This paper critically evaluates the popular structuralist representation of informal workers as marginalized populations who work as dependent employees out of economic necessity and as a last resort. Reporting on an empirical survey of 1,518 informal workers in India, it reveals not only that a large proportion work on their own account as informal entrepreneurs, but also that not all do such work purely out of economic necessity and in the absence of alternative means of livelihood. The paper concludes by calling for a wider recognition of the opportunity-driven entrepreneurial endeavour of many working in the informal sector.

Conventionally, street entrepreneurs were either seen as a residue from a premodern era that is gradually disappearing (modernisation theory), or an endeavour into which marginalised populations are driven out of necessity in the absence of alternative ways of securing a livelihood (structuralist theory). In recent years, however, participation in street entrepreneurship has been re-read either as a rational economic choice (neoliberal theory) or as conducted for cultural reasons (post-modern theory). The aim of this paper is to evaluate critically these competing explanations for participation in street entrepreneurship. To do this, face-to-face interviews were conducted with 871 street entrepreneurs in the Indian city of Bangalore during 2010 concerning their reasons for participation in street entrepreneurship. The finding is that no one explanation suffices. Some 12 % explain their participation in street entrepreneurship as necessity-driven, 15 % as traditional ancestral activity, 56 % as a rational economic choice and 17 % as pursued for social or lifestyle reasons. The outcome is a call to combine these previously rival explanations in order to develop a richer and more nuanced theorisation of the multifarious motives for street entrepreneurship in emerging market economies.

PurposeStudies on women entrepreneurs either view women through a structuralist lens, as marginalised populations engaged in low‐quality work, or through a neo‐liberal lens, as engaged in relatively higher quality endeavour more as a rational choice. The aim of this paper is to evaluate critically these explanations in relation to women entrepreneurs in the informal sector in India.Design/methodology/approachTo evaluate the contrasting explanations of structuralist and new liberal approaches, questionnaire surveys were conducted in two phases, namely 2007 and 2010, over a period of several months. The sample design was stratified random and the sample was taken from a range of cities in different parts of India.FindingsThe survey of 457 women entrepreneurs of the informal sector shows that although the structuralist representation is largely appropriate for women working as waged informal employees, it is not as valid for women informal entrepreneurs working on a self‐employed basis. The results challenge the traditional understanding of the informal sector, and self‐employed women in particular, and are discussed in the light of the institutional rational choice framework.Research limitations/implicationsThe analysis highlights how the decision of entrepreneurship does not stand in isolation from other decisions and choices, is in line with normative considerations, and is a collective rational choice for women entrepreneurs in the informal sector. This analysis is a first of its kind and calls for additional surveys to be undertaken of female (and male) informal entrepreneurs in other countries to establish this concept.Originality/valueThe analysis critically evaluates established explanations in relation to women entrepreneurs in the informal sector through an empirical survey and establishes new explanations on women entrepreneurship.

Studies on women entrepreneurs in the informal economy no longer view them merely as a residue from some pre-modern mode of production that is disappearing. Instead, they are either read through a structuralist lens as marginalized populations engaged in low quality work conducted under poor conditions for low pay out of necessity in the absence of alternative means of livelihood, or through a neo-liberal lens as engaged in relatively higher quality endeavours more as a rational choice. The aim of this paper is to evaluate critically these contrasting explanations. To do this, the results of face-toface interviews with 323 women entrepreneurs operating in the Indian informal economy are analyzed. The finding is that although the structuralist representation is largely appropriate for women engaged in informal waged work, it is not as valid for women informal entrepreneurs working on a selfemployed basis where incomes are higher, they receive more credit from informal institutions, union membership is higher, and such work is more likely to be a rational choice. The outcome is a call to recognize the diversity of women's experiences in the informal sector and that not all informal entrepreneurship by women in developing nations is a low-paid, necessity-oriented endeavour carried out as a last resort.

Business models direct a firm’s activity to move in coherence with the objectives of the business. Current literature suggests business models can act as vital forces to facilitate sustainability transitions and highlights the urgent research call to understand the role of business model innovations in stimulating sustainability transitions. This paper addresses this research need by investigating how firms create business model innovations for system-level transformation towards sustainability. Through a systematic literature review and deductive content analysis methodology, we identify and categorize different combinations of innovative activities in a firm’s business model. Furthermore, two cases are illustrated to demonstrate the proposed conceptual model. The proposed conceptualization bridges a significant gap in the theme of sustainability and business and presents a defensible and researchable problem for transitions literature. Specifically, we find (1) shared vision and strategic dialogues among firms in different sectors as essential to develop value propositions and leverage business opportunities for sustainability in the long run; (2) companies ensure sustainable value creation and value delivery in the medium term through creation of an interdependent network of the green supply chain and collaboration with stakeholders; (3) in the short term, companies adopt sustainable practices, controlling daily operations, conducting awareness campaigns and experimenting with collaborations to deliver values based on sustainable practices.