dearth of research that examines the social enter-
prise ecosystem in India. Therefore, the main objectives of the
paper are as follows:
• To map social enterprises and categories, the roles of social enter-
prises as they exist today in Central Gujarat;
• To evaluate the opportunities and challenges of social entrepre-
neurial activities in Central Gujarat;
• To evaluate the existing social incubation ecosystem and their
activities in Central Gujarat.
Therefore, the primary aim of this proposed research is to exam-
ine the mapping of social enterprises and its potential to contribute to
positive and sustainable change. It would be interesting to see how
the social incubation eco-system active in this space promote social
enterprise activities to bridge the gap in India, and create inclusive
societies. The detailed case studies of these social incubators are cru-
cial for aspiring and budding entrepreneurs to understand the incuba-
tion process. It would also help practitioners interested in using
similar mechanism for creating more number of social incubation cen-
ters for contributing toward creating inclusive societies. However, the
absence of such case studies impedes the learning in this area. Thus,
Received: 18 July 2020 Revised: 31 August 2020 Accepted: 3 September 2020
DOI: 10.1002/pa.2468
J Public Affairs. 2020;e2468. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1 of 9
https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2468

2. the findings of this paper add value not only to the academic commu-
nity but also to practicing and aspiring social entrepreneurs.
The present paper has been structured in the following manner:
first, the paper reviews available literature on social entrepreneurship
and entrepreneurial ecosystem. Thereafter, the paper enumerates the
methodology employed for the present study and its major findings.
The paper goes on to present case studies regarding the social incuba-
tion ecosystem in Central Gujarat. Finally, the paper concludes with a
discussion of the findings and implications for policy making.
2 | REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The term “Social entrepreneur” was initially used in the 1960s
(Thompson, 2002). Though this concept was used and well promoted
by Bill Drayton, the founder of Ashoka: Innovators for the Public and
later on it is well known among the society in the 1980s and 1990s
(Hsu, 2005).The aim of social entrepreneur is to provide new solutions
to build sustainable society so as to enable it to function economically,
socially, and ecologically in the society (Ambati, 2019a; Gawell, 2009).
According to Mort, Weerawardena, and Carnegie (2003), “social
entrepreneurship is a multi-dimensional idea that involves solving
social issues without compromising on economic benefits with the
help of entrepreneurship”. Thus, the field of social entrepreneurship is
mainly considered as a driver of economic, social, and environmental
development and prosperity (Acs, Desai, & Hessels, 2008; Mishra,
Tolia, & Ambati, 2016).
Drucker contends that social entrepreneurs change the execu-
tion limit of society (Gendron, 1996) while Henton, Melville, and
Walesh (1997) talk about civic entrepreneurs as a new age of pio-
neers who manufacture new, capable profiting linkages at the con-
vergence of business, government, training, and group.
Schulyer (1998) argued social entrepreneurs as individuals who
have a dream for social change and who have the financial
resources to help their ideas show everyone the abilities of fruitful
businessmen who are capable of social change. Boschee (1998)
presents social entrepreneurs as nonbenefit administrators who
give careful consideration to advertise powers without dismissing
their hidden mission. Thompson, Alvy, and Lees (2000) argued that
people will acknowledge that there is a chance to fulfill some
neglected need that the state welfare framework will not or cannot
meet and therefore assemble the vital assets (by and large individ-
uals, frequently volunteers, cash, and premises) and utilize these to
make a difference.
The importance of the social entrepreneurship depends on the
countries within the framework of political, sociocultural technologi-
cal, and ecological systems 2021. It may develop in various contexts
such as poverty, inequality, crime, crises, ecology, and corruption in
the private economy. Thus, the main elements of the social entrepre-
neurship framework are society, economy, politics, culture, and the
regulatory framework which includes some other essential actors (i.e.
media, investors, non-governmental organizations (NGO), and sup-
pliers) who are also part of the system. Therefore, it functions as a
system where each and every actor or stakeholders is involved in the
process or products for the betterment of the society in terms of
value creation, social problem solving, resources allocation, new job
creation and generating tax revenues. In this sense, social entrepre-
neurship acts within markets to help a societal cause. Moreover, Mair
and Marti (2009) state that social entrepreneurship appears when
market failure occurs.
Hence, based on Figure 1, it can be said that it is for the better-
ment of society, leading to innovation, fostering employment and
resulting in overall growth of the economy. It is noted here that, to
function this system, other actors are required to be involved too. For
instance, the role of the media is vital here to create awareness among
the society.
In a research study conducted by Gandhi and Raina (2018), which
was conducted in order to understand the concept and relevance of
social entrepreneurship as a field to solve the pressing social needs of
the present times, it was found that social entrepreneurship can be a
major development to create transformational progress to specially
empower the marginalized communities. Similarly, a study was con-
ducted by Mantok (2015) in Ahmedabad to understand how social
entrepreneurship among women can lead to women empowerment.
For hypothesis testing the study gathered data from 169 registered
small and medium enterprises (SMEs) owned by women entrepre-
neurs in the Ahmedabad city of Gujarat. The criteria for assessing
empowerment were based on three dimensions, competence, self-
determination, and impact. It was found in the study that women
entrepreneurship leads to women empowerment and with factors
such as flexible working hours, work becomes more efficient. How-
ever, one drawback of the study was its lack of focus on the con-
straints that hold women and lack of focus on social value creation of
these enterprises in consideration, which my research seeks to under-
stand and analyze.
A very interesting study was conducted in Pakistan by Abrar,
Akram, Ashiq, Raza, and Scott (2019) in order to understand and ana-
lyze the constraints placed on social entrepreneurs. The study used
primary source of data of 500 households, which was collected from
four districts of Punjab, Pakistan through a multistage random sam-
pling technique to understand the employment opportunities avail-
able, how they empowered various communities and what were the
constraints placed on them, and how these constraints affected their
pursuit of independence. This study reinforces and reiterates the fact
that social entrepreneurs have multiplicity of constraints that are
placed on including lack of security in the field, proper eco-system
and funding opportunities. Last, a case study on the Shri Mahila Griha
Udhyog Lijjat Papad done by Rao and Sivakumar (2019) to understand
the corporate culture and social value proposition of social enterprise
concludes that there is an everlasting need to create such organiza-
tions that focus not only on business value and creation of a social
value through its belief in the Sarvodaya culture, but how creation of
employment opportunities for various target groups is the need of the
hour. It can only possible by increasing number of social enterprises in
India, but it requires availability of existing social entrepreneurial eco-
system.
2 of 9 AMBATI

3. As mentioned in the report of Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
2019 (GEM Consortium, 2019), India is second most entrepreneurial
country in the world. It also indicates that India has witnessed the rise of
the number of new company registrations (Ernst & Young, 2014). In addi-
tion, since 2005, India has witnessed a rapid growth in the number of
social enterprises. These types of social businesses have emerged in rec-
ognition not only because they provide solutions to eradicate poverty,
reduce inequality, health issues and provide access to health and educa-
tion but also due to other positive economic and environmental returns
(Ambati, 2019b). As a result of it number of state governments launching
various policies toward building an entrepreneurial ecosystem. However,
there is a dearth of research on mapping of social enterprises and entre-
preneurial ecosystem for social entrepreneurship in India. Therefore, the
present study aims to fill that gap.
3 | RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The present study is descriptive in nature. To answer the research
gaps identified in the study the researcher used mixed methods which
is considered as combination of both quantitative and qualitative data
collection and analysis at different stages of the research process
within a single study (Schoonenboom & Johnson, 2017). For this
study, data were collected by using primary and secondary sources.
Primary data were collected from social entrepreneurs working in
Central Gujarat. The secondary sources include research studies, arti-
cles, in peer-reviewed journals, books, Google scholars, and other
authoritative sources.
For developing the sampling design for this study, Central Gujarat
has been chosen as the population of the study. The actual number of
social entrepreneurs in Gujarat is unknown to the researcher since
there is no directory or registry of government or any official records
of ministry, which have listed the total number of social entrepreneurs
in India. As a result, the researcher has used snowball technique to
collect the data from 50 social enterprises which are established in
various districts in the central part of Gujarat. For carrying out this
study, the researcher used different kinds of data collection methods
and techniques such as survey and case study methods. The following
are the research techniques used for the data collection are question-
naire with organization from a set of representative entrepreneurs
with the aim of (a) to know the characteristics of the social entrepre-
neurs and (b) sketch out the opportunities and challenges of the social
entrepreneurs to run organization. In the second phase of the study,
the researcher has used purposive sampling to identify the successful
social incubation eco-system and prepared three case studies by using
secondary data sources.
After collecting the data from the respondents, data analysis for
the study was carried out. The data analysis is the process of deriving
a proper meaning and interpretation from what the respondents have
discussed during the data collection and what the researcher has
observed and heard (Rubin & Babbie, 2016). After collecting the data
from the respondents, the Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS) computer software (version 24) was used to present and ana-
lyze the data descriptively. The results were based on 50 respondents
who are social entrepreneurs from the Central part of Gujarat who
participated in this study. As discussed in the limitations of the study,
the sample size is very small for conducting advanced level statistics;
and moreover, the sample was drawn by using snowball sampling due
to nonavailability of directories or list of social enterprises in India,
especially in Central Gujarat. With the help of SPSS, the research has
FIGURE 1 The system of social
entrepreneurship: Societies
economies and politics. Source: Based
on the literature
AMBATI 3 of 9

4. entered the data, carried out data cleaning by identifying missing
values. Descriptive statistics such as frequencies, cross tabulation
were presented with the help of charts. In analyzing the qualitative
data in this study, the researcher used a case study method.
4 | FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
The findings of the study have been interpreted based on the ques-
tionnaire that was used to collect the data from 50 social entrepre-
neurs (Ahmedabad 74%, Vadodra 20%, Gandhinagar 4%, and Bharuch
2%) working in Central Gujarat. They are as follows:
4.1 | Establishment of social enterprise (SE) and
gender category
Table 1presents an establishment of social enterprise and gender cat-
egory of respondents in this study.
Table 1 depicts the number of organization registered/established as
social entrepreneurs. It can be seen that the registration number is gradu-
ally increasing after the year 2011. On the other hand, it can also be
observed that since 1994–2008 the growth in number of such organiza-
tions is constant. Change in policy and planning scheme could one of the
reasons for the rise in number of such organizations. The government
focused more on inclusive development through medium and small enter-
prises. The government has come up with the new program and schemes
like “Start-Up India” and “Make in India” to attract and support entrepre-
neurs with an objective to create social value mission.
Moreover, the Government of Gujarat has also promoted the
start-up India by adopting Student Start-Up and Innovation Policy
(SSIP) at educational institutional level to provide incubation support
to the students. It is thus shown that this study can also be taken as a
reflection of the government policy.
Further, Table 1 indicates that a majority (58%) of the respon-
dents were males, while females comprised 42% of the respondents.
However, the study revealed that there is no significant difference
found in the gender of social entrepreneurs in pursuing entrepreneur-
ship as their career. These results could be in contrast to the findings
of Fatoki and Chindoga's (2011) which indicate that social and cultural
factors affected the involvement of young women in entrepreneur-
ship. Therefore, it is a positive sign that more women are engaging in
entrepreneurship. Further, the table also indicates that a large per-
centage (80%) of the respondents established their social enterprise in
the last 7 years (i.e., after 2011 year onwards), followed by only 16%
in the preceding decade, that is, 2001–2010 time period. The number
of new social enterprises established has been largely growing over
the last two decades. The table above clearly shows that the number
of new social ventures in the current decade is growing at a much
faster rate when compared to the previous decades. When the estab-
lishment of social enterprise was compared with gender variable,
there were more females who established their social venture in the
time period of 1991–2000. Therefore, we can conclude that there are
high number of males in current decade and more number of female
social entrepreneurs who initially started their ventures in Central
Gujarat.
4.2 | Establishment of social enterprise and age
group of social entrepreneurs
The age of respondents ranged from 21 to 60 years. Table 2 presents
a variety of age group of social entrepreneurs who participated in this
study.
The results for respondents age groups indicates that a majority
of social entrepreneurs (70%) comprised of those who were
between the ages of 21–40 years and the remaining 30% were
between the age group of 41–60 years. It is thus obvious that the
highest number of respondents is between the age group of
21–40 years. The findings of the study are related to a study by
Moore, Petty, Palich, and Longenecker (2008) which revealed that
the “ideal entrepreneurial age lies somewhere between the late 20s
and early 40s, which is when there is a trade-off between confi-
dence, usually characterised by youth and wisdom based on years
of experience.”
Further, the table also indicates that a largest percentage (64%) of
the respondents who have established their social enterprises since
year 2011 onwards, are by those who are in age group of
21–40 years. This is the age group where one is considered to be
more energetic and capable enough to enter the social entrepreneurial
venture which demands a lot of hard work, innovation and involves
uncertainty and risk when compared to organizational employment.
Thus, we can conclude that the number of new social ventures in the
current decade is growing at a faster rate as young people (21–
40 years of age group) are taking interest in becoming job creators
instead of job seekers.
4.3 | Educational qualification of the respondents
Pursuing higher education is considered as one of the prerequisites
for attaining success in social entrepreneurial activity. Table 3 illus-
trates respondents' level of education.
From Table 3, it is quite evident that all the respondents have at
least some educational qualifications. The results also indicate that
TABLE 1 Establishment of social enterprise (SE) and gender
category
Time period (establishment of SE)
Gender
Total
Male Female
1991–2000 00 04 04
2001–2010 08 08 16
2011 onwards 50 30 80
Total 58 42 100
4 of 9 AMBATI

5. most of them (62%) attained Post Graduation (PG) and other qualifica-
tions and only a miniscule number of respondents have educational
qualifications lesser than under-graduation. Therefore, it can be con-
cluded that majority of the respondents (62 + 36%) have studied up
to tertiary education level. These findings highlight the need of pur-
suing higher education for social entrepreneurs to start their career
in entrepreneurial ventures. Further researchers like Ndedi (2009)
suggest that courses on entrepreneurship should be introduced in
all fields of the study at higher education level, as they help in
building entrepreneurial competencies. Mead and Liedholm (1998)
also claimed that the educational level of entrepreneurs play a cru-
cial role in ensuring the survival and expansion of an organization.
4.4 | Geographical focus of social enterprise
The following Table 4 displays the extent to which the selected social
enterprises are geographically covering and providing products and
services.
Regarding geographical focus, evidence indicates that nearly 50%
of the social enterprises work exclusively within the National level,
followed by 24%, which are covering internationally. Out of 50 social
enterprises, a marginal number among them are geographically
focused at local, regional, and state level. The findings of the study
could be related to the study of British Council (2016) which shows
that nearly 50% of them operate at a national level and 21% of them
at the international level.
4.5 | Objectives of social enterprises
The survey asked about the overall objectives of the selected social
enterprises. The data presented in the following Table 5 show that
social enterprises are concentrated on various objectives to provide
services.
The table shows that the most commonly stated objectives of
respondents in the study are empowering and uplifting women
(64%), followed by, improving health and well-being (60%),
supporting vulnerable children and young people (56%), skill devel-
opment (40%), elderly persons, and persons with disabilities (38%),
protecting environment and waste management (36%), promoting
education (26%), addressing poverty (18%). Thus, we can conclude
that social enterprises in this study are operating across the spec-
trum of social needs with the greatest concentration in empowering
TABLE 2 Establishment of social
enterprise (SE) and age group of social
entrepreneurs Time period (establishment of SE)
Age group
Total
21–40 years 41–60 years
1991–2000 00 04 04
2001–2010 06 10 16
2011 onwards 64 16 80
Total 70 30 100
TABLE 3 Educational qualifications of the respondents
Educational qualifications Percentage of respondents
Higher secondary 02
Under graduation 36
PG and above 62
TABLE 4 Geographical focus of social enterprise
Geographical focus Percentage of respondents
Local level 10
Regional level 10
State level 10
National level 46
International level 24
TABLE 5 Objectives of social enterprises
Areas of focus Percent
Empowering and uplifting women 64
Improving health and well-being 60
Supporting vulnerable children and young people 56
Skill development 40
Elderly and persons with disabilities 38
Protecting the environment and waste management 36
Promoting education 26
Addressing poverty 18
Other 16
Sanitation 14
Access to water 12
Food and nutrition 10
Addressing financial exclusion 10
Digital literacy 10
Supporting agriculture 08
Tourism 08
Access to legal aid 06
Affordable housing 04
AMBATI 5 of 9

6. and uplifting women, health care and supporting vulnerable children
and young people.
4.6 | The solution was offered in the form
According to Thompson (2002), social value creation is nothing but
identifying the social problems in the society using innovations and
entrepreneurial skills to solve these problems. Further, Dees (2001)
adds that creating social values or showing solution to the identified
can be in different forms. Therefore, the researcher asked the respon-
dents to report in what form the solution was offered by the selected
social enterprises as Table 6.
Over half of the surveyed social enterprises (56%) in this study
reported that they are providing services by improving generating
income activities, followed by 38% by providing training in the form
of capacity building for target groups, employment generation (30%),
health care and rehabilitation (26%), education (24%), and supporting
organizations (20%).
4.7 | Opportunities and challenges experienced by
social entrepreneurs
4.7.1 | Opportunities for social entrepreneurs
The notion of opportunity recognition is at the very heart of social entre-
preneurship (Mair & Martì, 2006). Drucker (1993) defined opportunity as
“a favorable set of circumstances for doing something such as esta-
blishing a new venture and was brought into the foreground.” Table 7
presents the list of opportunities for the selected social entrepreneurs.
Table 7 shows that 86% of the respondents reported that inte-
grating technological innovations in the social business process is the
most promising opportunity for them. The second most important
opportunity is corporate groups aligning their corporate social respon-
sibility (CSR) fund to social entrepreneurship endeavors of tested
groups, which stands at 80%. It was also observed that 70% of the
respondents stated that existing eco-system which consists of support
for management consultancy, legal counseling, marketing, financial,
and enterprise planning and development is an opportunity for social
entrepreneurs. Generally, social enterprises are known for generating
their own income. Interestingly, it was also found in the study that
66% of them stated that “donor agencies support to combine capital
funds for social entrepreneurship purposes with mentoring & techni-
cal support” is also considered as one of the most important resources
for them which they considered as an opportunity. It was also
observed that nearly 64% stated that the Government encouraged by
assisting and incentivizing new sources of funding in favor of entre-
preneurship implementers. Last, half of the respondents said that
obtaining funds from the banking sector is also another important fac-
tor considered as an opportunity.
4.7.2 | Challenges experienced by the social
enterprises
A prerequisite for nurturing start-ups and enterprises is the creation
of a favorable eco-system. This goal is at the heart of India's economic
liberalization initiatives. Further, the combination of mixing social and
economic value creation complicates the process of starting and oper-
ating a social enterprise and threatens enterprise sustainability
(Moizer & Tracey, 2010). This process poses various obstacles to
social entrepreneurs, particularly with respect to, acquiring human
and financial resources (Purdue, 2001; Sharir & Lerner, 2006). In this
section of the questionnaire, the researcher determines what most of
the selected social entrepreneurs perceive to be the challenges for
them to achieve their mission and objectives. The researcher deter-
mines similarities among these challenges and also suggests possible
TABLE 6 Solution offered by the respondents
Solution Percent
Income generation activities 56
Training for capacity building 38
Employment generation 30
Health care and rehabilitation 26
Education 24
Supporting organizations 20
TABLE 7 Opportunities for social entrepreneurs
Opportunities Percent
Innovations in the social business process 86
Existing eco-system 70
Encouragement of government 64
Banking supporting to social entrepreneurs 50
Donor agencies support 66
CSR fund to social entrepreneurship 80
CSR, corporate social responsibility.
TABLE 8 Challenges experiences by the social enterprises
Challenges Percent
Lack of adequate capital and funds 72
Lack of entrepreneur skills 36
Lack of knowledge about legal aspects 48
Monitoring and regulation of organization 24
Lack of skilled human resources 56
Inadequate access to marketing linkages 60
Applying modern technology 42
Patent rights program 44
Dilatory and cumbersome regulatory practices 58
Scaling social venture 66
6 of 9 AMBATI

7. areas of improvement or solution to problems in conclusion chapter.
The following graphic reflects the challenges experiences by the social
enterprises.
Table 8 shows that the social entrepreneurs view access to ade-
quate capital (72%), scaling social venture (66%), marketing linkages
(60%), and dilatory and cumbersome regulatory practices (58%) as the
biggest challenge in operating their venture and achieving success.
The next big challenge reported by respondents was lack of skilled
human resources (56%), and lack of knowledge about legal aspects
(48%). Knowledge about patent rights and application of modern
technology on the other hand at 42% appear to be the major threat
for the respondents to carry out their activities. Lack of entrepreneur-
ial skills and monitoring and regulation of organizations at 36% and
24%, respectively, appear to be challenges for the social entrepre-
neurs to conduct their business.
5 | CASE STUDIES OF SOCIAL
ENTREPRENEURIAL ECO-SYSTEM IN
CENTRAL GUJARAT
The concept of ecosystem was originated from the writings of Tansley
in 1935. He used the term to refer to “a basic ecological unit formed
by the natural environment, the organisms and their relations”
(Tanguay, Rajaonson, & Therrien, 2012). By definition, the entrepre-
neurial ecosystem is “a framework that allows private sizes and areas
of influence, to act together and create wealth in a symbiotic relation-
ship” (Prahalad, 2005). Further, Isenberg (2010) views entrepreneur-
ship ecosystem to consist of various factors that include human
resources, financial capital, leadership, education, networks, infra-
structure, support services, early customers, and success stories. The
section presents the case studies of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems that
support social entrepreneurship in Central Gujarat. The case studies
were prepared based secondary data sources. They are as follows:
5.1 | Aashray incubator
Aashray—Promotion of Social Enterprises Foundation (Aashray Incu-
bator) is a stage for supporting innovative and social endeavors. Its
targets are lined up with, and fortify Government of India's arrange-
ments/goals and activities, such as “Make in India” and “Start-up India,
Stand up India,” which are based on supporting new businesses and
business people. It is an outstanding techno-social business hatchery,
which limelight's attention on social effects of mechanical and social
developments, particularly in the lives of individuals at the middle and
base levels of the financial institutions. Social entrepreneurs and Saath
Livelihoods have advanced Aashray Incubator together with informa-
tion associates—Entrepreneurship Development Institute of India and
Ashoka India for advancement of advancements, setting up of social
undertakings, and scaling up of inventive endeavors and innovations
(http://aashrayincubator.org/). Aashray Incubator “has been perceived
as a Techno Business Incubator by the National Science and
Technology Entrepreneurship Development Board of the Department
of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India”. DST has like-
wise approved Aashray Incubator to acknowledge CSR awards.
Aashray Incubator, was joined as a Section 8 Not-revenue driven
Company on July 30, 2014, and has enlistments under Section 80G
and Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act 1961—consequently making
gifts to the Aashray Endowment Fund tax deductible. The Aashray
Endowment Fund gives people and organizations chances to take an
interest during the time spent brooding of social undertakings—a
national need.” Similarly, study conducted by Khan (2013) also indi-
cates that entrepreneurial ecosystem provides a platform for aspiring
and budding entrepreneurs to interact with potential and existing
entrepreneurs, their organizations and learn entrepreneurial culture
which helps them build their confidence and improve their chances to
entrepreneurship as their carrier option.
5.2 | Honey bee network
It is a pot of similar people, pioneers, agriculturists, researchers, acade-
micians, strategy creators, business visionaries and nonadministrative
associations or NGOs. A network operating in more than 75 nations,
Honey Bee's vast experience has helped it to effectively use its ratio-
nality in an organized manner. “Bumble bee” Newsletter, the inventive
mouthpiece of the system, is distributed in seven Indian dialects
(Hindi, Gujarati, Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam, and Oriya) other
than English. The very rationale tells that any documentation and
scattering of nearby and customary learning and developments in
English, absolutely interfaces us universally yet estranges locally.
Experiencing the worry, the local dialect renditions contact the thou-
sands of grassroots information holders, who generally would have
been estranged from the advantages of learning, they themselves con-
tribute in any case. Recognizing the very wellspring of the customary
information, the Honey Bee Newsletter and its local forms convey
stories of the neighborhood creativity with the assent of the learning
holder. The following are the some institutions which are part of the
Honey Bee Network: National Innovation Foundation, Grassroots
Innovation Augmentation Network, Society for Research and Initia-
tives for Sustainable Technologies and Institutions, etc.
6 | DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
A prerequisite for nurturing start-ups and enterprises is the creation
of a favorable eco-system. This goal is highly visible in various Indian
government policy initiatives. Therefore, the current study attempted
to examine what most of the selected social entrepreneurs perceive
to be opportunities and challenges for them to achieve their mission
and objectives. In this section, the researcher also suggests possible
areas of improvement in expanding the scope of the social enterprise
ecosystem in India.
It was found that in-spite of the development and positive effect
of the social enterprise organizations on society; these enterprises are
AMBATI 7 of 9

8. facing various challenges. The result indicates that the social entrepre-
neurs see access to satisfactory capital, scaling social impact; market-
ing linkages were their greatest difficulties in working their wander
and making progress. Further, review of studies also supports the find-
ings of the current study that various obstacles are faced by social
entrepreneurs, particularly with respect to, acquiring human and finan-
cial resources (Purdue, 2001; Sharir & Lerner, 2006). Being aware of
patent rights and applying present day innovation, which is an obstacle
acknowledged by 42% of the respondents seems to be a significant
risk for the respondents to do their exercises. Absence of business
visionary abilities and observing and direction of associations, which
are obstacles acknowledged by 36% and 24% of the respondents,
respectively, give off an impression of being other significant difficul-
ties for the social business visionaries to lead their business.
Further, it was also found that, despite several policy initiatives
taken by the Government of Gujarat to promote entrepreneurship,
the existing eco-system for social entrepreneurships is not able to
cater the needs of budding and aspiring social entrepreneurs in Guja-
rat. The ecosystem is very important for the budding venture to dis-
cuss their ideas and pitch business plans with venture capitals, angel
investors and other financial bodies (Mason & Brown, 2013). Further,
it also helps them to convert their ideas into a viable business oppor-
tunity (Kantis & Federico, 2012). Thus, the entrepreneurial ecosystem
plays an important role in attracting people who wish to choose entre-
preneurship as their career option (Marcotte, 2014). Hence, it also
leads to the progression of the individual and adds to economic and
social development of a country (Stam, 2015). Another important
finding of the study is to emphasize the role of higher education insti-
tutions and incubation centers. There is a lack of social entrepreneur-
ship courses in universities, which train students to use social
business models and encourage them to come up with innovative
ideas to solve the social problems.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I express my heartiest gratitude to the Government of Gujarat, Gan-
dhinagar for providing financial assistance to the Faculty members of
Gujarat National Law University, Gandhinagar, without which it would
not have been possible to conduct this research study.
ORCID
Nageswara Rao Ambati https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4683-5364
REFERENCES
Abrar, H. M., Akram, F., Ashiq, U., Raza, S., & Scott, M. W. (2019). The
employment paradox to improve women's empowerment in Pakistan.
Cogent Social Sciences, 5(1), 1707005.
Acs, Z. J., Desai, S., & Hessels, J. (2008). Entrepreneurship, economic develop-
ment and institutions. Small Business Economics, 31(3), 219–234.
Ambati, N. R. (2019a). Social innovation practices in sustainable waste
management: Case study of successful social enterprises in
Ahmedabad. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research,
8(12), 1978–1985.
Ambati, N. R. (2019b). The role of social entrepreneurial organizations in
promotion of sustainable development. Think India Journal, 22, (14),
5931–5944.
Boschee, J. (1998). Merging mission and money: A board member's guide to
social entrepreneurship. Washington, DC: National Center for Non-
profit Boards.
British Council. (2016). The British Council is the United Kingdom's interna-
tional organization for cultural relations and educational opportunities.
Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/
social_enterprise_and_womens_empowerment_july.pdf
Brouard, F., & Larivet, S. (2010). Essay of clarification and definitions of
related concepts of social enterprise. Social entrepreneur and social
entrepreneurship. In A. Fayolle & H. Matlay (Eds.), Handbook of
research on social entrepreneurship (pp. 29–56). Northhampton,
England: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Dees, J. G., Emerson, J., & Economy, P. (2001). Enterprising Nonprofits: A
Toolkit for Social Entrepreneurs. New York, NY: Wiley.
Drucker, F. P. (1993). Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York, NY: Har-
perCollins Publishers.
Ernst & Young. (2014). Entrepreneurial ecosystems around the globe and
early-stage company growth dynamics-the entrepreneur's perspective.
Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum.
Fatoki, O., & Chindoga, L. (2011). An investigation into the obstacles to
youth entrepreneurship in South Africa. International Business
Research, 4(2), 161–169.
Gandhi, T., & Raina, R. (2018). Social entrepreneurship: The need, rele-
vance, facets and constraints. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship
Research, 8(1), 1–13.
Gawell, M., Johannisson, B., & Lundqvist, M. (2009). Entrepreneurship in the
name of society, Stockholm. Sweden: Knowledge Foundation.
GEM Consortium. (2019). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor's (GEM) Report
2019. London Business School, England. Retrieved from https://www.
gemconsortium.org/file/open?fileId=50443
Gendron, G. (1996). Flashes of genius: Interview with Peter Drucker. Inc,
18(7), 30–37.
Gras, D., Moss T. W., & Lumpkin G. T. (2014) The use of secondary
data in social entrepreneurship research: Assessing the field and
identifying future opportunities. In J. Short, (Ed.), Social entrepre-
neurship and research methods. Research methodology in strategy and
management, (Vol. 9, pp. 49–75). Bingley, England: Emerald Group
Publishing Ltd. https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1479-838720140000
009011.
Henton, D., Melville, J., & Walesh, K. (1997). Grassroots leaders for a new
economy. In How civic entrepreneurs are building prosperous communi-
ties. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Hsu, C. (2005). Entrepreneur for social change, US News & World Report.
Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/
051031/31drayton.htm.
Isenberg, D. (2010). How to start an entrepreneurial revolution. Harvard
Business Review, 88(6), 40–51.
Kantis, H., Federico, J., & Menéndez, C. (2012). Políticas de fomento al
emprendimientodinámico en América Latina: tendencias y desafíos. Work-
ing paper. Caracas, Venezuela: CAF.
Khan, M. R. (2013). Mapping entrepreneurship ecosystem of Saudi Arabia.
World Journal of Entrepreneurship Management and Sustainable Devel-
opment, 9(1), 28–54.
Kickul, J., & Lyons, T. S. (2012). Understanding social entrepreneurship: The
relentless pursuit of mission in an ever changing world. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Mair, J., & Martì, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of
explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1),
36–44.
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2009). Entrepreneurship in and around institutional
voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24
(5), 419–435.
Mantok, S. (2015). Role of women entrepreneurship in promoting women
empowerment. International Journal of Management and Applied Sci-
ence, 2(10), 48–51.
8 of 9 AMBATI

9. Marcotte, C. (2014). Entrepreneurship and innovation in emerging econo-
mies conceptual, methodological and contextual issues. International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 20(1), 42–65.
Maria, L. L. (2014). Toward a “harmonious society” through corpo-
rate social responsibility. Journal of Public Affairs, 14(2),
105–115.
Mason, C., & Brown, R. (2013). Creating good public policy to support
high-growth firms. Small Business Economics, 40(2), 211–225.
Mead, D., & Liedholm, C. (1998). The dynamics of micro and small enter-
prises in developing countries. World Development, 26(1), 61–74.
Mishra, S., Tolia, M., & Ambati, N. R. (2016). Social entrepreneurship: Ideas,
innovation and enhancement: Contribution towards a sustainable devel-
opment. Journal of Strategic and International Studies, 11(4), 75–85.
Moizer, J., & Tracey, P. (2010). Strategy making in social enterprise: The
role of resource allocation and its effects on organizational sustainabil-
ity. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 27(3), 252–266.
Moore, W. C., Petty, W. J., Palich, E. L., & Longenecker, G. J. (2008). Man-
aging small business: An entrepreneurial emphasis (14th ed.). Massachu-
setts, MA: South Western Cengage Learning.
Mort, G. S., Weerawardena, J., & Carnegie, K. (2003). Social entrepreneur-
ship: Towards conceptualization. International Journal of Non-Profit &
Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(1), 76–88.
Ndedi, A. A. (2009). Entrepreneurship training and job creation in
South Africa: Are tertiary institutions filling the gap? Journal of Con-
temporary Management, 6, 463–470.
Prahalad, C. K. (2005). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating
poverty through profits. Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.
Purdue, D. (2001). Neighborhood governance: Leadership, trust and social
capital. Urban Studies, 38(12), 2211–2224.
Rao, U. S., & Sivakumar, N. (2019). Shri Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Papad. In
R. Sumathi (Ed.), ICFAI press on organizational culture (pp. 133–144).
Hyderabad, India: ICFAI University Press.
Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (2016). Research methods for social work. Boston,
MA: Cengage Learning.
Sassmannshausen, S. P., & Volkmann, C. (2018). The scientometrics of
social entrepreneurship and its establishment as an academic field.
Journal of Small Business Management, 56, 251–273.
Scholtz, L. M. (2010). Factors that impact on the successful functioning of social
entrepreneurs in the informal sector of the Nelson Mandela Metropole, South
Africa: Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University.
Schoonenboom, J., & Johnson, R. B. (2017). How to construct a mixed
methods research design. Kolner Z Soz Sozpsychol, 69(2), 107–131.
Schulyer, G. (1998). Social entrepreneurship: Profit as a means, not an end.
Kansas City, MO: Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership
Clearinghouse on Entrepreneurial Education (CELCEE).
Sharir, M., & Lerner, M. (2006). Gauging the success of social ventures initiated
by individual social entrepreneurs. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 6–20.
Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympa-
thetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769. https://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484.
Sundararaj, V. (2016). An efficient threshold prediction scheme for wavelet
based ECG signal noise reduction using variable step size firefly algo-
rithm. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 9(3), 117–126.
Sundararaj, V. (2019a). Optimal task assignment in mobile cloud computing
by queue based Ant-Bee algorithm. Wireless Personal Communications,
104(1), 173–197.
Sundararaj, V. (2019b). Optimised denoising scheme via opposition-based
self-adaptive learning PSO algorithm for wavelet-based ECG signal
noise reduction. International Journal of Biomedical Engineering and
Technology, 31(4), 325–345.
Sundararaj, V., Anoop, V., Dixit, P., Arjaria, A., Chourasia, U., Bhambri, P., …
Sundararaj, R. (2020). CCGPA-MPPT: Cauchy preferential crossover-
based global pollination algorithm for MPPT in photovoltaic system.
Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applications. https://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/pip.3315.
Sundararaj, V., Muthukumar, S., & Kumar, R. S. (2018). An optimal cluster
formation based energy efficient dynamic scheduling hybrid MAC pro-
tocol for heavy traffic load in wireless sensor networks. Computers &
Security, 77, 277–288.
Tanguay, A. G., Rajaonson, J., & Therrien, C. M. (2012). Sustainable tourism
indicators: Selection criteria for policy implementation and scientific
recognition. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21, 862–879. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09669582.2012.742531
Thompson, J. (2002). The world of the social entrepreneur. International
Journal of Public Sector Management, 15(5), 412–431.
Thompson, J., Alvy, G., & Lees, A. (2000). Social entrepreneurship—A new
look at the people and the potential. Management Decision, 38(5),
328–338.
Vinu, S., & Rejeesh, M. R (2021). A detailed behavioral analysis on con-
sumer and customer changing behavior with respect to social net-
working sites. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 58, 102190.
Younis, A., Xiaobao, P., Nadeem, M. A., Kanwal, S., Pitafi, A. H.,
Qiong, G., & Yuzhen, D. (2020). Impact of positivity and empathy on
social entrepreneurial intention: The moderating role of perceived
social support. Journal of Public Affairs, e2124. https://dx.doi.org/10.
1002/pa.2124.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Ambati Nageswara Rao is serving as a Dean, Research and Publi-
cation Division at Gujarat National Law University (GNLU), Gan-
dhinagar. He has over 8 years of teaching and research
experience at GNLU. He holds a PhD from Tata Institute of Social
Sciences, Mumbai (2012). His areas of teaching and research
experience include Social Entrepreneurship, Research Methodol-
ogy, Human Resource Management and Disability Studies. He
was a visiting Research Fellow at Freie University, Berlin, Ger-
many and visiting faculty at Adani Institute of Infrastructure Man-
agement, Ahmedabad.
How to cite this article: Ambati NR. Mapping of social
enterprises in Gujarat: Opportunities and challenges ahead.
J Public Affairs. 2020;e2468. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2468
AMBATI 9 of 9