Cocreation at the Base of the Pyramid

Abstract

The base of the pyramid (BOP) approach suggests that business with low-income consumers or producers can simultaneously foster well-being, environmental sustainability, and profits. A central tenet of the BOP approach is cocreation between companies, low-income communities, and other actors. However, recent research has strongly questioned the necessity and feasibility of such cocreation. This article undertakes a systematic review of BOP research on cocreation and finds a considerable range in the proposed participants and purpose of cocreation: Cocreation can refer to a deep process of social transformation or, at the other extreme, arms-length cooperation that merely legitimizes a corporation as a development agent. Drawing on development studies, this review proposes a framework for organizing the diverse conceptualizations, and shows how the framework facilitates elaboration on the necessity and feasibility of cocreation at the BOP.

Keywords

base of the pyramid cocreation inclusive business subsistence context low-income markets cross-sector collaboration open innovation participation poverty reduction literature review

Introduction

In his formative book, Prahalad (2004, p. 2) declared that the base of the pyramid (BOP)

vision . . . is the co-creation of a solution to the problem of poverty. The opportunities at the BOP cannot be unlocked if large and small firms, governments, civil society organizations, development agencies, and the poor themselves do not work together with a shared agenda.

Since then, cocreation has attracted increasing attention as a means for companies to develop business models that create value for local communities at the BOP (Khalid et al., 2015; Kolk, Rivera-Santos, & Rufin, 2014; London & Hart, 2004; Nakata, 2012; Seelos & Mair, 2007). Cocreation has become a central tenet of “second generation” BOP strategies that seek to create a fortune with rather than at the BOP (London & Anupindi, 2012; Simanis & Hart, 2009). Some authors even consider cocreation pivotal in distinguishing BOP initiatives from multinational enterprises’ other operations that have sometimes caused rather than alleviated poverty and environmental problems (e.g., Hart, 2006; London, 2008).

However, other authors question the necessity for cocreation. Reviewing the BOP literature up to 2009, Kolk et al. (2014) suggest that cocreation has taken on excessive emphasis as a “one-size-fits-all” recommendation, but is actually rare and not worthwhile in all industries, business environments, or societies (see P. Sánchez & Ricart, 2010, and Siim, Zeromskis, & Hsuan, 2013, for similar conclusions).

Furthermore, the feasibility of cocreative partnerships has been doubted in the research on both BOP initiatives (Arora & Romijn, 2012; Blowfield & Dolan, 2014; S. Chatterjee, 2014; Schwittay, 2009) and other corporate responsibility initiatives in low-income contexts (Frynas, 2005; Idemudia, 2009; Newell, 2005): “[N]otions of partnership and the equity between stakeholders they imply make little sense [in low-income settings],” suggests Newell (2005, p. 556). Many celebrated BOP ventures from the i-community initiatives of Hewlett-Packard (McFalls, 2007; Schwittay, 2011) to the Shakti distribution program of Unilever in India (Simanis & Hart, 2009) have indeed been troubled by top-down management and difficulties in listening to local communities.

These tensions make cocreation at the BOP an interesting and important research topic. The idea of cocreation is rooted in a lengthy tradition of innovation research on customer participation. Since the late 1970s, rising numbers of corporations have sought to access external knowledge by engaging their customers in innovation (Sanders & Stappers, 2008), and scholars have seen such engagement as a potential source of new product performance, customer satisfaction, productivity, and competitiveness (Baker & Sinkula, 1999; Bendapudi & Leone, 2003; Hart & Sharma, 2004; Joshi & Sharma, 2004; Lee, Olson, & Trimi, 2012). The concept of cocreation was first defined and discussed by Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000, 2004), who saw that “[i]nformed, networked, empowered and active consumers are increasingly co-creating value with the firm” (2004. p. 5). Several related concepts have also emerged, including lead-user innovation (Von Hippel, 1986), open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003), and crowdsourcing (Howe, 2006). The “co-creation paradigm” (Cova, Dalli, & Zwick, 2011) has expanded rapidly: EBSCOhost alone identifies 366 unique peer-reviewed journal articles with cocreation in the title.

Cocreation is studied in many fields of business research including strategy, innovation, and marketing. Scholars share an understanding of cocreation as interaction that fosters the integration of resources and capabilities (Grönroos, 2011; Lusch & Vargo, 2006; Mahr, Lievens, & Blazevic, 2014; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004), reflecting and engendering a new balance of power (Cova et al., 2011; Potts et al., 2008; Ramaswamy, 2009). Some even suggest that cocreation casts consumers and companies as equals (Fisher & Smith, 2011; Payne, Storbacka, & Frow, 2008; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Sanders & Stappers, 2008). While some marketing scholars focus on the cocreation of value(-in-use) by companies and customers during consumption (Grönroos & Voima, 2013; Lusch, Vargo, & O’Brien, 2007), many others find cocreation increasingly common among a wide variety of stakeholders (Fyrberg Yngfalk, 2013; Sanders & Stappers, 2008; Ramaswamy & Gouillart, 2010) and throughout strategy, innovation and marketing processes (Hoyer, Chandy, Dorotic, Krafft, & Singh, 2010; Payne et al., 2008; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004).

This study analyzes the concept of cocreation in BOP contexts. I undertake a systematic review of the BOP literature, identifying and analyzing 196 articles relevant to the topic. Furthermore, I incorporate insights from development studies on different types of participation, multiple dimensions of poverty, and the feasibility of engaging poor people.

I find that BOP research echoes other literatures in defining cocreation as interaction that integrates different partners’ knowledge and capabilities. However, BOP research displays considerable diversity in the proposed participants and purpose of cocreation, attaching varying importance to consumer participation and equality. I propose a framework to organize this diversity, differentiating between the width of participation and the depth of purpose assigned to cocreation. The framework facilitates the accumulation of knowledge and nuanced discussion on the necessity and feasibility of cocreation at the BOP. I argue that wide and deep cocreation is not always necessary to bring affordable and necessary products or services to the poor, but it is crucial—though demanding—for BOP initiatives to address the root causes of poverty.

The next section discusses my methodology. That is followed by a review of the BOP literature, presentation of the organizing framework, and an examination of how the framework facilitates further understanding on cocreation at the BOP. The final section proposes a definition for wide and deep cocreation at the BOP and highlights further research implications.

Method

This systematic literature review builds on the methodological discussions of Cook, Greengold, Ellrodt, and Weingarten (1997), Denyer and Neely (2004), and Tranfield, Denyer, and Smart (2003). Specifically, it follows five methodological steps: (1) identifying objectives, (2) systematically selecting the materials, (3) analyzing individual studies, (4) presenting the findings, and (5) discussing the findings.

The objective of this review is to clarify the concept of cocreation in BOP markets. In order to avoid randomness in the selection of materials, a systematic multistage procedure was followed. First, potential BOP articles were identified using the keywords base of the pyramid and bottom of the pyramid in EBSCOhost and ProQuest, the two major online databases of published articles in business-related disciplines. The search was restricted to peer-reviewed journals, but an exception was made for Harvard Business Review, which is highly relevant for the BOP debate. The search was last performed on April 1, 2016, when it returned 376 hits in EBSCOhost and 1,384 hits in ProQuest. Second, duplicates, book reviews, and articles unrelated to the BOP approach were discarded. The latter included articles on chemistry, nutrition, education, and development needs, as well as general trends in corporate responsibility, social entrepreneurship, and international business. In the clearest cases, omissions were based on the title, in vaguer cases on the abstract and findings.

This resulted in a set of 463 articles that study the BOP approach. Figure 1 shows that the attention given to the BOP approach has risen rapidly. On average, the number of BOP articles more than doubled in every 2-year period from 2002-2003 to 2012-2013. In 2014-2015 the rate of expansion declined somewhat, but picked up again in 2016. Third, all 463 abstracts were read twice, coding the potential relevance of each article. A total of 224 articles on business models, strategy, the innovation process, partnerships, case studies, and criticism of the BOP approach were found potentially relevant. Excluded studies include many articles on BOP market characteristics, social and environmental impacts, and general introductions to new academic audiences. Potentially relevant articles were then read in full, discarding articles that did not, after all, include cocreation-related points. In the final stage, the 196 relevant articles were analyzed. Due to length constraints, the list of these articles is available on request.

Figure 1.

The number of published base of the pyramid (BOP) articles.

The Concept of Cocreation in the BOP Literature

The BOP context poses particular challenges for cocreation (Adekambi, Ingenbleek, & van Trijp, 2015; Saxena, 2015; Sutter, Kistruck, & Morris, 2014; Venn & Berg, 2014); participants come not only from different organizations and sectors but also from different cultures, institutional contexts, educational conditions, and material circumstances. Such disparities in power and practices render cocreation difficult (Kowalkowski, Persson Ridell, Röndell, & Sörhammar, 2012; Ramaswamy, 2009). Even so, only a handful of scholars discuss the defining characteristics of cocreation at the BOP.

The definitions in Table 1 show that the BOP literature echoes other literatures in defining cocreation as interaction that integrates different partners’ knowledge and capabilities, but places added emphasis on iteration. For interaction and cocreation, the BOP literature suggests a two-fold link. First, cocreation comprises interaction (e.g., Arora & Romijn, 2012; Simanis et al., 2008, in Table 1). As noted by Simanis and Hart (2009, p. 83), “innovation isn’t enabled by new relationships, it is the relationship.” Second, interaction builds personal relationships, holding together cocreative partnerships that tend to employ few formal governance mechanisms, especially at the BOP (Calton, Werhane, Hartman, & Bevan, 2013; R. Hahn & Gold, 2014; Rivera-Santos & Rufin, 2010b; P. Sánchez & Ricart, 2010).

Table 1.

Definitions of Cocreation in the Base of the Pyramid (BOP) Literature.

Year	Author(s)	Outlet	What is cocreation?
2004	Prahalad	Wharton School Publishing	“The vision that is presented in the following pages is the co-creation of a solution to the problem of poverty. The opportunities at the BOP cannot be unlocked if large and small firms, governments, civil society organizations, development agencies, and the poor themselves do not work together.” (p. 2)
			“The process of co-creation assumes that consumers are equally important joint problem-solvers.” (p. xv)
2006	Gardetti and D’Andrea	Greener Management International	“The co-creation process includes listening carefully to people living in poverty, discovering their needs, and co-inventing solutions and business models. . . . This calls for a shift in the paradigm that people living in poverty are victims, to accepting their knowledge and wisdom.” (p. 3)
2008	London	Academy of Management Proceedings	Cocreation entails “local co-invention” and allows ventures to “combine knowledge developed at the top of the pyramid with the wisdom and expertise found at the bottom in a way that enables co-discovery of new opportunities.” (p. 3)
2008	Sridharan and Viswanathan	Journal of Consumer Marketing	Partnerships with small local businesses and civic organizations can give companies access to BOP markets and include “significant knowledge sharing and learning and co-created innovation, which warrants an egalitarian description” (p. 460)
2008	Simanis et al.	Cornell University, Center for Sustainable Global Enterprise	Cocreation
			● brings companies into interaction, deep dialogue and close partnership with BOP communities
			● is premised on equal partnership and joint decision-making
			● marries partners’ resources, capabilities, and energies
			● generates business ideas and models that exceed what either partner could imagine or create on their own (pp. 2, 3, 15)
2010	Dahan, Doh, Oetzel, and Yaziji	Long Range Planning	“NGOs and firms contribute complementary capabilities . . . affecting many aspects of the business model.” (p. 327)
2010	Gollakota, Gupta, and Bork	Thunderbird International Business Review	“Some firms have found mutually beneficial ways of engaging the people at the BOP not just as consumers but as co-creators of value—as suppliers, distributors, partners, and employees.” (p. 365)
2012	Arora and Romijn	Organization	“[C]o-creation of innovative solutions to address poverty [entails] . . . interactive learning in close dialogue and partnership with the poor and other stakeholders.” (p. 485)
2012	Murphy, Perrot, and Rivera-Santos	Journal of Business Research	“Co-creation of new knowledge is an iterative process of co-designing solutions, combining and/or transforming the knowledge and cognitive structures of the partners involved, and piloting potential solutions on a small scale.” (p. 1705)
2012	Nakata and Weidner	Journal of Product Innovation Management	“Cocreation is the partnering with local communities through all stages of the innovation process so that the outcome is a more appropriate, valuable, and sustainable product. The process requires give and take between the two sides, and assumes the poor are fully capable of knowing and expressing what they want.” (p. 30)
2016	Ratcliff and Doshi	Business & Society	“‘[C]o-creation’: early on, firms devote significant time and resources to understanding the needs and specific cultural context of low-income customers in their target market, and then develop an entire strategy of education, distribution, and service to go with a new product or service designed to match these needs.” (p. 272)

The gist of cocreation is the exploration and integration of the knowledge and capabilities of the partnering organizations and individuals (e.g., London, 2008; Simanis et al., 2008; Sridharan & Viswanathan, 2008, in Table 1). This requires the capability to recognize, appreciate, reconcile, and integrate the knowledge and capabilities of different partners (Hart & Sharma, 2004) or, more generally, market and learning orientation (Baker & Sinkula, 1999). At the BOP, company contributions typically include know-how related to business, technology, and scaling up, while local actors bring knowledge and capabilities related to the local context, needs, and networks.

The BOP research places exceptional emphasis on iteration as a key characteristic of cocreation, for two reasons. First, it takes iteration to combine knowledge and change understandings (Murphy, Perrot, & Rivera-Santos, 2012, in Table 1), especially between actors as unfamiliar to each other as Western company representatives and local actors in BOP contexts (Cholez, Trompette, Vinck, & Reverdy, 2012; Cross, 2013; Prahalad, 2012; Sridharan & Viswanathan, 2008). Second, at the BOP, many markets and business ecosystems need to be built via an iterative process (London & Anupindi, 2012; Ramani, SadreGhazi, & Duysters, 2012; Webb, Kistruck, Ireland, & Ketchen, 2010). One central step is piloting (Gardetti & D’Andrea, 2006; Goyal, Sergi, & Kapoor, 2014; Viswanathan & Sridharan, 2012; Williams, Omar, & Rajadhyaksha, 2012), which is popular among aspiring BOP entrants from small enterprises (Brinkerhoff, 2008; Cross, 2013) to large corporations such as Allianz, Vodaphone (Schuster & Holtbrügge, 2012), British Petroleum (Prahalad, 2012) and SC Johnson (Johnson, 2007).

However, the definitions in Table 1 show great diversity in terms of the proposed participants and purpose of cocreation at the BOP. I conceptualize these primary points of contention as the width and depth of cocreation.

The Width of Cocreation

The BOP approach is built on the view that companies need cocreation with a wide group of partners: “No firm can do this [entry to BOP markets] alone. Multiple players must be involved, including local governmental authorities, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), communities, financial institutions and other companies” declared Prahalad and Hart (2002, p. 6) in their seminal article (see also, Prahalad & Hammond, 2002). The inclusion of communities echoes other literatures, where consumers are seen as key cocreators (Lusch & Vargo, 2006; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Sanders & Stappers, 2008).

Accordingly, many BOP authors emphasize cocreation with low-income consumers or producers, highlighting them as experts in their own needs and capabilities, as well as masters in maneuvering their operating environment (Follman, 2012; Halme et al., 2016; Murphy & Arenas, 2010; Simanis & Hart, 2009; Sridharan & Viswanathan, 2008; Weidner, Rosa, & Viswanathan, 2010). In the words of Julia Elyachar (2012), the poor can contribute social capital, “capability of connectivity” and “skill in solving infrastructural problems.” Empirical studies confirm that successful BOP ventures do indeed tend to include communities (London & Hart, 2004; Wheeler et al., 2005). Moreover, community engagement may be gaining depth: While many studies refer to low-income people merely as distributors (Altman, Rego, & Ross, 2009; Chikweche & Fletcher, 2012; Gollakota, Gupta, & Bork, 2010) or suppliers (e.g., Payaud, 2014; Pervez, Maritz, & De Waal, 2013), some recent studies show them engaging in several stages of business model development (Lassaga & Lanfranchi, 2012; Ramachandran, Pant, & Pani, 2012; Ramani et al., 2012). Indeed, Kolk et al. (2014) suggest that cocreation at the BOP should, by definition, involve low-income communities.

However, many others find cocreation with NGOs sufficient to develop business models suited to BOP contexts, either on its own (e.g., Dahan, Doh, Oetzel, & Yaziji, 2010; R. Hahn & Gold, 2014; Murphy et al., 2012) or complemented by ethnography among the poor (Anderson, Kupp, & Vandermerwe, 2010; Cholez et al., 2012; Prahalad, 2012). These authors highlight NGOs as a source of market expertise (R. Hahn & Gold, 2014; Perez-Aleman & Sandilands, 2008; Schuster & Holtbrugge, 2012, 2014; Webb et al., 2010), capabilities in business model development (Chesbrough, Ahern, Finn, & Guerraz, 2006; Seelos & Mair, 2007), distribution (Dahan et al., 2010; P. Sánchez, Ricart, & Rodríguez, 2005), marketing (Schuster & Holtbrugge, 2012; Van den waeyenberg & Hens, 2012), or training (Gradl, Krämer, & Amadigi, 2010; Reficco & Marquez, 2012), and access to such tangible resources as public development funding (Seelos & Mair, 2007).

Yet other scholars highlight that cocreation with research institutions and business partners has been sufficient to develop many business models suited to BOP contexts (Akhtar, 2013; Brinkerhoff, 2008; Chakma, Masum, Perampaladas, Heys, & Singer, 2010; S. Ray & Ray, 2011; C. M. Sánchez & Schmid, 2013). Some even recommend that large companies focus on engaging their own staff (Gardetti & D’Andrea, 2006), especially staff members from the target country (Berger, Choi, & Kim, 2011; P. K. Ray & Ray, 2010). In sum, views on the appropriate width of a cocreation group vary greatly: Some would rely on company staff, others gather a diverse group of stakeholders including low-income communities.

The Depth of Cocreation

The second contention in BOP research pertains to power relations between companies and their partners. While some authors consider it cocreation when partners are involved in a single value chain activity (e.g., Dahan et al., 2010; Seelos & Mair, 2007), others call for deep participation in business model and ecosystem planning (e.g., Prahalad, 2004; Simanis & Hart, 2009; Sridharan & Viswanathan, 2008, in Table 1), echoing other cocreation research in the pursuit of equality (e.g., Payne et al., 2008; Potts et al., 2008; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). This diversity of views manifests clearly when scholars discuss the purposes of cocreation at the BOP. Four different purposes can be identified: boosting corporate legitimacy and networks, building business models and ecosystems, ensuring social and environmental value, and empowering poor communities.

Boosting Corporate Legitimacy and Networks

Many authors view cocreation as a tool for companies to gain access to social networks at the BOP (e.g., Johnson, 2007; Rivera-Santos, Rufin, & Kolk, 2012). Access to social networks is important in BOP contexts, because such formal institutions as property rights, contracts, and labor markets are weak (North, 1990), and business is typically based on personal contacts (Khanna & Palepu, 1997; Mair & Marti, 2009; C. M. Sánchez & Schmid, 2013). As a key entry mechanism to social networks is introduction by a trusted network member (Uzzi, 1996), relationships with well-connected BOP actors are essential for newcomers. Furthermore, reputable allies may help companies build legitimacy and market their products or services (Dahan, Doh, & Teegen, 2009; Santos & Laczniak, 2015; Rivera-Santos & Rufín, 2010a; Van den Waeyenberg & Hens, 2012). Many poor communities view large foreign corporations with distrust due to colonial struggles, or later sweatshops, harsh competition with local companies, and environmental disregard (Blowfield & Dolan, 2014; London, Anupindi, & Sheth, 2010).

Building Business Models and Ecosystems

Most commonly, scholars see cocreation as a means to imagine and realize new business models at the BOP (e.g., Dahan et al., 2010; Radjou & Prabhu, 2012; Seelos & Mair, 2007; Vachani & Smith, 2008; Webb et al., 2010). Specifically, cocreation can help companies gain knowledge of the novel business context (Anderson et al., 2010; R. Hahn & Gold, 2014; Schuster & Holtbrügge, 2014, 2012) and consumer needs (Nakata & Weidner, 2012; P. K. Ray & Ray, 2010; Viswanathan & Sridharan, 2012). Such knowledge cannot be accessed easily via traditional market surveys or observation, because people’s views are molded by the prevailing practices and awareness (Maunder, Marsden, Gruijters, & Blake, 2007; Ramani et al., 2012). Hence, companies need to engage with local communities in “ongoing exploration, engagement and experimentation” (Simanis & Hart, 2009, p. 83).

Companies and local actors can also cocreate entire business ecosystems, for instance by raising customers’ awareness, establishing support organizations, and advocating for new policies (Reficco & Márquez, 2012; Reiner, Gold, & Hahn, 2015; P. Sánchez & Ricart, 2010; Schuster & Holtbrügge, 2012). Compared to paid subcontracting, cocreative partnerships may be more acceptable to NGOs and other partners who are averse to corporate cooptation (Rivera-Santos & Rufin, 2010b), and easier to govern because cocreative interaction and information exchange generate trust (Venn & Berg, 2014). Companies that have reportedly engaged in ecosystem development include Allianz in India (Schuster & Holtbrugge, 2012), Amanco in Guatemala (P. Sánchez & Ricart, 2010), Danone in West Africa (Auriac, 2010), Irupana in Bolivia (Reficco & Márquez, 2012), and Tetra Pak in Africa (P. Sánchez et al., 2005).

Ensuring Social and Environmental Value

Some scholars emphasize cocreation as a means to secure value for low-income communities (Ben Letaifa & Reynoso, 2015; Gupta & Khilji, 2013; Kleine, 2011; Mehta & Mehta, 2011; Simanis & Hart, 2009). There are several grounds for suggesting this. First, business does not automatically confer substantial societal value. As noted by Kuriyan, Ray, and Kammen (2008, p. 73), “the path from affordable products and services to social development is neither short nor direct” (see also, Errington, Fujikura, & Gewertz, 2012; Kuriyan, Ray, & Toyama, 2008; Schwittay, 2011). The same applies to unskilled employment (Blowfield & Dolan, 2010; Gupta & Khilji, 2013). Second, BOP ventures—like other development initiatives—often have multifarious unexpected impacts (Bhatia & Ritchie, 2016; Davidson, 2009; London & Esper, 2014). Even income growth can reduce rather than enhance well-being, if it disrupts the social environment (Ansari, Munir, & Gregg, 2012; Gascón, 2015; Hill, 2016). In the worst cases, well-meaning BOP initiatives have strengthened unequal norms and power structures, further marginalizing the poor (Karnani 2007; Kuriyan, Ray, & Kammen, 2008; Varman, Skålén, & Belk, 2012). Cocreation with local communities and experts can help in mapping these impacts (Esteves, Franks, & Vanclay, 2012).

Third, the value-in-use of a product, service, or entrepreneurial opportunity is always in the eye of the beholder, as highlighted in the cocreation-related marketing research (Grönroos & Voima, 2013; Vargo, Maglio, & Akaka, 2008). Companies may find it difficult to predict value-in-use (Calvano, 2008; Dey, Binsardi, Prendergast, & Saren, 2013; Dey, Pandit, Saren, Bhowmick, & Woodruffe-Burton, 2016), especially as poor people may assign little value to savings in time or effort (Sridharan & Viswanathan, 2008) and Western entrepreneurial models (Cholez et al., 2012). Fourth, cocreation may yield solutions to wicked social or environmental problems, which none of the participants could imagine or realize on their own (De-Burgos-Jiménez, Vazquez-Brust, & Plaza-Úbeda, 2011).

Empowering Poor Communities

A few scholars suggest a yet more fundamental link between cocreation and poverty reduction: If poverty is seen as a lack of capabilities (Sen, 1989), cocreation that encourages poor people to build their own confidence, skills, voice, and agency is at the core of poverty reduction (Ansari et al., 2012; Kolk, Dolen, & Vock, 2010: Simanis & Hart, 2009). Such cocreation can empower poor communities to defy existing power relations, challenge the structural drivers of poverty, and spur social change. It is then not the products or services, but the cocreative process itself that may bring lasting value to poor communities. One BOP initiative that has reportedly empowered a poor community is the partnership of Gas Natural and a local NGO in Argentina, which supported communities in organizing, pooling their resources, and negotiating with utilities companies (Lassaga & Lanfranchi, 2012; Reficco & Márquez, 2012).

In the BOP literature, the concept of empowerment is still fluid (Ansari et al., 2012; Dolan, Johnstone-Louis, & Scott, 2012; Rohatynskyj, 2011), and some authors view empowerment as entrepreneurial opportunities (London & Hart, 2004; Sridharan & Viswanathan, 2008) or even as increased consumption (Arnold & Valentin, 2013; Craig & Douglas, 2011; London et al., 2010). Others, however, emphasize people’s capacity to claim their rights, challenge unequal societal norms, and seek social change (Ansari et al., 2012; Dolan & Rajak, 2016; Hill, 2010; Lindeman, 2012; Reficco & Márquez, 2012).

An Organizing Framework for Cocreation at the BOP

I propose that the diverse conceptualizations of cocreation at the BOP can be presented in a simple organizing framework shown in Figure 2. In this framework, the x-axis depicts the width of cocreation from focused to inclusive, while the y-axis depicts the depth of cocreation from business-driven to empowerment-driven. At the business-driven end of the scale, the company engages in cocreation in order to gain access to and legitimacy in social networks. Efficiency seeking cocreation aims to develop business models suited to BOP contexts, sustainability seeking to ensure social and environmental value, and empowerment seeking to empower low-income communities.

Figure 2.

Different conceptualizations of cocreation in the base of the pyramid (BOP) literature.

This framework draws on development studies, where a related discussion on poor people’s participation started in the 1970s. Propelled by Gandhian notions of village self-reliance (Gandhi, 1962) and Freirean thinking on learning and social transformation (Freire, 1970), participation became one of the most widely used concepts in the development debates of the 1980s and 1990s (Chambers, 1983; Pretty, 1995), partially because it tied in with both the neoliberal call to complement market deregulation with institutional and social development and the post-Marxist call for the empowerment and mobilization of marginalized groups (Mohan & Stokke, 2000). In the 1990s, the discussion widened from the right to participate in development projects to participation in public decision-making (Cornwall, 2000).

Participation in development initiatives has come to carry multiple meanings. Broadly speaking, development scholars distinguish between “information gathering” and “rapport-building” (Mosse, 1994) or “efficiency seeking” and “transformative” participation (Cooke & Kothari, 2001). For example, in a widely cited book titled Participation: The New Tyranny, Cooke and Kothari (2001) present multiple initiatives where participation has merely served to boost efficiency, and its potential for social transformation has been lost. In response, Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation by Hickey and Mohan (2004), presents cases where participation has been more transformative. Other scholars have classified different types of participation (e.g., Arnstein, 1969; Cohen & Uphoff, 1980; Deshler & Sock, 1985). This review borrows labels for the depth of cocreation from the classification of White (1996; Table 2).

Table 2.

White’s (1996) Typology of Participation.

Form	What’s in it for the organizers	What’s in it for the participants	Function
Nominal	Legitimation	Inclusion	Display
Instrumental	Efficiency	Costs (takes time and other resources)	Means to achieve cost-effectiveness
Representative	Sustainability	Leverage	Voice
Transformative	Empowerment	Empowerment	Means and an end

Suggesting that cocreation may be business- or empowerment-driven does not mean to imply that BOP initiatives could not strive for both profitability and development—usually they do. But BOP initiatives tend to be built on several types of cocreative relationships, events, and phases. Some cocreative relationships and events discussed in the BOP literature address broad challenges via equal, rapport-building, and empowering interaction, while others focus tightly on company offerings. A suitable balance between different types of cocreation allows a BOP initiative to generate both profits and well-being. When no balance is found, a BOP initiative may be excessively driven by either objective. Short-term profit objectives have prevented many multinational enterprises from launching or sustaining BOP initiatives (Halme, Lindeman, & Linna, 2012; McFalls, 2007; Olsen & Boxenbaum, 2009; Schwittay, 2009), and scholars have recommended postponing profit objectives (Elaydi & McLaughlin, 2012; London & Anupindi, 2012; Reficco & Márquez, 2012; Simanis et al., 2008; Webb et al., 2010), or even lowering them (Kistruck, Beamish, Qureshi, & Sutter, 2013). In the words of Prahalad (2004, p. 9), “profit creation and poverty alleviation do not mix easily.”

In sum, there is a variety of views amongst BOP authors on the width and depth of cocreation that is needed for inclusive business development at the BOP. This variety is depicted in the exemplary references presented in Figure 2.

Furthermore, some BOP authors use other concepts instead of or interchangeably with cocreation (e.g., codevelopment in Rivera-Santos & Rufin 2010b; P. Sánchez & Ricart, 2010; Simanis et al., 2008; coproduction in Cross, 2013; Rangan, Chu, & Petkoski, 2011; Weidner et al., 2010; and coinvention in Gardetti & D’Andrea, 2006; Kolk et al., 2014; London & Hart, 2004). Each of these concepts not only relates to stakeholder engagement but also has its own scholarly history and connotations. In other fields of business research, codevelopment typically refers to business-to-business collaboration in product development (Chesbrough & Schwartz, 2007; Fliess & Becker, 2006), while coproduction implies consumer participation in production—for instance, by serving himself/herself at a petrol station—with less emphasis on value sharing (Etgar, 2008; Lusch & Vargo, 2006). Coinvention typically refers to joint inventions patented by two or more actors (Balconi, Breschi, & Lissoni, 2004; Meyer & Bhattacharya, 2004).

I present the organizing framework in the hope that it will encourage BOP authors to define more accurately what they imply by cocreation. Up to now, most BOP studies that refer to cocreation reveal little about the width or depth of interaction—Has the engagement been an arms-length business relationship, also entailed joint planning, or even encouraged poor communities to build their own voice and agency? This diversity and lack of transparency hinders the accumulation of knowledge.

The Necessity and Feasibility of Cocreation at the BOP

The organizing framework facilitates a nuanced discussion on the necessity and feasibility of cocreation at the BOP, especially if it is coupled with development scholars’ understanding on the multiple dimensions of poverty and the challenges of engaging the poor.

In particular, the organizing framework prompts the question “necessary for what”? Cocreation takes on different levels of necessity, depending on whether we focus on business development or societal value. In terms of business development, a few authors have adeptly initiated a discussion on whether (deep and wide) cocreation is equally important in all circumstances, industries, and business environments (Kolk et al., 2014; P. Sánchez & Ricart, 2010; Seelos & Mair, 2007; Siim et al., 2013). Notably, Seelos and Mair (2007) suggest that companies can evade cocreation with low-income communities by joining businesses already established at the BOP by social entrepreneurs or NGOs. Moreover, P. Sánchez and Ricart (2010) note that companies with affordable and simple products may be able to enter the BOP, especially the most resource-rich and least dynamic BOP markets, without substantially tailoring their business model. Furthermore, relatively focused cocreation with business partners and research institutions has been found sufficient to develop BOP business in the medical industry (Chakma et al., 2010). The same has been claimed but also disputed with regard to the household appliance (Prahalad, 2012; C. M. Sánchez & Schmid, 2013; Tasavori, Zaefarian, & Ghauri, 2015) and automobile industries (Akhtar, 2013; S. Ray & Ray, 2011; Singh & Srivastava, 2012).

In terms of poverty reduction, the research shows that deep and wide cocreation is not always necessary to bring affordable products or services—which may be as valuable as medicines (Chakma et al., 2010)—to the poor. Even complex problems such as waste management in megacities may be alleviated through cocreation between competent partner organizations, without engaging low-income communities (Seelos & Mair, 2007).

Nevertheless, it can be questioned whether BOP initiatives can reach their full potential in poverty alleviation without wide and deep cocreation. The answer depends on your conception of poverty. In many BOP articles, poverty is viewed predominantly through an economic lens, seeing low purchasing power as the essence of poverty and cheaper goods and services as a potent response. Schwittay (2011, p. S73) refers to this as “marketization of poverty” and an “instrument-effect”: Poverty has been conceptualized as a problem that can be solved by market mechanisms (see also, Blowfield & Dolan, 2014; Schwittay, 2014). In development studies, this unidimensional view faded in the 1990s, questioned, for example, by Amartya Sen’s work (1989) on poverty as a lack of capabilities (Nandy & Pomati, 2015; Ferreira & Lugo, 2013). Since then, development scholars have emphasized the importance of empowering poor communities to seek social change (Fukuda-Parr, 2003; U.N. Development Programme, 1999). In the same vein, some BOP authors have called for companies to empower their partners (De-Burgos-Jiménez et al., 2011; Faulconbridge, 2013; R. Hahn & Gold, 2014; Hart, 2006), low-income entrepreneurs (Arora & Romijn, 2012; Rivera-Santos & Rufín, 2010a), or low-income communities as a whole (S. R. Chatterjee, 2009; Corus & Ozanne, 2012; Murphy & Arenas, 2010). Such empowerment requires wide and deep participation (Hickey & Mohan, 2004; Mohan & Stokke, 2000; White, 1996). Therefore, if we embrace the capability view of poverty, wide and deep cocreation is crucial for BOP initiatives to contribute to poverty alleviation.

Regarding feasibility, research suggests that the challenges and depth of cocreation grow hand in hand: It is easiest for companies to reach cocreation that brings them access and legitimacy in social networks. Even legitimacy seeking cocreation, nevertheless, has its challenges: Integration into social networks is slow, because BOP markets are characterized by frequent interaction between small firms and their regular customers, and economic and social relationships are tightly intertwined (Weidner et al., 2010).

Efficiency seeking cocreation, which focuses on business model development, requires deeper integration of partners’ knowledge and capabilities. Such integration is difficult, due to differences in dominant logics (Murphy et al., 2012), practices (Kowalkowski et al., 2012), and types of knowledge (Agrawal, 1995; Gardetti, 2005). Another challenge is selecting competent partners (Gradl et al., 2010; R. Hahn & Gold, 2014; Schuster & Holtbrugge, 2014), and motivating them. Development scholars suggest that partners’ interest in cocreation may be checked by bad experiences and a high number of development initiatives (Michener, 1998; Mosse, 1994), while innovation research recommends different incentives for reward-oriented, curiosity-driven, and need-driven partners (Füller, 2010; Nambisan & Baron, 2009).

In sustainability seeking cocreation, to map the societal impacts of a BOP initiative, a company needs to hear varied groups of people (Arora & Romijn, 2009). As elsewhere, individuals have different opportunities to participate and benefit, because differences in wealth, gender, and ethnicity, for instance, render communities at the BOP heterogeneous and conflictual (Das & Takahashi, 2014; Rivera-Santos & Rufin, 2010a; Varman et al., 2012). Development scholars have discovered, for instance, that poor women seldom participate in development initiatives (Mayoux, 1995); participatory workshops are typically swayed by individuals whose status and abilities enable them to cloak their opinions in general terms (Mosse, 1994), and elite capture of decision making is common (Jeffrey, Jeffery, & Jeffery, 2008). NGOs may or may not be helpful guides in hearing the poorest people, as they have different degrees of connections with communities and sensitivity to social inequalities (Blowfield & Frynas, 2005; Nyamugasira, 1998; Rein & Stott, 2009).

Empowerment seeking cocreation is particularly challenging, because it requires companies to share decision-making power with communities. BOP research notes that such a stride toward equality takes exceptional mind-sets (Calton et al., 2013; Murphy & Arenas, 2010; Simanis et al., 2008), and a decentralized corporation (McFalls, 2007; Ramachandran et al., 2012; Sridharan & Viswanathan, 2008). A few BOP studies report successes in relinquishing a degree of operational control (Ramachandran et al., 2012; Reficco & Márquez, 2012; P. Sánchez & Ricart, 2010), while others note that significant inequalities tend to persist (Arora & Romijn, 2012; Schwittay, 2009). Nonprofit development projects have faced similar difficulties (Mosse, 1994). As White (1996) puts it, “top-down commitment to others’ empowerment is highly contradictory” (p. 13). Critical marketing scholars have also debated whether cocreation can empower people or merely trap them into producing for firms (Cova et al., 2011; Zwick, Bonsu, & Darmody, 2008).

In sum, the framework helps in organizing the previous research on the necessity and feasibility of cocreation at the BOP. If we embrace the multidimensional view of poverty, wide and deep cocreation is necessary for BOP initiatives to contribute to poverty alleviation—but such cocreation is demanding. Unfortunately, there are to date no empirical BOP studies that focus on cocreation, and we know little about the processes or methods of cocreation at the BOP.

Conclusions

Cocreation is a popular concept in the base of the pyramid approach, but very few BOP studies scrutinize or even define it. This article analyzes the concept of cocreation in BOP contexts, reviewing 196 BOP articles relevant for this topic. Following the call for more cross-fertilization between BOP and other literatures (Hansen & Schaumburg-müller, 2010; Kolk et al., 2014), lessons have also been drawn from the closely related but often neglected field of development studies.

I find that BOP research shows a considerable range of views on the appropriate participants and purpose of cocreation. Building on development research, I propose a framework that organizes this diversity as the width and depth of cocreation. In terms of the width of participation, some BOP scholars would narrowly rely on local company staff while others emphasize the benefits of engaging a wide group of cocreators including low-income communities. In terms of the depth, the framework distinguishes between legitimacy-, efficiency-, sustainability-, and empowerment-seeking cocreation: Cocreation can refer to arms-length cooperation that merely raises the legitimacy of a company in BOP markets or, at the other extreme, equal interaction that empowers poor communities and fosters social change.

Based on my review, the development studies literature and the organizing framework, I suggest that wide and deep cocreation at the BOP can be defined as iterative interaction that empowers poor communities and integrates their knowledge and capabilities with those of a company and other actors throughout the process of planning and realizing novel business models and ecosystems.

This literature review was motivated by two tensions: Recent research has questioned whether cocreation is necessary for inclusive business development or even feasible in BOP contexts. I argue that wide and deep cocreation is not always necessary to bring affordable and necessary products and services to the poor, but it is crucial for BOP initiatives to address the structural drivers of poverty. However, the challenges and depth of cocreation rise hand in hand; it is very difficult for companies to engage in cocreation that empowers poor communities.

Further research is needed to better understand the potential of cocreation at the BOP. In general, future BOP research should be more accurate in defining cocreation and more eager to take advantage of insights from closely related research, including research on transformative cross-sector partnerships (e.g., Crane & Seitanidi, 2013; T. Hahn & Pinkse, 2014; Ritvala, Salmi, & Andersson, 2014; Wassmer, Paquin, & Sharma, 2014). Moreover, studies that focus on cocreation at the BOP are needed in particular to (1) understand how different cocreation processes evolve, (2) identify factors and practices that facilitate deep and wide cocreation, and (3) analyze the methods of cocreation at the BOP. Studies on the process and facilitators of cocreation would benefit from rich and longitudinal empirical material that documents both the interactions between and the perceptions of cocreating partners, capturing their subjective assessments of the gained value. Studies on cocreation methods, on the other hand, can greatly benefit from the findings of participatory rural appraisal (Chambers, 1983, 2004) and participatory design (Mattelmäki, Brandt, & Vaajakallio, 2011; Sanders & Stappers, 2008). Until we know more about the prevalence of wide and deep cocreation in BOP initiatives, we can say little about the poverty reduction potential of the BOP approach.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Tuomas Ylä-Anttila, Arno Kourula, Victoria Lowerson, Kristiina Mäkelä, Tiina Ritvala and members of the Sustainability in Business research group at Aalto University School of Business for their comments and support. I also thank the editor of Organization and Environment, the special issue editors and anonymous reviewers for their constructive and inspiring suggestions for strengthening this paper.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was partially funded by the Foundation for Economic Education (Liikesivistysrahasto) in Finland and Tekes – the Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation (Project 1526/31/2012).

Author Biography

Tytti Nahi is a doctoral candidate at the Department of Management Studies, School of Business, Aalto University in Helsinki, Finland. Her main research interests are cross-sector interaction and cocreation in subsistence contexts.

References

Adekambi

S. A.

Ingenbleek

P. T.

van Trijp

H. C.

(2015). Integrating producers at the base of the pyramid with global markets: A market learning approach. Journal of International Marketing, 23, 44-63. doi:10.1509/jim.14.0087

Agrawal

(1995). Dismantling the divide between indigenous and western knowledge. Development and Change, 26, 413-439. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10535/4201

Akhtar

(2013). Behind the Nano mistakes: A case study on consumer psychology. Srusti Management Review, 6, 57-67.

Altman

D. G.

Rego

Ross

(2009). Expanding opportunity at the base of the pyramid. People & Strategy, 32(2), 46-51.

Anderson

Kupp

Vandermerwe

(2010). Strategy—the bottom of the pyramid. Business Strategy Review, 21, 46-51. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8616.2010.00705.x

Ansari

Munir

Gregg

(2012). Impact at the “bottom of the pyramid”: The role of social capital in capability development and community empowerment. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 813-842. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01042.x

Arnold

D. G.

Valentin

(2013). Corporate social responsibility at the base of the pyramid. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1904-1914. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.012

Arnstein

S. R.

(1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35, 216-224. doi:10.1080/01944366908977225

Arora

Romijn

(2009). Innovation for the base of the pyramid: Critical perspectives from development studies on heterogeneity and participation (UNU-MERIT Working Paper Series, 36). Maastricht, Netherlands: United Nations University.

10.

Arora

Romijn

(2012). The empty rhetoric of poverty reduction at the base of the pyramid. Organization, 19, 481-505. doi:10.1177/1350508411414294

11.

Auriac

(2010). Corporate social innovation. OECD Observer, 279, 32-33.

12.

Baker

W. E.

Sinkula

J. M.

(1999). Learning orientation, market orientation, and innovation: Integrating and extending models of organizational performance. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 4, 295-308. doi:10.1023/A:1009830402395

13.

Balconi

Breschi

Lissoni

(2004). Networks of inventors and the role of academia: An exploration of Italian patent data. Research Policy, 33, 127-145. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00108-2

14.

Ben Letaifa

Reynoso

. (2015). Toward a service ecosystem perspective at the base of the pyramid. Journal of Service Management, 26, 684-705. doi:10.1108/JOSM-04-2015-0133

15.

Bendapudi

Leone

R. P.

(2003). Psychological implications of customer participation in co-production. Journal of Marketing, 67, 14-28. doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.1.14.18592

16.

Berger

Choi

C. J.

Kim

J. B.

(2011). Responsible leadership for multinational enterprises in bottom of pyramid countries: The knowledge of local managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 553-561. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0736-x

17.

Bhatia

T. K.

Ritchie

W. C.

(2016). Emerging trilingual literacies in rural India: Linguistic, marketing, and developmental aspects. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 19, 202-215. doi:10.1080/13670050.2015.1037719

18.

Blowfield

Dolan

C. S.

(2010). Fairtrade facts and fancies: What Kenyan fairtrade tea tells us about business’ role as development agent. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, 143-162. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0558-2

19.

Blowfield

Dolan

C. S.

(2014). Business as a development agent: Evidence of possibility and improbability. Third World Quarterly, 35, 22-42. doi:10.1080/01436597.2013.868982

20.

Blowfield

Frynas

J. G.

(2005). Setting new agendas: Critical perspectives on corporate social responsibility in the developing world. International Affairs, 81, 499-513. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2346.2005.00465.x

21.

Brinkerhoff

J. M.

(2008). What does a goat have to do with development? Diasporas, IT, and the case of Thamel.com. Information Technologies & International Development, 4(4), 9-13.

22.

Calton

J. M.

Werhane

P. H.

Hartman

L. P.

Bevan

(2013). Building partnerships to create social and economic value at the base of the global development pyramid. Journal of Business Ethics, 117, 721-733. doi:10.1007/s10551-013-1716-0

23.

Calvano

(2008). Multinational corporations and local communities: A critical analysis of conflict. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 793-805. doi:10.1007/s10551-007-9593-z

24.

Chakma

Masum

Perampaladas

Heys

Singer

P. A.

(2010). Case study: India’s billion dollar biotech. Nature Biotechnology, 28, 783. doi:10.1038/nbt0810-783

25.

Chambers

(1983). Rural development: Putting the last first. London, England: Longman Scientific and Technical.

26.

Chambers

(2004). Reflections and directions: A personal note (PLA notes 50). London, England: International Institute for Environment and Development.

27.

Chatterjee

(2014). Engaging with an emergent metanarrative: A critical exploration of the BOP proposition. Organization, 21, 888-906. doi:10.1177/1350508413494435

28.

Chatterjee

S. R.

(2009). Multinational firm strategy and global poverty alleviation. Frameworks and possibilities for building shared commitment. Journal of Human Values, 15, 133-152. doi:10.1177/097168581001500205

29.

Chesbrough

(2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

30.

Chesbrough

Ahern

Finn

Guerraz

(2006). Business models for technology in the developing world: The role of non-governmental organizations. California Management Review, 48(3), 48-61.

31.

Chesbrough

Schwartz

(2007). Innovating business models with co-development partnerships. Research Technology Management, 50(1), 55-59.

32.

Chikweche

Fletcher

(2012). Revisiting the marketing mix at the bottom of pyramid (BOP): From theoretical considerations to practical realities. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29, 507-520. doi:10.1108/07363761211275018

33.

Cholez

Trompette

Vinck

Reverdy

(2012). Bridging access to electricity through BOP markets: Between economic equations and political configurations. Review of Policy Research, 29, 713-732. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.2012.00590.x

34.

Cohen

J. M.

Uphoff

N. T.

(1980). Participation’s place in rural development: Seeking clarity through specificity. World Development, 8, 213-235. doi:10.1016/0305-750X(80)90011-X

35.

Cook

D. J.

Greengold

N. L.

Ellrodt

A. G.

Weingarten

S. R.

(1997). The relation between systematic reviews and practice guidelines. Annals of Internal Medicine, 127, 210-216. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-127-3-199708010-00006

36.

Cooke

Kothari

(Eds.). (2001). Participation: The new tyranny? London, England: Zed Books.

37.

Cornwall

(2000). Beneficiary, consumer, citizen: Perspectives on participation for poverty reduction (Sida Studies, 2). Stockholm, Sweden: International Development Cooperation Agency.

38.

Corus

Ozanne

(2012). Stakeholder engagement: Building participatory and deliberative spaces in subsistence markets. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1728-1735. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.02.014

39.

Cova

Dalli

Zwick

(2011). Critical perspectives on consumers’ role as “producers”: Broadening the debate on value co-creation in marketing processes. Marketing Theory, 11, 231-241. doi:10.1177/1470593111408171

40.

Craig

C. S.

Douglas

S. P.

(2011). Empowering rural consumers in emerging markets. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 6, 382-393. doi:10.1108/17468801111170374

41.

Crane

Seitanidi

(2013). Social partnerships and responsible business: A research handbook. London, England: Routledge.

42.

Cross

(2013). The 100th object: Solar lighting technology and humanitarian good. Journal of Material Culture, 18, 367-387. doi:10.1177/1359183513498959

43.

Dahan

N. M.

Doh

J. P.

Oetzel

Yaziji

(2010). Corporate-NGO collaboration: Co-creating new business models for developing markets. Long Range Planning, 43, 326-342. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2009.11.003

44.

Dahan

N. M.

Doh

Teegen

, (2009). Role of nongovernmental organizations in the business-government-society interface: Introductory essay by guest editors. Business & Society, 49, 567-569. doi:10.1177/0007650309350141

45.

Das

Takahashi

(2014). Non-participation of low-income households in community-managed water supply projects in India. International Development Planning Review, 36, 265-291. doi:10.3828/idpr.2014.16

46.

Davidson

(2009). Ethical concerns at the bottom of the pyramid: Where CSR meets BOP. Journal of International Business Ethics, 2(1), 22-32.

47.

De-Burgos-Jiménez

Vazquez-Brust

D. A.

Plaza-Úbeda

J. A.

(2011). Adaptability, entrepreneurship and stakeholder integration: Scenarios and strategies for environment and vulnerability. Journal of Environmental Protection, 2, 1375-1387. doi:10.4236/jep.2011.210160

48.

Denyer

Neely

(2004). Introduction to special issue: Innovation and productivity performance in the UK. International Journal of Management Reviews, 5/6, 131-135. doi:10.1111/j.1460-8545.2004.00100.x

49.

Deshler

Sock

(1985, July 22-26). Community development participation: A concept review of the international literature. Paper presented at the International League for Social Commitment in Adult Education Conference, Linungskile, Sweden.

50.

Dey

B. L.

Binsardi

Prendergast

Saren

(2013). A qualitative enquiry into the appropriation of mobile telephony at the bottom of the pyramid. International Marketing Review, 30, 297-322. doi:10.1108/IMR-03-2012-0058

51.

Dey

B. L.

Pandit

Saren

Bhowmick

Woodruffe-Burton

(2016). Co-creation of value at the bottom of the pyramid: Analysing Bangladeshi farmers’ use of mobile telephony. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 29, 40-48. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.10.009

52.

Dolan

Johnstone-Louis

Scott

(2012). Shampoo, saris and SIM cards: Seeking entrepreneurial futures at the bottom of the pyramid. Gender & Development, 20, 33-47. doi:10.1080/13552074.2012.663619

53.

Dolan

Rajak

(2016). Remaking Africa’s informal economies: Youth, entrepreneurship and the promise of inclusion at the bottom of the pyramid. Journal of Development Studies, 52, 514-529. doi:10.1080/00220388.2015.1126249

54.

Elaydi

McLaughlin

(2012). Cultivating terroir in subsistence markets: Development of terroir strategy through harmony-with-community framework. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1743-1748. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.02.016

55.

Elyachar

(2012). Next practices: Knowledge, infrastructure, and public goods at the bottom of the pyramid. Public Culture, 24, 109-129. doi:10.1215/08992363-1443583

56.

Errington

Fujikura

Gewertz

(2012). Instant noodles as an antifriction device: Making the BOP with PPP in PNG. American Anthropologist, 114, 19-31. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1433.2011.01394.x

57.

Esteves

A. M.

Franks

Vanclay

(2012). Social impact assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30, 34-42. doi:10.1080/14615517.2012.660356

58.

Etgar

(2008). A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 97-108. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0061-1

59.

Faulconbridge

J. R.

(2013). Situated bottom of the pyramid markets and the multinational corporation. Marketing Theory, 13, 393-396. doi:10.1177/1470593113489192

60.

Ferreira

F. H.

Lugo

M. A.

(2013). Multidimensional poverty analysis: Looking for a middle ground. World Bank Research Observer, 28, 220-235. doi:10.1093/wbro/lks013

61.

Fisher

Smith

(2011). Cocreation is chaotic: What it means for marketing when no one has control. Marketing Theory, 11, 325-350. doi:10.1177/1470593111408179

62.

Fliess

Becker

(2006). Supplier integration—Controlling of co-development processes. Industrial Marketing Management, 35, 28-44. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.07.004

63.

Follman

(2012). BoP at ten: Evolution and a new lens. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 1, 293-310. doi:10.1108/20454451211252787

64.

Freire

(1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Herder & Herder.

65.

Frynas

J. G.

(2005). The false developmental promise of corporate social responsibility: Evidence from multinational oil companies. International Affairs, 81, 581-598. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2346.2005.00470.x

66.

Fukuda-Parr

(2003). The human development paradigm: Operationalizing Sen’s ideas on capabilities. Feminist Economics, 9, 301-317. doi:10.1080/1354570022000077980

67.

Füller

(2010). Refining virtual co-creation from a consumer perspective. California Management Review, 52(2), 98-122.

68.

Fyrberg Yngfalk

. (2013). “It’s not us, it’s them!”–Rethinking value co-creation among multiple actors. Journal of Marketing Management, 29, 1163-1181. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2013.796318

69.

Gandhi

M. K.

(1962). Village swaraj. Ahmedabad, India: Navajivan Publishing House.

70.

Gardetti

M. Á.

(2005, September). A base-of-the-pyramid approach in Argentina. Greener Management International, 51, 65-77. doi:10.9774/GLEAF.3062.2005.au.00006

71.

Gardetti

M. Á.

D’Andrea

(2006, December). Masisa Argentina and the evolution of its strategy at the base of the pyramid: An alternative to the BoP Protocol process? Greener Management International, 56, 75-91. doi:10.9774/GLEAF.3062.2006.wi.00008

72.

Gascón

(2015). Pro-poor tourism as a strategy to fight rural poverty: A critique. Journal of Agrarian Change, 15, 499-518. doi:10.1111/joac.12087

73.

Gollakota

Gupta

Bork

J. T.

(2010). Reaching customers at the Base of the Pyramid—A two-stage business strategy. Thunderbird International Business Review, 52, 355-367. doi:10.1002/tie.20361

74.

Goyal

Sergi

B. S.

Kapoor

(2014). Understanding the key characteristics of an embedded business model for the base of the pyramid markets. Economics & Sociology, 7(4), 26.

75.

Gradl

Krämer

Amadigi

(2010). Partner selection for inclusive business models. Greener Management International, 56, 25-42. doi:10.9774/GLEAF.3062.2006.wi.00005

76.

Grönroos

(2011). Value co-creation in service logic: A critical analysis. Marketing Theory, 11, 279-301. doi:10.1177/1470593111408177

77.

Grönroos

Voima

(2013). Critical service logic: Making sense of value creation and co-creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41, 133-150. doi:10.1007/s11747-012-0308-3

78.

Gupta

Khilji

S. E.

(2013). Revisiting fortune at Base of the Pyramid (BoP). South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 2, 8-26. doi:10.1108/20454451311303257

79.

Hahn

Gold

(2014). Resources and governance in “base of the pyramid”-partnerships: Assessing collaborations between businesses and non-business actors. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1321-1333. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.09.002

80.

Hahn

Pinkse

(2014). Private environmental governance through cross-sector partnerships: Tensions between competition and effectiveness. Organization & Environment, 27, 140-160. doi:10.1177/1086026614530996

81.

Halme

Kourula

Lindeman

Kallio

Lima-Toivanen

Korsunova

(2016). Sustainability innovation at the Base of the Pyramid through multi-cited rapid ethnography. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 23, 113-128. doi:10.1002/csr.1385

82.

Halme

Lindeman

Linna

(2012). Innovation for inclusive business: Intrapreneurial bricolage in multinational corporations. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 743-784. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01045.x

83.

Hansen

M. W.

Schaumburg-müller

(2010). Firms in developing countries: A theoretical probe into the borderland of business studies and development studies. European Journal of Development Research, 22, 197-216. doi:10.1057/ejdr.2010.5

84.

Hart

S. L.

(2006). Preface. Greener Management International, 56, 3-5. doi:10.9774/GLEAF.3062.2006.wi.00002

85.

Hart

S. L.

Sharma

(2004). Engaging fringe stakeholders for competitive imagination. Academy of Management Perspectives, 18, 7-18. doi:10.5465/AME.2004.12691227

86.

Hickey

Mohan

(Eds.). (2004). Participation—From tyranny to transformation? Exploring new approaches to participation in development. London, England: Zed Books.

87.

Hill

R. P.

(2010). A naturological approach to marketing exchanges: Implications for the bottom of the pyramid. Journal of Business Research, 63, 602-607. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.01.014

88.

Hill

R. P.

(2016). Poverty as we never knew it: The source of vulnerability for most of humankind. Journal of Marketing Management, 32, 365-370. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2015.1117519

89.

Howe

(2006, June 1). The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired. Retrieved from www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/crowds.html

90.

Hoyer

W. D.

Chandy

Dorotic

Krafft

Singh

S. S.

(2010). Consumer cocreation in new product development. Journal of Service Research, 13, 283-296. doi:10.1177/1094670510375604

91.

Idemudia

(2009). Oil extraction and poverty reduction in the Niger delta: A critical examination of partnership initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 91-116. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9916-8

92.

Jeffrey

Jeffery

(2008). Dalit revolution? New politicians in Uttar Pradesh, India. Journal of Asian Studies, 67, 1365-1396. doi:10.1017/S0021911808001812

93.

Johnson

(2007). SC Johnson builds business at the base of the pyramid. Global Business & Organizational Excellence, 26, 6-17. doi:10.1002/joe.20170

94.

Joshi

A. W.

Sharma

(2004). Customer knowledge development: Antecedents and impact on new product performance. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 47-59. doi:10.1509/jmkg.68.4.47.42722

95.

Karnani

(2007). The mirage of marketing to the bottom of the pyramid: How the private sector can help alleviate poverty. California Management Review, 49(4), 90-111.

96.

Khalid

R. U.

Seuring

Beske

Land

Yawar

S. A.

Wagner

(2015). Putting sustainable supply chain management into base of the pyramid research. Supply Chain Management, 20, 681-696. doi:10.1108/SCM-06-2015-0214

97.

Khanna

Palepu

(1997). Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 75, 41-54.

98.

Kistruck

G. M.

Beamish

P. W.

Qureshi

Sutter

C. J.

(2013). Social intermediation in base-of-the-pyramid markets. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 31-66. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01076.x

99.

Kleine

(2011). The capability approach and the “medium of choice”: Steps towards conceptualising information and communication technologies for development. Ethics and Information Technology, 13, 119-130. doi:10.1007/s10676-010-9251-5

100.

Kolk

Dolen

Vock

(2010). Trickle effects of cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 123-137. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0783-3

101.

Kolk

Rivera-Santos

Rufín

(2014). Reviewing a decade of research on the “base/bottom of the pyramid” (BOP) concept. Business & Society, 53, 338-377. doi:10.1177/0007650312474928

102.

Kowalkowski

Persson Ridell

Röndell

Sörhammar

(2012). The co-creative practice of forming a value proposition. Journal of Marketing Management, 28, 1553-1570. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2012.736875

103.

Kuriyan

Ray

Kammen

(2008). How to use technology to spur development. Issues in Science and Technology, 24(2), 70-74.

104.

Kuriyan

Ray

Toyama

(2008). Information and communication technologies for development: The bottom of the pyramid model in practice. Information Society, 24, 93-104. doi:10.1080/01972240701883948

105.

Lassaga

M. G.

Lanfranchi

(2012). Lowering investment risk at the BOP using network innovation: Fundacion Pro Vivienda Social (FPVS) case. Revista Ibero–Americana de Estratégia, 11(1), 4-29.

106.

Lee

S. M.

Olson

D. L.

Trimi

(2012). Co-innovation: Convergenomics, collaboration, and co-creation for organizational values. Management Decision, 50, 817-813. doi:10.1108/00251741211227528

107.

Lindeman

(2012). Market formation in subsistence contexts: A study of informal waste trade practices in Tanzania and Brazil. Consumption, Markets & Culture, 15, 235-257. doi:10.1080/10253866.2012.654962

108.

London

(2008). The base-of-the-pyramid perspective: A new approach to poverty alleviation. Proceedings of the Academy of Management, 2008, 1-6. doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2008.33716520

109.

London

Anupindi

(2012). Using the base-of-the-pyramid perspective to catalyze interdependence-based collaborations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109, 12338-12343. doi:10.1073/pnas.1013626108

110.

London

Anupindi

Sheth

(2010). Creating mutual value: Lessons learned from ventures serving base of the pyramid producers. Journal of Business Research, 63, 582-594. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.04.025

111.

London

Esper

(2014). Assessing poverty-alleviation outcomes of an enterprise-led approach to sanitation. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1331(1), 90-105. doi:10.1111/nyas.12345

112.

London

Hart

S. L.

(2004). Reinventing strategies for emerging markets: Beyond the transnational model. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 350-370. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400099

113.

Lusch

R. F.

Vargo

S. L.

(2006). Service-dominant logic: Reactions, reflections and refinements. Marketing Theory, 6, 281-288. doi:10.1177/1470593106066781

114.

Lusch

R. F.

Vargo

S. L.

O’Brien

(2007). Competing through service: Insights from service-dominant logic. Journal of Retailing, 83, 5-18. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2006.10.002

115.

Mahr

Lievens

Blazevic

(2014). The value of customer cocreated knowledge during the innovation process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31, 599-615. doi:10.1111/jpim.12116

116.

Mair

Marti

(2009). Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24, 419-435. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.04.006

117.

Mattelmäki

Brandt

Vaajakallio

(2011). On designing open-ended interpretations for collaborative design exploration. CoDesign, 7, 79-93. doi:10.1080/15710882.2011.609891

118.

Maunder

Marsden

Gruijters

Blake

(2007, December 15-16). Designing interactive systems for the developing world-reflections on user-centred design. Paper presented at the International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development, Bangalore, India.

119.

Mayoux

(1995). Beyond naivety: Women, gender inequality and participatory development. Development and Change, 26, 235-258. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.1995.tb00551.x

120.

McFalls

(2007). Testing the limits of “inclusive capitalism”: A case study of the South Africa HP i-Community. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 28, 85-98. doi:10.9774/GLEAF.4700.2007.wi.00009

121.

Mehta

(2011). A design-space and business-strategy exploration tool for infrastructure-based ventures in developing communities. International Journal for Service Learning in Engineering, 6, 30-57.

122.

Meyer

Bhattacharya

(2004). Commonalities and differences between scholarly and technical collaboration: An exploration of co-invention and co-authorship analyses. Scientometrics, 61, 443-456. doi:10.1023/B:SCIE.0000045120.04489.80

123.

Michener

V. J.

(1998). The participatory approach: Contradiction and co-option in Burkina Faso. World Development, 26, 2105-2118. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(98)00112-0

124.

Mohan

Stokke

(2000). Participatory development and empowerment: The dangers of localism. Third World Quarterly, 21, 247-268. doi:10.1080/01436590050004346

125.

Mosse

(1994). Authority, gender and knowledge: Theoretical reflections on the practice of participatory rural appraisal. Development and Change, 25, 497-526. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.1994.tb00524.x

126.

Murphy

Arenas

(2010). Through indigenous lenses: Cross-sector collaborations with fringe stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 103-121. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0782-4

127.

Murphy

Perrot

Rivera-Santos

(2012). New perspectives on learning and innovation in cross-sector collaborations. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1700-1709. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.02.011

128.

Nakata

(2012). From the special issue editor: Creating new products and services for and with the base of the pyramid. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29, 3-5. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00873.x

129.

Nakata

Weidner

(2012). Enhancing new product adoption at the base of the pyramid: A contextualized model. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29, 21-32. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00876.x

130.

Nambisan

Baron

R. A.

(2009). Virtual customer environments: Testing a model of voluntary participation in value co-creation activities. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26, 388-406. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00667.x

131.

Nandy

Pomati

(2015). Applying the consensual method of estimating poverty in a low income African setting. Social Indicators Research, 124, 693-726. doi:10.1007/s11205-014-0819-z

132.

Newell

(2005). Citizenship, accountability and community: The limits of the CSR agenda, International Affairs, 81, 541-557. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2346.2005.00468.x

133.

North

(1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

134.

Nyamugasira

(1998). NGOs and advocacy: How well are the poor represented? Development in Practice, 8, 297-308. doi:10.1080/09614529853594

135.

Olsen

Boxenbaum

(2009). Bottom-of-the-pyramid: Organizational barriers to implementation. California Management Review, 51(4), 100-125.

136.

Parmigiani

Rivera-Santos

(2015). Sourcing for the base of the pyramid: Constructing supply chains to address voids in subsistence markets. Journal of Operations Management, 33, 60-70. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2014.10.007

137.

Payaud

M. A.

(2014). Marketing strategies at the bottom of the pyramid: Examples from Nestlé, Danone, and Procter & Gamble. Global Business & Organizational Excellence, 33, 51-63. doi:10.1002/joe.21533

138.

Payne

A. F.

Storbacka

Frow

(2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36, 83-96. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0070-0

139.

Perez-Aleman

Sandilands

(2008). Building value at the top and the bottom of the global supply chain: MNC-NGO Partnerships. California Management Review, 51(1), 24-49.

140.

Pervez

Maritz

De Waal

(2013). Innovation and social entrepreneurship at the bottom of the pyramid: A conceptual framework. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 16(5), 54-66.

141.

Potts

Hartley

Banks

Burgess

Cobcroft

Cunningham

Montgomery

(2008). Consumer co-creation and situated creativity. Industry and Innovation, 15, 459-474. doi:10.1080/13662710802373783

142.

Prahalad

C. K.

(2004). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profits. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.

143.

Prahalad

C. K.

(2012). Bottom of the pyramid as a source of breakthrough innovations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29, 6-12. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00874.x

144.

Prahalad

C. K.

Hammond

(2002). Serving the world’s poor, profitably. Harvard Business Review, 80, 48-57.

145.

Prahalad

C. K.

Hart

S. L.

(2002). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Strategy and Business, 26(1), 2-14.

146.

Prahalad

C. K.

Ramaswamy

(2000). Co-opting customer experience. Harvard Business Review, 78, 79-87.

147.

Prahalad

C. K.

Ramaswamy

(2004). The future of competition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

148.

Pretty

J. N.

(1995). Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development, 23, 1247-1263. doi:10.1016/0305-750X(95)00046-F

149.

Radjou

Prabhu

(2012). Mobilizing for growth in emerging markets. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53, 81-88.

150.

Ramachandran

Pant

Pani

S. K.

(2012). Building the BOP producer ecosystem: The evolving engagement of Fabindia with Indian handloom artisans. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29, 33-51. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00877.x

151.

Ramani

S. V.

SadreGhazi

Duysters

(2012). On the diffusion of toilets as bottom of the pyramid innovation: Lessons from sanitation entrepreneurs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79, 676-687. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2011.06.007

152.

Ramaswamy

(2009). Leading the transformation to co-creation of value. Strategy & Leadership, 37, 32-37. doi:10.1108/10878570910941208

153.

Ramaswamy

Gouillart

(2010). The power of co-creation: Build it with them to noost growth, productivity, and profits. New York, NY: Free Press.

154.

Rangan

V. K.

Chu

Petkoski

(2011). Segmenting the base of the pyramid. Harvard Business Review, 89, 113-117.

155.

Ratcliff

Doshi

(2016). Using the Bass model to analyze the diffusion of innovations at the base of the pyramid. Business & Society, 52, 271-298. doi:10.1177/0007650313479529

156.

Ray

P. K.

Ray

(2010). Resource-constrained innovation for emerging economies: The case of the Indian telecommunications industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 57, 144-156. doi:10.1109/TEM.2009.2033044

157.

Ray

P. K.

(2011). Product innovation for the people’s car in an emerging economy. Technovation, 31, 216-227. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2011.01.004

158.

Reficco

Márquez

(2012). Inclusive networks for building BOP markets. Business & Society, 51, 512-556. doi:10.1177/0007650309332353

159.

Rein

Stott

(2009). Working together: Critical perspectives on six cross-sector partnerships in Southern Africa. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 79-89. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9915-9

160.

Reiner

Gold

Hahn

(2015). Wealth and health at the base of the pyramid: Modelling trade-offs and complementarities for fast moving dairy product case. International Journal of Production Economics, 170, 413-421. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.08.002

161.

Ritvala

Salmi

Andersson

(2014). MNCs and local cross-sector partnerships: The case of a smarter Baltic Sea. International Business Review, 23, 942-951. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2014.02.006

162.

Rivera-Santos

Rufín

(2010a). Global village vs. small town: Understanding networks at the base of the pyramid. International Business Review, 19, 126-139. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2009.07.001

163.

Rivera-Santos

Rufín

(2010b). Odd couples: Understanding the governance of firm-NGO alliances. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 55-70. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0779-z

164.

Rivera-Santos

Rufin

Kolk

(2012). Bridging the institutional divide: Partnerships in subsistence markets. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1721-1727. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.02.013

165.

Rohatynskyj

(2011). Development discourse and selling soap in Madhya Pradesh, India. Human Organization, 70, 63-73. doi:10.17730/humo.70.1.m424616118180254

166.

Sánchez

Ricart

J. E.

(2010). Business model innovation and sources of value creation in low-income markets. European Management Review, 7, 138-154. doi:10.1057/emr.2010.16

167.

Sánchez

Ricart

J. E.

Rodriguez

(2005). Influential factors in becoming socially embedded in low-income markets. Greener Management International, 51, 19-38.

168.

Sánchez

C. M.

Schmid

A. S.

(2013). Base of the pyramid success: A relational view. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 2, 59-81. doi:10.1108/20454451311303293

169.

Sanders

E. B.-N.

Stappers

P. J.

(2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4, 5-18. doi:10.1080/15710880701875068

170.

Santos

Laczniak

(2015). Marketing to the poor: A SWOT analysis of the market construction model for engaging impoverished market segments. Social Business, 5, 95-111.

171.

Saxena

(2015). Dialogue between the formal and the informal sector in open innovations at the grassroots’ level. Humanomics, 31, 104-117. doi:10.1108/H-05-2013-0035

172.

Schuster

Holtbrügge

(2012). Market entry of multinational companies in markets at the bottom of the pyramid: A learning perspective. International Business Review, 21, 817-830. doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2011.09.007

173.

Schuster

Holtbrügge

(2014). Benefits of cross-sector partnerships in markets at the base of the pyramid. Business Strategy & the Environment, 23, 188-203. doi:10.1002/bse.1780

174.

Schwittay

(2009). Taking Prahalad high-tech: The emergence and evolution of global corporate citizenship in the IT industry. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 33, 97-107. Retrieved from http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/id/eprint/52761

175.

Schwittay

(2011). The marketization of poverty. Current Anthropology, 52, S71-S82. doi:10.1086/656472

176.

Schwittay

A. F.

(2014). Making poverty into a financial problem: From global poverty lines to kiva.org. Journal of International Development, 26, 508-519. doi:10.1002/jid.2966

177.

Seelos

Mair

(2007). Profitable business models and market creation in the context of deep poverty: A strategic view. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21, 49-63. doi:10.5465/AMP.2007.27895339

178.

Sen

(1989). Development as capabilities expansion. Journal of Development Planning, 19, 41-58.

179.

Siim

Zeromskis

Hsuan

(2013). Value chain and innovation at the base of the pyramid. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 2, 230-250. doi:10.1108/SAJGBR-03-2012-0020

180.

Simanis

Hart

S. L.

(2009). Innovation from the inside out. MIT Sloan Management Review, 50(4), 78-86.

181.

Simanis

Hart

S. L.

DeKoszmovszky

Donohue

Duke

Enk

. . . Thieme

(2008). The base of the pyramid protocol: Towards next generation BoP strategy (2nd ed.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

182.

Singh

Srivastava

(2012). The turnaround of Tata Nano: Reinventing the wheel. Vision, 16, 45-52. doi:10.1177/097226291201600105

183.

Sridharan

Viswanathan

(2008). Marketing in subsistence marketplaces: Consumption and entrepreneurship in a South Indian context. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25, 455-462. doi:10.1108/07363760810915671

184.

Sutter

C. J.

Kistruck

G. M.

Morris

(2014). Adaptations to knowledge templates in base-of-the-pyramid markets: The role of social interaction. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 8, 303-320. doi:10.1002/sej.1186

185.

Tasavori

Zaefarian

Ghauri

P. N.

(2015). The creation view of opportunities at the base of the pyramid. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 27, 106-126. doi:10.1080/08985626.2014.1002538

186.

Tranfield

Denyer

Smart

(2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14, 207-222. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00375

187.

U.N. Development Programme. (1999). Human Development Report 1999. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

188.

Uzzi

(1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61, 674-698. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/2096399

189.

Vachani

Smith

N. C.

(2008). Socially responsible distribution: Distribution strategies for reaching the bottom of the pyramid. California Management Review, 50(2), 52-54.

190.

Van den Waeyenberg

Hens

. (2012). Overcoming institutional distance: Expansion to base-of-the-pyramid markets. Journal of Business Research, 65, 1692-1699. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.02.010

191.

Vargo

S. L.

Maglio

P. P.

Akaka

M. A.

(2008). On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26, 145-152. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2008.04.003

192.

Varman

Skålén

Belk

R. W.

(2012). Conflicts at the bottom of the pyramid: Profitability, poverty alleviation, and neoliberal governmentality. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31, 19-35. doi:10.1509/jppm.10.026

193.

Venn

Berg

(2014). The gatekeeping function of trust in cross-sector social partnerships. Business and Society Review, 119, 385-416. doi:10.1111/basr.12038

194.

Viswanathan

Sridharan

(2012). Product development for the BoP: Insights on concept and prototype development from university-based student projects in India. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29, 52-69. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00878.x

195.

Von Hippel

. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32, 791-805. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.7.791

196.

Wassmer

Paquin

Sharma

(2012). The engagement of firms in environmental collaborations: Existing contributions and future directions. Business & Society, 53, 754-786. doi:10.1177/0007650312439865

197.

Webb

J. W.

Kistruck

G. M.

Ireland

R. D.

Ketchen

D. J.

Jr. (2010). The entrepreneurship process in base of the pyramid markets: The case of multinational enterprise/nongovernment organization alliances. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 34, 555-581. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00349.x

198.

Weidner

K. L.

Rosa

J. A.

Viswanathan

(2010). Marketing to subsistence consumers: Lessons from practice. Journal of Business Research, 63, 559-569. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.02.022

199.

Wheeler

McKague

Thomson

Davies

Medalye

Prada

(2005). Creating sustainable local enterprise networks. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47, 33-40.

200.

White

(1996). Depoliticising development: The uses and abuses of participation. Development in Practice, 6, 6-15. doi:10.1080/0961452961000157564

201.

Williams

R. L.

Jr. Omar

Rajadhyaksha

(2012). The value flame at the base of the pyramid (VFBOP): Identifying and creating a valuable market. Advances in International Marketing, 11, 267-279. doi:10.1108/S1474-7979(2012)0000023017

202.

Zwick

Bonsu

S. K.

Darmody

(2008). Putting consumers to work: “Co-creation” and new marketing govern-mentality. Journal of Consumer Culture, 8, 163-196. doi:10.1177/1469540508090089