Organizing and innovating in poor places

Stott, Neil; Tracey, Paul

doi:10.1080/14479338.2017.1358093

Cited by 26 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As a response, the past few decades have witnessed an emphasis on innovation processes that are compatible with the constraints and opportunities that are faced by those who are side-lined in the innovation process such as individuals and organisations in the informal sector, in remote areas or those with little resource endowments (Chataway et al 2014;Heeks et al 2014;Kanu et al 2014). Such a process has been captured in concepts such as social innovation (Altuna et al 2015), frugal innovation (Knorringa et al 2016), bottom of the pyramid innovation (Prahalad et al 2012;Peredo et al 2017), pro-poor innovation (Stott and Tracey 2018), grassroots innovation (Smith et al 2014;Hossain 2016) or, more broadly, inclusive innovation (Chataway et al 2014;Heeks et al 2014;Pansera and Owen 2018), the term which will be henceforth used in this paper.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Hybridity of Inclusive Innovation Narratives Between Theory and Practice: A Framing Analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inclusive innovation remains an under-conceptualised and ambiguous concept despite garnering political and academic interest in recent decades. This paper explores the narratives of inclusive innovation that exist in literature and how these are framed in practice, using a case study of the Kenyan agricultural sector. Findings indicate that while there is significant similarity between the theoretical and empirical framing of the concept, there are also stark differences. In addition, different actors such as the state, development agencies, the private sector or universities do not fully ascribe to any of the existing theoretical narratives on inclusive innovation. Instead, they frame it based on their own contexts, mandate and interests using concepts borrowed from existing theoretical narratives. This indicates that instead of a grand theory of inclusive innovation that applies universally, there are several ways of enacting inclusive innovation. This also limits the transferability of a onesize-fits-all model of inclusive innovation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…and technologies from the informal sector, and rural areas or arid lands may be excluded from official development planning and practises(Arza and van Zwanenberg 2014;Cozzens and Sutz 2014;Stott and Tracey 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Hybridity of Inclusive Innovation Narratives Between Theory and Practice: A Framing Analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Often this capacity of actions is studied in social innovation research under the framework of cross-sectoral collaborative partnerships. Stott and Tracey (2018) point out that under increasing impetus, social innovation has come to consider cross-sectoral partnerships as a requirement for sustainable and systems solutions to social problems. This impetus to support collaborative actions across sectors in the practice of social innovation is equally the result of market failures and a loss of trust in public institutions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A trilemma in social extrapreneurship?

Aranda-Jan¹

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social extrapreneurship needs to depart from 'trilemma' understandings. Social extrapreneurship should not be considered as such. We are not choosing if either/or particular sectoral partnerships are more suitable, but we are balancing partnerships in a both/and logic: a paradox rather than a "di/tri-lemma" form of understanding. The balance of private, public and civil sector collaboration is different given context. Our search is not for the perfect combination, but our best possible balance. We left the challenge in identifying the strategies that help us find that balance between sectors in private-public-civil collaborations.

show abstract

“…The integration of economic and environmental aspects with innovation (Ozaki, Shaw, & Dodgson, 2013;Stott & Tracey, 2018), on the one hand, created widespread human prosperity while on the other hand can address deteriorating global environmental system (Hepburn et al, 2018). Such integration can be beneficial for new startups in terms of increased sales, reduced risk, cost reduction (Forcadell et al, 2019) and becoming a more attractive employer by building up innovation capabilities (Schaltegger, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orchestrating frugal eco-innovation: the plethora of challenges and diagnostics in lean startups of emerging economies

Abbas

Liu

2021

INMR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Sustainable development research assumes that startups, under extreme financial constraints, cannot sacrifice resources now for benefits later without risking their survival. Furthermore, their non-compliance with environmental regulations adds fuel to the fire. This paper aims to explore the challenges faced by startups in resource-scarce economies and the innovative ways of coping with these challenges. Design/methodology/approach The data for the study was collected through 17 semi-structured interviews taken from startup owners and industry experts based in Pakistan and Bangladesh. The transcribed data were coded through NVivo 12 and themes were generated by merging 47 open and 14 axial codes. Findings The findings show that a lack of government support and lack of organisational readiness and motivation significantly affect startups’ frugal eco-innovation. Empirical evidence reveals problems related to the business ecosystem, and internal organisational issues also contribute to challenges faced by startups in attaining a competitive position in the industry. Research limitations/implications The study’s findings suggested leveraging dynamic capabilities can help lean startups in frugal eco-innovation. Furthermore, organisational cohesion, business ecosystem, government regulations and assistantship, organisational mismanagement and market realisation are decisive in startups’ competitive position in emerging economies. Practical implications The findings of the study will result in a higher adoption rate of more competitive business models, and hence, startups’ sustainability. The results would be an effective and efficient deployment of sustainable technological solutions, creating more customer and shareholder value leading to economic growth. Originality/value This research offers a comprehensive analysis of frugal eco-innovative startups by exploring the interplay between different challenges and organisational capabilities. Furthermore, the study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by providing empirical evidence that eco-innovation can be conducted in a resource-constrained environment. This study challenged the scholarly and managerial assumption of the availability of finances as a significant player in eco-innovation. The study also links the Darwin theory of startups to a competitive edge over rivals for startups’ survival.

show abstract

Organizing and innovating in poor places

Cited by 26 publications

References 65 publications

The Hybridity of Inclusive Innovation Narratives Between Theory and Practice: A Framing Analysis

The Hybridity of Inclusive Innovation Narratives Between Theory and Practice: A Framing Analysis

A trilemma in social extrapreneurship?

Orchestrating frugal eco-innovation: the plethora of challenges and diagnostics in lean startups of emerging economies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About