Content uploaded by Octaviano Rojas Luiz
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Octaviano Rojas Luiz on Dec 09, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
sustainability
Systematic Review
Pro-Poor Innovations to Promote Instrumental Freedoms:
A Systematic Literature Review
Octaviano Rojas Luiz *, Enzo Barberio Mariano and Hermes Moretti Ribeiro da Silva
Citation: Luiz, O.R.; Mariano, E.B.;
Silva, H.M.R.d. Pro-Poor Innovations
to Promote Instrumental Freedoms: A
Systematic Literature Review.
Sustainability 2021,13, 13587. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su132413587
Academic Editor: David K. Ding
Received: 30 October 2021
Accepted: 3 December 2021
Published: 9 December 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Department of Production Engineering, School of Engineering of Bauru, Campus Bauru, São Paulo State
University (UNESP), Bauru 17033-360, Brazil; enzo.mariano@unesp.br (E.B.M.);
hermes.silva@unesp.br (H.M.R.d.S.)
*Correspondence: octaviano.rojas@unesp.br
Abstract:
Through a systematic literature review, this article aims to evaluate the impacts of various
concepts of pro-poor innovations (PPI) on the five instrumental freedoms in Amartya Sen’s Capability
Approach. For this, 165 articles were analysed to summarize the main influences of the pro-poor
innovation on each type of instrumental freedom: political freedoms, economic facilities, transparency
guarantees, social opportunities, and protective security. In general, the results indicate a positive
influence of the innovation concepts for distinct types of freedom, with emphasis on the expansion of
social opportunities and economic facilities.
Keywords:
pro-poor innovation; literature review; capability approach; frugal innovation; human
development; grassroots innovation
1. Introduction
The influence of innovation and technology for human development and progress has
been debated for a long time, going back to Schumpeter’s pioneering contributions to the
understanding of the factors that generate economic growth [
1
]. Since then, the notion of
development and well-being has evolved by broadening its scope of analysis to include
dimensions that go beyond the economic perspective [
2
]. The innovation literature has also
advanced by defining a wide diversity of types of innovation that have a direct or indirect
social impact, allowing low-income consumers to be included in previously inaccessible
markets [3].
Concepts such as frugal innovation, inclusive innovation, grassroots innovation, social
innovation, reverse innovation, and indigenous innovation come together to place the
poorest at the focus of innovation, whether in consumption or production. This research
adopted the term pro-poor innovations (PPI) as an overarching concept serving as an
umbrella for a host of other concepts. It is important to emphasize that this definition
does not depend on whether the innovation was generated or consumed in emerging or
developed countries, in addition to including innovation for different purposes (commercial
or social). When specific differences between concepts are identified and will be explained
in the results of this study.
Regardless of whether they are for-profit or explicitly developed for inclusive purposes,
the initiatives of PPI have the potential to contribute to sustainable development [
4
–
6
].
Products that come from frugal innovations, for example, seeking to minimize the use
of resources and energy, have the potential to support environmental sustainability [
7
].
The concepts of innovation discussed here can promote economic development focused
on the poorest social strata, fighting inequality, which is critical in the search for social
sustainability [
8
]. The potential of PPIs to support Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
is well-recognized in the literature [
9
]. For instance, several studies point to the innova-
tions that make health services less expensive, ensure access to clean water, and support
the efforts against hunger. Others have focused on frugal innovation [
10
,
11
], grassroots
Sustainability 2021,13, 13587. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413587 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2021,13, 13587 2 of 22
innovation [
12
,
13
], low-end Innovation [
14
], constraint-based Innovation [
15
], inclusive
innovation [
16
], and reverse innovation [
17
]. Thus, enough research on PPI has been carried
out to warrant a systematic review and organize the knowledge gathered so far, hoping to
pave the way for future initiatives.
Most of these reviews focus specifically on the relationship between particular con-
cepts of PPI and sustainable development [
18
–
21
]. This review, however, identifies, analy-
ses, and organizes the literature on PPI with the view of the CA’s instrumental freedoms.
Alves and Mariano [
22
] and Lima et al. [
23
] previously adopted the CA’s instrumental
freedoms as a theoretical lens to systematically examine the joint literature on climate
justice and human development. The use of instrumental freedoms as an analytical tool in
literature is instructive because it offers a normative framework that explains the develop-
ment arising from the innovation process in a broad sense, including the transforming role
of the human agency living in poverty.
The present research differs in terms of method, both in the way the articles were
collected and the manner in which the sample was systematized and analyzed. The re-
search incorporated a considerable number of terms related to the phenomenon of PPI to
ensure greater coverage in selecting documents from the databases. In addition, within
the theoretical framework of the CA, the systematization process enabled an unprece-
dented organization of the main advances in PPI literature that have an impact on human
development research.
This article aims to answer the following research question: how does PPI relate to
expanding the capabilities of people in poverty?
2. Conceptual Foundation
2.1. Pro-Poor Innovations and Derived Concepts
Various concepts have been coined to describe different models of innovation with
the potential to improve the well-being and freedom of marginalized communities [
24
]. Al-
though these concepts have many overlaps, they do have significant theoretical differences
that will be addressed in this section.
A group of concepts with a strong commercial bias, and a potentially inclusive impact,
can generally be understood in terms of externality. One of such group terms is frugal inno-
vation; a concept focused on core functionalities, substantial cost reduction, and optimized
performance and efficiency [
7
,
25
]. The cost reduction feature is linked to other terms such
as low-cost innovation [
26
], cost-reducing innovation [
27
] and low-tech innovation [
28
].
Low-cost and cost-reducing innovation differ from frugal innovations by seeking to reduce
costs even at the expense of quality. Low-tech innovations are based on low levels of
R&D investment, not necessarily generating low-cost products and services. Differentiated
products can be generated on simpler technological platforms, differentiating low-tech
innovations from low-cost innovations. Although the platform target is the developing
countries, these types of innovation can be adopted in the developed world in what is
known as reverse innovation [
17
,
29
]. This type of innovation meets the requirements of
decreasing consumer demand, known as voluntary simplicity [30].
Several concepts are named after the motivating element of the innovation, for in-
stance, resource-constrained or constrained-based innovation [
15
]. This perspective un-
derstands that scarcity conditions stimulate the generation of solutions created by the
community under constraints. Resource-constrained innovation differs from frugal inno-
vation by focusing on the environment that originates the innovation instead of focusing
on product and target audience characteristics. The Indian term jugaad is constantly used
to represent this sense of a simple solution using limited resources to overcome severe
restrictions [
31
]. Jugaad differs from other terms in that it is not a colloquial word, lacking
theoretical formalization. Another term coined from the origin of innovation is the so-
called grassroots innovation that designates community-led solutions aimed at sustainable
development, taking advantage of the knowledge and skills of a local community [
32
]. The
Sustainability 2021,13, 13587 3 of 22
idea of developing local technologies also permeates the concept of indigenous innovation,
linked to Chinese economic growth [33].
Another group of terms clarifies the inclusive and socially responsible objective of
these types of innovation. Inclusive innovation generally designates initiatives focused on
marginalized communities and impacts their livelihoods [
24
]. The most ambiguous concept
in literature, often with multiple definitions, is that of social innovation. The common
points among the various definitions are that social innovations include a change in social
structure, relationships or systems and that change solves a relevant social problem or meets
a human need or goal [
34
]. This definition is similar to that given by Christensen et al. [
35
]
for a catalytic innovation, which involves new scalable and sustainable solutions for social
change. Catalytic Patiño–Valencia et al. [
36
], in catalytic, differentiate social and inclusive
innovation by the type of problem they aim to solve and the type of population assisted.
These authors conclude that inclusive innovations are carried out in specific populations
as a way to overcome the condition of exclusion. In contrast, social innovations address
general problems of society, whether there is exclusion or not.
The term pro-poor innovation [
37
] is applied here and elsewhere as an overarching
concept because it represents the characteristic common to the described concepts of gener-
ating benefits to the poorest either intentionally or through externalities. Although there
are more innovation concepts in the literature similar to those presented, the definitions
in this section are sufficient to analyse the results of this review. These definitions are
summarized in Table 1using a classification of definitions proposed by the authors.
Table 1. Types of pro-poor innovation.
Classification Concepts Definition Background/Origin References
Commercial
concepts
Frugal Innovation
Innovations with substantial cost
reduction, optimized performance
level, and concentration in main
functionalities.
Concept with foundations in the theory
Base of the Pyramid. Focus on specific
features of the frugal product.
[25]
Low-cost and
Cost-reducing
innovation
Innovations that reduce product costs
aiming at more competitive prices or
increase profit margins.
Cost-focused competitive strategies. [26,27]
Low-tech
innovation
Innovations based on rudimentary and
traditional technologies. Non-R&D-intensive firms. [28]
Reverse innovation Selling innovations developed in
EMs, DMs.
Research on the General Electric case but
based on the inverse flow of
innovation diffusion.
[17]
Concepts named
after their origin
Resource-
constrained and
Constrained-based
innovation
Innovations conceived under
conditions of scarcity.
Generating cause of innovation based on
the type of environment. [15]
Jugaad innovation
Innovation related to the Indian
concept of jugaad that indicates an
impromptu and
unconventional solution.
Specific cultural bases of India. [31]
Grassroots
innovation
Community-led solutions aimed at
sustainable development.
Local movements such as cooperatives
and voluntary associations
(grassroots movements).
[32]
Indigenous
innovation
Concept related to the Chinese
government’s stimulus for the
development of local
technological innovations.
Innovation based on industrial policy
theories and aspects of Chinese culture. [33]
Explicitly social
concepts
Inclusive innovation
Innovations focused on marginalized
communities, impacting
their livelihoods.
The concept of inclusion; products and
services derived from this innovation
make it possible to eliminate barriers that
limit the participation of specific groups
in society
[24]
Social innovation
Innovations aiming to solve a relevant
social problem or to meet a human
need or goal.
The theoretical bases of this type of
innovation are in development theories,
focusing on the generation of well-being
and improving the quality of life.
[34]
Catalytic innovation
Novel solutions for social change that
are scalable and sustainable.
Clayton Christensen’s
disruptive-innovation model. [35]
Sustainability 2021,13, 13587 4 of 22
2.2. Capability Approach and Instrumental Freedoms
The Capability Approach (CA) is a theory that focuses on the ability of individuals
to achieve the kind of life they have a right to value, which distinguishes it from more
traditional approaches such as utilitarianism [38]. A person’s ability to have a good life is
defined as the set of valuable actions and potential states [
39
]. The CA was first articulated
by the Indian economist and philosopher Amartya Sen in 1980 [
40
]. CA is of practical
importance in formulating public policies, being the basis of the Human Development
Reports and the Human Development Index [
41
]. A prime concept for understanding
the CA is that of functioning. Functioning refers to aspects of a person’s state, that is, the
variety of things a person can be or do in their life [
42
] and applies to more basic needs such
as ‘being well nourished’ as well as to more complex ones, such as ‘being socially accepted’.
On the other hand, a person’s capability reflects the alternative combinations of functioning
that a person can achieve [
43
]. A person’s capabilities will depend on several factors
that differentiate how a person converts resources into functioning. Their physiological
conditions and physical and social environment limit their access to functioning [42].
In his work, Development as Freedom, Sen considers that individual freedoms are the
basic elements of development [
44
], being, simultaneously, means and ends of its achieve-
ment. There is a two-way relationship in which public policies can expand capabilities,
and these, in turn, can influence policies through their effective use [
45
]. That said, certain
freedoms play an instrumental role in development, contributing directly and indirectly to
people living the way they would like to live [
46
]. These freedoms represent critical means
for capabilities, as they contribute to one’s ability to live more freely and thus directly
enhance one’s capabilities. Sen categorizes five basic instrumental freedoms [
45
] shown in
Table 2.
Table 2. Instrumental Freedoms.
Instrumental Freedom Definition
Political Freedom
Fair elections, ability to criticize the government, freedom of
the press, potential to run for elective office and contribute to
the political process.
Economic facilities Access to financing, credit, and global markets.
Social opportunities Education, healthcare, and social services, which enable
citizens to become productive members of society.
Guaranteed transparency Open and transparent negotiations in business, government,
and any transactions between citizens.
Protective security
Social security net that prevents the population, when
vulnerable and exposed to critical changes, from succumbing
to extreme conditions such as poverty and hunger.
From the above, it follows that the Capability Approach provides a broader analysis
of development, considering factors other than purely economic ones, such as income and
wealth of the population, for example. This allows development policies to be evaluated
more thoroughly.
3. Research Method
This systematic literature review will be guided by the assumptions proposed by
Tranfield et al. [
47
] and replicated in other studies [
22
,
47
,
48
]. The research was structured
into the following steps: (1) problem planning and formulation, (2) structuring a search
strategy, (3) data collection, (4) sample quality assessment, (5) development of a categoriza-
tion and analysis system that represents the dimensions of the object of study, (6) synthesis
and analysis of the data, and (7) preparation of a research agenda. Step (1) has already
been addressed in the introduction section of this article which describes the evidence that
justifies the objectives of this review and the scope of the research.
The second step involved two tasks: selection of databases for bibliographic collection
and selection of keywords and logical operators to be used. The Scopus and Web of
Sustainability 2021,13, 13587 5 of 22
Science databases were chosen to ensure comprehensive coverage of relevant bibliographic
material in Innovation and Development. The choice of keywords began with a prior search
for previous systematic reviews about PPI concepts and the CA to reduce the subjectivity
of the selection. Of the set of keywords contained in these previous reviews, only those
with broad meanings that would include too many articles irrelevant to the purpose of this
research were excluded. The search terms ‘capability approach’ and ‘capabilities approach’
were used in place of the words ‘capability’ and ‘capabilities’ because they are too generic.
To strengthen the keyword selection process, additional screenings were performed
using the ‘bibliometrix’ R package for bibliometric analysis [
48
]. For PPI, the 2000 most cited
articles in Scopus were collected applying all the keywords identified in the four selected
systematic reviews (see Table 2), using the ‘OR’ operator to relate them. In addition, it was
collected the 2000 most cited articles in Scopus containing the words ‘human development’
or ‘social development’. The 50 most frequent keywords in each of the two searches
were analysed, and new terms relevant to the topic under study were included among
the words in the systematic review. Table 3lists the keywords pertaining to PPI and CA
and the sources consulted, as well as the words included through the analysis using the
bibliometric package.
Table 3. Keywords related to pro-poor Innovations and Capability Approach.
References Keywords
Pro-poor innovations
Agarwal et al. [15]
Catalytic innovation, frugal engineering, frugal innovation,
Gandhian innovation, grassroots innovation, indigenous
innovation, Jugaad, resource-constrained innovation, reverse
innovation, trickle-up innovation.
Pisoni et al. [10]
Cost innovation, frugal innovation, good enough innovation,
grassroots innovation, inclusive innovation, Jugaad, low-tech
innovation, resource-constrained innovation, reverse innovation.
Reinhardt et al. [14]
Constraint-based innovation, cost innovation, cost-reducing
innovation, frugal innovation, frugal technology, Gandhian
innovation, Gandhian technology, inclusive innovation, low-cost
high-tech innovation, low-cost innovation, low-cost strategy,
low-cost technology, low-end encroachment, low-end innovation,
low-price innovation, low-price technology, low-tech innovation,
low-tech technology, resource-constrained innovation,
reverse innovation.
Rosca et al. [20] Frugal engineering, frugal innovation, frugal innovations, Jugaad.
Capability Approach
Alves and Mariano [22]Freedom, human rights, vulnerabilities, vulnerability, well-being,
capabilities approach, capability approach.
Lund et al. [49]
Community networks, education, educational status, employment,
health, expenditures, housing, income, poverty, social class, social
conditions, social environment, social support, socioeconomic
factors, unemployment, violence.
Mariano et al. [50]Human development, quality of life, social development, social
indicators, social performance, welfare, well-being.
McKinnon et al. [51]
Clean water, empower, food security, health, human capital,
livelihood, nutrition, resilience, social capital, vulnerability,
well-being, wellbeing, well-being.
Vaziri et al. [52]
Autonomy, happiness, life evaluation, life satisfaction, mastery,
negative feeling, positive feeling, psychological well-being,
psychological well-being, subjective well-being, virtue.
Bibliometrix search Human development index, inequality, millennium development
goals, social change.
The fields searched were titles, abstracts, and keywords. The search applied the
Boolean operator ‘AND’ between the group of words about PPI and the group of CA terms
to ensure that the articles included in the initial sample have at least one word from each
group. The words of each specific group are connected with the ‘OR’ operator. Other filters
Sustainability 2021,13, 13587 6 of 22
were used only to include articles written in English and whose sources are scientific jour-
nals. The bibliometrix package was used to remove the articles contained in both databases,
forming a raw sample to be analysed for its quality. Duplicate documents not deleted by
the package due to slight variations in their base registration were rejected manually.
In Step (4), titles and abstracts were evaluated to eliminate articles that deviated from
the main themes of this research. Table 4summarizes some recurring reasons for exclusion.
Table 4. Main reasons for exclusion of articles from the sample.
Reasons for Exclusion Details and Examples
Articles without access to an abstract. Example: [53]
Coincidence of words appearing together in
the abstract.
The word “cost” ending a sentence, and the
word “innovation” begins the following
sentence, although the article did not discuss
cost innovation.
Example: [54]
Economic modelling articles on innovation
licensing and competition.
Cost reduction is one of the inputs, but it does
not contribute to social aspects.
Example: [55]
Articles with a single focus and contribution to
environmental aspects. Example: [56]
Documents selected in the search because of
the use of keywords outside the
expected context.
Indigenous innovation used for innovation
produced by/for indigenous groups.
A few keywords yielded numerous articles
that did not contain substantial discussions
about social aspects
An example is the keyword “income”.
Editorials without major original contributions
were excluded. Example: [57]
Cases in which the selected words were used
only for contextualization, while the article did
not offer relevant findings for the purpose of
this research;
Example: [58]
This step followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews
and Meta-Analyses) protocol [
59
], which gives the number of studies filtered at each step
of the selection process (see Figure 1).
In step (5), when the articles were read in their entirety, additional articles were
excluded based upon a more in-depth understanding of the scope of these studies, resulting
in the composition of a final sample of 165 articles, which was effectively systematized.
Step (5) was based on the qualitative analysis of the content of the bibliographic
material [
60
]. This content analysis began with developing a system of categorization and
analysis that represents the dimensions of the object studied by means of previous reading
of the collected material. The results were systematized in a table that crossed the types of
innovation reviewed in Section 2.1 with instrumental freedoms.
Sustainability 2021,13, 13587 7 of 22
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 22
findings for the purpose of this
research;
This step followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews
and Meta-Analyses) protocol [59], which gives the number of studies filtered at each step
of the selection process (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Mapping of sample composition steps using the PRISMA protocol.
In step (5), when the articles were read in their entirety, additional articles were ex-
cluded based upon a more in-depth understanding of the scope of these studies, resulting
in the composition of a final sample of 165 articles, which was effectively systematized.
Step (5) was based on the qualitative analysis of the content of the bibliographic ma-
terial [60]. This content analysis began with developing a system of categorization and
analysis that represents the dimensions of the object studied by means of previous reading
of the collected material. The results were systematized in a table that crossed the types of
innovation reviewed in Section 2.1 with instrumental freedoms.
Figure 1. Mapping of sample composition steps using the PRISMA protocol.
4. Results
In this section, results obtained from the analysis of the collected literature are pre-
sented. Before addressing more specifically the content of these articles, however, it is
worth mentioning that, (a) from the 165 selected documents, 127 (77% of the total) have
been published since 2015; (b) the countries with the largest number of publications, by na-
tionality of the corresponding author, were the USA (23.9%), the United Kingdom (16.3%),
Canada (9.8%), Germany (8.7%), Finland (5.4%) and India (5.4%); (c) that only four journals
presented five or more articles in the sample: Globalization and Health (9 articles), European
Journal of Development Research (6), Innovation and Development (6) and Sustainability (5);
(d) the most cited articles in the sample were: Christensen et al. [
35
] (259 citations), Im-
melt et al. [
61
] (226 citations) and George et al. [
16
] (218 citations), and (e) the authors with
the most articles in the sample were Professors Mario Pansera from the University of Vigo
(six articles) and Matthew Harris from Imperial College London (five articles).
Developed countries stand out in scientific production on the subject, except India.,
The cases discussed in the literature are concentrated in developing countries, despite the
fact that studies are often led by researchers from Europe and the USA.
During the entire reading of the sample articles, the main findings were labelled in
terms of conceptual innovation (frugal innovation, reverse innovation, grassroots innova-
tion, etc.) and the instrumental freedom potentially affected by this type of innovation.
4.1. Economic Facilities
The findings indicate that PPI is important to ensure market access to the poorest as
potential consumers and producers through the empowerment fostered by these innovations.
In addition, there is potential for productivity gains derived from these innovations. However,
there is no consensus about the impact of PPI on poverty reduction and inequality.
Sustainability 2021,13, 13587 8 of 22
One of the common points in research into different concepts relating to PPI is the
generation of entrepreneurial opportunities and the opening of consumer markets in the
low-income population. Nari Kahle et al. [
62
] indicate that creating more inclusive markets
by multinational corporations enhances economic development. Pansera and Sarkar [
63
]
offer evidence suggesting that innovations generated by the low-income population not
only satisfy previously ignored consumer needs but can also foster greater productiv-
ity, sustainability, and poverty reduction through more significant income generation.
A considerable group of articles, particularly those involving the concept of grassroots
innovation, describe the entrepreneurship generated by PPI as closely connected to envi-
ronmental causes [
64
–
66
]. Research on inclusive innovation indicates that more accessible
technologies can be used to train new entrepreneurs [
67
], addressing, in part, the problem
of lack of entrepreneurial skills [68].
The literature on reverse innovation explains the competitiveness of frugal products
and services in foreign markets, which offer cheaper solutions to meet people’s needs
while consuming fewer resources [
69
]. Emerging countries would be pressured to produce
innovations to solve their urgent social problems, leading to solutions that would rarely be
conceived of in environments with different circumstances [70].
Job creation is a key challenge for pro-poor innovators [
71
]. There is evidence that PPI
in the financial market with the democratization of means of payment and financial and
banking inclusion have the potential to create jobs [
72
,
73
]. Dey et al. [
74
] present empirical
evidence of grassroots innovations in India that have fostered job creation. Lowe and
Wolf-Powers [75] warn that job creation may not be directed at underprivileged classes.
In addition to helping to create jobs, many articles indicated that the development
of more accessible funding programs could create conditions for entrepreneurship at
the grassroots level [
76
–
79
]. Noteworthy are the technologies that exploit mobile phone
coverage in developing countries, such as M-PESA in Kenya [
79
–
81
]. Smartphone apps
allow marginalized communities to access banking services and avoid costly intermediaries
by sending money [67].
Some articles presented specific opportunities for women’s economic inclusion. As
men and women living in poverty differ significantly in their needs and perspectives on
everyday problems, gender equality is a crucial factor in efforts to design frugal prod-
ucts [
82
,
83
]. The framework proposed by Vossenberg [
84
] to evaluate the impact of frugal
innovations on gender presents the inclusion of women in the market as one of its main
aspects. Alamelu et al. [
85
] stress that women’s specific needs must be taken into account
during product development.
Particularly in the case of grassroots and inclusive innovations, a significant amount
of research focuses on exploring the impact of these innovations on the agricultural sector.
Some articles deal with land management [
86
,
87
] and food security issues supported by
innovations [
88
–
90
]. Furthermore, the literature suggests that a possible obstacle to the
participation of rural local groups in the creation and use of new technologies beneficial to
them is the level of qualification of people in rural areas [
74
,
91
]. Access to more affordable
agricultural inputs seems to have a significant impact on economic inclusion [
92
]. Finally,
Baur et al. [
93
] discuss ways to assess the impact on the development of agricultural
innovations.
A considerable number of publications have cast doubt on the potential for poverty
reduction and inclusion. Knorringa et al. [
94
] considered that it would be questionable
whether frugal innovation alone would address gender, wealth, or power inequalities
between western multinational and low-income consumers. More recent research has
indicated that, despite their potential to generate jobs and business, mobile technologies
can widen inequalities [
72
]. Thus, the literature suggests that technologies must be eval-
uated from the perspective of social justice and debated democratically to be effectively
understood as empowering [95,96].
Concerning instrumental freedom, results in developing countries stand out, except
research on the impact on poverty reduction (empowerment) and on the concern that job
Sustainability 2021,13, 13587 9 of 22
creation occurs only among the wealthiest people, which was demonstrated predominantly
in developed countries. Table 5summarizes the main findings of this section.
Table 5. Main findings on the impacts of PPI on economic facilities.
Impacts
Predominant
Development Level of
the Countries Analyzed
Main Findings Main Countries
Entrepreneurship at the
low-income population
Developing
Relationship with environmental
causes (grassroots innovation). India, Bangladesh.
Opening to international markets.
China
Relevance of gender aspects. India
Developed
Income generation with potential
for poverty reduction
(empowerment).
Kenya, Finland, Italy,
Germany, Belgium, UK, USA.
Employment creation
Developing Empirical evidence of the
potential of PPI to create jobs. Zambia, India.
Developed
Concern about the creation of
employment for already
favoured classes.
USA
Opening of inclusive markets Developing
Interest of multinational
companies in serving low-income
people generate economic
development.
India, Bangladesh.
Own base supplying needs by
innovative means. China.
Innovations targeting women’s
specific needs. India.
Innovations in financing Developing
Use of applications that exploit
mobile phone coverage for
banking services.
Kenya.
Greater access to credit creates
conditions for greater
entrepreneurial potential for the
low-income population.
Kenya, India.
4.2. Impacts on Social Opportunities
Social opportunities address a wide variety of capabilities that represent basic require-
ments for citizens, such as good health, basic education, female welfare, and childcare.
Health is the central theme in a substantial number of articles in the sample. Frugal
innovations appear to be appropriate for health care organizations that operate under
severe resource constraints and can universalize access to health [
97
]. Bhatti et al. [
98
] point
out sixteen innovations, grouping them into six categories that demonstrate the wide range
of options for applying frugal innovation to health care. Another survey of 50 health frugal
innovations found that most of the innovations surveyed were generated in developed
countries and first marketed in developing countries [99].
In articles dealing with the term frugal innovation, the analysis identified several
reports of technical developments that ensure more affordable medical solutions. Baeke-
landt [
100
] describes a feasible hysterectomy procedure using reusable laparoscopic instru-
ments and an inexpensive single-port device. Technologies for personalized care, such as
cheaper physiological signal monitoring systems, can also reduce inequalities in health-
care [
101
]. Other diagnostic-related frugal solutions can be cited, such as solutions for
detecting biological fluids [102] and those based on mobile technologies [80].
Developing countries face specific challenges in terms of surgical safety and quality.
Valiathan [
103
] points out that the search for more affordable surgical technologies is not
a recent phenomenon. O’Hara [
104
] and Prime et al. [
105
] describe a device designed to
Sustainability 2021,13, 13587 10 of 22
overcome the shortage of surgical drills in low-income countries. Another example of
PPI’s potential for complex health procedures is their application in critical care areas such
as maintenance of intensive care units, which often require expensive drugs and equip-
ment [
106
]. In addition, articles on indigenous innovation with locally generated solutions
for heart [107] and skull base [108] surgery were also found in developing countries.
Bianchi et al. [
97
] describe frugal innovations as part of a broader management strat-
egy involving not only the adoption of technology but also the promotion of organizational
change. An example of this integration is the development of a service that combines
paper-based solutions with the use of mobile phones to provide digital data in clinical case
management [
6
]. Bloem et al. [
109
] classify as a frugal innovation the development of a
network of professionals and patients involved with Parkinson’s disease treatments that
enable the dissemination of information about this disorder. The use of information tech-
nologies for health system management is also described in articles using concepts other
than frugal innovation [
80
,
110
]. In addition, research has demonstrated the importance
of a national, often state-led, health innovation system to create favourable conditions for
development [97,111,112].
Several articles mention limitations in the outcomes of PPI on health because some
innovations can be developed under misguided beliefs, such as the use of cola based soft
drinks, which were recommended as an inexpensive and reliable source for hydrating
patients with severe diarrhoea [
113
]. In line with this idea, Aranda–Jan et al. [
114
] state a
clear need to establish a holistic view on medical device development. Another problem is
the disagreement between offering and adopting innovation for health [
113
]. The authors
cite as an example the heating of breast milk to reduce HIV transmission.
A prominent topic in articles on reverse innovation is their potential to create mu-
tually beneficial cooperation networks between developed and developing countries.
Firoz et al. [
115
] provide evidence that reverse innovation is a way in which nations can
globally work together to address maternal health challenges. Another example is the
Brazilian model of primary care based on community health agents, which was exported
to the United Kingdom [
116
]. DePasse and Lee [
117
] describe a model for applying reverse
innovation in health.
In order to identify common problems in low- and high-income countries, taking into
account knowledge and resource constraints in developing countries, it is important to
establish a mutual learning environment to promote the codevelopment of solutions, as
evidenced by various studies [
118
–
124
]. Cultural differences can be considered drivers
of this type of innovation for health. An example is the practice of yoga that has, due to
its health benefits, successfully gained ground in countries such as the USA [
125
]. Large
companies such as Phillips [
69
] and GE [
61
] can explore solutions created at their branches
in developing countries, generating well-being and promoting health in these countries.
The proportion of health-related articles focusing on the concepts of inclusive and
grassroots innovation was less significant compared with other freedoms discussed here.
Among these, two studies describe the inclusive potential of nanotechnology applied to
drug development [
126
,
127
]. Clifford and Zaman [
128
] and Farmer et al. [
129
] underscore
the importance of policies aimed at strengthening local communities, enabling them to
participate in the development process.
A considerable part (38%) of the innovations reviewed by Lehner and Gausemeier [
77
]
focuses on addressing educational inequalities. The literature on PPI seems to be more
concentrated on changes in higher education. So, the so-called ‘development universi-
ties’ (institutions whose primary academic objective is to foster development and social
inclusion through knowledge) can be important centres for spreading PPI [
130
]. Further-
more, PPI can be supported by community colleges that are more affordable options than
traditional long-term university courses, meeting more specialized demands [35].
The literature that relates frugal innovation to medical developments also stresses
the importance of both medical and patient education for the development and adoption
of innovations for health [
6
,
109
,
131
]. This perspective was also observed in research on
Sustainability 2021,13, 13587 11 of 22
inclusive innovation, highlighting the urgent need for remodelled higher education courses
in health [
128
]. An example of educational innovation in healthcare is a proposal of a set of
intercultural educational tools for menopausal women to improve communication between
them and their caregivers [132].
Articles on grassroots innovations underscore the importance of new learning models
better suited to the need for local groups to engage in building solutions [
133
,
134
]. White
and Stirling [
135
] present cases of organized local communities for innovation in the United
Kingdom, which, while focusing on food production, present the promotion of education
explicitly as a secondary objective. As discussed in relation to access to banking services,
the use of mobile platforms has also supported access to training, overcoming problems of
access to traditional teaching models [134].
The sample also includes articles that describe innovations in access to water. One of
the proposals found in the literature is the construction of very affordable iron-based water
filters that have good adsorption capacity [
136
]. The need for periodic replacement of these
filters is a common barrier to adopting this technology, but there are already proposals for
devices that encourage the user to change them after the specified service life [
137
]. The
results reported by Soto–Gómez et al. [
138
] suggest that cuttlefish ink is an inexpensive
substitute suitable for exploiting the transport of contaminants into groundwater and
could be used to develop affordable water filtration systems. Other solutions are based on
solar distillation [
139
] and nanotechnology [
140
]. While acknowledging the potential of
innovations in the water sector, Hyvärinen [
141
] describe potential barriers to their imple-
mentation. Innovations aimed at the poorest do not always go beyond good intentions, as
evidenced by the case of a water and sewerage utility in a large city in East Africa [142].
Once more, there was a prevalence of research in developing countries on social
opportunities. Among developed countries, the relevance of information technology and
community colleges, in addition to new learning methods, can be highlighted.
Table 6
summarizes the main contributions about the relation between social opportunities and PPI.
Table 6. Main findings concerning the impacts of PPI on social opportunities.
Impacts
Predominant
Development Level of
the Countries Analyzed
Main Findings Main Countries
Access to health
Developing
New procedures and devices of varying
levels of complexity. China.
Developing countries have unique
conditions that inspire new solutions.
India, Uganda, Syria, Papua
New Guinea, UK.
Significant number of reports on reverse
innovation for health.
Mozambique, India, Pakistan,
Nigeria, UK, Brazil, Uganda,
South Sudan, Liberia.
Integration between technology and
organizational change to improve health
system efficiency.
Uruguay, Kenya, Netherlands.
Some negative impacts (innovations based
on misguided beliefs, lack of a systemic view
during implementations).
African countries.
Developed Relevance of technology-supported
information management. USA.
Access to education Developing
Providing cost-effective quality education. India, China, South Africa.
Higher priority given to higher education in
the literature. Uruguay, USA.
Improvement in medical education and
empowerment of people for
personal healthcare.
Kenya, Netherlands,
South Africa, Gabon, Egypt,
India, Canada.
Using mobile and internet technologies to
democratize education. Ukraine.
Sustainability 2021,13, 13587 12 of 22
Table 6. Cont.
Impacts
Predominant
Development Level of
the Countries Analyzed
Main Findings Main Countries
Developed
Relevance of community colleges. USA.
Need for new learning models for
empowering local communities. Spanish, Ukraine.
Access to water Developing
Research has been identified with reports of
technical solutions for frugal water
filtration procedures.
Cameroon, Spain, India,
South Africa.
Potential barriers to the implementation of
frugal technologies for the water sector are
found in the literature.
Tanzania, Kenya.
4.3. Political Freedoms
Social opportunities address a wide variety of capabilities that represent basic require-
ments for citizens, such as good health, basic education, female welfare, and childcare.
Democratic aspects such as the empowering role of decentralization of authority
are little discussed in traditional innovation models such as the triple helix [
143
]. In this
regard, it is possible to indicate how PPI can broaden political participation, the right to
free expression and strengthen democracies.
Overall, studies point to greater political engagement and strengthening the democ-
ratization process through PPI. Poorer people find in their own social condition a strong
barrier to political participation. By increasing empowerment at the low-income popula-
tion, PPIs can remove this barrier, contributing to the state-building process [
62
]. The term
with the most documents presenting contributions to political freedom and low-income
people engagement was grassroots innovation, perhaps because of its historical exposure
to activist movements [
144
,
145
]. Paneque–Gálvez [
87
] states that marginalized groups such
as indigenous peoples, through their access to previously financially prohibitive technical
skills, may gain a greater mastery over their territories and greater capability to participate
in political discussions about their management. While today’s grassroots innovations
seem less explicitly political than their predecessor forms, they can still represent a form of
political participation [146,147].
By eliminating geographical barriers and giving voice to marginalized groups, inno-
vations such as participatory videos [
148
] and internet-based applications for participatory
mapping [
149
] provide inexpensive opportunities for citizens to participate in the demo-
cratic process. Specifically, regarding the terms inclusive innovation and jugaad, inexpensive
solutions in mobile-based telecommunications have been identified [
64
,
150
,
151
]. Of partic-
ular note is the case described by Karjalainen and Heinonen [
64
] of a mobile application
developed in response to postelection violence in Kenya in 2008. This application enables
mobilization to share crisis information.
Political freedoms were the ones that presented the most balanced proportion between
researches in developed and developing countries. Table 7summarizes the impacts of PPI
on the political freedoms collated in this review.
Sustainability 2021,13, 13587 13 of 22
Table 7. Main findings on the impacts of PPI on political freedoms.
Impacts
Predominant
Development Level of
the Countries Analyzed
Main Findings Main Countries
Impacts on political
engagement
Developing
Through low-income people
empowerment, PPI would provide
opportunities for political participation.
Indian continent.
Contribution to strengthening democracy
and supporting the
state-building process.
Indian continent.
Developed
Highlighted research on grassroots
innovation that originates in
activist movements.
Spain, UK.
Developing Special relevance of mobile technologies
for political participation. Kenya, India.
Advances in
communication Developed
Free expression and spread of ideas
supported by new information
technologies and social networks.
Examples: Participatory Videos and
Mapping Technologies;
Spain, USA.
4.4. Transparency Guarantees
Widespread access to information, especially on government affairs, not only broadens
economic freedom but also ensures greater clarity about the terms of the social contract
between the public administration and citizens.
Despite the paucity of articles dealing directly with aspects of corruption that could
be impacted by PPI, some articles have discussed ethical aspects of these new forms of
innovation. One term that stands out in this theme is the Indian term jugaad. This term
is constantly linked to corrupt traditional Indian practices having a primarily negative
cultural connotation. The sample authors criticize the use of the word to designate an inno-
vation for reinforcing systemic risks in India [
152
] and legitimizing corrupt practices [
153
].
The articles have no central focus on the innovation aspects of these practices. Thus, some
innovations known as Jugaad in India may have positive purposes and social impacts.
Two articles discuss the ethical aspects of inclusive innovations [
143
,
154
]. For these
authors, the discourse connected with this kind of innovation has always been shaped
by widely implied value assumptions, and discourse about inclusive innovation reflects
unease about some of the most common values. Thus, from an ethical point of view,
innovations aimed at inclusion need to be in line with the values and principles of those
most in need.
Innovators often have to deal with faulty institutions, corruption, unclear property
rights, inadequate infrastructure and cultural barriers [
155
]. In discussing possible ad-
vantages of infrastructure-related frugality, Asakawa et al. [
156
] argue that overcoming is
time-consuming and that this type of strategy requires long-term support. In particular,
from the legal standpoint, Yadav [
73
] describes the project to unify citizens’ registries in
India, an innovation with the potential to create a more trusting environment and speed
up legal proceedings.
Research on transparency in developing countries is concentrated in India due to the
emphasis on jugaad innovation. Evidence from Norway on the importance of considering
values when analyzing ethical aspects was also highlighted. Table 8summarizes the impact
of PPI on transparency guarantees.
Sustainability 2021,13, 13587 14 of 22
Table 8. Main findings on the impacts of PPI on transparency guarantees.
Impacts
Predominant
Development Level of
the Countries Analyzed
Main Findings Main Countries
Corruption
Developing Jugaad stands out for its negative
cultural connotations. India.
Developed
Low-income people values should be considered
when analyzing ethical impacts of PPI. Norway
No specific countries
Paucity of articles dealing directly
with corruption. -
Lack of support to decisively confirm the
corruption impacts of Jugaad innovations; -
Institutional voids
Developing PPI can be adopted to overcome
weak institutions. India
No specific countries Solutions to overcome the lack of infrastructure
(hard and soft) and legal uncertainty stand out. -
4.5. Protective Security
The contributions found in the literature on PPI for protective security can be divided
into two fronts: protection in the event of financial crises and protection in emergencies
caused by natural disasters and climate change.
As for the insertion of PPIs in markets undergoing an economic recession, the crisis
scenario seems to influence the decision process regarding the adoption of innovations since
low-income consumers are more vulnerable [
157
]. This innovation class can be crucial for
the survival of companies in developing countries during crises, enabling growth, which
underscores the importance of emerging markets in the global economy [
69
]. Schillo and
Robinson [
158
] point out that during economic crises, innovations may produce negative
results, such as increased income inequality, even if these innovations lead to economic
growth. Thus, the authors suggest that to identify innovation as inclusive, economic,
environmental, and social outcomes should be evaluated.
Poor communities are the ones that suffer most from environmental unsustainability,
and it is the poor people that suffer the most from calamities caused by climate change
and environmental degradation, such as floods, droughts, fires and famines [
159
]. In this
regard, a concept that relates PPI with environmental problems is the idea of green leap
innovation, whereby businesses of the low-income population are involved in the sale
of clean and regenerative technologies [
155
,
159
]. Nevertheless, despite the potential of
PPI to protect against environmental problems, there is evidence in the literature that this
type of innovation can also engender environmental concerns such as deforestation and
pollution [160].
Relevant research on protective security has focused only on developing countries,
most likely because of their characteristic of greater social vulnerability.
Table 9summarizes the key protective security impacts of PPI discussed in this section.
Figure 2summarizes the findings of the systematic literature review.
Sustainability 2021,13, 13587 15 of 22
Table 9. Main findings on the impacts of PPI on protective security.
Impacts
Predominant
Development Level of
the Countries Analyzed
Main Findings Main Countries
Financial crisis
Developing
Decision to adopt products from PPI is
influenced during crises due to increased
vulnerability of the low-income population.
Brazil.
During crises, companies can serve emerging
markets to ensure their survival. China.
No specific countries Need for holistic analysis of the impact of
innovation during crises. -
Environmental
problems Developing
Poor people suffer most from calamities caused
by climate change and
environmental degradation.
Bangladesh.
There are indications in the literature of possible
environmental concerns resulting from PPI. Kenya, Tanzania.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 22
Table 9. Main findings on the impacts of PPI on protective security.
Impacts
Predominant Develop-
ment Level of the Coun-
tries Analyzed
Main Findings
Main Countries
Financial crisis
Developing
Decision to adopt products from PPI is influenced
during crises due to increased vulnerability of the low-
income population.
Brazil.
During crises, companies can serve emerging markets
to ensure their survival.
China.
No specific countries
Need for holistic analysis of the impact of innovation
during crises.
-
Environmental
problems
Developing
Poor people suffer most from calamities caused by
climate change and environmental degradation.
Bangladesh.
There are indications in the literature of possible
environmental concerns resulting from PPI.
Kenya, Tanzania.
Figure 2 summarizes the findings of the systematic literature review.
Figure 2. Main impacts of PPI adoption on instrumental freedoms.
5. Conclusions
This article is the first to systematically review the literature on the various concepts
relating to pro-poor innovations and the Capability Approach. Thus, this systematic
review explains how an innovation type can impact each type of instrumental freedom,
allowing for a more systemic analysis. As many of the empirical results of studies
presented in the review come from case studies, the resulting impacts should not be
generalized, and further studies are required to confirm them. The findings of this
literature survey indicate that, in general, the various concepts of pro-poor innovations
(frugal innovation, grassroots innovation, including innovation, among others) do not
differ significantly in terms of their relationship to CA’s instrumental freedoms. This may
show that the slight conceptual differences between the terms are not sufficiently
significant to address social aspects.
Figure 2. Main impacts of PPI adoption on instrumental freedoms.
5. Conclusions
This article is the first to systematically review the literature on the various concepts
relating to pro-poor innovations and the Capability Approach. Thus, this systematic review
explains how an innovation type can impact each type of instrumental freedom, allowing
for a more systemic analysis. As many of the empirical results of studies presented in
the review come from case studies, the resulting impacts should not be generalized, and
further studies are required to confirm them. The findings of this literature survey indicate
that, in general, the various concepts of pro-poor innovations (frugal innovation, grassroots
innovation, including innovation, among others) do not differ significantly in terms of
their relationship to CA’s instrumental freedoms. This may show that the slight conceptual
differences between the terms are not sufficiently significant to address social aspects.
Sustainability 2021,13, 13587 16 of 22
Especially concerning pro-poor innovations, this review clarifies that even innovations
with a commercial purpose can potentially present positive social externalities. For example,
the focus on eliminating secondary features in frugal innovations allows poorer people to
access a broader range of opportunities. Companies that develop products that serve people
in a state of vulnerability must consider capacity effects during product development.
In addition to strengthening the theoretical bases of the social aspects of these emergent
innovation concepts, this review fills an important gap in the CA literature by applying it
in the context of innovation. The results demonstrate the utility of using this development
theory for a more complete assessment of the relationship between innovation and its
impact on society, considering not only economic aspects.
Research on PPI so far indicates positive contributions to the expansion of freedoms.
The freedoms with more direct relationships with PPI were economic freedoms and social
opportunities due to the common characteristic of this type of innovation to generate
more affordable products and services for the low-income population. Regarding social
opportunities, the analysis highlights the numerous studies that focus on the expanding
reach of health services for the low-income population, mainly involving the concept of
reverse innovation. It is important to point out that although more positive impacts of PPI
have been identified, this review indicated potential negative effects in cases where there is
not a sufficiently systemic analysis in the design and implementation of innovation.
Future empirical research may further evaluate the relationships established in this
research, especially by evaluating possible trade-offs between the instrumental freedoms
presented here. The inverse relationship in which the level of capabilities can influence the
generation of PPI may be the subject of future research that could also use other concepts
from CA to assess the type of innovation discussed here. For example, the concept of
conversion factors could be applied to better understand how resources coming from
PPI would effectively become capacities for the poor. The volume of research on certain
instrumental freedoms (political freedom, transparency guarantees and protective security)
was found to be smaller than that on other freedoms, requiring further investigation.
This article offers practical contributions for public managers wishing to foster PPI
by pinpointing the social conditions that have stimulated, or prevented, the generation
of this type of innovation and by indicating possible benefits for human development,
thereby supporting the decision making process. Practitioners can select the innovation
mechanisms that have shown the most results for specific social goals. For example,
for health managers, the results point to an emphasis on reverse innovation practices.
Furthermore, science and technology public policymakers can use instrumental freedoms
as a more complete framework for evaluating the social impacts of their decisions.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, O.R.L., E.B.M. and H.M.R.d.S.; methodology, O.R.L. and
E.B.M.; software, O.R.L.; validation, O.R.L., E.B.M. and H.M.R.d.S.; formal analysis, O.R.L. and
E.B.M.; data curation, O.R.L.; writing—original draft preparation, O.R.L.; writing—review and
editing, E.B.M. and H.M.R.d.S.; supervision, E.B.M. and H.M.R.d.S.; funding acquisition, H.M.R.d.S.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The APC was funded by PROAP/CAPES via PROPG/UNESP.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or
in the decision to publish the results.
Sustainability 2021,13, 13587 17 of 22
References
1.
Heertje, A. Schumpeter on the Economics of Innovation and the Development of Capitalism; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2006;
ISBN 1-84542-445-X.
2. Venkatapuram, S. Subjective wellbeing: A primer for poverty analysts. J. Poverty Soc. Justice 2013,21, 5–17. [CrossRef]
3.
Schneider-Kamp, A. Inclusion of the excluded: Consumers’ quest for hedonism in food consumption. Int. J. Consum. Stud.
2021
,
45, 320–334. [CrossRef]
4.
Iqbal, Q.; Ahmad, N.H.; Li, Z. Frugal-based innovation model for sustainable development: Technological and market turbulence.
Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2021,42, 396–407. [CrossRef]
5. Khan, R.; Melkas, H. The social dimension of frugal innovation. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2020,83, 160. [CrossRef]
6.
Kleczka, B.; Musiega, A.; Rabut, G.; Wekesa, P.; Mwaniki, P.; Marx, M.; Kumar, P. Rubber stamp templates for improving clinical
documentation: A paper-based, m-Health approach for quality improvement in low-resource settings. Int. J. Med. Inform.
2018
,
114, 121–129. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Le Bas, C. Frugal innovation as environmental innovation. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2020,83, 78–96. [CrossRef]
8.
Sarkar, S.; Pansera, M. Sustainability-driven innovation at the bottom: Insights from grassroots ecopreneurs. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Chang. 2017,114, 327–338. [CrossRef]
9. ´
Sl˛ezak, M.; Jagielski, M. Manifestations and Measures of Frugal Innovations. J. Corp. Responsib. Leadersh. 2020,5, 81. [CrossRef]
10.
Pisoni, A.; Michelin, L.; Martignoni, G. Frugal approach to innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. J. Clean. Prod.
2018,171, 107–126. [CrossRef]
11. Hossain, M. Frugal innovation: A review and research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,182, 926–936. [CrossRef]
12.
Hossain, M. Grassroots innovation: A systematic review of two decades of research. J. Clean. Prod.
2016
,137, 973–981. [CrossRef]
13. Hossain, M. Grassroots innovation: The state of the art and future perspectives. Technol. Soc. 2018,55, 63–69. [CrossRef]
14.
Reinhardt, R.; Gurtner, S.; Griffin, A. Towards an adaptive framework of low-end innovation capability—A systematic review
and multiple case study analysis. Long Range Plann. 2018,51, 770–796. [CrossRef]
15.
Agarwal, N.; Grottke, M.; Mishra, S.; Brem, A. A Systematic Literature Review of Constraint-Based Innovations: State of the Art
and Future Perspectives. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2017,64, 3–15. [CrossRef]
16.
George, G.; Mcgahan, A.M.; Prabhu, J. Innovation for Inclusive Growth: Towards a Theoretical Framework and a Research
Agenda. J. Manag. Stud. 2012,49, 661–683. [CrossRef]
17.
Hadengue, M.; de Marcellis-Warin, N.; Warin, T. Reverse innovation: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Emerg. Mark.
2017
,12,
142–182. [CrossRef]
18.
Albert, M. Sustainable frugal innovation—The connection between frugal innovation and sustainability. J. Clean. Prod.
2019
,237,
117747. [CrossRef]
19. Leliveld, A.; Knorringa, P. Frugal Innovation and Development Research. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 2018,30, 1–16. [CrossRef]
20.
Rosca, E.; Reedy, J.; Bendul, J.C. Does Frugal Innovation Enable Sustainable Development? A Systematic Literature Review. Eur.
J. Dev. Res. 2018,30, 136–157. [CrossRef]
21. Khan, R. How Frugal Innovation Promotes Social Sustainability. Sustainability 2016,8, 1034. [CrossRef]
22.
Alves, M.W.F.M.; Mariano, E.B. Climate justice and human development: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod.
2018
,202,
360–375. [CrossRef]
23.
Lima, P.A.B.; Jesus, G.M.K.; Ortiz, C.R.; Frascareli, F.C.O.; Souza, F.B.; Mariano, E.B. Sustainable Development as Freedom: Trends
and Opportunities for the Circular Economy in the Human Development Literature. Sustainability 2021,13, 13407. [CrossRef]
24.
Onsongo, E.K.; Knorringa, P. Comparing frugality and inclusion in innovation for development: Logic, process and outcome.
Innov. Dev. 2020, 1–21. [CrossRef]
25. Weyrauch, T.; Herstatt, C. What is frugal innovation? Three defining criteria. J. Frugal Innov. 2017,2, 1. [CrossRef]
26. Agnihotri, A. Low-cost innovation in emerging markets. J. Strateg. Mark. 2015,23, 399–411. [CrossRef]
27.
Agrawal, A.; Bhattacharya, S.; Hasija, S. Cost-Reducing Innovation and the Role of Patent Intermediaries in Increasing Market
Efficiency. Prod. Oper. Manag. 2016,25, 173–191. [CrossRef]
28. Som, O.; Kirner, E. Low-tech Innovation; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; ISBN 978-3-319-09972-9.
29.
Zeschky, M.; Widenmayer, B.; Gassmann, O. Organising for reverse innovation in Western MNCs: The role of frugal product
innovation capabilities. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2014,64, 255. [CrossRef]
30.
Rebouças, R.; Soares, A.M. Voluntary simplicity: A literature review and research agenda. Int. J. Consum. Stud.
2021
,45, 303–319.
[CrossRef]
31.
Prabhu, J.; Jain, S. Innovation and entrepreneurship in India: Understanding jugaad. Asia Pac. J. Manag.
2015
,32, 843–868.
[CrossRef]
32.
Smith, A.; Fressoli, M.; Thomas, H. Grassroots innovation movements: Challenges and contributions. J. Clean. Prod.
2014
,63,
114–124. [CrossRef]
33.
Lazonick, W. Indigenous Innovation and Economic Development: Lessons from China’s Leap into the Information Age. Ind.
Innov. 2004,11, 273–297. [CrossRef]
34.
van der Have, R.P.; Rubalcaba, L. Social innovation research: An emerging area of innovation studies? Res. Policy
2016
,45,
1923–1935. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021,13, 13587 18 of 22
35.
Christensen, C.M.; Baumann, H.; Ruggles, R.; Sadtler, T.M. Disruptive innovation for social change. Harv. Bus. Rev.
2006
,84,
94–101.
36.
Patiño-Valencia, B.; Villalba-Morales, M.L.; Acosta-Amaya, M.; Villegas-Arboleda, C.; Calderón-Sanín, E. Towards the conceptual
understanding of social innovation and inclusive innovation: A literature review. Innov. Dev. 2020, 1–22. [CrossRef]
37.
Hasan, M.R.; Shams, S.M.R.; Rahman, M.; Haque, S.E. Analysing pro-poor innovation acceptance by income segments. Manag.
Decis. 2020,58, 1663–1674. [CrossRef]
38. Nussbaum, M. Reply: In Defence of Global Political Liberalism. Dev. Chang. 2006,37, 1313–1328. [CrossRef]
39.
González-Cantón, C.; Boulos, S.; Sánchez-Garrido, P. Exploring the Link between Human Rights, the Capability Approach and
Corporate Responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics 2018,160, 865–879. [CrossRef]
40.
Robeyns, I. Wellbeing, Freedom, Social Justice. The Capability Approach Re-Examined; Open Book Publishers: Cambridge, UK, 2017;
ISBN 9781783744213.
41.
Deneulin, S. Expanding Freedoms, Changing Structures: The Human Development Report 2014. Dev. Chang.
2016
,47, 937–951.
[CrossRef]
42.
Alexander, J.M. Capabilities and Social Justice: The Political Philosophy of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum; Ashgate Pub. Ltd.:
Aldershot, UK, 2008.
43. Kaufman, A. Capabilities and Freedom. J. Polit. Philos. 2006,14, 289–300. [CrossRef]
44.
Fukuda-Parr, S. The human development paradigm: Operationalizing Sen’s ideas on capabilities. Fem. Econ.
2003
,9, 301–317.
[CrossRef]
45. Sen, A. Development as Freedom; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1999.
46. Gorovaia, N.; Zenios, S.A. Does freedom lead to happiness? Economic growth and quality of life. Glob. Bus. Econ. Rev. 2013,15,
309. [CrossRef]
47.
Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by
Means of Systematic Review. Br. J. Manag. 2003,14, 207–222. [CrossRef]
48.
Aria, M.; Cuccurullo, C. bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informetr.
2017
,11, 959–975.
[CrossRef]
49.
Lund, C.; Breen, A.; Flisher, A.J.; Kakuma, R.; Corrigall, J.; Joska, J.A.; Swartz, L.; Patel, V. Poverty and common mental disorders
in low and middle income countries: A systematic review. Soc. Sci. Med. 2010,71, 517–528. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50.
Mariano, E.B.; Sobreiro, V.A.; do Nascimento Rebelatto, D.A. Human development and data envelopment analysis: A structured
literature review. Omega 2015,54, 33–49. [CrossRef]
51. McKinnon, M.C.; Cheng, S.H.; Dupre, S.; Edmond, J.; Garside, R.; Glew, L.; Holland, M.B.; Levine, E.; Masuda, Y.J.; Miller, D.C.;
et al. What are the effects of nature conservation on human well-being? A systematic map of empirical evidence from developing
countries. Environ. Evid. 2016,5, 1–25. [CrossRef]
52.
Vaziri, H.; Tay, L.; Keith, M.G.; Pawelski, J.O. History, literature, and philosophy: A systematic review of positive functioning. J.
Posit. Psychol. 2018,14, 1–29. [CrossRef]
53.
Beteille, A.; Gupta, D.; Nandy, A.; De Aguiar, F.C.G.; Zhabwala, R.; Bhoumik, S.; Walaza, N.; Xuemei, Z.; Woodruff, M.; Williams,
A.; et al. A Quest for Social Justice: A Colloquium to Build a Network. Vikalpa J. Decis. Makers 2010,35, 63–100. [CrossRef]
54.
Emaminia, A.; Corcoran, P.C.; Siegenthaler, M.P.; Means, M.; Rasmussen, S.; Krause, L.; LaPar, D.J.; Horvath, K.A. The universal
bed model for patient care improves outcome and lowers cost in cardiac surgery. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.
2012
,143, 475–481.
[CrossRef]
55. Li, C.; Ji, X. Innovation, licensing, and price vs. quantity competition. Econ. Model. 2010,27, 746–754. [CrossRef]
56.
Feola, G.; Nunes, R. Success and failure of grassroots innovations for addressing climate change: The case of the Transition
Movement. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014,24, 232–250. [CrossRef]
57.
Honavar, S. “Indovation” in ophthalmology—The potential power of frugal innovations. Indian J. Ophthalmol.
2019
,67, 447.
[CrossRef]
58.
van der Heijden, A.A.; de Bruijne, M.C.; Feenstra, T.L.; Dekker, J.M.; Baan, C.A.; Bosmans, J.E.; Bot, S.D.; Donker, G.A.; Nijpels, G.
Resource use and costs of type 2 diabetes patients receiving managed or protocolized primary care: A controlled clinical trial.
BMC Health Serv. Res. 2014,14, 280. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59.
Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA
statement. BMJ 2009,339, b2535. [CrossRef]
60.
Seuring, S.; Gold, S. Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews in supply chain management. Supply Chain Manag.
2012,17, 544–555. [CrossRef]
61. Immelt, J.R.; Govindarajan, V.; Trimble, C. How GE is disrupting itself. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2009,87, 56–65.
62.
Nari Kahle, H.; Dubiel, A.; Ernst, H.; Prabhu, J. The democratizing effects of frugal innovation: Implications for inclusive growth
and state-building. J. Indian Bus. Res. 2013,5, 220–234. [CrossRef]
63.
Pansera, M.; Sarkar, S. Crafting sustainable development solutions: Frugal innovations of grassroots entrepreneurs. Sustainability
2016,8, 51. [CrossRef]
64.
Karjalainen, J.; Heinonen, S. Using deliberative foresight to envision a neo-carbon energy innovation ecosystem—A case study of
Kenya. Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Innov. Dev. 2018,10, 625–641. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021,13, 13587 19 of 22
65.
Matthies, A.-L.; Stamm, I.; Hirvilammi, T.; Närhi, K. Ecosocial Innovations and Their Capacity to Integrate Ecological, Economic
and Social Sustainability Transition. Sustainability 2019,11, 2107. [CrossRef]
66.
Seyfang, G. Community action for sustainable housing: Building a low-carbon future. Energy Policy
2010
,38, 7624–7633.
[CrossRef]
67.
Woodson, T.; Alcantara, J.T.; do Nascimento, M.S. Is 3D printing an inclusive innovation?: An examination of 3D printing in
Brazil. Technovation 2019,80–81, 54–62. [CrossRef]
68.
Grobbelaar, S.S.; Serger, S.S. Fundamental debates and policy choices for supporting innovation in Africa. Development
2015
,58,
549–555. [CrossRef]
69.
Shan, J.; Khan, M.A. Implications of reverse innovation for socio-economic sustainability: A case study of Philips China.
Sustainability 2016,8, 530. [CrossRef]
70.
Viltard, L.A. The growth imperative (TGI): An approach to alleviate/eradicate poverty. Indep. J. Manag. Prod.
2018
,9, 1291.
[CrossRef]
71.
Levänen, J.; Hossain, M.; Lyytinen, T.; Hyvärinen, A.; Numminen, S.; Halme, M. Implications of frugal innovations on sustainable
development: Evaluating water and energy innovations. Sustainability 2016,8, 4. [CrossRef]
72.
Peša, I. The Developmental Potential of Frugal Innovation among Mobile Money Agents in Kitwe, Zambia. Eur. J. Dev. Res.
2018
,
30, 49–65. [CrossRef]
73.
Yadav, V. Unique identification project for 1.2 billion people in India: Can it fill institutional voids and enable “inclusive”
innovation? Contemp. Readings Law Soc. Justice 2014,6, 38–48.
74.
Dey, A.; Gupta, A.K.; Singh, G. Innovation, investment and enterprise: Climate resilient entrepreneurial pathways for overcoming
poverty. Agric. Syst. 2019,172, 83–90. [CrossRef]
75.
Lowe, N.J.; Wolf-Powers, L. Who works in a working region? Inclusive innovation in the new manufacturing economy. Reg. Stud.
2018,52, 828–839. [CrossRef]
76.
Coppock, D.L.; Desta, S. Collective Action, Innovation, and Wealth Generation Among Settled Pastoral Women in Northern
Kenya. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2013,66, 95–105. [CrossRef]
77.
Lehner, A.-C.; Gausemeier, J. A Pattern-Based Approach to the Development of Frugal Innovations. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev.
2016,6, 13–21. [CrossRef]
78.
Mohan, L.; Potnis, D. Catalytic innovation in microfinance for inclusive growth: Insights from SKS microfinance. J. Asia-Pac. Bus.
2010,11, 218–239. [CrossRef]
79.
Wellen, L.; Van Dijk, M.P. Frugal financial innovations for inclusive finance: The experience with customer care at M-Pesa in
Kenya. Enterp. Dev. Microfinance 2018,29, 262–275. [CrossRef]
80.
Lundin, J.; Dumont, G. Medical mobile technologies-what is needed for a sustainable and scalable implementation on a global
scale? Glob. Health Action 2017,10, 14–17. [CrossRef]
81.
Rosca, E.; Arnold, M.; Bendul, J.C. Business models for sustainable innovation–an empirical analysis of frugal products and
services. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,162, S133–S145. [CrossRef]
82.
Jagtap, S. Design and poverty: A review of contexts, roles of poor people, and methods. Res. Eng. Des.
2019
,30, 41–62. [CrossRef]
83.
Kwami, J.D.; Wolf-Monteiro, B.; Steeves, H.L. Toward a ‘macro-micro’ analysis of gender, power and ICTs. Int. Commun. Gaz.
2011,73, 539–549. [CrossRef]
84.
Vossenberg, S. Frugal Innovation Through a Gender Lens: Towards an Analytical Framework. Eur. J. Dev. Res.
2018
,30, 34–48.
[CrossRef]
85.
Alamelu, R.; Anushan, C.S.; Selvabaskar, S.G. Preference of e-Bike by Women in India–a Niche Market for Auto Manufacturers.
Verslas Teor. Prakt. 2015,16, 25–30. [CrossRef]
86.
Campos, I.; Vizinho, A.; Truninger, M.; Lopes, G.P. Converging for deterring land abandonment: A systematization of experiences
of a rural grassroots innovation. Community Dev. J. 2016,51, 552–570. [CrossRef]
87.
Paneque-Gálvez, J.; Vargas-Ramírez, N.; Napoletano, B.; Cummings, A. Grassroots Innovation Using Drones for Indigenous
Mapping and Monitoring. Land 2017,6, 86. [CrossRef]
88.
Bhaduri, S.; Sinha, K.M.; Knorringa, P. Frugality and cross-sectoral policymaking for food security. NJAS-Wageningen J. Life Sci.
2018,84, 72–79. [CrossRef]
89.
Nhantumbo, N.S.; Zivale, C.O.; Nhantumbo, I.S.; Gomes, A.M. Making agricultural intervention attractive to farmers in Africa
through inclusive innovation systems. World Dev. Perspect. 2016,4, 19–23. [CrossRef]
90.
Njenga, M.; Gitau, J.K.; Iiyama, M.; Jamnadassa, R.; Mahmoud, Y.; Karanja, N. Innovative biomass cooking approaches for
sub-Saharan Africa. Afr. J. Food, Agric. Nutr. Dev. 2019,19, 14066–14087. [CrossRef]
91.
Douthwaite, B.; Beaulieu, N.; Lundy, M.; Peters, D. Understanding how participatory approaches foster innovation. Int. J. Agric.
Sustain. 2009,7, 42–60. [CrossRef]
92.
Gebremariam, G.; Tesfaye, W. The heterogeneous effect of shocks on agricultural innovations adoption: Microeconometric
evidence from rural Ethiopia. Food Policy 2018,74, 154–161. [CrossRef]
93.
Baur, H.; Poulter, G.; Puccioni, M.; Castro, P.; Lutzeyer, H.J.; Krall, S. Impact assessment and evaluation in agricultural research
for development. Agric. Syst. 2003,78, 329–336. [CrossRef]
94.
Knorringa, P.; Peša, I.; Leliveld, A.; Van Beers, C. Frugal Innovation and Development: Aides or Adversaries? Eur. J. Dev. Res.
2016,28, 143–153. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021,13, 13587 20 of 22
95.
Pansera, M. Frugal or Fair? The Unfulfilled Promises of Frugal Innovation. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev.
2018
,8, 6–13. [CrossRef]
96.
Richardson-Ngwenya, P.; Höhne, M.; Kaufmann, B. Participatory problem analysis of crop activities in rural Tanzania with
attention to gender and wealth: ‘setting the scene’ to enhance relevance and avoid exclusion in pro-poor innovation projects.
Food Secur. 2018,10, 859–880. [CrossRef]
97.
Bianchi, C.; Bianco, M.; Ardanche, M.; Schenck, M. Healthcare frugal innovation: A solving problem rationale under scarcity
conditions. Technol. Soc. 2017,51, 74–80. [CrossRef]
98.
Bhatti, Y.A.; Prime, M.; Harris, M.; Wadge, H.; McQueen, J.; Patel, H.; Carter, A.W.; Parston, G.; Darzi, A. The search for the
holy grail: Frugal innovation in healthcare from low-income or middle-income countries for reverse innovation to developed
countries. BMJ Innov. 2017,3, 212–220. [CrossRef]
99.
Arshad, H.; Radi´c, M.; Radi´c, D. Patterns of Frugal Innovation in Healthcare. Technol. Innov. Manag. Rev.
2018
,8, 28–37. [CrossRef]
100.
Baekelandt, J. Total Vaginal NOTES Hysterectomy: A New Approach to Hysterectomy. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol.
2015
,22,
1088–1094. [CrossRef]
101. Allen, L.N.; Christie, G.P. The Emergence of Personalized Health Technology. J. Med. Internet Res. 2016,18, e99. [CrossRef]
102. Raju, S.P.; Chu, X. Rapid Low-Cost Microfluidic Detection in Point of Care Diagnostics. J. Med. Syst. 2018,42, 184. [CrossRef]
103.
Valiathan, M.V.S. Frugal innovation in cardiac surgery. Indian J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.
2018
,34, 439–448. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
104. O’Hara, N.N. Is safe surgery possible when resources are scarce? BMJ Qual. Saf. 2015,24, 432–434. [CrossRef]
105.
Prime, M.; Attaelmanan, I.; Imbuldeniya, A.; Harris, M.; Darzi, A.; Bhatti, Y. From Malawi to Middlesex: The case of the Arbutus
Drill Cover System as an example of the cost-saving potential of frugal innovations for the UK NHS. BMJ Innov.
2018
,4, 103–110.
[CrossRef]
106. Mekontso Dessap, A. Frugal innovation for critical care. Intensive Care Med. 2019,45, 252–254. [CrossRef]
107.
Jones, D.S.; Sivaramakrishnan, K. Making heart-lung machines work in India: Imports, indigenous innovation and the challenge
of replicating cardiac surgery in Bombay, 1952-1962. Soc. Stud. Sci. 2018,48, 507–539. [CrossRef]
108.
Jha, D.K.; Jain, M.; Chaturvedi, S.; Goyal, R.; Arya, A.; Kushwaha, S.; Thakur, A. Skull Base Surgery with Minimal Resources.
World Neurosurg. 2017,100, 487–497. [CrossRef]
109.
Bloem, B.R.; Rompen, L.; de Vries, N.M.; Klink, A.; Munneke, M.; Jeurissen, P. ParkinsonNet: A low-cost health care innovation
with a systems approach from the Netherlands. Health Aff. 2017,36, 1987–1996. [CrossRef]
110.
Taylor, A.; Siddiqui, F. Bringing Global Health Home: The Case of Global to Local in King County, Washington. Ann. Glob. Health
2016,82, 972–980. [CrossRef]
111.
Al-Bader, S.; Daar, A.S.; Singer, P.A. Science-based health innovation in Ghana: Health entrepreneurs point the way to a new
development path. BMC Int. Health Hum. Rights 2010,10, S2. [CrossRef]
112.
Simiyu, K.; Daar, A.S.; Hughes, M.; Singer, P.A. Science-based health innovation in Rwanda: Unlocking the potential of a late
bloomer. BMC Int. Health Hum. Rights 2010,10, S3. [CrossRef]
113.
Tran, V.T.; Ravaud, P. Frugal innovation in medicine for low resource settings. BMC Med.
2016
,14, 102–104. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
114.
Aranda-Jan, C.B.; Jagtap, S.; Moultrie, J. Towards a framework for holistic contextual design for low-resource settings. Int. J. Des.
2016,10, 43–63.
115.
Firoz, T.; Makanga, P.T.; Nathan, H.L.; Payne, B.; Magee, L.A. Reverse innovation in maternal health. Obstet. Med.
2017
,10,
113–119. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
116.
Johnson, C.D.; Noyes, J.; Haines, A.; Thomas, K.; Stockport, C.; Ribas, A.N.; Harris, M. Learning from the Brazilian community
health worker model in North Wales. Glob. Health 2013,9, 25. [CrossRef]
117. DePasse, J.W.; Lee, P.T. A model for “reverse innovation” in health care. Glob. Health 2013,9, 40. [CrossRef]
118.
Basu, L.; Pronovost, P.; Molello, N.E.; Syed, S.B.; Wu, A.W. The role of South-North partnerships in promoting shared learning
and knowledge transfer. Glob. Health 2017,13, 1–3. [CrossRef]
119.
Binagwaho, A.; Nutt, C.T.; Mutabazi, V.; Karema, C.; Nsanzimana, S.; Gasana, M.; Drobac, P.C.; Rich, M.L.; Uwaliraye, P.;
Nyemazi, J.; et al. Shared learning in an interconnected world: Innovations to advance global health equity. Glob. Health
2013
,9,
37. [CrossRef]
120.
Busse, H.; Aboneh, E.A.; Tefera, G. Learning from developing countries in strengthening health systems: An evaluation of
personal and professional impact among global health volunteers at Addis Ababa University’s Tikur Anbessa Specialized
Hospital (Ethiopia). Glob. Health 2014,10, 64. [CrossRef]
121. Crisp, N. Mutual learning and reverse innovation-where next? Glob. Health 2014,10, 1–4. [CrossRef]
122.
Ibe, C.A.; Basu, L.; Gooden, R.; Syed, S.B.; Dadwal, V.; Bone, L.R.; Ephraim, P.L.; Weston, C.M.; Wu, A.W.; Barron, J.; et al. From
Kisiizi to Baltimore: Cultivating knowledge brokers to support global innovation for community engagement in healthcare. Glob.
Health 2018,14, 1–5. [CrossRef]
123.
Issa, H.; Kulasabanathan, K.; Darzi, A.; Harris, M. Shared learning in an interconnected world: The role of international health
partnerships. J. R. Soc. Med. 2017,110, 316–319. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
124. Premji, S.S.; Hatfield, J. Call to Action for Nurses/Nursing. Biomed Res. Int. 2016,2016, 1–5. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
125. Ravi Kumar, V.V.; Aanand, S. Yoga: A case of reverse innovation. Purushartha 2015,8, 12–18.
126.
Woodson, T.; Rodriguez, V. Analysis of inequality in nanomedicine using clinical trials and disease burden. Nanomedicine
2019
,
14, 1745–1757. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 2021,13, 13587 21 of 22
127.
Woodson, T.S. Public private partnerships and emerging technologies: A look at nanomedicine for diseases of poverty. Res. Policy
2016,45, 1410–1418. [CrossRef]
128.
Clifford, K.L.; Zaman, M.H. Engineering, global health, and inclusive innovation: Focus on partnership, system strengthening,
and local impact for SDGs. Glob. Health Action 2016,9, 30175. [CrossRef]
129.
Farmer, J.; Carlisle, K.; Dickson-Swift, V.; Teasdale, S.; Kenny, A.; Taylor, J.; Croker, F.; Marini, K.; Gussy, M. Applying social
innovation theory to examine how community co-designed health services develop: Using a case study approach and mixed
methods. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2018,18, 68. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
130.
Arocena, R.; Göransson, B.; Sutz, J. Knowledge policies and universities in developing countries: Inclusive development and the
“developmental university”. Technol. Soc. 2015,41, 10–20. [CrossRef]
131.
Gardner, L.J.; Brunson, J.; McIntyre, M.; Langell, J. Use of an Interdisciplinary Student Medical Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Program to Create Affordable Global Health Care Solutions. Surg. Innov. 2018,25, 550–556. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
132.
Snowdon, A.W.; Bassi, H.; Scarffe, A.D.; Smith, A.D. Reverse innovation: An opportunity for strengthening health systems. Glob.
Health 2015,11, 1–7. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
133.
Pellicer-Sifres, V.; Belda-Miquel, S.; Cuesta-Fernandez, I.; Boni, A. Learning, transformative action, and grassroots innovation:
Insights from the Spanish energy cooperative Som Energia. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2018,42, 100–111. [CrossRef]
134.
Udovyk, O. ‘I cannot be passive as I was before’: Learning from grassroots innovations in Ukraine. Eur. J. Res. Educ. Learn. Adults
2017,8, 1–19. [CrossRef]
135.
White, R.; Stirling, A. Sustaining trajectories towards Sustainability: Dynamics and diversity in UK communal growing activities.
Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013,23, 838–846. [CrossRef]
136.
Ndé-Tchoupé, A.I.; Crane, R.A.; Mwakabona, H.T.; Noubactep, C.; Njau, K.N. Technologies for decentralized fluoride removal:
Testing metallic iron-based filters. Water 2015,7, 6750–6774. [CrossRef]
137.
Ndé-Tchoupé, A.I.; Lufingo, M.; Hu, R.; Gwenzi, W.; Ntwampe, S.K.O.; Noubactep, C.; Njau, K.N. Avoiding the use of exhausted
drinkingwater filters: A filter-clock based on rusting iron. Water 2018,10, 591. [CrossRef]
138.
Soto-Gómez, D.; Pérez-Rodríguez, P.; López-Periago, J.E.; Paradelo, M. Sepia ink as a surrogate for colloid transport tests in
porous media. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2016,191, 88–98. [CrossRef]
139.
Flendrig, L.M.; Shah, B.; Subrahmaniam, N.; Ramakrishnan, V. Low cost thermoformed solar still water purifier for D&E countries.
Phys. Chem. Earth 2009,34, 50–54. [CrossRef]
140.
Harsh, M.; Woodson, T.S.; Cozzens, S.; Wetmore, J.M.; Soumonni, O.; Cortes, R. The role of emerging technologies in inclusive
innovation: The case of nanotechnology in South Africa†. Sci. Public Policy 2018,45, 597–607. [CrossRef]
141.
Hyvärinen, A.; Keskinen, M.; Varis, O. Potential and Pitfalls of Frugal Innovation in the Water Sector: Insights from Tanzania to
Global Value Chains. Sustainability 2016,8, 888. [CrossRef]
142.
van Welie, M.J.; Truffer, B.; Gebauer, H. Innovation challenges of utilities in informal settlements: Combining a capabilities and
regime perspective. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2019,33, 84–101. [CrossRef]
143.
Bryden, J.; Gezelius, S.S.; Refsgaard, K.; Sutz, J. Inclusive innovation in the bioeconomy: Concepts and directions for research.
Innov. Dev. 2017,7, 1–16. [CrossRef]
144.
Boni, A.; Leivas, M.; De La Fuente, T.; Belda-Miquel, S. Grassroots Innovation for Human Development. Exploring the potencial
of Participatory Video. Int. J. E-Politics 2016,7, 26–39. [CrossRef]
145.
Smith, A.; Stirling, A. Innovation, Sustainability and Democracy: An Analysis of Grassroots Contributions. J. Self-Governance
Manag. Econ. 2018,6, 64. [CrossRef]
146.
Martiskainen, M.; Heiskanen, E.; Speciale, G. Community energy initiatives to alleviate fuel poverty: The material politics of
Energy Cafés. Local Environ. 2018,23, 20–35. [CrossRef]
147.
Ziegler, R. Citizen Innovation as Niche Restoration—A Type of Social Innovation and Its Relevance for Political Participation and
Sustainability. J. Soc. Entrep. 2017,8, 338–353. [CrossRef]
148.
Boni, A.; Belda-Miquel, S.; Pellicer-Sifres, V. Innovación transformadora. Propuestas desde la innovación social colectiva para el
desarrollo humano. Recer. Rev. Pensam. Anàlisi 2018,23, 67–94. [CrossRef]
149.
Nicolosi, E.; French, J.; Medina, R. Add to the map! Evaluating digitally mediated participatory mapping for grassroots
sustainabilities. Geogr. J. 2019,186, 142–155. [CrossRef]
150.
Foster, C. Does quality matter for innovations in low income markets? The case of the Kenyan mobile phone sector. Technol. Soc.
2014,38, 119–129. [CrossRef]
151.
Rangaswamy, N.; Sambasivan, N. Cutting Chai, Jugaad, and Here Pheri: Towards UbiComp for a global community. Pers.
Ubiquitous Comput. 2011,15, 553–564. [CrossRef]
152. Birtchnell, T. Jugaad as systemic risk and disruptive innovation in India. Contemp. South Asia 2011,19, 357–372. [CrossRef]
153. Jauregui, B. Provisional agency in India: Jugaad and legitimation of corruption. Am. Ethnol. 2014,41, 76–91. [CrossRef]
154.
Refsgaard, K.; Bryden, J.; Kvakkestad, V. Towards inclusive innovation praxis in forest-based bioenergy. Innov. Dev.
2017
,7,
153–173. [CrossRef]
155.
Pansera, M. Frugality, grassroots and inclusiveness: New challenges for mainstream innovation theories. Afr. J. Sci. Technol. Innov.
Dev. 2013,5, 469–478. [CrossRef]
156. Asakawa, K.; Cuervo-Cazurra, A.; Annique Un, C. Frugality-based advantage. Long Range Plann. 2019,52, 101879. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2021,13, 13587 22 of 22
157.
da Costa Nogami, V.K.; Vieira, F.G.D.; Veloso, A.R. Concept of innovation in low-income market. Rev. Bus. Manag.
2018
,20,
127–149. [CrossRef]
158.
Schillo, R.S.; Robinson, R.M. Inclusive Innovation in Developed Countries: The Who, What, Why, and How. Technol. Innov.
Manag. Rev. 2017,7, 34–46. [CrossRef]
159.
Hart, S.; Sharma, S.; Halme, M. Poverty, Business Strategy, and Sustainable Development. Organ. Environ.
2016
,29, 401–415.
[CrossRef]
160.
Baskaran, S.; Mehta, K. What is innovation anyway? Youth perspectives from resource-constrained environments. Technovation
2016,52–53, 4–17. [CrossRef]
