e governance in india research paper

• Corpus ID: 152940281

E-Governance In India: Problems,Challenges and Prospects

• Vandana Gupta , Ajay Sharma
• Published 30 June 2012
• Political Science, Computer Science
• TIJ's Research Journal of Economics & Business Studies - RJEBS

Tables from this paper

5 Citations

For implementation of e-governance in rural areas of punjab, leveraging technology to improve public service delivery: a case of implementation of national electronic funds transfer (neft) system in employees provident fund organization (epfo), india, government websites of kerala: an evaluation using government of india guidelines, analysis of dilrmp project: identifying the applicability of agile project management for digital transformation projects in government and public sector, iot challenges in data and citizen-centric smart city governance, 29 references, e-governance in india: problems, challenges and opportunities — a futures vision, e-governance at grassroots level in south asia: a study of citizen-centric e-panchayats in india, the new urban governance: processes for engaging citizens and stakeholders, web 2.0: new challenges for the study of e-democracy in an era of informational exuberance, e-government in digital era: concept, practice, and development, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

• My Shodhganga
• Receive email updates
• Edit Profile

Shodhganga : a reservoir of Indian theses @ INFLIBNET

• Shodhganga@INFLIBNET
• Amity University, Noida
• Amity Business School

Items in Shodhganga are licensed under Creative Commons Licence Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).

E-governance and E-democracy: a Digital Revolution

134 Pages Posted: 5 Dec 2023

Muhammad Ali

University of Karachi

Date Written: November 4, 2023

The modern era of governance is being shaped by the fusion of technology and democracy, encapsulated in the concepts of E-Governance and E-Democracy. E-Governance leverages technology to create transparent, efficient government systems that empower citizens through accessible digital platforms. Simultaneously, E-Democracy revolutionizes democratic practice by enabling greater citizen participation in decision-making using digital tools. This synergy between E-Governance and E-Democracy establishes a foundation for citizen-centric governance, albeit with challenges such as the digital divide and privacy concerns. This transformative era in governance is marked by E-Governance's drive for efficient, citizen-centric services and E-Democracy's emphasis on enhanced citizen participation in policymaking. Together, they redefine the relationship between governments and citizens, offering innovative solutions but also facing hurdles like digital disparities and privacy issues. The convergence of these pillars signifies a pivotal moment in the evolution of democracy in the digital age, where technology reshapes civic engagement while prompting a critical examination of the challenges accompanying this digital transformation. This book explores the transformative influence of technology on governance, specifically delving into the realms of E-Governance and E-Democracy. It navigates the profound shifts in the relationship between governments and citizens, emphasizing transparent, citizen-centric services enabled by technology. Additionally, the book critically examines challenges like the digital divide and privacy concerns within this evolving landscape.

Keywords: E-Governance, E-Democracy, technology, digital divide

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Muhammad Ali (Contact Author)

University of karachi ( email ).

KU Circular Rd, Karachi, Karachi City, Sindh KARACHI, Sindh 74500 Pakistan 03333402328 (Phone)

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, development of innovation ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Innovation Law & Policy eJournal

Environment for innovation ejournal, ebusiness & ecommerce ejournal, information systems ejournal.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

E-governance in India: Concept, Initiatives and Issues

Related Papers

Ms. Risha Thakur ( Research Scholar SBS), (Assistant Professor SOL)

World governments are using various ICTs services through websites, internet, mobile phones, computer systems, they offer a platform where government public services can be utilized in an economical, transparent, unbiased and exploitation free manner. E-governance has changed the functioning of government drastically; it has introduced various amenities which are far more reliable and effective than the previous ones. General public, businesses, firms, and the state can now function effectively through these public services which utilize ICTs systems. Collective efforts, ideas, and knowledge can be put into best use through authentic information systems. The purpose behind this paper is to analyse various opportunities and various challenges faced by egovernment which are available in the Indian environment. The analysis resulted in highlighting the crawling speed of Indian e-government ICT's, the urgent need for enhancing e-government ICT's services should be placed as the top most priority in this dynamic world setup.

Murlidhar Lokhande

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY has brought revolutionary changes in every walk of life. It has accelerated the pace of globalization. Use of Internet and computers for different purposes is increasing rapidly. Internet has facilitated an efficient, speedy and transparent process for disseminating information to the public and other agencies working in different fields. The governments formulate the policies and implement them through their administrative machinery. In this process, there has to be downward, up-ward, horizontal, vertical communication between different departments of the government and the citizens. The electronic Medias of communication and computers have eased the process of administration. So, E-Governance has become a big buzzword today in government circles.

Shailja Badra

Post independence India adopted best practices in Governance from different countries of the world. It helped to serve vast cultural and geographical diversity of Indian people for a long time. Socialist ideology till the 1980’s paved way for market forces in a world where boundaries cease to exist. Technology is shaping the future of Governance in India. Utility bills, medical services, pubic distribution system, land records are accessible at the click of a button. Many states are thinking of innovative methods of being responsive to their electorate. E-governance has made the systems faster, responsive, and people friendly. Dissemination of welfare schemes, public policy initiatives, legal assistance for the needy, social sector reforms and many initiatives use technology for public good. There seems to be a reduction in corruption and dependence on people. Processes take time to get streamlined and there is a need to allocate financial resources as well. The redeployment of huma...

Nmk Bhatta , M M Bagali

arXiv preprint arXiv:1206.0681

Jasni Mohamad Zain

getasew molla

AARF Publications Journals

The traditional approaches dominated in the 20th century failed to respond to the changing environment in rendering the services to the public. E Government bought the revolution in India where government of India has taken steps to deliver the services to the citizens through the means of Information communications and technology (ICT). E government is the transformation of public sector internal and external relationship through internet enabled operations. The contribution and the role of Information communications and technology is very high. Through ICT knowledge has been created, information is shared, delivery of services, reduced cost, paperless office and many more. The

International Research Journal Commerce arts science

Governance can be termed as a system where in services to citizens are provided by the administration through a controlling mechanism with four phases, namely - information, interaction, transaction and transformation. Public administration, governed by bureaucratic structures built on rationale principles, that dominated the twentieth century, has failed to respond to the changing requirements of the present times. E-governance, which is a paradigm shift over the traditional approaches in public administration, means rendering of government services and information to the public using electronic means. This new paradigm has brought about a revolution in the quality of service delivered to the citizens. It has ushered in transparency in the governing process; saving of time due to provision of services through single window; simplification of procedures; better office and record management; reduction in corruption; and improved attitude, behaviour and job handling capacity of the dealing

Satish Sood

With the advent of Internet technology has changed the way we live and has provided many good opportunities for the job seekers, employers, business community and consumers. For this one need to understand the way Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) has presented the opportunities for the Government as well as the private sector. E-Governance is the effective use of Information and Communication Technology to improve the system of governance that in place and thus provide better services to the citizens. E-Governance is considered as a high priority agenda in India, as it is considered to be the only mean of taking IT to the " Common Public ". This new paradigm has brought about a revolution in the quality of services delivered to the citizens. It has brought about transparency in the governing process; saving of time due to provision of services through single window; simple procedures; better office and record management; control over corruption; politeness, helping attitude and job handling capacity of the dealing personnel. There is time when government department might have come across shortage of resources in one department and excess of resources in the other. This could be due to non availability of the proper data and facilities to access the data. Though the government departments are computerised and networked more for the purpose of Internet usage and mail transfer. Still the information is not properly utilized because the information is stored in different formats, in different platforms. In this paper the focus is made on the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) with the help of which the government department can not only maximize access to information but can also get rid of massive paper work often associated with various government agencies.

—Developments in the Information and Communication Technology (ICT) fields have been taking place at a rapid pace. India with its e-literate resources is fast emerging as a major initiator in e-governance adoption. This is despite the challenges arising out of conditions related to awareness, literacy, basic infrastructure, bandwidth issues and multilingual and cultural issues. Electronic Governance is concerned with transforming Government from 'Procedure and Power Centered' to 'Citizen and Service Centered' using technology as a tool. Electronic Government is a term mainly used to describe how information systems applications and systems integration could be used effectively for internal government processes and external government service delivery. India has already made its presence felt in the international initiatives by developing projects from various spheres of governance. Where projects like Bhoomi [1], Gyandoot [2] etc. exemplifies the transactional phase of e-governance; several others like e-Suvidha, e-Kosh is an example in the interactional phase. In this paper we have discuss about the e-governance initiatives taken by the Government.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Amit Manglani

PARAMASIVAN CHELLIAH

Satinder Bal Gupta

Rakshit Kweera

bimal rawot

Journal of emerging technologies and innovative research

Debarshi Nag

Kanchan Kamila

Interal Res journa Managt Sci Tech

IJIRIS Journal Division

International Journal of Computer Applications

nikita yadav

International Journal of Electronic Security and Digital Forensics

Dr. Vineeta Khemchandani

Mouneshwara Srinivasrao

Professor Anil Kumar Vaddiraju

Dr. Saroj Kumar Singh

Bhrantav Vora , Adarsh Patel

International Journal of Management, IT & Engineering,

Krishna Prasad Rao

Dr G V I J A Y A KUMAR

priya kunduvalappil

Vijender Beniwal

rama prasad

SK International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Hub

SK Publisher

Ricky Mukonza

preeti mahajan

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Integrating social policy dimensions into entrepreneurship education: a perspective from India

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 17 September 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Michael Snowden   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1218-7434 1 ,
• Liz Towns-Andrews 2 ,
• Jamie P. Halsall 1 ,
• Roopinder Oberoi 3 &
• Walter Mswaka 4  

Social innovation and social enterprise are often supposed as methodological solutions to address multifaceted socio-economic problems, due to the sharing of ideas and their involvement of stakeholders from different sectors. This cooperative treatise (Ziegler in Innov Eur J Soc Sci Res 30:388–405, 2017) is striking to legislators across the political gamut. This research is therefore positioned within the broader literature on social innovation and its policy relevance; even though social innovation is not a novel thought, the application of social innovation as a policy idea and its part in relation to the restructuring of the prevailing welfare establishment has gained momentum in recent years. Hence, in their paper the authors will examine how social enterprise as a concept can act as a positive catalyst for influencing policy (i.e. public and social) in the developing world. To meet the overall aim of this paper, the authors employed a case study of India and applied a three-step approach, namely: (1) a literature review process that explored a variety of policy methods that can influence on the accomplishment and measurement of social enterprises; (2) a policy survey, which entailed desk-based searches of national and state-level policies, followed by stakeholder consultation queries to complement online results; and (3) qualitative interviews with stakeholders from government agencies and departments at national and state levels, including the Ministry of Finance, representatives of private industry, chambers of commerce, social investors, social enterprise networks, and advocacy leads. The research findings that are presented in this paper were funded by Delhi School of Public Policy and Governance, Institute of Eminence at the University of Delhi.

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

This paper presents an exploration of the various facets of the social enterprise ecosystem within India and how government, organisational, and institutional policies directly and indirectly impact social enterprises through specific targeted actions or by influencing the broader policy framework within which they operate. This can have either a positive or negative impact on the development of social entrepreneurship. When an organisational body specifically designed for social enterprises exists, it serves as a convenient ‘one-stop-shop’ for specific issues associated with social enterprise and provides a vehicle of support for social entrepreneurs. For example, the global organisation Social Enterprise Mark, which is an award-winning international social enterprise accreditation authority based in the UK that recognises and builds the capabilities of social enterprises as competitive, sustainable businesses, dedicated to maximising social impact (Social Enterprise Mark, n.d. ). The one-stop approach to social enterprise support provides a valuable support system for social enterprises and social entrepreneurs as they strive to create favourable ecosystems that support social enterprise growth and development though an holistic approach that considers the unique aspects of their business models.

Institutions internationally are increasingly acknowledging social enterprises as crucial partners in their pursuit of sustainable, inclusive, and prosperous societies. The significance of this was acknowledged in the Spring of 2023 by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs and Social Inclusion (UN, 2023 ), emphasising the contribution that social enterprise can make towards attaining the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Adoption of this unprecedented, unopposed resolution that calls upon institutions within the global community to support the development of social enterprise is a clear catalyst for the social and solidarity economy that placed emphasis on social justice.

However, social enterprise is in a state of infancy and is juxtaposed against the demands of the UNDP; this paper, therefore, addresses those facets of the social enterprise ecosystem within India and how Integration of social policy into entrepreneurship education facilitates understanding and application of social enterprise at institutional, regional, national, and international levels. The first assessment of the institutional context is broken down into three key components:

State Policy and Programmes: The assessment involves examining whether there is an established state policy, approach, action plan, or dedicated programme. These elements guide the overall direction and priorities within the institution.

Uniformity: The exploration considers legal, political, and professional standards to identify consistency and inconsistencies across administrative bodies and agencies.

Policy Framework: Understanding the policy framework requires the study of those processes that develop, implement, and monitor the institutional framework. A crucial element of this is the engagement and collaboration with relevant stakeholders and beneficiaries.

However, this cannot be simply broken down into a set of three steps. As identified by Oberoi et al. ( 2022 ), the nature of social enterprise is dynamic, multifaceted, and complex. Therefore, when assessing the interaction between institutional bodies (such as chambers of commerce) and social enterprises, several key factors influence the relationship. First, a clearly defined and informed institutional framework—whether through a nationwide policy, agreed strategic approach and plan, or a dedicated schemata—provides valuable support for social enterprise growth and development. In addition, statutory and legal frameworks that complement the policy contribute to feasibility and sustainability. Developing this framework creates a significant challenge for those disciplines that are embryonic. For example, it is well documented that the social enterprise knowledge base is poorly developed, that strategies, polices, and programmes are often untested, and that change adopted and implemented is frequently not built on an evidence base (Halsall et al., 2022a , 2022b ).

To ensure success, active engagement with other institutional bodies is vital. This involvement facilitates information sharing, connecting social enterprises and entrepreneurs with public and statutory agencies, formal and informal support networks, and financial providers. The statutory body itself can contribute by raising awareness through campaigns and by monitoring, assessing, and evaluating the implementation of social enterprise related strategies and development plans. In the Indian context, creating an enabling environment and recognising the government’s pivotal role in supporting the social enterprise sector are key considerations that influence success (British Council 2015 ; British Council 2016 ; British Council 2020 ).

Establishing a collaborative, collegial, coherent, and holistic framework to support the emergence and consolidation of social enterprises is crucial for maximising their social and economic impact. While the plans themselves are essential, policy approaches play an equally significant role. Effective policies are more likely to emerge when built through horizontal cooperation (across different administration portfolios) and vertical coordination (across various levels of administration), in collaboration with relevant stakeholders. This collaborative approach reduces the likelihood of anomalies leading to better policy consistency and overall effectiveness. The authors of this paper have identified four areas that are underrepresented within existing literature and are distinctly related to policy frameworks for innovation and social enterprise in India.

Social enterprises often operate at the juncture of different policy areas and disciplines. Consequently, their actions are entwined with various government ministries and agencies. Engaging in a collaborative dialogue with a broad range of relevant stakeholders and beneficiaries (perceived and actual) allows for a richer understanding of the presenting issues. This understanding contributes to the development of well-informed, real-world policies that effectively address emergent challenges and contribute to the sustainability and longevity of policies.

Legal frameworks play a crucial role in shaping policies. They can legitimise social enterprises and expand the legal definition of ‘enterprise’ to include entities that blend entrepreneurial approaches with social and environmental missions. The trend towards embracing legal and statutory frameworks reflects the enhanced interest in social enterprises and other entities of the social economy. These entities prioritise public and social interests and make a distinct contribution to specific policies (such as renewable energy and other green initiatives) and strategic priorities, including job creation, skills development, and public health initiatives for disadvantaged and marginalised groups. However, globally there is a reliance on working definitions (that are frequently poorly crafted) and criteria (embedded in strategies and action plans) to identify social enterprises.

The existent literature demonstrates a research topic in its infancy (Campopiano & Bassani, 2021 ; Farinha et al., 2020 ; Novak, 2021 ; Opuni et al., 2022 ; Winful et al., 2022 ) and characterised by four key themes that include social entrepreneurship, social movement, community development, and social innovation (Farinha et al., 2020 ; Winful et al., 2022 ). Academic research on social entrepreneurship has emphasised the social outcome of business activities that aim for value creation beyond profit maximisation (Campopiano & Bassani, 2021 ; Del Gesso, 2020 ). However, the research is dominated by the disciplines of Business and Management Studies; subsequently, the social impact of research is often understated (Snowden et al., 2023a ).

Social innovation is often seen as the opportunity for social enterprises to significantly invest in the creation of social outcomes to address people's needs. Social innovation and social enterprise are often proposed as a solution to address multifaceted social economic problems, by sharing ideas and involving stakeholders from different sectors. This cooperative treatise, as described by Ziegler ( 2017 ), presents an opportunity to legislators across the political spectrum.

Recent work carried out by the UK’s Quality Assurance Agency ( 2018 ) and Snowden et al., ( 2023a , 2023b , 2023c ) has illustrated that there are diverse aspects of social entrepreneurship, which have been influenced by international public policy in the context of social, economic, cultural, political, and sustainability agendas. Consequently, this has created a new emphasis on entrepreneurship, innovation, and social enterprise driven by the social justice and socio-environmental debate that has emerged strongly since the COVID pandemic. Nonetheless, it is this complexity that has resulted in conceptual challenges regarding the nature of social enterprise and its relationship with the social entrepreneur.

Social enterprise is not a new concept, but it is growing exponentially as illustrated by the post-pandemic abundance of academic literature on the rise of social enterprise (Chilufya et al., 2023 ; Halsall et al., 2022a ; Oberoi, 2021 ). This increased attention has been evident in a global context, as many governments across the world are shifting away from state-controlled, funded projects and moving towards a more social entrepreneurial approach. The emerging contemporary notions of social enterprise and the social entrepreneur are contributing to an identity and establishing some degree of clarity upon the nature and purpose of a social enterprise.

The impetus for this renewed vigour towards social enterprise is linked to the world adjusting to the demands of living in a post-COVID world (Oberoi et al., 2022 ). It is widely accepted that the global social welfare system is broken and traditional welfare models are ill-equipped to address the emerging social needs in the wake of the pandemic. As a result, there is a clear need for fresh, creative ideas to replace intransigent, archaic, and inflexible systems of welfare. Halsall et al. ( 2020 ) reaffirm this view, commenting that the traditional, rigid, institutionalised assumption of a two-sector economic model is being replaced with the view that social enterprise can provide a mitigating conduit to deal with the challenges associated with social and economic problems.

Social entrepreneurship is underpinned by strong social innovation. Despite social innovation’s long history, it remains relatively under-researched, leading to untapped opportunities (Farinha et al., 2020 ). For social enterprise to develop, it must be underpinned by strong social innovation, and ensuring the connection between social innovation and social enterprise is crucial because both address social and environmental challenges, aiming for positive change but are co-dependent on each other. These approaches provide innovative solutions for pressing issues such as poverty, inequality, environmental degradation, healthcare access, and education. By combining innovative creative thinking with practical solutions, they offer new ways to solve complex problems. Both social innovation and social enterprise prioritise long-term sustainability, moving beyond short-term fixes to address root causes. Collaboration and partnerships are essential, involving government agencies, non-profits organisations, industries, institutions, and communities collaborating towards shared goals, enhancing efficiency, scalability, and sustainability.

A contemporary popular definition for social enterprise is provided by the global organisation Deloitte ( 2018 ), which suggests that a social enterprise is an organisation that combines revenue growth and profit-making with a commitment to respecting and supporting its local community and stakeholders. A crucial element of this involves actively monitoring and adapting to the trends shaping the contemporary world or community and is built by collaborative (social) entrepreneurs who embrace their responsibility as good citizens and act as a model for others. However, this fails to acknowledge the complex and dynamic nature of social enterprise. A responsive definition is proposed within the literature that defines it as a multifaceted change process through which social entrepreneurs offer economic inclusion and social engagement to different global community and social groups through creative, solution-orientated strategies (Halsall et al., 2020 ; Oberoi et al., 2019 ). This recent definition provides and emphasises the importance of innovation underpinning social enterprise.

Contemporary social enterprise acquires a new significance that focusses upon providing innovative approaches to address pressing social needs and challenges reflected by the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as poverty, inclusion, disparity, environmental degradation, gender equality, access to healthcare, social welfare and education, and innovative solutions all embracing the notion of social justice. Joining innovative thinking with well-designed innovative solutions will enable new ways of mitigating multifaceted problems to emerge. Social entrepreneurs are the altruistic, solutions-orientated, forward-thinking characters that develop social enterprises to go beyond short-term solutions and place emphasis on creating enduring solutions that address root causes of problems. Social entrepreneurs ensure, and by their very nature emphasise and firmly embed collaboration, co-participation, and partnership working. When developing an enterprise, they bring on key participants; for example, government agencies, non-profits organisations, industries, and communities are enlisted along with actual and potential beneficiaries, all working together towards shared goals. This collaborative alliance improves the efficiency, scalability, and sustainability of the innovation in a collegial approach that embraces entrepreneurial methods to design solution and encourage imaginative thinking. By applying business principles to social and environmental challenges, they foster innovation, adaptability, and creativity.

Social enterprises aim to be financially sustainable while concurrently creating social impact. They advance business models that make revenue through the sale of goods or services, reducing reliance on external funding sources. Distinctly, social enterprises empower people and groups by providing prospects for economic participation, skills development, and social inclusion. They often prioritise marginalised groups, permitting them to become dynamic givers to the social order and agents of change, while leveraging resources like human capital, technology, networks, and funding. The collaborative approach maximises the collective impact of efforts and has the potential to energise systemic change by challenging existing systems and structures and is able to provide a full spectrum of activities, ranging from conventional to hybrid organisations, serving as a catalyst for broader societal transformation.

How are social enterprises legally defined?

Unsurprisingly, the term ‘social enterprise’ is not commonly used in legal frameworks, policies, or literature; consequently, this lack of direct terminology poses a significant challenge for social enterprises. However, several countries do recognise new forms of entrepreneurship that align with the concept of social enterprise. De jure social enterprises (i.e. legally recognised practice and actions) are legally recognised under specific legal frameworks that establish clear legal forms and statuses to support their development—examples include the ‘solidarity enterprise of social utility [ entreprise solidaire d’utilité sociale ]’ (ESUS) in France, the ‘societal impact company’ in Luxembourg, and the ‘social cooperative’ in Poland—whereas de facto social enterprises are not legally recognised through specific social enterprise designations. However, they can still be identified based on their contributions to social challenges and adopt recognised social enterprise business models.

Social enterprises can adopt various authorised arrangements and statuses that reflect their unique characteristics, including their entrepreneurial and economic approaches, societal goals, and comprehensive governance and ownership structures (OECD, 2022 ). In a strict legal context, social enterprises represent an operational archetype (Caire & Tadjudje, 2019 ) reflected by the social cultural context in which they operate and those challenges the enterprise is attempting to mitigate.

While there are inconsistencies on legal definitions of social enterprises there are some key facets that are fundamental to the nature of social enterprises.

A corporate business model generates profit solely for owners and keeps operational for cost benefit deliberation and need to obtain other ventures in line with the principles of the business. However, the social enterprise model creates value not just for the business but is driven by social and environmental impact. Legal frameworks stipulate that social enterprises must explicitly pursue a defined social objective, and some nations limit the notion of flexibility and responsiveness by defining the arenas of engagement in which social enterprises are expected to function. For example, in Luxembourg, societal impact companies must respond to at least one pre-defined area of a 2016 Law on Societal Impact Companies (European Commission, 2020 ). Similarly, in Italy, the 1991 Italian Law on Social Cooperatives requires entities to be operational in at least one sector in an A-list of activities (well-being care, conservation protection, and improvement of cultural heritage) or B-list activities (organisations that conduct entrepreneurial activity oriented to job inclusion of underprivileged or disabled workers/individuals, irrespective of the area or areas) (OECD, 2022 ). Furthermore, some nations’ social enterprises are required to implement an asset lock to ensure their long-term social purpose and prioritise social impact in decision-making. The asset lock typically involves two mechanisms: restricting or limiting profit distribution to owners and ensuring that any surplus upon dissolution is transferred to a similar initiative. For instance, in the UK, France, Italy, Belgium, and Luxembourg, social enterprises are asked to maintain a limited asset or full asset lock in order to safeguard the longevity of the social purpose and clearly prioritise social impact within decision-making processes alongside a reproducible audit of decision-making processes (Fici 2015 ). In addition, there are defined limitations on the amount of profit that can be redistributed to the owners or staff within the social enterprise. A distinct component of some legal frameworks that enhance the spirit of social enterprise is the notion of inclusive governance. Some legal frameworks require the workforce to be part of the decision-making process within a social enterprise and for this to be clearly defined and auditable. For example, within France it is obligatory to involve stakeholders in some company choices (OECD, 2022 ).

Social enterprises are organisations that take diverse legal forms across nations to pursue both social and economic goals with an entrepreneurial spirit. From a global perspective, there a set of key commercial and societal fundamentals that can be used to define social enterprises:

Social enterprises are distinct from orthodox for-profit organisations which are outrightly involved in the production and/or sale of goods and services (instead of chiefly advice-giving or grant-giving occupations);

Social enterprises are designed and fulfilled by groups of citizens and community members;

Social enterprises typically sell products and/or deliver services to members of the public and private users to produce their revenues;

Social enterprises operate in the monetary economy, and use non-commercial resources to become sustainable and;

They share a social dimension in their entrepreneurial goals, which should be based on a distinct social interest and based on unmet needs or presented and established within a legislative model (OECD, 2022 ).

Social entrepreneurship and social enterprises have existed for decades (John et al., 2024 ). The development and advent of social enterprise have taken diverse routes in different geographic areas in the world but can still be grouped according to two foremost schools of thought. One is the market-based or commercial social enterprise arrangement, and the second is more of a blended or hybrid-based form of social enterprise. The market-based formula emerged prominently in North America and Africa, while the hybrid-based plan was adopted more in European and Latin American countries. Haarich et al. ( 2020 ) propose that legal frameworks can be an authoritative tool to foster and bolster social enterprise expansion and, where these are in place, social impact is more accurately measured.

The recent report published by the European Commission ( 2020 ) identifies approximately 397 000 social enterprises among European Union member states. For example, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Hungary have over 1,600 social enterprises per million residents, while Estonia, Malta, and Greece have much less than 500 (European Commission, 2020 ). In comparison, India has around 2,000,000 social enterprises and the UK 100,000 (John  et al., 2024 ). However, this data does need to be reviewed with caution. As illustrated, there are numerous descriptions of the nature of social enterprise and inconsistencies in legal recognition for social enterprises between nations and regions.

Nonetheless, governments are increasingly looking towards external agencies to solve social and economic problems in society (Khan & Halsall, 2017 ; Oberoi et al., 2021 ). Globally, an era of social enterprise is gaining momentum and is prevalent in many debates within businesses, society, and educational institutions. However, for this to progress in an informed and systematic way, there is need for a strategic realignment of policy with key social enterprise dimensions that will be shaped by five factors:

Political Environment: The administration’s role significantly influences the emergence of social enterprises. When societal issues align with administrative priorities, natural synergies arise, especially in the context of the neoliberal paradigm.

Legal Environment: Like traditional private enterprises, social enterprises require an iterative process of refining knowledge and execution. A supportive legal environment—one that avoids excessive regulation and unwarranted oversight—facilitates this progression.

Social Environment: Favourable social and cultural conditions are essential for nurturing social entrepreneurs. A strong civil society and focus on socio-economic challenges contribute to the development of social enterprises.

Cultural Environment: The enthusiasm of civil society plays a crucial role in the rise of social enterprise. Often, social entrepreneurs emerge from within civil society, responding to socio-economic issues with innovative approaches.

Institutional Environment: To advance social enterprises from emergence to maturity, institutional support is critical. Curricula in academic institutions can prepare novice social entrepreneurs with knowledge and networks.

Despite the challenges in defining the nature and legal basis of social enterprises, they undoubtedly play a vital role in addressing social, economic, and environmental challenges. Applying this observation to the Indian context, there are four key issues that run concurrently with these factors that demand the realignment of policy and social enterprise dimensions:

The legal status of social enterprises is not clearly defined, generating issues with credibility and authenticity, which in turn undermine the development of policy and strategy.

Regarding sustainability, governments must foster an environment that encourages social entrepreneurship and innovation. India (not is isolation) faces a distinct challenge in this area.

The review of literature reveals that social enterprise in India lacks a comprehensive policy framework for understanding the complexities of the phenomenon and its determinants.

There are no clear-cut guidelines of how to improve and enhance social enterprise activities across the nation. The distribution of social enterprise is geographically inconsistent.

Methodological approach to the research

This research is positioned within broader literature on social innovation and its policy relevance. Even though social innovation is not a novel concept, the application of social innovation as a policy idea and its relationship to the restructuring of the prevailing welfare establishment is synonymous with the development of social enterprise.

Embracing the spirit of social innovation was a key feature of the methodological approach adopted in this study. The involvement of partners, prospective partners, and actual and potential beneficiaries is essential to reflect the philosophical basis of social enterprise and to provide a cross cultural and social representation of each community as part of the research and evaluation process. This will provide the firm foundation towards enabling the attainment of the study’s objectives. This study utilised an embedded a case study approach, drawing upon the approach illustrated by Yin ( 2018 ).

The case study approach is used when evaluating and exploring the nature of underlying issues with reference to an identified phenomenon (Robson & McCartan, 2016 ; Yin, 2018 ). The case study approach is the most appropriate to explore the underlying factors perceived to influence a key phenomenon under investigation and is particularly useful when the phenomenon is an under-researched subject. This approach was particularly suited to this study as it reflects the emerging and contemporary phenomenon of social enterprise, enabling the development of an explanation and the exploration of the causal relationships of underlying determinants influencing the development of social enterprise (Robson & McCartan, 2016 ). This enabled the detailed exploration of those factors that influence the determinants of social enterprise and its flexibility; it also allowed the perceptions of participants to be included, and this flexible research design enabled the researchers to evaluate the strengths and limitations of the subject studied in context. A case study effectively addresses the ‘what’, ‘how’, and ‘why’ of events, experiences, phenomena, and data collected in the process, each crucial features of this research. Enabling the researchers to gather information, understand processes, and explore reasons, and thereby facilitating effective and deeper understanding of the various facets of social enterprise and policy development within the Indian context.

Specifically, the research team adopted a mixed methods and exploratory embedded multiple case study design approach proposed by Yin ( 2018 ) was utilised as this specifically offers an insight to the micro-cultural and socio-economic and political influences upon policy development. It is this aspect of the case study that resonates with the aspirations of the study, referring, as Yin asserts, to multiple sources of evidence enables researchers to capture the perspectives of different data sets and participants, focussing on how their different meanings illuminates new perspectives (Yin, 2018 ) is appropriate for the research.

Conceptual framework

The following illustrates the processes that were undertaken to establish a model of change to promote an understanding of the policy framework, the role, forms, practice, and value of learning within social enterprise, and how this could contribute to the development of a policy framework for innovation and social enterprise in India. The model comprises a four-step cyclical process that involves assessment, solutions-orientated problem solving, implementation, and reflection and evaluation (Snowden et al., 2023a ):

Assessment—comprises a holistic method of data collection from all available sources. For the purpose of this study, this involved:

Semi-structured and focus interviews of key beneficiaries (actual and potential) and stakeholders, e.g. NGOs, statutory agencies, community members, social entrepreneurs, and representative of social enterprise groups and agencies.

A desk top review using a systematic method to assess existing research, policy, and curriculum documentation for information relevant to parameters of this study.

Online survey of actual beneficiaries and stakeholders, e.g. NGOs, statutory agencies, community members, social entrepreneurs, and representative of social enterprise groups and agencies.

Solutions-orientated problem solving—involves the development and design of recommendations and solutions to problems and challenges identified from data collected in the assessment phase.

Implementation—is an active phase delivering the solutions to the research questions presented. This stage involved: an initial dissemination of findings; peer review; design of recommendations, strategy materials, and policy based on the evaluation and analysis of data collected.

Reflection and evaluation—this required holistic evaluation and testing in addition to harnessing the reflective elements of Kirkpatrick’s model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016 ).

Data collection and analysis

The following methods were used for the data collection:

Document review

Document review within this study includes all publicly available policy, curriculum, and practice documents. The purpose of performing document analysis is to inquire in what ways and to what extent literature is presented and if it is visibly accurate and representative. A systematic approach was used to frame the document review. Documents included specific guidelines aimed exclusively at social enterprises and those additionally associated more broadly towards social enterprise, social innovation, and allied fields such as small and medium enterprise (SME) policy, and policy intents and achievements/failures each within the context of India. The data collected were used to inform and provide a meticulous summary of available data in relation to the research question and objectives of the study. Prior to analysis, data that met the criteria for the study were analysed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool approach. Using content analysis (Krippendorff, 2019 ) enabled inferences to be developed regarding the content within the texts analysed.

Online survey

An online questionnaire was developed to identify those key features of social enterprise that have been influenced or constrained by developments and policies within India. Each of the questions was developed by data identified in the literature review and in consultation with the research team. The purposive sample included key beneficiaries (actual and potential) and stakeholders, e.g. NGOs, statutory agencies, community members, social entrepreneurs, and representative of social enterprise groups and agencies within India. Overall measures of the importance of the different dimensions of influence were calculated using the descriptive statistical method ‘relative importance index’ (Robson & McCartan, 2016 ), and free-text responses were analysed using content analysis.

The interview method is highly recommended when the focus of the study is to explore the meaning associated with a particular phenomenon (Robson & McCartan, 2016 ). For the purpose of this study, semi-structured interviews and semi-structured focus groups were conducted. Interview questions were informed by the literature/desk top review, the results of the online survey, and agreed within the research team. While semi-structured interviews were considered to be the most appropriate method for data collection, as this enabled the curation of views on the perspectives explored, to enhance the credibility and replicability of the study, focus groups were also conducted. This dual approach to collecting qualitative data allowed within the focus groups a sense of greater security, where the group dynamic allowed participants to build on one another's responses and generate ideas that they might not have thought of in an individual interview. Furthermore, the strategy of conducting the focus groups first provided the opportunity to follow up issues and perspectives into more detail from a single perspective.

In evaluative studies, the quality of the information collated is dependent upon the quality of the interview process; to ensure consistency, an interview guide was developed using the principles of PROMPT (Open University, 2024 ) and key suppositions based on the experiences and wisdom of the participants and available literature. This exercise contributed to the validity and credibility of the data collection tools within the evaluative framework (Robson & McCartan, 2016 ). Purposive sampling was used to conduct a series of 34 interviews and 14 focus group interviews. Data collected from both focus groups and interviews were analysed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006 ), transcribed verbatim, coded, and used to analyse similar and comparative themes or patterns to establish key findings.

Results from the survey

The survey posed 10 key questions:

Question 1: What is the scope of social entrepreneurship, especially in a price sensitive market like India ?

The responses (65%) indicate that many feel the scope for social enterprises is huge but that new social enterprises face fundraising challenges. Market competition hinders the growth of social enterprises and catering to Indian market. 50% of the respondents suggested that social enterprises need to price their products/services at a cheaper cost than competitors but this leads to issues with sustainability.

Question 2: Do you see a growing trend in inclination towards social enterprises among Indian youth?

Generally, the participants (70%) perceived that the youth is generally more aware about the environmental and social issues, and are able to understand the role of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise. Participants suggested that there is a sense of responsibility in the younger generation and imply that this group is more innovative and environmentally conscious, so they are more aware of the social enterprise concept as it blends social and economic strategy to respond to social challenges.

Question 3: Are there any incentives and schemes by the Indian and state governments to encourage social enterprise?

Many participants (75%) expressed that, over the past 10 years, the government has been encouraging and continues to encourage social innovation, technological solutions, and a number of schemes have been announced during the past decade to support young entrepreneurs, such as Avishay Capita, Atal Innovation Mission, Support for International Patent Protection in Electronics & Information Technology (SIP-EIT), National Skill Development Corporation, Start-Up India Programme, MeitY Start-up Hub, Start-Up India, and the Stand-Up India Scheme.

Question.5: What could the government or society do to encourage social entrepreneurship?

The respondents had many suggestions that could be taken up by the government and society to encourage and promote social entrepreneurship in the country:

The provision of incentives and financial aid to new social enterprises.

Launching courses and education programmes in schools and universities to raise awareness regarding the concept of social entrepreneurship.

Setting up incubation centres and innovation centres across the country.

The provision of tax benefits to new social enterprises, at least in their initial years.

People, as a society, need to support small-scale social enterprises over large-scale manufacturing houses who are able to provide goods and services at lower costs.

Question 6: What are the main barriers to the development of social entrepreneurship in India?

The overwhelming response was that issues linked to funding are the most critical barrier. There is also lack of awareness among participants about how to harness support for innovative ideas; educational institutions have not been teaching social enterprise courses, and complex regulatory frameworks and bureaucratic procedures are significant barriers in conjunction with a lack of skill and capability development programmes and capacity building. Some participants highlighted that they had opportunities provided by a local university; however, these were not experienced by all.

Question 7: Should the concept of social entrepreneurship and innovation be incorporated into the education curricula?

The response was distinct; it was clear that the participants viewed universities as having a role in challenging the old paradigms of business schools that prioritise profit maximisation. Higher education institutions (HEIs) were viewed by some as engaging with the social enterprise sector in order to discover sustainable solutions for concerns around economic and social disparity and justice. However, this was found to be regionally disparate. All participants agreed that universities should be promoting knowledge and understanding of social enterprise.

Question 8: Do you think the concept of social enterprise requires additional skill development training programmes in higher education settings?

Universities were perceived as income generators within a local community, and most importantly, are seen as a hub between different institutions (public, private, and non-government organisations). Each participant commented that additional skills are needed to fulfil the role of the social entrepreneur.

Question 9: Is the emergence of social enterprise a potential alternative development channel to rapidly shifting Indian policies?

Rich and uniform answers were provided as a response to this question. Participants viewed the growth of social enterprise as significant over recent years. In particular, uniformly they viewed social enterprise as demonstrating spectacular growth in India, with the country being referred to as ‘a social enterprise superpower’ by Think, a social action think-tank and action hub, as well as ‘a hotbed for social enterprise’ by Beyond Profit magazine, a leading social enterprise magazine. Social enterprises have been extremely effective in driving development in India, which is home to one of the world’s largest populations still living in poverty.

Question 10: Indian Social enterprises are very active but operate as NGOs, small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) or foundations, in the absence of any legal definition that could form a basis for policy dialogue. Do you agree with this?

In spite of India having a legal form that closely mirrors the social enterprise model, 80% of the survey respondents reported that they operate as private limited

companies and they find the lack of legal clarity a huge hurdle. There is growing diversity in the way social enterprises are being registered, with participants commenting that this lack of clarity dilutes their social mission.

Findings from the literature review

The survey findings mirrored what was found within the literature. Social enterprises are perceived as positive change agents; they offer the latest methodologies, innovative solutions, and novel conceptual frameworks. Social enterprises attend to social issues and support marginalised and disadvantaged people by developing innovative community-centred methods to resolve challenging issues. Many understand social enterprise as a transformational trend in the progression towards making standard for-profit enterprises that change themselves to generate social value. Opuni et al. ( 2022 ) present the view that, in a local community context, social enterprises create opportunities and can have a real impact in the geographical area (e.g. in tackling poverty, and in employment, education, and environmental issues).

While reviewing the literature, government programmes, and policy supporting the social enterprise sector were found to be too recent to provide evidence of long-term impact. However, there are early results from adaptations to selected local contexts in developing countries that can inform policy design for those governments that are considering the social enterprise agenda as part of their strategy to achieve the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Indian social enterprises are very active but operate chiefly as NGOs, small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) or foundations. Enterprises operate in the absence of legal definitions or even a commonly shared operational definition that could form the basis for policy dialogue among the various stakeholders. Nonetheless, India has commenced a policy dialogue around the social enterprise sector and has recently adapted policy sections that provide a vehicle for engaging with social entrepreneurs. A special social enterprise section has been included within the Enterprise Policy, adopted in 2015 by the Ministry of Skills Development and Entrepreneurship. It provides 14 definitions and specifies forms of support for social enterprises, which includes higher education courses, fiscal incentives for social investment, incubation, grassroots technology hubs, and engagement on innovation with existing entities such as the National Innovation Foundation. Despite the government promoting an ecosystem to encourage social business, impact investment, and social enterprises, the on-the-ground realities of running a social venture remain daunting. However, these changes are pointing to a bright future for India's social entrepreneurship scene.

With an estimated two million social enterprises in India, it is one of the most dynamic social entrepreneurship environments globally. In their 12th Five Year Plan (2012–2017), the Government of India ( 2011 ) accorded priority to Bottom-of-the-Pyramid (Bop) focussed enterprises and social good ventures by declaring the period between 2010 and 2020 as the ‘decade of innovation’. The government is committed to helping social enterprises in capacity building by investing seed capital through a fund called the India Inclusive Innovation Fund (IIIF) in areas of healthcare, energy, urban infrastructure, water, and transportation. IIIF has been capitalised to INR 5000 crores (USD 780 million) and was to be allocated to social enterprises over the 10-year period starting 2010; 20% of a social venture’s funds came from this fund while the remaining 80% will have to come from private investors.

The COVID-19 pandemic has clearly highlighted the critical significance of strengthening systems and building resilience across communities—principally among those living in severe scarcity and who are most at risk during these major disruptions. A social innovation approach puts competence to harness innovation at the hub of community solution orientate problem solving. However, this necessitates a distributed and dispersed arrangement where innovation and social enterprise connects through networks. Halsall et al.( 2020 ) assert that in addition to developing the traditional learner-teacher relationship, pedagogical restructuring needs to take place in regard to social entrepreneurial skill development and that this should take two forms: (1) changes in the curriculum, and (2) changes in the techniques of teaching and learning. The illustration by Snowden et al. ( 2023a , 2023b , 2023c ) presents a conceptualisation of this remodelling of enterprise education, which is developing at various levels globally, as illustrated by the UK—the India Research Initiative ( 2019 ) annual report, the Developing Inclusive Creative Economies (DICE) ( 2019 ), and the British Council ( 2016 ).

Two projects illustrate how this remodelling is influencing the development of social enterprise. The first is a collaborative project between Kirori Mal College, University of Delhi, and the University of Huddersfield. This project formed a collaboration and works in partnership with several stakeholders, including new and existing social enterprises, and has developed a series of educational tools and packages that have advanced social enterprise within a number of different contexts. The second example is the Tamil Nadu Polytechnic College, Madurai, India, project. The aim of this project was to promote the use of ICT and smart classrooms to enhance teaching and learning. This project achieved success via a 30% improvement in teaching materials, a 40% increase in staff using integrated teaching methods, a 40% increase in acquisition of knowledge outside traditional sources of information, and a 10% overall increase in academic performance. Undoubtedly, a symbiotic relationship must develop between social enterprise to be successful, and indeed for HEIs to fulfil their role successfully.

The following assumptions were made about what policy is potentially relevant to social enterprises:

Policies or programmes affecting or targeting SMEs have the potential to include some social enterprises.

Policies and plans influencing organisation registering and governance of organisations and enterprises have the potential to influence social enterprise, given that they register in multiple forms.

Policies or programmes targeting low income and disadvantaged groups in terms of improving their livelihoods and/or access to social services have the potential to influence some social enterprises.

Policies or strategies deliberating financial growth, industrial expansion, sector-level development, or social development have the potential to affect social enterprises.

Qualitative findings

The results from focus group discussions bring out common concerns that were reflected and emphasised by further probing in the individual interviews, reaffirming the reliability of the findings. Participants expressed the consistent view that the social enterprise situation in India has changed considerably in recent years and was dynamic in response to societal trends. The participants were asked about the major objectives for setting up a social enterprise. The most frequently specified aim of social enterprises in the focus group discussions was generating employment (70% of participants), followed by social inclusion (45% of participants), improving health (40% of participants), protecting the environment (40% of participants), addressing social exclusion (40% of participants), supporting agriculture and allied activities (36%), empowering women (35%), promoting education (40% of participants), and supporting vulnerable groups (23% of participants).

At present, though the Indian government has supported social entrepreneurs there are still substantial funding challenges, meaning they often fail to secure start-up capital. There are a limited number of financial institutions that lend financial support to social entrepreneurs, as they hold a misconception that these organisations are not profitable. Participants were invited to propose how social entrepreneurship could be improved, the data collected identified three themes:

Enhancing and expanding research and education on social enterprise and social economy in schools and universities, which might help to develop both local knowledge and the talent pipeline.

Encouraging private and public procurement channels to be more inclusive, enabling the procurement of services and goods from social enterprises that impart social and environmental value.

The creation of incentives for funding and investment.

It is evident from each data set that there are significant growth plans for social enterprise; for example: the majority of surveyed social enterprises is looking to enlarge their scope, reach new areas, and increase their customer base by developing new products and services. A disturbing observation notable in both the literature review and commentary from participants was the barrier associated with recruitment. The foremost recruitment challenge was perceived to be finding and retaining junior to mid-level talent, with a lack of awareness and understanding of social enterprise identified as key contributory features. Respondents were asked during the interview discussions about funding and finance they have received since they started operating. The nature of funds received primarily consist of funding from the government; endowments from foundations; indentures from the government; fees, sales, and charges; and aids—cash and in-kind (e.g. apparatus, volunteer time, etc.). The nature of finance received comprised of: capital grants; concessional loans (loans with below-market interest rates); commercial finances (market interest rate loans); and equity or equity-like investments. Of the respondents surveyed, 40% count on grants from foundations, and 28% of social enterprises got funds from philanthropists and charities; capital grants (24%); commercial loans (27%); funding from government schemes (25%); contracts from governments (18%); and concessional advances lower than the market rate (14%).

There is a significant variance between the funding of social enterprises and conventional commercial organisations. Of the social enterprises surveyed, 40 faced difficulties gaining access to investors due to inadequate networks. This was significant in some areas, where support establishments are rare and social enterprises are limited. For example, there is significant social enterprise presence in Maharashtra and Karnataka as compared to Utter Pradesh or North East states. Nearly 30% of the social enterprises recognised a lack of access to debt/equity as a key stumbling block. New social enterprises are moving to repayable finance to establish and expand their businesses. New generation social enterprises are also tapping into diverse, non-traditional funding sources; for example: crowd funding, using social media like Facebook’s ‘internet.org;’ social loans from Milap (an online micro-lending platform); and educational institutions and consortia, etc.

An incidental issue that raised during the interviews was related to incorporation of the concepts of social entrepreneurship and innovation within high school curricula. The perception of the participants encouraged incorporation and encourage students to explore new business ventures that provide self-employment opportunities as well as enabling them to contribute to developing solutions to social problems; for example, by improving health outcomes that exploit innovative approaches. Indian social enterprises are very active but operate as NGOs small- and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), or foundations, and lack legal definition that could form a basis for policy dialogue. A legal definition of a social enterprise would promote a self-sustaining model that could generate the financial resources to support operations, but also to enhance scalability, develop awareness, and promote social enterprise as a career option alongside the more commonly recognised professions.

The Government of India is making positive steps towards this by promoting incentives and schemes by Indian and state governments:

The central government's Atal Innovation Mission (AIM) was established to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship throughout India. It consists of programmes that support and fund social entrepreneurs, such as Atal Incubation Centres, Atal Tinkering Labs, and Atal New India Challenges.

The National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC) supports social entrepreneurs operating in industries like healthcare, agriculture, and renewable energy with funding and training. The NSDC focuses on skill development.

Start-Up India is a programme that intends to promote the development of new businesses, especially social enterprises. It offers advantages like tax breaks, simplified compliance procedures, and access to investment through several government-backed programmes like AIM and Fund of Funds for start-ups.

While government initiatives and schemes provide a foundation of support, additional resources and partnerships are typically necessary. There are few incentives and schemes by the governments at either national or state levels to encourage social enterprises. The Atal Innovation Mission (AIM) was set up NITI Aayog in 2016, which aims to promote the innovative and entrepreneurial mindset among school and university students, and the private and MSME sectors across the nation. AIM is mandated to promote a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship in India. Through Atal Incubation Centres—or AICs—at universities, institutions, and corporations, AIM is creating an ever-evolving ecosystem of start-ups and entrepreneurs. These business incubation centres aim to foster and support world-class innovations and dynamic entrepreneurs, who want to build scalable and sustainable enterprises. To date, AIM has successfully operationalised 69 AICs in 18 states and 3 Indian union territories. These AICs support incubated start-ups by providing world-class technical facilities, resource-based support, mentorship, funding support, partnerships and networking, co-working spaces, and laboratory facilities, among other modes of support. More than 2,900 start-ups have been supported by these AICs, of which 900 + start-ups are led by women and have created 30,000 + jobs in the ecosystem. Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology's (MEITY’s) Start-up Hub (MSH): MSH acts as a national coordination, facilitation, and monitoring centre that integrates all the incubation centres, start-ups, and innovation-related activities of MEITY, which aims to promoting technology innovation, start-ups, and the creation of intellectual property. 3. Start-Up India’s Stand-Up India scheme launched on 15 August, 2015; Start-Up India is a flagship initiative of the Government of India, intended to catalyse start-up culture and build a strong and inclusive ecosystem for innovation and entrepreneurship in India. In most cases, social enterprises do need external aid, whether in the form of capital or mentorship, mostly due to lack of education about the concept and lack of financial aid schemes.

The Indian government has announced policies and 63 incentives, such as the AIM and Start-Up India schemes, to support social entrepreneurship. The UK has a vigorous legal framework for social enterprises, with the Community Interest Company (CIC) structure explicitly intended for them. The UK government has executed numerous policies and programmes, including the Social Value Act and Social Investment Tax Relief, to endorse and support social enterprises. Funding and Investment: India: Impact investment and social finance in India are rising, but access to investment for social enterprises can still be challenging, particularly for early-stage ventures. Old-style funding sources, such as banks and venture capitalists, have limited exposure to the social enterprise sector.

India has seen the emergence of incubators, accelerators, and support organisations focussed on social entrepreneurship. These organisations provide mentoring, networking opportunities, and capacity-building programmes for social enterprises. However, the ecosystem is still evolving and expanding. Nonetheless, India's social enterprise sector is growing rapidly, and the government is increasingly recognising and supporting social entrepreneurship. With the right policies and support, India has the potential to further strengthen its social enterprise ecosystem and increase its impact. A much-neglected area, as highlighted in this study, is the importance of education—in particular, the role that higher education institutions can play.

Recent studies (Halsall et al., 2022b ; Snowden et al., 2023b , 2023c ) highlight the value of delivering a curriculum that will develop the key skills and qualities of a social entrepreneur. Halsall et al. ( 2022b ) and Snowden et al. ( 2023b ) present six components of a proposed social entrepreneurship curriculum and recommend that they should be delivered within a heutagogical approach. The six characteristics include:

Institutions—structures of rules and norms that develop social change in society. In this context, an institution is a personal business, governmental, or education establishment. Here, institutions are, overall, seen to have an important effect on citizens in society.

Stakeholders—key individuals and organisations contributing to social enterprise, for example this may include: learners, i.e. those who want to learn the skills associated with social enterprise; educators, i.e. those who ‘teach’ or facilitate learning about social enterprise; entrepreneurs, i.e. those who are contributing to society and developing social enterprise.

Teaching and Learning—a process whereby the learner gains skills and understanding.

Personal Skills and Capability—a framework for skills and knowledge growth from a social entrepreneur development perspective.

Curriculum—centrally driven by knowledge, practices, and critical engagement.

Work Placement—a period in which the learner can experience expertise in the employment or specific sector they want to enter.

The data collected from the study also demonstrate that despite the importance of social enterprise in society, students are still studying theories as opposed to acquiring practical skills. Hence, there is an urgent need to encourage students to learn by doing, and to develop an understanding of how to collaborate and engage with each other to address social problems. As emphasised by Halsall et al. ( 2022a , 2022b ), engagement can only take place if the stakeholders, both actual and perceived, engage in the transformational process, providing opportunities to acquire the capability and skills through work-based learning and internship opportunities alongside constructive mentorship are offered.

However, education must also take place in practice. Strengthening of the emerging social enterprise ecosystem is achieved by:

The development of capacity building and entrepreneurship support. Developing entrepreneurship and incubation programmes that focus on social enterprise development; the provision of training, mentorship, and technical assistance to social entrepreneurs is key to this.

The promotion of partnerships between academic institutions, incubators, and industry experts to offer specialised courses and programmes on social entrepreneurship and social innovation would develop social entrepreneurs’ capability, skills, and knowledge base.

Encouragement of a community of praxis via the development of support networks and platforms that facilitate knowledge sharing, collaboration, and peer learning among social entrepreneurs and innovators.

While from a more strategic viewpoint this ecosystem can be strengthened by:

The introduction of policies that promote social enterprise and that encourage social procurement by encouraging government agencies and corporations to prioritise procurement from social enterprises rather than multinational corporations. This should include the simplification and creation of transparent procedures that allow social enterprises to access government tenders and contracts, providing them with fair opportunities to compete. Encourage corporations to include social enterprises in their supply chains and foster partnerships between social enterprises and private sector entities.

Impact Measurement and Reporting: The development of standardised frameworks and guidelines for the measurement and reporting of social impact, ensuring consistency and comparability across social enterprises. Support and training should be provided to social enterprises to build their capacity in impact assessment, monitoring, and evaluation, and the adoption of impact measurement tools and technologies should be encouraged to enhance accountability and transparency.

Collaboration and knowledge-sharing platforms should be established to connect social enterprises, government bodies, academia, civil society organisations, and traditional businesses to create a robust social innovation ecosystem. Dedicated social innovation centres and incubation hubs should be established across the country, providing physical spaces, mentorship, and networking opportunities for social entrepreneurs.

Research and development in social innovation should be promoted, with the support of partnerships between universities, research institutions, and social enterprises to enable them to address pressing social challenges.

Implementing these policy suggestions can create an enabling environment for social enterprises and social innovation in India, driving inclusive economic growth and sustainable development while addressing critical social and environmental issues.

The development and agreement of a uniformed legal framework for social enterprise development will consolidate the approach to social enterprise and promote sustainability. There is a consistent view demonstrated within the study’s findings that a legal framework will benefit social enterprise growth. The espousal of legal frameworks typically indicates that social enterprises are significant to establishments. In countries where legal frameworks for social enterprises were introduced, they have been beneficial both socially and economically. A clearly defined characterisation that is widely accepted provides structure, clarity, and additional authority as opposed to a working definition that produces de facto social enterprises. The design of a clear and uniform policy also helps to promote the identity of the social entrepreneur role, encouraging professionalisation. An enhanced and improved empathetic view of what social enterprises mean and how they function regarding funders and establishments will contribute to sustainability and advancement of the discipline.

Conclusion and recommendations

This paper provides an exploration of the issues associated with the integration of social policy dimensions into social entrepreneurship education and makes the following recommendations:

The Indian government should implement measures to foster a supportive environment by utilising suitable legal and fiscal tools. This would encourage MSMEs to transition from the unorganised to the organised sector and promote their corporatization. Furthermore, the government should stimulate higher investments in innovative and knowledge-based ventures, as well as in research and development, by enhancing collaborations between industry and academic institutions.

The social enterprise ecosystem will continue to grow rapidly and will attract interested stakeholders. Social enterprise has the potential to address societal needs, and it will bring a positive impact to society.

The social enterprise ecosystem in India operates in an unorganised fashion. It needs a platform for communicating social and economic values and to leverage business opportunities.

To streamline and establish institutional structure for standard setting and the measurement of impact.

Social enterprises in India need to develop a managerial framework that can be adapted to offer guidance to new and emerging social entrepreneurs. This could help to cut the number of errors new social entrepreneurs make and enable them to manage their organisations in a more professional manner.

There is immense potential to link social enterprise to corporate social responsibility. Social enterprises can avail numerous benefits apart from funding if policy regarding corporate social responsibility is streamlined in a coherent manner.

Furthermore, to provide support at a fundamental level, the government should aim to set up a technical advisory team whose role is to mentor emerging social enterprises and provide them with guidelines on registration, funding, management, business, networking, expansion, collaboration, and innovation. The necessity for an all-in-one, exclusive social enterprise policy in India is clear; it would act as a singular source of wisdom, guiding approaches and providing solutions to many of the issues that occur frequently in social enterprise operations.

While this research has significant limitations, it paints a common and consistent picture of the key determinants of social enterprise. Social enterprises are attracting increasing research and academic consideration around the world. By implementing supportive policies, governments can create a sustainable ecosystem that nurtures social entrepreneurship and contributes to inclusive and sustainable development.

Policymakers need to develop a clear understanding of why, when, and how to regulate social enterprises and the impact that legislation (or lack thereof) can have for their development. The need for regulation for social enterprises is context-based: motives and outcomes of legal frameworks reflect local conditions, which means that what works within the broader legal and regulatory frameworks of one country may not in another and vice versa. Legal frameworks may provide recognition and visibility, as well as access to financial incentives and support, to markets, and to support services that facilitate starting, developing, and growing social enterprises.

Higher education increasingly requires institutions to evidence their worth and address the issue of employability within the curriculum. Traditionally, the focus is largely on young undergraduates who are studying full time and preparing for their first job. However, students enrolled on higher education courses within further and higher education institutions are not primarily concerned with their ability to get that first job, but their ability to keep their current job and/or progress on to the next job. Current employability strategies are concerned with generic skill development. Drawing upon a student centred approach to learning, drawing upon the principles of heutagogy, that focuses upon the development of a social entrepreneurial skill set and related capabilities is required.

Social enterprises are promoted as a solution to the socio-economic challenges posed to the challenges presented of the post-COVID-19 pandemic world. The innovative use of entrepreneurial skills and spirit to address social issues, though not a new concept, surpasses traditional frameworks and is essential for meeting the evolving demands of the modern world. To ensure equality and parity, society today demands that graduates develop new skills, abilities, and knowledge that are responsive to the challenges of the day—i.e. that they become an individual who is able to create social value by generating innovative solutions through a process of social entrepreneurship.

This paper illustrates that social enterprise is complex and dynamic; it is a multifaceted change process through which social entrepreneurs offer economic inclusion and social engagement to different global communities and social groups through creative, solution-orientated strategies (Halsall et al., 2022b ; Snowden et al., 2021a , 2021b ; Oberoi et al., 2018 ). The global community sits on a on a fulcrum; societal and global challenges are distinct and reflect the pervasive inequalities within global society, a response to the needs of today’s dynamic global society is demanded, and social enterprise provides a resolution to these challenges. The recent statement by the United Nations issued in Spring 23 (Unted Nations 2023 ) reaffirms this and calls for global institutions and nations to enable the development of social entrepreneurship skills and capabilities to meet the goals of Sustainable Development Goals.

These include social inequality and injustice, public health, and socio-environmental issues as they present in society, and distinctly, the manner in which the issues empower communities and groups locally, nationally, and globally. Indubitably, the development of a ‘new’ curriculum to develop must be achieved within a cross-disciplinary framework that is both global and hauntological in nature. It is clear that the emerging social enterprise curriculum should be multifaceted and complex, like the concept itself; this would, therefore, enable the learning experience to be dynamic and context specific, and ensure that the needs of the social entrepreneur, community, and society are met by the training provider in the form of the higher education institution.

There is a significant opportunity for policy leaders to shape the future of Indian society. Key to this is the development and adoption of a clear policy to enable social entrepreneurs to fulfil their potential. However, to support this development, opportunities must be realised in relation to learning, and can be developed via the teaching and learning curriculum in terms of skills and development. Without the adoption of a clear pedagogic model to support policy development, the realisation of social enterprise will not be achieved.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 , 77–101.

Article   Google Scholar  

British Council. (2015). The state of social enterprise in India . https://www.britishcouncil.org/sites/default/files/bc-report-ch4-indiadigital0.pdf

British Council. (2016). Social value economy: A survey of the social enterprise landscape in India . https://www.britishcouncil.in/sites/default/files/british_council_se_landscape_in_india_-_report.pdf

British Council. (2019). Annual report 2018–2019 . http://ukieri.org/reports/annual-report

British Council. (2020). Innovation and resilience: A global snapshot of social enterprise responses to COVID-19. https://www.britishcouncil.org/society/social-enterprise/newsevents/reports-socialenterprises-higher-education-country-reports

Caire, G., & Tadjudje, W. (2019). Towards a global legal culture of the SSE enterprise? An international comparison of SSE legislation. RECMA, 3 (353), 74–88.

Campopiano, G., & Bassani, G. (2021). Social innovation: Learning from social cooperatives in the Italian context. Journal of Cleaner Production, 291 , 125253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125253

Chilufya, R., Mswaka, W., Halsall, J.P., Oberoi, R., & Snowden, M., (2023). Collaborative research and enterprise in the international arena: A case study of Zambia. In The Routledge Companion to the Future of Management Research m 1st Edn.). Routledge. eBook ISBN9781003225508

Deloitte. (2018). The rise of the social enterprise: Deloitte global human capital trends . https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/us/articles/HCTrends2018/2018-HCtrends_Rise-of-the-social-enterprise.pdf

Del Gesso, C. (2020). An entrepreneurial identity for social enterprise across the institutional approaches: From mission to accountability toward sustainable societal development. International Journal of Business and Management, 15 (1), 16–35. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v15n1p16

Developing Inclusive and Sustainable Creative Economies (2019) Re-thinking Inclusive and sustainable Growth for the Creative Economy: a literature Review. https://disce.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/DISCE-Report-D5.2.pdf

European Commission. (2020). Social enterprises and their ecosystems in Europe: Comparative synthesis report (KE-06-18-357-EN-N). Publications Office of the European Union. https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=738&langId=en&pubId=8274

Farinha, L., Sebastião, J. R., Sampaio, C., & Lopes, J. (2020). Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: Discovering origins, exploring current and future trends. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 17 (1), 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-020-00243-6

Fici, A. (2015). Recognition and legal forms of social enterprise in Europe: A critical analysis from a comparative law perspective. European Business Law Review, 82 , 15. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2705354

Government of India. (2011). 12th five year plan . Planning Commission. http://planningcommission.gov.in/plans/planrel/12thplan/welcome.html

Haarich, S., et al. (2020). Impact of the European Commission’s Social Business Initiative (SBI) and its follow-up actions . European Commission.

Halsall, J. P., Oberoi, R., & Snowden, M. (2020). Social enterprise in the higher education sector . Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Google Scholar  

Halsall, J. P., Oberoi, R., & Snowden, M. (2022a). Social enterprise, social innovation and sustainable future: A driver for policy change. In F. Quoquab & D. Crowther (Eds.), Social entrepreneurs: Mobilisers of social change (pp. 13–28). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Halsall, J. P., Snowden, M., Clegg, P., Mswaka, W., Alderson, M., Hyams-Ssekasi, D., Oberoi, R., & Winful, E. C. (2022b). Social enterprise as a model for change: Mapping a global cross disciplinary framework. Entrepreneurship Education, 5 , 425–446.

Honga, Q. H., Pluyea, P., Fàbreguesb, S., Bartletta, G. et al. (2018). Mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018: User guide McMaster university. Available http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/127916259/MMAT_2018_criteria-manual_2018-08-01_ENG.pdf

John, G. D., Snowden, M., & Halsall, J. P. (2024). Social enterprise: The impact of COVID-19 on migrant communities within India. In I. Rajan (Ed.), India migration report 2023: Student migration, Chapter 17 (pp. 296–313). Routledge.

Khan, Y., & Halsall, J. P. (2017). Collaborative working in the statutory and voluntary sectors. In J. P. Halsall & M. Snowden (Eds.), The pedagogy of the social sciences curriculum (pp. 55–68). Springer.

Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation . Association for Talent Development.

Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology . London Sage.

Book   Google Scholar  

Novak, M. (2021). Social innovation and Austrian economics: Exploring the gains from intellectual trade. The Review of Austrian Economics, 34 (1), 129–147.

Oberoi, R., Halsall, J. P., Bara, D., Bara, E., & Snowden, M. (2022). Locating social entrepreneurship in the neoliberal order: A public policy perspective. In F. Quoquab & D. Crowther (Eds.), Social entrepreneurs: Mobilisers of social change (pp. 77–92). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Oberoi, R., Halsall, J. P., & Snowden, M. (2021). Reinventing social entrepreneurship leadership in the COVID-19 era: Engaging with the new normal. Entrepreneurship Education, 4 (2), 17–136.

Oberoi, R., Cook, I., Halsall, J., Snowden, M., & Woodock, P. (2019). Redefining social enterprise in the global world: study of China and India. Social Responsibility Journal . https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-09-2018-0248

Oberoi, R., Halsall, J. P., Snowden, M., & Caldwell, E. (2018). Reappraisal of social enterprise in a globalised world. In R. Oberoi & J. P. Halsall (Eds.), Revisiting globalization: From a border-less to a gated globe? (pp. 155–166). Springer.

OECD. (1999). Social enterprises . OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2020). Social economy and the COVID-19 crisis: Current and future roles . OECD Publishing.

OECD. (2022). Designing legal frameworks for social enterprises: Practical guidance for policy makers, local economic and employment development (LEED) . OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/172b60b2-en

OECD/EUCLID. (2020). Webinar: OECD global action to promote the social and solidarity economy . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgT5jTyZDQI

Opuni, F. F., Snowden, M., Winful, E. C., Hyams-Ssekasi, D., Halsall, J. P., Quaye, J. N. A., Afriyie, E. O., Ocloo, E. C., & Opoku-Asante, K. (2022). The nexus between entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial self competencies: A social enterprise perspective. Sustainability, 14 (19), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141912725

QAA. (2018). Enterprise and entrepreneurship education: Guidance for UK higher education providers . The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaas/enhancement-and-development/enterprise-and-entrpreneurship-education-2018.pdf?sfvrsn=15f1f981_8

Open University. (2024). Evaluation using PROMPT. https://www5.open.ac.uk/library/help-and-support/advanced-evaluation-using-prompt

Ravi, S. (2009). Entrepreneurship development in the micro small and medium enterprise sector in India: A policy analysis . Indian School of Business. https://eprints.exchange.isb.edu/id/eprint/300/

Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real world research (2nd ed.). Sage.

Snowden, M., Alderson, M., Halsall, J. & Hyams-Ssekasi, D. (2023a). ASPIRE to be different: Enhancing skills with students. Availabe at: https://pure.hud.ac.uk/en/publications/aspire-to-be-different-enhancing-skills-with-students-briefing-no

Snowden, M., Alderson, M. Halsall, J. P., & Hyams-Ssekasi, D. (2023b). A collaborative approach to developing social entrepreneurial . Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/members/report-a-collaborative-approach-to-developing-social-entrepreneurial-skills.pdf

Snowden, M., Halsall, J. P., Alderson, M., & Hyams-Ssekasi, D. (2023c). PSEM: An audit tool for higher education . Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/members/qaa-audit-2023-tool-v3.pdf

Snowden, M., Oberoi, R., & Halsall, J. P. (2021a). Reaffirming trust in social enterprise in the COVID-19 era: Ways forward [Special issue]. Corp Gov Sustain Rev, 5 (1), 120–130. https://doi.org/10.22495/cgsrv5i1sip3

Snowden, M., Oberoi, R., & Halsall, J. P. (2021b). Reaffirming trust in social enterprise in the COVID-19 era: Ways forward. Corp Gov Sustain Rev, 5 (1), 120–130.

Social Enterprise Mark (nd) Enabling social enterprises through independent accreditation. https://www.socialenterprisemark.org.uk/about-us-2/

United Kingdom India Education and Research Initiative (2019) Annual Report 2018-2019 http://ukieri.org/public/uploads/annual_report/1569412329916-UKIERIAnnualReportSmall.pdf?_ga=2.24655802.1078489373.1725884033-756910733.1689167156

United Nations. (2023). New UN resolution on social and solidarity economy. https://social.desa.un.org/sdn/new-un-resolution-on-social-and-solidarity-economy

Winful, E. C., Snowden, M., Halsall, J. P., Quaye, J. N. A., Hyams-Ssekasi, D., Opuni, F. F., Afriyie, E. O., Ocloo, E. C., & Opoku-Asante, K. (2022). Graduate employability in Ghana: Embedding social enterprise skills within the higher education framework. Emerald Open Res, 4 (38), 1–13.

Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.

Ziegler, R. (2017). Social innovation as a collaborative concept. Innov Eur J Soc Sci Res, 30 (4), 388–405.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper would not have been possible without the inputs from various social entrepreneurs and directors of social enterprises and CISE students, particularly our research assistant Adarsh Sachan from KMC, who helped us to carry out focus group discussions and data collection. A special thank you to those who took time out of their busy schedules to share their entrepreneurial journeys with us.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK

Michael Snowden & Jamie P. Halsall

Huddersfield Business School, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK

Liz Towns-Andrews

Department of Political Science, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India

Roopinder Oberoi

Department of Social Entrepreneurship, Rollins College, Winter Park, FL, USA

Walter Mswaka

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Snowden .

Ethics declarations

Ethical statement.

Approval was obtained from the ethics committee of University of Delhi. The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Snowden, M., Towns-Andrews, L., Halsall, J.P. et al. Integrating social policy dimensions into entrepreneurship education: a perspective from India. Entrep Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41959-024-00125-6

Download citation

Received : 08 July 2024

Revised : 08 July 2024

Accepted : 02 August 2024

Published : 17 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s41959-024-00125-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Social enterprise
• Social policy
• Social entrepreneurship
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Political Science
• Information Technology and Politics
• E-Governance

E-governance

• International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation 24(8)

• SRM Institute of Science and Technology

• SAVEETHA ENGINEERING COLLEGE

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• A M Abramson
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up