1 Introduction

This book is an attempt to advance research on an alternative paradigm of development, which aims to develop a sustainable society based on justice, equity, care, and nonviolence and calls for responsible consumption, production, distribution, and innovation (Dasgupta, 1996; Bacq & Aguilera, 2022; Bhatt et al., this volume, chapter “Nurturing Resilient Communities: An Overview”; Parker, 2017; Parth et al., 2021). The increasing social inequalities, the development need of the base of the pyramid, and degrading ecological conditions have challenged the sustainability of this planet (Foster, 2012; Hickel, 2019). The COVID-19 pandemic has further aggravated sustainability challenges and has put a question mark on the effectiveness of the traditional paradigms of development, which emphasize increased consumption, centralized production, and unequal access and distribution of finite resources (Bhatt et al., this volume, chapter “Nurturing Resilient Communities: An Overview”).

In this light, this book extends the nascent stream of research on alternative paradigms by underscoring the relevance of the Gandhian perspective and exploring how Gandhian principles are inspiring social entrepreneurship. Several social organizations, included in this book, are striving to create resilient communities drawing on the core Gandhian values and principles of Satya (truth), Aparigraha (nonpossession), Ahimsa (nonviolence), Sarvodaya (upliftment of all), and Swaraj (self-rule/self-restraint). Drawing on contributions made by the chapters in this book, we present a model of resilient communities and explore pathways through which social organizations engage in creating them. In the below subsection, we explain this model and provide empirical evidence by referring to the information presented in different chapters of this book.

2 Resilient Communities: Exploring Pathways Through Social Entrepreneurship Rooted in Gandhian Philosophy

Resilient rural communities are those that possess the ability to adapt and bounce back from various challenges and changes. They are self-reliant and self-sufficient, with a strong sense of community and a focus on sustainable practices. They are mutually interdependent and able to overcome polarizing efforts (cf. Qureshi et al., 2020, 2022a) by vested interests. Gandhian principles of self-reliant, self-sufficient, and village-based development are closely linked to the idea of resilient rural communities (Bhatt & Qureshi, this volume, chapter “Navigating Power Relations in Community-Driven Development: An Exploration of Constructive Work”; Bhatt et al., this volume, chapter “Nurturing Resilient Communities: An Overview”; Iyengar & Bhatt, this volume, chapter “Trusteeship: Gandhian Approach to Reconceptualize Social Responsibility and Sustainability”). Gandhi believed that villages were the backbone of Indian society and that they should be self-sufficient in their basic needs. He advocated for a decentralized economy that would empower villages to meet their own needs and reduce their reliance on external resources. In order to achieve this, Gandhi emphasized the importance of local industries, agriculture, and traditional crafts. He believed that these sectors could create employment and economic opportunities in rural areas while also promoting sustainable practices and preserving local culture. Resilient rural communities, therefore, embrace these Gandhian principles by promoting local industries, agriculture, and traditional crafts. They prioritize sustainability, conservation, and self-reliance. They work together as a community to support each other, share resources, and overcome challenges. By doing so, they create a strong sense of community, promote sustainable economic development, and ensure that their way of life is preserved for future generations.

2.1 Elements of Resilient Communities

We observe seven key elements of resilient communities: localization criteria, ownership by members, local exchange of products and services, community-based initiatives, leveraging the uniqueness of each community, mutual interdependencies, and sharing principles. Below, we provide explanations for each of these elements.

2.1.1 Localization Criteria

Localization criteria refer to the bases of defining local communities, which include sociocultural characteristics (e.g., caste groups, religious groups, norms, and cultural practices), available resources and skills, and physical remoteness. Localization criteria can help root initiatives in the place, which can enable wider acceptance. Initiatives rooted in the local history, culture, and political dynamics of the place can provide the basis for communities to come together and collaborate (Bhatt, 2017; Peredo & Chrisman, 2006; Qureshi et al., 2021a; Slawinski et al., 2021; Shrivastava & Kennelly, 2013). Moreover, localization criteria can help intermediaries design activities to overcome the resistance that may arise because of the presence of heterogeneous subgroups in the community based on caste or religion (Kumar et al., this volume, Part II, chapter “Sarvodaya to Nurture Peace Communities: A Case Study of ASSEFA”).

However, a very deep understanding of the community characteristics such as social hierarchy, diversity, and distribution of resources among the community members is required to develop localization criteria and design interventions in accordance with the criteria. All the social organizations, covered in this book, have spent multiple decades with the communities to develop a deep understanding of the community context. For example, chapters by Mehta and Jacob (this volume, Part II, chapter “Gandhian Thought in Seva Mandir”), Qureshi et al. (this volume, Part II, chapter “Technoficing: Reinterpretation of Gandhian Perspectives on Technology”), Roy (this volume, Part II, chapter “Economics: Where People Matter”), and Mishra and Shukla (this volume, Part II, chapter “Swavlamban by Drishtee: Gandhian Perspectives on Village-Centric Development”) in this book highlight how Seva Mandir, Digital Green, Barefoot College, and Drishtee, respectively, have leveraged their decades of experience with the place-based communities to bring intervention as per the local community context.

Seva Mandir, with over 50 years of experience in the adivasi (indigenous) areas near Udaipur and Rajsamand districts of Rajasthan, has developed constructive programs appropriate for the local context and has been able to convince community members to build their collective capacity by cooperating with each other across caste, gender, class, and religion (Mehta & Jacob, this volume, chapter “Gandhian Thought in Seva Mandir”). In a similar vein, Digital Green also takes a place-based approach to contextualize its video creation and screening events. The choice of best practices and approach to screening is deeply rooted in the sociocultural characteristics of the place (Qureshi et al., this volume, chapter “Technoficing: Reinterpretation of Gandhian Perspectives on Technology”). Similarly, Drishtee embeds all of its initiatives, including the choice of training modules and approach to the creation of micro-enterprise groups, based on the peculiarities of the place (Mishra & Shukla, this volume, chapter “Swavlamban by Drishtee: Gandhian Perspectives on Village-Centric Development”). Barefoot College on the other hand has successfully leveraged the solidarity among the marginalized crafts community empowering artisans and women to organize around their identity to build economic sustainability (Roy, this volume, chapter “Economics: Where People Matter”). A similar feature can also be seen in the work of SEWA (Part II, chapter “Cultivating Women Entrepreneurship: A Case Study of SEWA”), which highlights how the organization successfully built ownership structures and collectives for women to mitigate the impact of discriminatory gender norms. SEWA attempts to rally collective action for social change by relying on the concept of emotion-symbolic work (Barberá-Tomás et al., 2019) and provides a more nuanced understanding of the process of changing discriminatory gender norms. Thus, localization criteria are valuable for the development of resilient communities.

2.1.2 Ownership by Members

Ownership by members is another salient element of resilience in the community. Ownership, here, refers to the sense of responsibility and belonging of the community toward the initiatives undertaken to engender resilience. Thus, ownership signifies that communities have control over making decisions that can impact their own endeavors and destiny (Sarriot & Shaar, 2020). Ownership by community members is critical for the sustainability of initiatives undertaken to create resilience, as the primary aim is to build an ecosystem that is self-sustainable with few external dependencies. If community members identify with and take responsibility for the initiatives, they can commit materially and emotionally to making those initiatives impactful. Social organizations’ role, thus, becomes important in implanting a sense of ownership among the community members and guiding them toward building resilient communities.

Most of the social organizations, included in this book, enable communities to take ownership of all the initiatives aimed toward building the resilience of the community. For example, ASSEFA (Roy, this volume, Part II, chapter “Economics: Where People Matter”) creates village-level institutions and leverages them for pooling and governing community resources, which are used for developing sustainable livelihood opportunities. The village-level institutions are critical in imparting a sense of ownership in the community members by encouraging participation from all across castes, religions, and gender in decision-making. Village-level institutions further ensure that social groups are created based on trade and economic activities, rather than social markers, so that the group members feel a similar sense of responsibility, with little power distance that often results from existing social hierarchies based on caste and gender. Similarly, Seva Mandir (Mehta & Jacob, this volume, Part II, chapter “Gandhian Thought in Seva Mandir”) through its constructive programs has been able to build grassroots democracy, implanting a sense of ownership and responsibility among the community members. The organization feels that community ownership and empowerment are a must to realize the Gandhian idea of Swaraj or self-governance (Mehta & Jacob, this volume, chapter “Gandhian Thought in Seva Mandir”). Further, SELCO (Javeri et al., this volume, Part II, chapter “Balancing Equity, Ecology, and Economy Through Antyodaya Leadership: A Case Study of SELCO”) through its decentralized renewable energy solutions locating itself in the principle of Antyodaya enables the local community to engage with them as partners and innovators. This has successfully resulted in expanding these partnerships into creating decentralized ownership and community structures through individual entrepreneurs, Self Help Groups, and Farmer Producer Organizations (Javeri et al., this volume, chapter “Balancing Equity, Ecology, and Economy Through Antyodaya Leadership: A Case Study of SELCO”).

2.1.3 Local Exchange of Products and Services

The third element of resilient communities is the “local exchange of products and services,” which refers to the occurrence of commercial and social exchanges among the local community members (Fiske, 1991; Pacione, 1997). Local exchanges between the community members are essential to make the local economy vibrant and reduce the outflow of value from the local systems (Pacione, 1997). Self-reliant communities engage in a high degree of internal exchanges of goods and services, rather than external exchanges, to minimize their external dependencies. However, most of the rural production and consumption these days is driven by market forces, causing serious threats to the sustainability of rural lives and livelihoods (Mishra & Shukla, this volume, chapter “Swavlamban by Drishtee: Gandhian Perspectives on Village-Centric Development”). Moreover, the dominant capitalist paradigm promotes extensive globalization and monetary-based transaction (Pacione, 1997; Starr, 1972). Thus, the localization of exchanges requires a shift in the paradigm.

In this regard, Drishtee (Mishra & Shukla, this volume, Part II, chapter “Swavlamban by Drishtee: Gandhian Perspectives on Village-Centric Development”) is doing phenomenal work in rural communities by promoting local exchanges between community members using an ecosystem approach. It uses a digital platform to match the demand and supply of locally produced products and leverages the digitally enabled barter system to enable local exchanges (Mishra & Shukla, this volume, chapter “Swavlamban by Drishtee: Gandhian Perspectives on Village-Centric Development”). The structured barter system goes beyond commercial exchanges and helps community members develop norms of trust and reciprocity. It further engages in building skills and capabilities of rural women to sense local market needs and produce accordingly using locally available resources. Drishtee believes that local exchanges are essential for creating self-reliant communities. Similarly, Qureshi et al. (this volume, chapter “Technoficing: Reinterpretation of Gandhian Perspectives on Technology”) with regard to Digital Green also allude to how reciprocal and iterative exchanges of information have led to building social sustainability among the participating agents in the Self-Help Groups.

2.1.4 Community-Based Initiatives

Another important element of resilient communities is community-based initiatives. It refers to the activities that require engagement from community members in all parts of the initiatives, including design, implementation, and governance (Collins et al., 2016). Community-based initiatives aim to empower community members as a whole, albeit valuing individual progress. Such initiatives provide a social platform for interaction and help enhance trust and social cohesion, which are essential for self-reliant communities (Bhatt 2017; Bhatt et al., 2013, 2021; cf. Qureshi et al., 2018a).

Most of the social organizations, covered in this book, appreciate the importance of community-based initiatives in promoting community resilience. For example, Roy (this volume, Part II, chapter “Economics: Where People Matter”) underscores the importance of bottom-up participatory planning and development of craft-related markets in empowering the most marginalized in society, such as Dalit artisans and women. Similarly, Ghosh (this volume, Part II, chapter “PRADAN – Institution Building for Sustainable Development”) highlight PRADAN’s initiatives in developing sustainable livelihood opportunity for community members with effective use of technological and managerial knowledge. In a similar vein, Mehta and Jacob (this volume, Part II, chapter “Gandhian Thought in Seva Mandir”) provide evidence from Seva Mandir’s work to build grassroots democracy by promoting the participation of and dialogue among community members through their several constructive programs.

2.1.5 Leveraging the Uniqueness of Each Community

Another significant element in the model of resilient communities mentioned in Fig. 1 is “leveraging the uniqueness of each community.” This refers to the approach taken by social intermediaries to engage community members in co-designing the development initiatives so that local skills, resources, and unique circumstances can be leveraged for sustainable solutions. Unlike a cookie-cutter approach, which is often taken by several development agencies to achieve scale at a rapid pace, this approach builds upon a very deep understanding of the key strengths of the local communities and requires designing solutions using a participatory bottom-up approach. Roy (this volume, Part II, chapter “Economics: Where People Matter”) provides a good example of how Barefoot College identified Tilonia’s uniqueness in crafts-related work, where several artisans were engaged in various crafts, and how it took a bottom-up participatory approach to develop a craft-related market to support these artisans. Thus, Barefoot College could create sustainable livelihood opportunities for the artisans in Tilonia. Similarly, Mishra and Shukla (this volume, Part II, chapter “Swavlamban by Drishtee: Gandhian Perspectives on Village-Centric Development”) highlight how Drishtee implement its Swavlamban (self-reliance) model by identifying and leveraging the uniqueness of each community where they are operational. Drishtee is developing self-reliant communities across multiple states of India, including Bihar, Assam, Uttar Pradesh, and Odisha. It takes a different approach as per the unique resources and skills available in the local communities. The focus of training and skill development along with the creation of and support to the micro-enterprise groups are dictated by the uniquely available resources in the community.

Fig. 1
A spoke diagram represents a model of resilient communities with 7 elements. Some of them are localization criteria, local exchange of products and services, sharing principles, ownership by members, leveraging the uniqueness of each community, and mutual interdependencies.

Resilient communities

Full size image

2.1.6 Mutual Interdependencies

“Mutual interdependencies” are another important element of resilient communities. It refers to economic, social, and ecological interdependence among the community members and acts as a glue to bind community members together (Barnaud et al., 2018; Bhatt et al., 2022; Presas, 2001). Mutual interdependencies can align the values, decisions, and actions of the community members and enhance cooperation and trust (Presas, 2001). Mutual interdependencies can be pre-existing in the communities or can emerge as community members engage in activities designed to leverage such interdependencies (Bhatt et al., this volume, chapter “Nurturing Resilient Communities: An Overview”). As highlighted by Bhatt et al. (this volume, chapter “Nurturing Resilient Communities: An Overview”), social organizations, which aim to develop self-reliant communities, engage in an iterative process of identifying existing emergencies, designing activities to leverage these emergencies across multiple initiatives, observing outcomes, and monitoring for emerging interdependencies.

Ghosh (this volume, Part II, chapter “PRADAN – Institution Building for Sustainable Development”) highlights how PRADAN, based on its decades of experience in rural communities, could identify their existing economic and social interdependencies and started experimenting in Kesla (Madhya Pradesh), Barabanki (Uttar Pradesh), and Godda (Bihar) for poultry, leather, and tasar silk, respectively, to create livelihood opportunities for the most marginalized section. Similarly, Javeri et al. (this volume, Part II, chapter “Balancing Equity, Ecology, and Economy Through Antyodaya Leadership: A Case Study of SELCO”) presents the case of SELCO as how it designed and implemented activities to leverage the economic and ecological interdependence of marginalized communities by providing affordable solar energy-based products. Further, they observed the emerging social interdependencies and responded by creating additional livelihood opportunities for marginalized women by training and skilling them in the installation and maintenance of solar products.

2.1.7 Sharing Principles

‘‘Sharing principles’’ of a community is a central element of resilient communities. It refers to the values and norms that guide the act of sharing, which is a social process of giving and receiving resources (Qureshi et al., 2021a, p. 8). Sharing is important for self-reliance as it provides economic, societal, and environmental benefits to communities, driving their sustainability (Frenken & Schor, 2019; Qureshi et al., 2021a, b, c). Thus, sharing principles based on trust, cooperation, and mutual benefits can lead to enhanced social capital and cohesion (Bhatt, 2017; Bhatt et al., 2021; Escobedo et al., 2021; Qureshi et al., 2021a). Social organization, included in the book, exemplify how these sharing principles are promoted and enacted in communities through effective social and digital intermediation.

For example, Qureshi et al. (this volume, chapter “Technoficing: Reinterpretation of Gandhian Perspectives on Technology”) highlight how Digital Green, a social intermediary, engages in digital social innovation to promote sharing of resources and knowledge through the process of technoficing (Qureshi et al., 2021d, 2022b, 2023, this volume, chapter “Technoficing: Reinterpretation of Gandhian Perspectives on Technology”). The contextualization of digital technologies (e.g., video creation tools and data and resource-sharing platforms) to fit the social reality is at the core of this process. Moreover, this process relies on trust and cooperation among the community members, enhancing the quality of social interaction and improving productivity. Similarly, Mishra and Shukla (this volume, Part II, chapter “Swavlamban by Drishtee: Gandhian Perspectives on Village-Centric Development”) present how Drishtee has created a rural ecosystem, including a digital platform-based barter system, to promote sharing among the community members. Drishtee considers interdependence and sharing as primary drivers of self-reliance. In this light, the digital platform-based barter system can enhance mutual trust and promote sharing. In a similar vein, Kumar et al. (this volume, Part II, chapter “Sarvodaya to Nurture Peace Communities: A Case Study of ASSEFA”) highlight how ASSEFA, inspired by Gandhian Sarvodaya philosophy, promotes communal sharing by embracing Gramdaan (modified Community Land Trust) model and creating village-level institutions to the pool and govern resources among the marginalized.

In sum, the contributions made in this book extend the extant understanding of resilient communities. The cases of social organization covered in Part II of this book provide evidence of how social entrepreneurship inspired by Gandhian principles can help create resilient communities. Synthesizing evidence from these social organizations, we presented the model of resilient communities in Fig. 2. The seven elements explained above provide a comprehensive and evidence-based view of community resilience. We believe that our attempt to synthesize the extant research and practice of Gandhi-inspired social entrepreneurship (Gandhian Social Entrepreneurship) can trigger further discussions on the relevance of the Gandhian perspective in the post-COVID world and stimulate future research. In the following subsection, we first summarize the theoretical underpinnings of the contributions made in this book and then provide directions for future research.

Fig. 2
A chart presents a Venn diagram with the integration of Gandhian core principles, their manifestations, and philosophy-inspired processes and enablers into theories or concepts to make sense of means and ends, as well as concepts related to mean-end equivalence.

Integration of Gandhian tenets with various theoretical lenses

Full size image

3 A Summary of Theoretical Underpinnings of Chapters of This Book

The chapters presented in the first two sections primarily draw upon theoretical perspectives such as commoning, ethical leadership, social intermediation, technoficing, social sustainability, social interdependence, ecosystem perspective, and diversification strategy (Bhatt & Qureshi, this volume, chapter “Navigating Power Relations in Community-Driven Development: An Exploration of Constructive Work”; Bhatt et al., 2023; Iyengar & Bhatt, this volume, chapter “Trusteeship: Gandhian Approach to Reconceptualize Social Responsibility and Sustainability”; Qureshi et al., 2021d, 2022b, 2023, this volume, chapter “Technoficing: Reinterpretation of Gandhian Perspectives on Technology”). While the empirical context of all the chapters belongs to the Indian region, there are diverse themes that each of the cases in Part II draws upon. These themes include community land trust and village institutionalization, self-help groups and professional assistance, financial intermediation, human resource and livelihood development, community videos and appropriate technology, structured barter system, organizational development, women empowerment, energy decentralization, rights-based issues, and the potential of solar power. All of which can contribute to de-complicate the distress faced by the marginalized and drive intermediation efforts in India and elsewhere.

In the first chapter in Part I (chapter “Trusteeship: Gandhian Approach to Reconceptualize Social Responsibility and Sustainability”), authors Iyengar and Bhatt deploy the concept of Gandhian trusteeship to provide an alternative paradigm to prescribe a renewed ethical role for businesses. Highlighting the ethical and moral roles of business leaders from a trusteeship perspective, the authors contribute to the literature on ethical leadership in the business community and how sustainable development can be achieved through socially responsible businesses. In a similar vein, the chapter by Bhatt and Qureshi on constructive work (Part I, chapter “Navigating Power Relations in Community-Driven Development: An Exploration of Constructive Work”) sheds light on the potential of this Gandhian tenet to help intermediaries in navigating power relations while undertaking community-driven development. It makes a valuable contribution to the community development paradigm by providing directions for emergent and existing social intermediaries to deploy constructive work and cultural temporality (Bhatt & Qureshi, this volume, chapter “Navigating Power Relations in Community-Driven Development: An Exploration of Constructive Work”; Bhatt et al., 2022, 2023) to engage in social intermediation. On the other hand, drawing on the degrowth theory and neoclassical economics, Moolakattu in his chapter (Part I, chapter “Gandhian Approach to Development: Implications for the Post-COVID World”) relies on the Gandhian village self-reliance model to argue how a reorientation of the contemporary order of economic consumption from individualized consumption to an ecologically intensive mode will help build sustainability. Adding to the potential of Gandhian tenets in solving contemporary issues, Patil and Sinha (Part I, chapter “School Education for Today: Extending Tagore and Gandhi’s Idea of a Good Society (Swaraj) and Its Accompanying New Education (Nai Talim)”) in the last chapter in Part I contribute to the understanding of educators and governments in the field of school education. It suggests a new approach to the educational model driven by an expanded understanding of the Gandhian interpretation of productive work. Educators and policymakers will benefit from this perspective in building a case for education for sustainable development practices.

The subsequent Part II draws from Gandhian Thought to locate the evolution and functioning of social organizations in the Indian context, making contributions to the social entrepreneurship and organization studies literature significantly. The first among them by Kumar, Pillai, and Qureshi (Part II, chapter “Sarvodaya to Nurture Peace Communities: A Case Study of ASSEFA”) study the pioneering case of a Gandhian intermediary, ASSEFA, which relies on the community land trust model to build self-reliant and harmonious communities. By focusing on diverse intermediation efforts and being among the first of its kind in the independent Indian context, the authors highlight how the organization was able to help build an ecosystem, contributing to the literature on ecosystem perspectives to solve grand challenges. Ghosh takes the discussion forward with his treatise on PRADAN (Part II, chapter “PRADAN – Institution Building for Sustainable Development”), a social intermediary that relies on professional assistance to drive rural development. The author highlights the efficacy of professional assistance in building self-reliant communities, thus adding to the social intermediation literature.

In a similar vein, the chapter on Basix (Part II, chapter “Basix Social Enterprise Group: Inclusive Development”), a financial intermediary, by Mahajan and Qureshi traces its evolution through the founder’s eyes to argue the relevance of microcredit and financial services in the intermediation process. It also discusses how the organization was able to diversify to build a multifaceted set of livelihood-related interventions, thus contributing to the diversification and ecosystem perspectives. Next, Qureshi, Pandey, Shukla, and Pillai (Part II, chapter “Technoficing: Reinterpretation of Gandhian Perspectives on Technology”) discuss the case of a digital intermediary and its efforts to deploy appropriate technology for social development and building social sustainability. Drawing on the appropriate technology literature and Gandhian Thought, it contributes to the emerging technoficing process along with the social sustainability paradigm (Bhatt & Qureshi, this volume, chapter “Navigating Power Relations in Community-Driven Development: An Exploration of Constructive Work”; Bhatt et al., 2023; Iyengar & Bhatt, this volume, chapter “Trusteeship: Gandhian Approach to Reconceptualize Social Responsibility and Sustainability”; Qureshi et al., 2022b). Misra and Shukla’s work on Drishtee (Part II, chapter “Swavlamban by Drishtee: Gandhian Perspectives on Village-Centric Development”), a social enterprise follows with its unique story of a structured barter system to drive the building of self-reliant communities. Drawing on the scaling literature and social intermediation theories, it highlights how the organization had to scale up and eventually switch to an ecosystem approach in the rural context due to the diminishing urban focus and associated costs.

Mehta and Jacob (Part II, chapter “Gandhian Thought in Seva Mandir”) follow with their case of a Gandhian social organization that focuses on building grassroots democracy and capabilities to enable the marginalized to take up responsible commoning (see also, Bhatt & Qureshi, this volume, chapter “Navigating Power Relations in Community-Driven Development: An Exploration of Constructive Work”; Bhatt et al., 2023; Iyengar & Bhatt, this volume, chapter “Trusteeship: Gandhian Approach to Reconceptualize Social Responsibility and Sustainability”; Qureshi et al., 2022b). Contributing to the commoning and organizational development literature, it also provides an example of how the Gandhian tenet of Trusteeship is deployed within an organization to drive this endeavor and help women participate (cf. Maurer & Qureshi, 2021). Ghatak et al. (this volume, Part II, chapter “Cultivating Women Entrepreneurship: A Case Study of SEWA”) come next with their study on a women’s self-employment organization. Building on social interdependence, the chapter sheds light on how the women’s organization uses the banyan tree approach to form new functional and business entities under its umbrella, all independent of each other yet interconnected. It also makes valuable contributions to women’s entrepreneurship literature.

Next, drawing on ecosystem perspectives, Javeri et al. (Part II, chapter “Balancing Equity, Ecology, and Economy Through Antyodaya Leadership: A Case Study of SELCO”) present the case study of SELCO, an organization that has deployed innovative decentralized renewable energy solutions to address rural distress and poverty. By partnering with the marginalized in its operations and by keeping them at the center of all their decision-making and planning mechanisms, the authors highlight how the study contributes to the leadership literature on the marginalized sections of society. The last two chapters of Part II call for collective action to solve the problems of contemporary times including that of climate change.

Further, Roy in her work (Part II, chapter “Economics: Where People Matter”) reflects on her journey through the Barefoot College, a social organization and the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, which she founded, to discuss how bottom-up participatory approaches should also factor in the dignity of the individual at its core and how cooperative helps to build market access and create value for the community. It also sheds light on the value of public action and cites the example of the struggle, which demanded a legislative provision for livelihood guarantees for the marginalized. The study contributes to social entrepreneurship literature and builds on a critique of the neoclassical economic paradigm. The next chapter (Part II, chapter “Extending Gandhian Philosophy to Mitigate Climate Change: The Idea of Energy Swaraj”) on the concept of Energy Swaraj by Solanki echoes the potential of public and collective action in solving the problems of climate change. Drawing from a critique of neoclassical economics and its consumption-led paradigm once again, it posits itself at the intersection of Gandhian economic alternatives of limiting consumption and localizing production. By proposing alternative solutions to deal with the sustainability-growth problem, it makes a valuable contribution to paradox literature as well.

As summarized above, in addition to the Gandhian lenses, chapters in the book draw on various theoretical lenses such as social interdependence, social intermediation, ethical leadership, social sustainability, and ecosystem perspective. Below, we provide how this book can act as a catalyst to trigger future research to explore the implications of these theoretical lenses for self-reliant communities.

4 Directions for Future Research

Figure 2 summarizes directions for future research. It suggests the relevance and potential implications of Gandhian principles (core and manifested) and observed processes, described in the overview chapter (Fig. 2), for future research. It underscores how some of the theories that explain means (processes) and end (impact) can be extended using Gandhian principles or informed by the processes observed in various cases covered in this book.

As summarized in the overview chapter (chapter “Nurturing Resilient Communities: An Overview”), contributions made in this book explore how Gandhian principles inspire social organizations in nurturing resilient communities. These organizations leverage processes such as cultural temporality, constructive work, commoning, and technoficing to nurture resilient communities. Additionally, Antyodaya leadership and Sahyogi Mitra enable these processes. Contributions made in this book integrate Gandhian lenses (principles and processes) with several complementary theoretical lenses such as social intermediation, social interdependence, ecosystem perspective, degrowth, prefiguration, and ethical leadership. Drawing on these contributions, we suggest that Gandhian lenses can help extend several theories, which have relevance to the development and social entrepreneurship literature. In Fig. 2, we have summarized some of the theories that can be extended using Gandhian lenses or informed by the empirical cases presented in this book. We broadly classify these theories as Means (processes) and End (impact), based on their relevance in explaining the process and impact, respectively, of nurturing resilient communities. In Fig. 2, the overlapping part of the means and end constitutes a set of theoretical lenses, which suggest inseparability and equivalence of means and end. In other words, similar to the Gandhian principle of means-end equivalence (Gandhi, 1972), these theoretical lenses underscore that the end of social transformation initiatives/movements cannot be predetermined and viewed separately from the processes that are followed to achieve that end, thus minimizing the possibility of the end justifying the means (Bhatt & Qureshi, Part I, chapter “Navigating Power Relations in Community-Driven Development: An Exploration of Constructive Work”; Maeckelbergh, 2011).

4.1 Theoretical Underpinnings with Focus on Means

4.1.1 Responsible Innovation

Responsible innovation is a complex, collective, inclusive, and interactive process of value creation that aim to meet societal needs and ethical requirements (Bacq & Aguilera, 2022; von Schomberg, 2013; Wang et al., 2022). This perspective builds on the paradigm of shared responsibilities among science, society, and policy, thus involving multiple stakeholders (Bacq & Aguilera, 2022; Owen et al., 2012). Thus, responsible innovation is a process through which means and ends of innovation are responsibly managed by multiple stakeholders (Bansal et al., 2014) and has a strong resemblance with Gandhian values and principles. Gandhian principles such as Ahimsa (nonviolence) and Sarvodaya (upliftment of all) can inform this stream of research by providing a framework to evaluate innovations based on their attributes to meet the ethical requirement and societal desirability. Moreover, Gandhian lenses such as Swaraj and Trusteeship (Iyengar & Bhatt, this volume, chapter “Trusteeship: Gandhian Approach to Reconceptualize Social Responsibility and Sustainability”) can inform the multi-stakeholder and responsible management of the process and outcome of innovation. Future conceptual and empirical research can explore the relevance of Gandhian principles and processes for responsible innovation.

4.1.2 Responsible Consumption

Responsible consumption refers to the act of making informed and conscious choices when purchasing and using goods and services. It involves considering the environmental, social, and ethical impacts of consumption and striving to minimize negative effects (Parth et al., 2021). Responsible consumption is closely linked to sustainability, as it aims to promote more sustainable production and consumption patterns.

In the context of Gandhian philosophy, responsible consumption is linked to several key concepts. Aparigraha, or nonpossession, emphasizes the need to reduce our attachment to material possessions and live a simpler, more sustainable lifestyle. Ahimsa, or nonviolence, emphasizes the need to avoid harming others and the environment, which can be achieved by consuming in a responsible and ethical manner. Commoning is another concept that is relevant to responsible consumption in the Gandhian context (Bhatt & Qureshi, this volume, chapter “Navigating Power Relations in Community-Driven Development: An Exploration of Constructive Work”; Bhatt et al., 2023; Gibson-Graham et al., 2013; Dombroski et al., 2019; Iyengar & Bhatt, this volume, chapter “Trusteeship: Gandhian Approach to Reconceptualize Social Responsibility and Sustainability”; Qureshi et al., 2022b). It refers to the idea of sharing and collectively managing resources, rather than treating them as private property (Hota et al., 2023; Meyer, 2020; Peredo et al., 2018; Qiu et al., 2021). By engaging in common practices, individuals can reduce their consumption and environmental impact while promoting social cohesion and community well-being (Bhatt & Qureshi, this volume, chapter “Navigating Power Relations in Community-Driven Development: An Exploration of Constructive Work”; Bhatt et al., 2023; Dombroski et al., 2019; Gibson-Graham et al., 2013; Iyengar & Bhatt, this volume, chapter “Trusteeship: Gandhian Approach to Reconceptualize Social Responsibility and Sustainability”; Qureshi et al., 2022b). Technoficing is also linked to responsible consumption, as it emphasizes the need to use technology in a way that is simple, sustainable, and in harmony with nature (Bhatt & Qureshi, this volume, chapter “Navigating Power Relations in Community-Driven Development: An Exploration of Constructive Work”; Bhatt et al., 2023; Iyengar & Bhatt, this volume, chapter “Trusteeship: Gandhian Approach to Reconceptualize Social Responsibility and Sustainability”; Qureshi et al., 2022b). This can involve reducing our dependence on technology and using it in a more responsible and mindful way.

Thus, responsible consumption aligns with many of the key values and principles of Gandhian philosophy, including nonpossession, nonviolence, commoning, and technoficing. By consuming in a more responsible and ethical way, we can promote sustainability, social justice, and a more harmonious relationship with the natural world.

4.1.3 Social Interdependence

Several theoretical lenses such as social interdependence, social intermediation, social exchange, hybridity (in social entrepreneurship research), institutional work, resourcing, paradox, ecosystem, and ethical leadership can be extended using Gandhian lenses in explaining the process of nurturing resilient communities. For example, mutual interdependencies are identified as one of the key elements of resilient communities. Gandhian principles such as community-driven development, trusteeship, and Nai Talim and processes such as Constructive work and Commoning can extend the social interdependence perspective in explaining how mutually beneficial interdependencies are identified and initiatives are designed to leverage such interdependencies.

Additionally, the extant research, drawing broadly on the social interdependence perspective, suggests different facets of interdependencies, including economic, societal, and ecological (Barnaud et al., 2018; Johnson, 2003; Presas, 2001). However, the interrelationships among the three facets of interdependence are relatively less explored. The Sarvodaya framework, process model of nurturing resilient communities (Fig. 1, chapter “Nurturing Resilient Communities: An Overview”), and evidence from cases used in this book indicate interrelationships among the three dimensions of interdependence. Social organizations trying to leverage mutually beneficial economic and social interdependencies by designing appropriate activities have the potential to influence the nature of ecological interdependencies among community members. For example, if activities rely on excessive utilization of scarce natural resources, it can pose threat to sustainability, hence necessitating social organizations to factor in the potential emergence of ecological interdependencies at the time of designing activities for community members (Barnaud et al., 2018). In this regard, Gandhian lenses such as Aparigraha, Ahimsa, Sarvodaya, and Swaraj can guide how to conceptualize and manage the interrelationships among different types of interdependencies while nurturing resilient communities.

4.1.4 Social Intermediation

The social intermediation perspective considers social value creation as the main objective of social intermediation (Kistruck et al., 2013a). Unlike commercial intermediaries that aim to maximize the appropriation of economic value, social intermediaries aim to create social value and enable communities to maximize the appropriation of the economic value (Parthiban et al., 2020, 2021; Pillai et al., 2021a, b; Qureshi et al., 2022b, 2023). The cases presented in this book highlight the intermediating role of social enterprises in building self-reliant communities and thus have implications for the social intermediation perspective (Kistruck et al., 2008, 2013a, b; Parthiban et al., 2021; Qureshi et al., 2023). Extant research suggests that social intermediaries leverage processes such as technoficing and commoning to create social value (Qureshi et al., 2021d, 2022b). Cases of Digital Green (Part II, chapter “Technoficing: Reinterpretation of Gandhian Perspectives on Technology”) and ASSEFA (Part II, chapter “Sarvodaya to Nurture Peace Communities: A Case Study of ASSEFA”), covered in this book, also provide evidence of how processes of technoficing and commoning are, respectively, leveraged by social intermediaries to build self-reliant communities (see also, Bhatt & Qureshi, this volume, chapter “Navigating Power Relations in Community-Driven Development: An Exploration of Constructive Work”; Bhatt et al., 2023; Iyengar & Bhatt, this volume, chapter “Trusteeship: Gandhian Approach to Reconceptualize Social Responsibility and Sustainability”; Qureshi et al., 2022b). However, despite the increasing interest in understanding the processes of social intermediation (Parthiban et al., 2021; Pillai et al., 2021a, b; Qureshi et al., 2021a, d), the extant understanding is limited. Future empirical studies can contribute to the understanding of this perspective by drawing on these Gandhian lenses. For example, empirical studies that address research questions such as how Gandhian lenses such as cultural temporality, constructive work, commoning, and technoficing can influence the processes of social intermediation or how social intermediaries enact Gandhian principles such as trusteeship and means-end equivalence in creating resilient communities can advance our understanding about the processes and outcomes of social intermediation.

Further, chapters of this book provide examples of how social intermediaries, inspired by the Gandhian principle of Sarvodaya, attempt to bring prosperity and well-being to all in a community by exhibiting Antyodaya leadership. However, the implication of Sarvodaya and Antyodaya leadership for social intermediation research is yet to be fully understood. For example, there is little empirical evidence on whether or not social intermediation inspired by Sarvodaya or Antyodaya leadership creates the desired societal impact in mitigating exclusion and bringing well-being for all. An emergent stream of scholarship, however, suggests that social intermediation can help mitigate extreme marginalization (e.g., Bhatt et al., 2019, this volume, chapter “Nurturing Resilient Communities: An Overview”; Hota et al., 2021; Qureshi et al., 2017, 2018b, 2023; Riaz & Qureshi, 2017; Sutter et al., 2023). We call for more empirical research in this stream to develop a deeper understanding of the implications of Sarvodaya or Antyodaya leadership for the processes and outcomes of social intermediation (Kistruck et al., 2013a).

4.1.5 Social Exchange

The social exchange perspective explores the motivations and outcomes of various tangible and intangible exchanges that individuals or collectives engage in their daily lives (Blau, 2017; Cook et al., 2013). Social exchanges can create a sense of unspecified obligation and lead to a reciprocal relationship between the exchanging parties (Blau, 2017). Trust plays a crucial role in enabling social exchanges (Cook et al., 2013; Davlembayeva et al., 2020). Chapters in this book have underscored the relevance of Gandhian principles in enabling social exchanges and enhancing social cohesion and mutual interdependence among community members (Bhatt et al., this volume, chapter “Nurturing Resilient Communities: An Overview”). Gandhian lenses can enhance the extant understanding of motivations and outcomes of social exchanges. For example, principles of Aparigraha or Trusteeship can inform the social exchange perspective by reconceptualizing the nature of obligation involved in social exchanges. Similarly, commoning can influence the outcome of social exchange (Bhatt & Qureshi, this volume, chapter “Navigating Power Relations in Community-Driven Development: An Exploration of Constructive Work”; Bhatt et al., 2023; Iyengar & Bhatt, this volume, chapter “Trusteeship: Gandhian Approach to Reconceptualize Social Responsibility and Sustainability”; Qureshi et al., 2022b). We believe future empirical studies integrating Gandhian lenses with the social exchange perspective can enhance understanding of the mechanisms and processes involved in social exchanges and their impact at the community level.

4.1.6 Institutional Work

Institutional work emphasizes the agentic role of individuals and organizations in creating, maintaining, and disrupting institutions (Lawrence & Suddaby, 2006; Hota et al., 2023; Parthiban et al., 2020; Qureshi et al., 2023). Extant research has advanced institutional work as a theoretical lens to understand how social enterprises and community members create new or transform existing institutions in marginalized contexts (Bhatt et al., 2019; Parthiban et al., 2020; Qureshi et al., 2016). Some of the social organizations covered in this book exemplify how they draw on Gandhian principles of Sarvodaya, Swaraj, and community-driven development and leverage constructive work to create and maintain village-level institutions while challenging the existing institutions (Kumar et al., Part II, chapter “Sarvodaya to Nurture Peace Communities: A Case Study of ASSEFA”; Mehta & Jacob, Part II, chapter “Gandhian Thought in Seva Mandir”, also see Bhatt & Qureshi, this volume, chapter “Navigating Power Relations in Community-Driven Development: An Exploration of Constructive Work”; Bhatt et al., 2022, 2023). Drawing on these observations, we believe Gandhian lenses have much nuanced implications for the Institutional work literature. For example, Gandhian lenses such as Aparigraha and Ahimsa can inform not only the end goals of institutional work but also the sociopolitical processes through which newer institutions are created. Similarly, the principles of Swaraj and Trusteeship can inform the characteristics of newer institutions required for building resilient communities. Thus, we call for future empirical research to explore the implications of the integration of Gandhian lenses and Institutional work for nurturing resilient communities.

4.1.7 Ethical Leadership

Further, cases included in this book underline the crucial role of leadership in building self-reliant communities through the empowerment of the most marginalized in the community (Antyodaya). This kind of leadership is defined as Antyodaya leadership, referring to the process of structuring activities and creating a socially conducive environment to empower the most marginalized in the community (Javeri et al., this volume, Part II, chapter “Balancing Equity, Ecology, and Economy Through Antyodaya Leadership: A Case Study of SELCO”). Given its focus on empowerment of the most marginalized, Antyodaya leadership style is apparently different from the other leadership styles such as ethical and servant leadership (Lemoine et al., 2019). However, future empirical studies exploring Antyodaya leadership can shed more light on the concept and nomological network of this kind of leadership style. For example, future research can explore how Gandhian views such as nonviolence and trusteeship shape the style of Antyodaya leadership (Javeri et al., this volume, chapter “Balancing Equity, Ecology, and Economy Through Antyodaya Leadership: A Case Study of SELCO”). Further, as Antyodaya aims to create a just and equitable society (Gandhi, 1947; Iyer, 1986; Kumarappa, 1958), it may be interesting to explore how Antyodaya leaders maintain or create social harmony in social contexts divided into the lines of caste, class, gender, and religion (Bhardwaj et al., 2021).

4.2 Theoretical Underpinnings with Focus on End

4.2.1 Social Cohesion

Social cohesion refers to solidarity, mutual trust, cooperation, and shared values in the community (Escobedo et al., 2021; Sampson et al., 1997). Extant research considers social cohesion as a desirable state of the community (Escobedo et al., 2021; Laurence, 2011; Sampson et al., 1997). Thus, it provides a suitable perspective to understand the End (impact) from a Gandhian perspective. The Gandhian principles such as Sarvodaya, Swaraj, and Trusteeship can help extend the understanding of the means that help reach the end goal of social cohesion. Further, future studies can explore how processes such as constructive work and commoning can help bridge the social divides across caste, class, religion, and gender to achieve social cohesion (Bhardwaj et al., 2021; Bhatt & Qureshi, this volume, chapter “Navigating Power Relations in Community-Driven Development: An Exploration of Constructive Work”; Bhatt et al., 2022, 2023).

4.2.2 Social Capital

Social capital refers to the norms of reciprocity, mutual trust, shared values, and cooperation among community members that help them pursue shared goals (Bhatt, 2017; Putnam et al. 1993). Like social cohesion, social capital can be considered one of the defining characteristics of resilient communities (Bhatt, 2017; Bhatt et al., this volume, chapter “Nurturing Resilient Communities: An Overview”). Communities with higher social capital, exhibiting strong relationships, share resources and pursue collective goals of shared prosperity (Qureshi et al., 2021c). Gandhian lenses can enhance the extant understanding of the processes through which community social capital is built. For example, it can explore how principles of trusteeship or processes such as constructive work help communities build social capital (Bhatt & Qureshi, this volume, chapter “Navigating Power Relations in Community-Driven Development: An Exploration of Constructive Work”; Bhatt et al., 2022, 2023).

4.2.3 Social Inclusion

The social inclusion perspective highlights that the provision of basic needs such as food, clothing, shelter, and healthcare does not guarantee social inclusion (Bhardwaj et al., 2021; Cherayi & Jose, 2016; Simplican et al., 2015). There is a need to ground decentralized affirmative action and community development programs in principles of human rights, dignity, and equality. Evidence suggests that individuals who are socially embedded are more likely to undertake civic participation, contribute to strengthening democratic institutions, and have better health and educational outcomes (Simplican et al., 2015). But this empowerment involves addressing challenges that span structural inequalities and power imbalances, which are detrimental to their full participation in society or in ensuring full access to resources (Javeri et al., this volume, chapter “Balancing Equity, Ecology, and Economy Through Antyodaya Leadership: A Case Study of SELCO”). Researchers need to devolve more effort into unravelling how the nuances of such imbalances and how they can be mitigated. These include issues of social and political marginalization and poverty (Qureshi et al., 2018b; Zainuddin et al., 2022). In this regard, Gandhian lenses provide a complementary view to understand how the role of community ideals and the role of leadership in including the most marginalized in the community. In particular, future empirical studies can further develop the idea of Antyodaya leadership and examine its effectiveness for the social inclusion and upliftment of the most marginalized.

4.2.4 Empowerment

Empowerment is another end goal that characterizes resilient communities and has great resemblance with the Gandhian principle of Sarvodaya. Empowerment entails a reduction in the power differences, in terms of personal, interpersonal, or political power, that underlies the existing social system (Breton, 2004; Gutierrez, 1990). This empowerment perspective highlights the importance of community organization techniques and other emancipatory practices in enabling empowerment (Gutierrez, 1990). Chapters in this book provide empirical evidence about how several social organizations strive toward creating a just and equitable society by empowering the marginalized sections. We call for more empirical research to enhance understanding of the Gandhian-inspired processes, such as cultural temporality and constructive work, leveraged by social organizations to empower marginalized people.

4.2.5 Community Resilience

Community resilience refers to the ability of a community to adapt and recover quickly from adverse economic, environmental, political, or social conditions (Cutter et al., 2008; Zhang et al., 2022). Community resilience researchers have identified several attributes of the communities such as adaptability, collaboration, and social cohesion (Cavaye & Ross, 2019; Jewett et al., 2021; Stablein et al., 2022). Bhatt et al. (this volume, chapter “Nurturing Resilient Communities: An Overview”) have provided the Sarvodaya framework, a process model to develop resilient communities, and highlighted how Gandhian principles have inspired several social organizations in nurturing resilient communities. We believe contributions made in this book provide a suitable platform to extend the research on community resilience. Future studies can explore how Gandhian principles such as Satya, Aparigraha, and Ahimsa impact the community’s collective decision-making, which helps them not only cope with the adverse situation but also recover quickly (Robinson & Carson, 2016). Similarly, future empirical studies can investigate the relevance of cultural temporality and Antyodaya leadership in developing community resilience.

4.2.6 Employee Ownership Trust

Employee ownership trust (EOT) is a legal structure that allows business owners to transfer the ownership of their organization to a trust on behalf of their employees (cf. Pierce et al., 1991). The trust becomes the legal owner of the company, and the employees become the beneficiaries of the trust. The employees may then receive distributions of the profits of the company and, in most cases, may also have a say in the management of the company (Wren & Ridley-Duff, 2021). The EOT model is often seen as a way to promote employee ownership and participation in the workplace, which can lead to higher levels of job satisfaction, productivity, and innovation.

The concept of Sarvodaya, a guiding principle of Gandhian philosophy, is closely related to EOT. Sarvodaya means “the upliftment of all,” and in this context, it refers to the idea that the well-being of society as a whole should be the ultimate goal of any economic or social system. The EOT model can be seen as a way to promote Sarvodaya, by ensuring that the ownership and management of the company are in the hands of the employees who work there (cf. Nuttall, 2022).

Trusteeship is another Gandhian concept that is closely related to the EOT model. Trusteeship is the idea that wealth and resources should be managed for the benefit of all, rather than for the benefit of a few. In the context of business ownership, this means that the owners of a company should act as trustees, managing the company for the benefit of all its stakeholders, including employees, customers, and the wider community (Nuttall, 2022). The EOT model can be seen as a way to promote the principle of trusteeship, by ensuring that the ownership and management of the company are in the hands of a trust that is legally obligated to act in the best interests of the employees (cf. Iyengar & Bhatt, this volume, chapter “Trusteeship: Gandhian Approach to Reconceptualize Social Responsibility and Sustainability”). This can create a sense of shared ownership and responsibility among the employees and can promote a more egalitarian and participatory workplace culture. Moreover, the EOT model can be seen as a way to promote the Gandhian principle of nonviolence, or ahimsa. By giving employees a stake in the ownership and management of the company, the EOT model can promote a more peaceful and cooperative workplace culture and can help to reduce the potential for conflict between employees and owners.

Thus, the EOT model can be understood and explained in various Gandhian principles and is a legal structure that allows business owners to transfer the ownership of their company to a trust on behalf of their employees. The model is closely related to the Gandhian concept of Sarvodaya, as it promotes the idea of the welfare of all. The EOT model can also be seen as a way to promote the Gandhian principle of trusteeship, by ensuring that the ownership and management of the company are in the hands of a trust that is legally obligated to act in the best interests of the employees. Finally, the EOT model can promote the principle of nonviolence by promoting a more peaceful and cooperative workplace culture.

4.2.7 Platform Cooperativism

Platform cooperativism presents an alternative view of how value is created using platforms based on the notion of cooperation, concern for community, participation, and autonomy (Mannan & Pek, 2021; Scholz, 2016). Thus, unlike the widespread capitalist view on the value creation logic of a platform economy, this perspective highlights the role of shared ownership and democratic governance, offering a possibility to benefit all rather than only a few (Sandoval, 2020). Given the focus of this perspective to create alternatives to the dominant capitalist paradigm, we believe Gandhian lenses such as Aparigraha, Swaraj, and Trusteeship can help extend the research of platform cooperativism. For example, the principle of Aparigraha (nonpossession) can extend the understanding of the logic of cooperativism from shared ownership to nonpossession and accordingly explore how commoning can help achieve platform cooperativism. Similarly, the principles of Trusteeship and Swaraj can help understand how the cooperatively created value is distributed and governed to provide an effective alternative to the dominant capitalist paradigm.

4.2.8 Sustainability

Sustainability has been one of the widely researched areas over the last few years, and scholars have widely agreed on the three dimensions of sustainability: economic, environmental, and social (Bansal et al., 2014; Fischer et al., 2020; Hall et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2022). However, most of the extant understanding of sustainability falls in the dominant paradigm, which is based on the notion of infinite growth and unabated consumption. Given the current societal and ecological challenges, scholars have started questioning the tenacity of the assumptions of the dominant paradigm and call for the exploration of alternative paradigms (Bhatt et al., this volume, Part I, chapter “Nurturing Resilient Communities: An Overview”; Foster, 2012; Hickel, 2019; Mair & Rathert, 2021; Parker, 2017). Only recently, an emergent stream of research in the sustainability domain has started exploring how sustainability could be pursued using alternative models (Bhatt et al., 2021; Hota et al., 2019; Kistruck et al., 2013a; Qureshi et al., 2021b). However, the extant understanding of these alternative models is still limited (Barin Cruz et al., 2017). In this regard, Gandhian tenets, such as trusteeship and self-reliance, can provide an alternative paradigm to reconceptualize sustainability (Dasgupta, 1996; Qureshi et al., 2021b). For example, future empirical studies can advance the research on alternative paradigms of sustainability by exploring how social organizations or communities enact trusteeship to achieve sustainability. Moreover, researchers can examine the implications of Gandhian principles such as Aparigraha, Ahimsa, Sarvodaya, and Swaraj for sustainability (Dasgupta, 1996; Iyengar & Bhatt, this volume, Part I, chapter “Trusteeship: Gandhian Approach to Reconceptualize Social Responsibility and Sustainability”; Mahajan & Qureshi, this volume, Part II, chapter “Basix Social Enterprise Group: Inclusive Development”).

4.3 Theoretical Underpinnings Emphasizing Inseparability of Means and End

4.3.1 Prefiguration

Prefiguration refers to a set of practices in which means and ends are “mirrored,” as it involves enacting practices that relate to some feature of an “alternative world” (Bhatt et al., 2023, this volume, chapter “Nurturing Resilient Communities: An Overview”; van de Sande, 2015; Yates, 2015). Prefiguration relies on the view that means and end are inseparable, and end cannot be predetermined or used to justify means (Maeckelbergh, 2011). Prefiguration is a future-oriented and action-driven philosophy that emphasizes creating the “alternative world” with the shell of the existing world, rather than protesting against the existing structures (van de Sande, 2015). Thus, prefiguration has a strong resemblance with the Gandhian principle of means-end equivalence. Bhatt and Qureshi (this volume, Part I, chapter “Navigating Power Relations in Community-Driven Development: An Exploration of Constructive Work”) elucidates how Gandhian principles and processes can complement the Prefiguration literature to enhance the extant understanding of the process and practices involved in prefiguration. Future empirical research can shed more light on the practices and processes of prefiguration by drawing on Gandhian lenses. For example, Gandhian principles of Aparigraha, Ahimsa, Swaraj, and Sarvodaya can not only guide the conception of the “alternative world” and the norms, practices, and decision-making processes that constitute the alternative world (i.e., end) but also inspire the paths (i.e., means) to enact those norms, practices, and processes in the present.

4.3.2 Degrowth

Degrowth refers to an alternative political and economic philosophy that calls for less production and consumption (Kallis, 2017; Hickel, 2020). The dominant economic philosophies assume prospects of infinite growth and tightly link growth with well-being. However, if economic growth requires extensive use of resources, then economic growth can pose sustainability challenges (Kallis, 2017). Thus, a new economic model that can view economic growth not as an end in itself but oriented to serve human needs by being subservient to ecological thresholds holds the key to building self-reliant communities. Ecological sustainability, social justice, and well-being would find primacy in this new model. Such an economic order would find support in degrowth as well as Gandhian literature. Both streams advocate a shift toward a more decentralized, localized, and equitable economy that can prioritize well-being over growth. However, it begs the question of how the community’s aspirations are factored in or to what extent one should localize or decentralize production (Dietz & O’Neill, 2013). Societal norms and values based on consumerism and economic growth will require a shift to accommodate this line of thought, examples of which are currently scarce. It offers scholars an interesting opportunity to explore how this shift can be achieved peacefully (Hickel, 2020; Kallis, 2011). In this regard, Gandhian principles of Ahimsa and Aparigraha can be integrated with the Degrowth literature. Similarly, the Gandhian principles of Sarvodaya and Trusteeship complement the Degrowth literature to provide a better alternative that is based on social justice and responsible production and consumption.

4.3.3 Social Contract Theory

Social contract theory (SCT) has been used in various domains with an underlying basic principle that individuals give up some of their rights to superordinate authorities, for example, their organization, their government, their local association, their housing governance body, in exchange for certain implicit guarantees from their protection and social order (Bucar et al., 2003; Demuijnck & Fasterling, 2016; O’Brien et al., 2009). According to SCT, individuals enter into a social contract with the authority, where they agree to abide by the norms, laws, and regulations established by the authority in exchange for the protection and provision of public goods. Social contract theory can be understood in the terms of Gandhian principle of means-end equivalence (Richards, 2005), as it suggests that the authority must use just and ethical means to achieve its goals and provide public goods and that the ends pursued by the authority must be consistent with the social contract established between the authority and the individuals. In other words, the authority must use means that are consistent with the social contract and the ends sought through that contract. This reinforces the idea that the means used to achieve a particular end must be consistent with the end itself, which is a central tenet of the Gandhian concept of means-end equivalence.

4.3.4 Ethics of Care

The ethics of care is a moral theory that emphasizes the importance of relationships, compassion, and empathy in ethical decision-making (Bhatt, 2022; Hota et al., 2023; Parton, 2003; Slote, 2007, also see Pettersen, 2008). This theory suggests that moral considerations should not only be based on abstract principles or rules but also on the particular needs and circumstances of the individuals involved in a situation (Bhatt, 2022; Till, 2012). The ethics of care prioritizes caring for and attending to the needs of others, particularly those who are vulnerable or marginalized (André & Pache, 2016; Hota et al., 2023; see also, Bhatt, 2022; Hechavarría et al., 2017; Shaw et al., 2016). The ethics of care aligns well with the Gandhian concept of means-end equivalence because of its emphasis on respect for all beings and treating them with kindness and compassion and recognizing their inherent value as individuals. Furthermore, both the ethics of care and the Gandhian concept of means-end equivalence highlight the importance of considering the means used to achieve a particular end. The ethics of care emphasizes the importance of attending to the needs and circumstances of individuals in ethical decision-making, and the Gandhian concept of means-end equivalence emphasizes the importance of using means that are consistent with the end sought. Thus, the ethics of care and the Gandhian concept of means-end equivalence share a common emphasis on compassion, respect for all beings, and the importance of considering the means used to achieve a particular end.

4.3.5 Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics is a philosophical approach to morality that emphasizes the importance of personal character and virtues in ethical decision-making (Kamtekar, 2004; Doris, 1998). According to this theory, moral behavior arises from the cultivation of virtues such as honesty, courage, compassion, and justice, which are seen as essential for living a good and fulfilling life. In virtue ethics, the focus is on the agent rather than the action or the consequences of the action, that is, an action is considered morally right if it is performed by a person, who acts in accordance with the abovementioned virtues they have cultivated over time (Moore, 2002, 2005; cf. Bhatt, 2022; Hota et al., 2023). The concept of means-end equivalence is closely related to virtue ethics because it emphasizes the importance of personal character and virtues in achieving moral ends. Thus, a virtuous person has over time cultivated virtues such as honesty, compassion, and justice, critical ingredients of the means-end equivalent approach. Moreover, Gandhi, being a virtuous person himself, was known for practicing what he preached, which is consistent with the virtue ethics approach that emphasizes the importance of acting in accordance with one’s virtues. For Antyodaya leaders, honesty, compassion, and justice are core virtues, as they help such leaders be honest about the alignment between means and end (cf. Ziegler & Groenfeldt, 2017). Thus, virtue ethics is a moral theory that emphasizes the importance of personal character and virtues in ethical decision-making. The concept of means-end equivalence is closely related to virtue ethics because it highlights the importance of ethical means in achieving moral ends.

4.3.6 Moral Absolutism

Moral absolutism is a philosophical position, which asserts that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of the circumstances in which they are performed (Hawley, 2008; cf. Pellegrino, 2005). In other words, moral absolutists believe that there are objective moral truths that apply universally and that moral principles are not dependent on subjective factors such as culture or personal opinion (Leone et al., 2019).

The Gandhian concept of means-end equivalence is closely related to moral absolutism because it emphasizes the idea that certain means are inherently right or wrong, regardless of the ends they are used to achieve. According to Gandhi, the means used to achieve a goal must be ethical and justifiable in themselves and cannot be justified by the goal they are intended to achieve. For example, if one wants to create a just society, one must use just means to achieve that goal. This is consistent with the idea of moral absolutism, which holds that certain means, such as violence or deception, are always wrong, regardless of the ends they are intended to achieve. Therefore, the concept of means-end equivalence in Gandhian philosophy can be seen as a form of moral absolutism, because it holds that certain means, such as violence or deception, are always wrong, regardless of the circumstances in which they are used.

4.3.7 Hybridity

Hybridity highlights the need for social enterprises to pursue both commercial and social objectives for the creation of economic and social values (Hota, et al., 2023). However, it also emphasizes the contradictions inherent in pursuing dual objectives (i.e., social and commercial), which create paradoxical tensions (Hota, 2023). Scholars have increasingly called for more research to understand the mechanisms and processes that help social enterprises navigate the resulting hybridity tensions (Grimes et al., 2020; Mongelli et al., 2019). We believe managing hybridity tensions require an approach that resembles the means-end equivalence of the Gandhian principle. For example, the pursuit of commercial objectives using unethical or illegitimate means cannot offer an excuse to meet societal objectives. In this regard, Gandhian lenses can advance the debates in hybridity research (in the social entrepreneurship domain). Satya, Aparigraha, Ahimsa, Sarvodaya, Swaraj, and Trusteeship can guide social entrepreneurs in navigating the hybridity challenges (Hota et al., 2023; Iyengar & Bhatt, this volume, chapter “Trusteeship: Gandhian Approach to Reconceptualize Social Responsibility and Sustainability”; Mahajan & Qureshi, this volume, chapter “Basix Social Enterprise Group: Inclusive Development”). Future empirical studies can contribute to the hybridity literature by exploring how Gandhian values and principles help social entrepreneurs manage hybridity tensions.

4.3.8 Resourcing

Resourcing refers to the process of acquiring and allocating resources in an effective and efficient way to achieve organizational goals (Feldman & Worline, 2011). According to resourcing theory, resources are defined as anything that allows an actor to enact a schema, emphasizing that innate qualities of things give them potential as resources until action is taken to use them, making them resources in use (Sutter et al., 2023). This theory also highlights how the use of resources is influenced by shared understandings. Actors with different cognitive or cultural understandings about the resources will use the same resources in distinct ways, resulting in different outcomes (Sutter et al., 2023; cf. Feldman, 2004). An understanding of this shared aspect that guides resource use can provide insight into the implications of the resourcing process for addressing social issues (Pandey et al., 2021; Sutter et al., 2023). For example, the provision of resources to marginalized communities can lead to very different outcomes depending on the schemas guiding their use (Bhatt et al., 2022; Sutter et al., 2023).

In the context of resourcing, means-end equivalence implies that the resources used to achieve organizational goals should be consistent with the goals themselves. For example, if an organization aims to promote sustainable development, it should use resources that are environmentally sustainable and socially responsible (Bansal et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2022). If an organization aims to promote equality and social justice, it should use resources in such a way that promotes these values. This link to resourcing theory became more evident because the way resources are acquired and allocated should also be in line with our values and principles. By ensuring that the way resources are put to use to achieve organizational goals are consistent with those goals, resourcing can help organizations promote their values and achieve their desired outcomes in a manner that is ethical and sustainable. Moreover, the Gandhian concept of means-end equivalence can help organizations to think more critically about their resource use and allocation. By requiring organizations to consider the ethical implications of their resource use and allocation, means-end equivalence can help to promote more responsible and sustainable resource management practices.

4.4 Geographic Context

Additionally, most of the research that explores the alternative paradigm of development has been conducted in an underdeveloped context (e.g., Bhatt et al., 2019, 2023; Hota et al., 2023; Qureshi et al., 2023; Sutter et al., 2023). However, the issues of social inequality, leading to the marginalization of a substantial part of society, and challenges to sustainability have become prominent in developed countries as well (Qureshi et al., 2021a; Zink, 2019). Thus, empirical studies, across the globe, that explore how various organizations and communities are experimenting with alternatives can shed light on new processes and mechanisms to promote sustainable societies (Hickel, 2019; Mair & Rathert, 2021; Parker, 2017). Moreover, as Gandhian principles have become relevant for the entire world (Bawa, 1996), we call for empirical research from both developed and developing countries to understand its usefulness in promoting a just and equitable society. Further, future studies can conduct a comparative study to explore Gandhian perspectives and other alternative paradigms, such as degrowth, to understand their implications for the practice and research of social entrepreneurship.

4.5 Methodological Contributions

The concepts and cases included in this book can provide a foundation to develop more rigorous qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-method empirical work to advance research in the area of Gandhi-inspired social entrepreneurship. For example, in-depth ethnographic or qualitative studies can help understand the processes and mechanisms used by Gandhi-inspired social entrepreneurs in creating resilient and self-reliant communities. Further, future studies can operationalize the constructs of “resilient communities” and “self-reliance” and use survey-based quantitative studies to examine which characteristics of the community or broader ecosystem can help attain these end goals. In this regard, the model of self-reliant communities in the chapter (Fig. 1, this chapter) can provide theoretical guidance to operationalize “resilient communities.” In a similar vein, future studies can leverage randomized control trials (RCT) or other quantitative techniques to assess the societal impact of activities initiated with an aim of developing resilient and self-reliant communities. Finally, future studies using a mixed-method approach can provide deep insight into the processes and outcomes of Gandhian social entrepreneurship.