Can the Social and Solidarity Economy (SSE) be a Unifying Theme for Green and Decent Work in India?  

C an the social and solidarity economy (SSE) be a unifying theme to capture the multitudes of green and decent work that is spread across the length and breadth of India? In the absence of a separate legal entity that recognises social enterprises and size being the only criteria for distinguishing different enterprises (nano, micro, small, or medium), the synergistic potential of many rural, social, and collective enterprises and their contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) often go unrecognised. Despite SSE being discussed in many international fora and resolutions by the United Nations, it is yet to be part of the Indian policy discourse and practice.

For this to materialise, certain conditions need to be met in the Indian context, which will give it more weightage and applicability at the policy level. SSE needs to be linked to alternative visions of organising the economy and polity that are more rooted in India’s cultural ethos. In India, SSE can draw inspiration from organizations following non-hierarchical modes in Indian economy and polity in terms of ‘oceanic circles’ as envisaged by Mahatma Gandhi in the 1940s and the concept of SEWA, ‘We are poor but so many’, introduced by the late Ela Bhatt in the 1970s. More recently, “Anubandh” or the quest for Building an Economy of Nurturance (BEN) and strengthening local economies through a 100-mile radius has been experimented with by SEWA and several other movements. Through Vikalp Sangam, these movements have captured ecological democracy and the rich and diverse innovations from civic action that India has been a leader in. Thinking about anchaals, or bio-regions, as a unit of analysis beyond individual villages helps to rethink ways of organising communities for swaraj or self-reliance today. Essentially, there needs to be a reorganisation of the relationship between the community, state, and market with the community at the centre. At the same time, the other elements work towards realising the aspirations emerging out of that space, with substantial consideration of the limits of nature being taken into account concurrently.

Women artisans at work in the Common Facility Centre at IMEDF Matcraft Cluster, West Bengal.

It should be noted that this is an exercise that requires rethinking the SSE itself to adapt and to be receptive to the respective geographies. To make SSE successful, social innovation, an important element, has to be implemented. This will require significant experimentation and building local entrepreneurial ecosystems. Tools have to be formed which would reestablish community listening as a precondition for other social processes to follow. This is a significant ask as it requires a complete reorganisation of the systems and processes that are in practice, but these steps are necessary if any meaningful outcome is to emerge. Likewise, there needs to be a rethinking of the obsession with scale and metrics that focus solely on reaching mythical unicorn statuses. Entrepreneurship that gives primacy to purpose over profit cannot scale in the same manner as celebrated start-ups. Thus, newer metrics are required for sustainable enterprises.

Designing metrics for impact is an elaborate academic exercise. However, projects (government or otherwise) need to find simple metrics that capture the 4Es of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. These include the entrepreneur and their ability to be an innovative change agent, the growth of the enterprise, the connectedness of the ecosystem, and the contribution to the local economy. Often, metrics only look at enterprise growth, and the other 3Es are detached from the analysis. Recreating the framework also requires accommodating an environment more focused on an ecosystem that contributes to a healthier SSE rather than individual superhero entrepreneurship. Although this form of a framework requires significant management skills, capabilities, more systems-oriented and facilitative but less technical or domain specific. Mapping systems, finding leverage points, and thinking together for collaborative experimentation require innovation brokers to get dissimilar actors to talk. Civil society organisations are increasingly getting better at it, but academic institutions too can facilitate such platforms.

Moreover, the ongoing discussions on social stock exchange, another form of SSE, is a great opportunity to ensure that ethical investments move towards supporting the above processes. With significant access to information and outreach of ICT in rural India, the next phase is to ensure greater democratisation of the economy by rooting for SSE in all our planning efforts. This shift is unlikely to happen automatically, as we have seen in the post-pandemic recovery with growing inequality between rich and poor and among regions of India too. By reimagining SSE within the Indian context, rooted in cultural ethos and alternative visions of organising the economy and fostering social innovation, India can create a more inclusive and sustainable future.