South Asian Conference on Policy Advocacy and Social Entrepreneurship

Conference Invite

Feb. 13, 2026 - Feb. 14, 2026

South Asian Conference on Policy Advocacy and Social Entrepreneurship,

13 to 14 February, 2026

Concept Note

Social entrepreneurship is recognised for its ability to transform the lives of underserved population (Dees, 1998; Williams & Shepherd, 2016; Seelos & Mair, 2005). Social entrepreneurs work for creating a sustainable society by social and economic value creation (Hlady-Rispal & Servantie, 2018; Ziegler, Schulz et al., 2014, Singh & Reji, 2020). On leveraging innovation, entrepreneurship and technology they establish mission-centric social enterprises for creating employment opportunities, and providing access to education, health care, natural resource conservation fostering both individual and societal self-reliance (Alvord et al., 2004; Williams & Shepherd, 2016., Guha & Majumdar, 2021). Policymakers, business leaders, and practitioners increasingly embrace social entrepreneurship as a transformative force for generating social and economic value while ensuring sustainable impact (Calo, Teasdale et al., 2018; Chandra, 2017; Cherrier, Goswami, & Ray, 2018. Singh & Reji 2020).

As an academic discipline, social entrepreneurship attracts interest of scholars from diverse fields, including social sciences, entrepreneurship, business management, economics, sociology, anthropology, public policy, and legal studies (Dwivedi & Weerawardena, 2018; Hota, Subramanian & Narayanamurthy, 2019). Scholars continue to expand the understanding of various aspects of this field (Mair et al., 2016; Seelos et al., 2011; Stephan et al., 2016). As a relatively emerging domain, research primarily focuses on establishing conceptual foundations, entrepreneurial characteristics, social innovation, process of value creation, business models, outcomes and impacts (Reji & Majumdar 2024., Guha & Majumdar, 2021., Gupta et al., 2020., Singh, 2016., Majumdar & Reji, 2018).

The social enterprise landscape is continuously evolving both in developed and emerging markets (Lortie & Cox, 2018; Mair & Schoen, 2007) spearheading innovative solutions to address social and environmental challenges (Zahra & Wright, 2016; Stephan, Patterson et al., 2016). Driven by their mission of creating social value, social enterprises empower individuals and communities by strengthening capacities, enhancing participation in markets, and providing essential resources such as credit and information (Santos, 2012; Mair et al., 2012) creating economic opportunities for the disadvantaged while advancing sustainable development (Mair, Wolf & Seelos, 2016; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004., Singh & Reji 2022).

Advocacy is prevalent among social enterprise organisations. They represent disadvantaged, vulnerable and excluded populations and establish the link between these groups and government agencies (Salamon & Geller, 2008; Strolovitch, 2006). Policy advocacy is defined as ‘trying to influence public policy or regulation’ (Mosley et al., 2023, p. 194). Nichols(2006) argues that social entrepreneurs need to engage with policy makers for creating a conducive environment for their work and this engagement involves building relations with decision-makers in government, engagement in various stages of policy process and influence policy changes that bring systemic changes in the society. In a recent study, Mair and Rathert (2024) reports that out of 776 sample social enterprises included in their study, 76% involved in socio-cultural advocacy and 68% in policy advocacy. Scholars submit that engagement in advocacy might help social enterprises in creating awareness about the social problems or reach out connection with public authorities in decision-making (Suarez and Hwang, 2007) and also in establishing legitimacy of social enterprises and its initiatives (Grohs et al., 2017).

Literature distinguishes two distinct forms of advocacy engagement by social enterprises: sociocultural advocacy and policy advocacy (Mair and Rathert, 2024., Mosley et al. 2023 ). While the first is largely deals with problem-centric micro-level initiatives for bringing behavioural changes in the communities, the second approach involves working with the government or political decision-makers for bringing large scale social change through policy advocacies (Mosley et al. 2023). Policy advocacy focuses on attempts to change policies or influence the decisions of government and state institutions through enhancement of civic participation, in order to promote a collective goal or interest (Berry,2001., Warren, 2001).

Advocacy engagement is viewed as organizational response to shift in the resource base of a problem domain, visible in public spending. It is increasingly recognized that social problems are embedded in a ‘dense environment of competing issues and ideas’ (Andrews and Edwards, 2004: 493) and the commitment of political decision-makers to spend public resources can shift from problem domains and over time. Such shifts can consequences for social enterprise’s engagement in policy advocacy (Lu, 2018). Recent studies show that the engagement of social enterprises in advocacy are influenced by a variety of internal and external factors including organizational forms, legal position, resource base, size, professional expertise and leadership capabilities (Mair and Rathert, 2024., Almog-Bar & Schmid,2014). In a recent study, Mair and Rathert (2024) found that social enterprise may engage in sociocultural and policy advocacy to regain government’s spending on social problems and promote social awareness about the problem to remove stigma and discrimination faced by vulnerable sections in society.

It is well recognised that social enterprises could collaborate with government to get fund, influence policy making process to promote their agenda and bring social change (Bloom & Smith, 2010). Doing so they could expand their expertise, gain legitimacy in communities and network with others to scale up the social impact (Newbert & Hill, 2010). Sometimes, government may adopt successful intervention as state or central government policies and programs. For example, Dr. Devi Shetty introduced the ‘Yashasvini Health Insurance Scheme’ to help low-income individuals afford healthcare at his hospital, Narayana Hrudayalaya. Later, the Karnataka state government adopted this scheme to provide health insurance to economically disadvantaged people.

Similarly, ‘Childline’, a helpline for street children in distress (founded by Jeroo Billimoria in Bombay in 1996), collaborates with various stakeholders, including local police (to register cases when required), healthcare professionals (to provide medical assistance), and the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (to establish Childline centers across India under the unified logo and helpline number 1098), creating a nation-wide network in India (Bornstein, 2005).

Another successful case in policy advocacy by social enterprise is that of ‘Self-Employed Women’s Association (SEWA)’, founded by Ela Bhatt in 1972 in Ahmedabad, Gujarat. SEWA established a cooperative bank in 1974 and collaborated with the Ministry of Rural Development to launch the DWCRA scheme in 1982. Later it has formed the ‘National Alliance of Street Vendors in India in 1998, leading efforts to secure the “Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act in 2014”. SEWA has also built global networks supporting informal workers (Bhowmik, 2010; Kapoor, 2007). SEWA’s success in advocacy for informal workers' rights has extended beyond India. The organization has built networks across Africa, Latin America, and other Asian countries, collaborating with international groups working to support informal sector workers (Kapoor, 2007).

Although policy advocacy remains one of the focus areas of social enterprises for bringing large scale/or system-wide changes in the society (Claus and Tracey, 2019., Mair and Marti 2009, Venkataraman et al., 2016., Alvord et al., 2004, Seelos and Mair, 2017), the political side of advocacy engagement by social enterprises remains largely unexplored (Mosley et al. 2023., Mair and Rathert, 2024). There is very little theorisation on advocacy engagement of social enterprises (Mair and Rathert, 2024). We submit that this is an important gap in the existing literature on social enterprise knowledge domain and need attention of scholarly research. Thus, we invite, scholarly researchers, academicians, practitioners to work on these and contribute to the knowledge domains. We invite research papers- both empirical, conceptual/ theoretical- examining the intersections of social entrepreneurship, politics and advocacy engagement in the following thematic areas.

1. Social enterprises and advocacy engagements

What are the strategies and tactics do social enterprise use in their advocacy engagements?
How do we judge the effectiveness of advocacy campaigns?
What are the internal and external organizational factors influencing advocacy initiatives?
Which strategies or tactics do social enterprises perceive as more effective in influencing policies?

2. Collaborative approaches in advocacy engagement

How do partnerships and coalitions among social enterprises and government agencies facilitate the process of decision-making in government?
How do building relations and trust among social enterprises foster a culture of collaboration and social support for advocacy engagements?
How do social entrepreneurs work with government, business organisations and civil society organisations to co-create policies and programmes?

3. Policy entrepreneurship, innovation and advocacy

To what extent the social enterprise advocacy influence different stage of policy process?
How do social enterprises establish relations with people in power and positions in government?
In what ways and means ‘policy entrepreneurship’ is evolving in government and how do they influence the decision-making process?

4. Organisational dynamics and advocacy engagement

What kinds of organizational structures are more influential for effective advocacy process?
In what ways and means the organizational culture and leadership influences the decisions and choices in advocacy process?
What advocacy methods and tactics are adapted to different organizational cultures?

5. Effectiveness and Impact of advocacy engagements

How do we measure advocacy outcomes?

How do social enterprises develop their advocacy skills and capacities?
What are the methodological issues and challenges in research and policy advocacy?
In what ways big data and analytics transforming advocacy engagement by social enterprises?

We invite theoretical/ empirical research papers from research scholars and practitioners from South Asian Countries (though not limited to) on above thematic areas. The authors must submit an extended abstract in about 2000 words including the title of the research paper, context of the study, research questions/objectives, methodology, expected findings and conclusions. Please submit the research papers to the conference co-ordinator at cse.conference@tiss.ac.in before 31 July 2025. The extended abstract must contain the author’s name, institutional affiliation, mobile number, email address, and address for correspondence. Please refer the important dates below.

Submission of abstracts	31 July, 2025
Notification of acceptance of abstract	20 August, 2025
Submission of full paper	15 November, 2025
Notification of acceptance of full paper	30 November, 2025
Submission of Revised paper	15 December, 2025
Conference registration for paper presenters	01 December 2025 to 31 December, 2025
Conference registration of other delegates	01 December 2025 to 14 February 2026
Submission of ppt for presentation	01 February 2026
Conference dates	13-14 February, 2026
Conference email id	cse.conference@tiss.ac.in

The conference registration link will be open from 01 December, 2025 to 14 February, 2026. The delegates, paper presenters and co-authors are expected to pay the registration fee as per the table below.

Nationality	Registration Fee Without Accommodation		Registration Fee with Accommodation
Nationality	Students and PhD Research Scholars	Others	Students and PhD Research Scholars (Rs)	Others (Rs)
Indian	INR2500	INR5000	INR10000	INR15000
Other South Asian Countries/ International Participants	USD50	USD100	USD150	USD200

*Please note that the registration fee is non-refundable. Individual registration is required in case of papers authored by multiple authors.

The conference registration fee without accommodation covers the conference kit, tea and snacks and lunch on the conference days. Conference registration fee with accommodation covers conference kit, tea and snacks, lunch, dinner and stay for three nights. Please also note that we have only limited accommodation and it is offered on first-come-serve and twin sharing basis. The registration fee shall be paid though the online link (to be provided soon) or through demand draft/ multi-city cheque drawn in favour of “Tata Institute of Social Sciences” payable at Mumbai. Senders must write their name, and affiliation on the back side of the demand draft/cheque. The demand draft or multi-city cheque should be sent to the following address.

Edakkandi Meethal Reji, PhD

Conference Co-ordinator

Centre for Social Entrepreneurship

Room No. 302, School of Management and Labour Studies

Tata Institute of Social Sciences

VN Purav Marg, Deonar, Mumbai-400 088

Maharashtra.

Email: cse.conference@tiss.ac.in

References

Almog-Bar, M. and Schmid, H. (2013). ‘Advocacy activities of nonprofit human service organizations: A critical review’. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43, 11–35.

Alvord, S.H., Brown, L.D., & Letts, C.W. (2004). Social entrepreneurship and societal transformation: an exploratory study. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 40(3), 260–282.

Andrews, K., & Edwards, B. (2004). Advocacy organizations in the US political process. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 479-506.

Berry, J. (2001). Effective advocacy for nonprofits. In E. Reid & M. Montilla (Eds.), Exploring organizations and advocacy: Strategies and finances. Nonprofit advocacy and the policy process: A seminar series (Vol. 2, Issue 1., pp. 1-8). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.

Bhowmik, S. (2010)(ed). Street Vendors in Global Urban Economy. New Delhi: Routledge

Bloom, P. N., & Smith, B. R. (2010). Identifying the Drivers of Social Entrepreneurial Impact: A Exploratory Empirical Study. In S. S. Thinking, Paul N Bloom & Edward Skloot (pp. 11-27). New York: palgrave macmillan.

Bornstein, D. (2005). Ten-Nine-Eight-Childline! Jeero Billmoria, India: Child Protection. In D. Bornstein, How to change the world social entrepreneurs and the power of new ideas (pp. 68-89). New Delhi: Penguin Books.

Calo, F., Teasdale, S., Donaldson, C., Roy, M. J., & Baglioni, S. (2018). Collaborator or competitor: Assessing the evidence supporting the role of social enterprise in health and social care. Public Management Review, 20(12), 1790–1814.

Cherrier, H., Goswami, P., & Ray, S. (2018). Social entrepreneurship: Creating Value in the Context of Institutional Complexity. Journal of Business Research, 86, 246–258.

Dees, G. (1998). The Meaning of ‘Social Entrepreneurship’. Kauffman Centre for Entrepreneurial Leadership. https://centers.fuqua.duke.edu/case/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/03/Article_D ees_MeaningofSocialEntrepreneurship_2001.pdf.

Dwivedi, A., & Weerawardena, J. (2018). Conceptualizing and operationalizing the social entrepreneurship construct. Journal of Business Research, 86, 32–40.

Grohs, S., Schneiders, K. and Heinze, R. G. (2017). ‘Outsiders and intrapreneurs: The institutional embeddedness of social entrepreneurship in Germany’. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28, 2569–91.

Guha, S., and Majumdar, S. (2021). In Search of Business Models in Social Entrepreneurship: Concepts and Cases( Eds). New Delhi: Springer

Gupta, P., Chauhan, S., Paul, J., & Jaiswal, M.P. (2020). Social entrepreneurship research: a review and future research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 113, 209–229.

Hlady-Rispal, M., & Servantie, V. (2018). Deconstructing the way in which value is created in the context of social entrepreneurship. International Journal of Management Reviews, 20(1), 62–80.

Hota, P. K., Subramanian, B., & Narayanamurthy, G. (2019). Mapping the Intellectual Structure of Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Citation/Co-citation Analysis. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04129-4.

Kapoor, A. (2007). The SEWA way: Shaping another future for informal labour. Futures, 39(5), 554–568. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2006.10.004

Lortie, J., & Cox, K. C. (2018). Conceptualizing social entrepreneurship in the context of emerging economies: An integrative review of past research from BRIICS. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14(3), 639–648.

Lu, J. (2018). ‘Organizational antecedents of nonprofit engagement in policy advocacy: A meta-analytical review’. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47, 177S–203S

Mair, J., & Schoen, O. (2007). Successful social entrepreneurial business models in the context of developing economies: An explorative study. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 2(1), 54–68.

Mair, J., and Rathert, N. (2024). The political side of social enterprises: A phenomenon-based study of socio-curtural and policy advocacy, Journal of Management Studies, doi:10.1111/joms.13134

Mair, J., Wolf, M., & Seelos, C. (2016). Scaffolding: a process of transforming patterns of inequality in small-scale societies. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 2021–2044.

Majumdar, S., and Reji. E. M (eds). (2014). Methodological Issues in Social Entrepreneurship Knowledge and Practice. New Delhi: Springer

Mosley, J. E., Suárez, D. F. and Hwang, H. (2023). ‘Conceptualizing organizational advocacy across the nonprofit and voluntary sector: Goals, tactics, and motivation’. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 52,187S–211S.

Newbert, S. L., & Hill, R. P. (2010). Whose Chnage are We Talking About? When Multiple Parties and Multiple Agendas Collide. In P. N. Bloom, & E. Skloot, Scaling Social Impact New Thinking (pp. 127- 146). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Prahalad, C.K., & Ramaswamy, V., (2004). Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value creation. American Marketing Association, 18(3), 5–14.

Reji, E. M., and Majumdar, S. (2024) (Eds). Social Enterprise Values and Processes. New Delhi: Springer

Salamon, L. M. and Anheier, H. K. (1996). The International Classification of Nonprofit Organizations: ICNPO-Revision 1, 1996, Working Papers of the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies. 1–24.

Santos, F. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship, Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3):335–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1413-4

Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2005). Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to serve the poor. Business Horizons, 48(3), 241–246.

Seelos, C., Mair, J., Battilana, J., & Dacin, M.T. (2011). The embeddedness of social entrepreneur-ship: understanding variation across local communities. Research in the Sociology of Organi-zations, 333–363. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2011)0000033013

Singh, A. (2016). The Process of Social Value Creation: A Multiple-Case Study on Social Entrepreneurship in India, New Delhi: Springer

Singh, A., and Reji, E. M. (2020) (eds). Social Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Development. New Delhi: Routledge

Stephan, U., Patterson, M., Kelly, C., & Mair, J. (2016). Organizations driving positive social change: a review and an integrative framework of change processes. Journal of Management, 42(5), 1250–1281.

Strolovitch, D. Z. (2006). ‘Do interest groups represent the disadvantaged? Advocacy at the intersections of race, class, and gender’. Journal of Politics, 68, 894–910.

Suarez, D. F. and Hwang, H. (2007). ‘Civic engagement and nonprofit lobbying in California, 1998–2003’. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37, 93–112.

Warren, M. E. (2001). Democracy and association. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Williams, T.A. & Shepherd, D.A. (2016). Victim entrepreneurs doing well by doing good: venture creation and well-being in the aftermath of a resource shock. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(4), 365–387

Zahra, S.A., Wright, M. (2016). Understanding the social role of entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 53(4), 610–629.

Ziegler, R., Schulz, S., Richter, L., & Schreck, M. (2014). Following Gandhi: Social entrepreneur-ship as a non-violent way of communicating sustainability challenges. Sustainability, 6(2), 1018–1036.