How to identify frugal innovation: make it relative and contextual

Interest in frugal innovation (FI) is growing steadily among practitioners and academics. While still an emerging concept without definition consensus, its central premise is the development of simple, affordable and good performing solutions for unserved users in resource-constraint settings (Hindocha et al., 2021). The evolution of FI discourse has offered multiple conceptual approximations, with the identification of common elements and features that characterize a FI (D’Angelo and Magnusson, 2021; Hindocha et al., 2021). The most salient and used include the list of ten competencies proposed by Basu et al. (2013) or the three criteria proposed by Weyrauch and Herstatt (2016), the latter being a frequently cited one. However, the operational definition of FI could be better framed and detailed. In this respect, what current literature is mostly lacking is a more explicit and detailed account of how the understanding of these characteristics is being operationalized to claim that an innovation is frugal. As the critical review by Hindocha et al. (2021) suggests, at present, although some core characteristics typify the definition of FI, there is a lack of clarity and transparency on what constitutes a FI and “often times there is no explicit statement of the criteria used, if at all, to identify such innovations as frugal” (p. 650). Consequently, we have a growing body of literature that empirically studies FI, but we lack clarity about how the identification of a FI is being analytically performed.

In responding to this research void, this study makes two key contributions. First, this paper argues that FI has a relative character that needs to be made explicit for its identification. Thus far FI appears to be implicitly taken as a relative construct, with “frugality” being gauged, often tacitly, in comparison against an existing conventional benchmark. Researchers claim that innovations that are frugal offer comparable functionality, with a simpler design and a more affordable price than an equivalent existing alternative (D’Angelo and Magnusson, 2021; Hossain et al., 2022; Rao, 2013). However, although this relativeness seems to be a central element by which to determine if and how an innovation is frugal, it has hardly been explicitly put forward for the identification and study of FI. Thus, this study contends that making relativeness explicit is central to the interpretation of FI, because whether and why an innovation is frugal is context dependent. A couple of attempts to deal with the relative nature of FI are found in existing literature. These include the engineering-based work of Rao (2013, 2019) that centers attention in technical and cost features of frugal products, the four-dimensional framework by Lim and Fujimoto (2019) that focuses on design, economic and technological aspects of product innovations, the work by (Von Janda et al., 2020) that presents a product frugality index with the dimensions of cost, sustainability, simplicity and basic quality or the proposal by Winkler et al. (2020) for FI in developed markets. The present study contributes to these previous works by drawing special attention to the relativeness of FI and broadening its understanding beyond product innovations. It also highlights the relevance of local contextual conditions which, as it has been acknowledged in recent literature, are decisive for FI (Agarwal et al., 2021; Chakravarty, 2022; Winkler et al., 2020).

Second, the paper proposes an integrated framework to operationalize the qualitative identification of FI. It provides a means for researchers and practitioners to get a coherent understanding of what constitutes a case of FI and why, making its relative nature explicit, focusing attention on the context where the innovation is embedded and incorporating a local mainstream benchmark. The framework was developed using a multi-method approach to theory building that consolidates three analytical elements. First, its conception started from FI characteristics identified in current literature, which were then contrasted in an abductive and reflexive process against a sample of innovations that resemble FI features. As a third and last stage, a series of paired interviews were conducted with six FI experts for peer discussion and validation, contributing to enriching and refining the proposed framework. Therefore, this study contributes to the establishment and enrichment of the FI field, not only in its theoretical understanding but also by providing practitioners and managers with practical tools for its assessment and implementation, a need that has been identified within the most promising areas in FI research (Quintino Sant’Ana et al., 2024).

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides the theoretical background, focusing on the concept and definition of FI and outlining the existing need to operationalize its identification. The methodology is described in Sections 3 and 4 presents the main results obtained in the three stages of the research. The proposed framework is introduced and explained in Section 5. Finally, Section 6 reflects on the research implications and provides concluding remarks and suggestions for future research.

The past couple of decades have witnessed a growing interest from academia and practice in the study and implementation of FI (Bhatti et al., 2020; Dabić et al., 2022; Melnikova and Gilsanz, 2022), becoming an academic field of research with an increasing number of publications in the subject and an expansion in research output and research needs identified (D’Angelo and Magnusson, 2021). The phenomenon has been studied in a diverse range of sectors such as health care, agriculture, sanitation and education (Hindocha et al., 2021) and has been approached from varied fields within engineering, management and development studies, revealing its broad interest and applicability (Sarkar and Mateus, 2022). While the idea of frugality has been present across history, referring to the quality of being simple, sparing or prudent or exercising moderation and restraint in the use of resources; its conceptual connection with innovation is a matter of very recent interest (Leliveld et al., 2023). Given the novelty of the field, its conceptual grounding is still fragmented, but it is broadly understood as an innovation approach that aims to (re) design products, services, processes and business models, providing simple, affordable and good performing solutions for un(der)served users in resource constraint settings, with a focus on core functionalities and a minimal resource use (Basu et al., 2013; De Marchi et al., 2022; Leliveld and Knorringa, 2018; Pisoni et al., 2018; Rosca et al., 2017). Because of these features, FI is seen as an alternative innovation approach that contests traditional innovation pathways by rethinking whole production processes and business models in response to societal challenges (Agarwal and Brem, 2017; Quintino Sant’Ana et al., 2024; Radjou et al., 2012; Rosca et al., 2018).

As a nascent field in conceptual expansion, research on FI has included the development of several reviews of the literature to improve its conceptual definition, differentiate it against other similar terms or map the state of the art in its academic domain (D’Angelo and Magnusson, 2021). Pisoni et al. (2018) were among the first to conduct such type of systematic review and propose three generations of FI definitions: a first generation that is mostly defined around product features, a second generation that expands beyond products and includes process-oriented and market-oriented definitions and a third generation that aims at providing criteria-based definitions. Within this last group, the most widely cited criteria correspond to the proposal by Weyrauch and Herstatt (2016), who identify substantial cost reduction, concentration on core functionalities and optimized performance level as three key characteristics that a FI must meet simultaneously. Also, from an engineering perspective, Basu et al. (2013) defined ten core competencies of FI: 1) ruggedization; 2) lightweight; 3) mobile enabled solutions; 4) human centric design; 5) simplification; 6) new distribution models; 7) adaptation; 8) use of local resources; 9) green technologies and 10) affordability, without specifying whether all ten competencies must be fulfilled for an innovation to qualify as a FI.

Other relevant criteria-based definitions include the proposal by Farooq (2017), portraying FI as a multidimensional construct with affordability, simplicity, quality, sustainability, resilience, management support and defeaturing as its dimensions or the work by Agarwal et al. (2017) that identifies the dimensions of cost effectiveness, ease of use and prescriptive variables.

As the premise of FI is essentially to develop affordable and quality solutions for low-income consumers in resource-constraint environments (Hindocha et al., 2021), the concept was originally related to low-income contexts in developing and emerging countries. More recently, a growing concern for more moderate ways of consumption and minimal resource use has prompted interest in understanding what FI implies for developed economies (Kroll and Gabriel, 2020; Winkler et al., 2020). Scholars have argued that the practice of FI can be found globally in all markets irrespective of their level of development (Leliveld et al., 2023; Pisoni et al., 2018; Sarkar and Mateus, 2022).

Most research on FI has hitherto been product-oriented, with a focus on its technology and innovation aspects and with limited context-specific theory development (Dabić et al., 2022). This absence of context specificity constitutes an important gap in current literature that needs to be addressed for an improved conceptualization of FI. While scholars seem to agree that there is potential for FI to generate social good, the assumption that social well-being and inclusivity will directly derive from FI has been found to be questionable and problematic, given the multidimensional and complex challenges that resource-scarce settings encounter (Knorringa et al., 2016; Leliveld and Knorringa, 2018; Levänen et al., 2022; Pansera, 2018).

To date, much of the empirical evidence on FI literature comes from qualitative case study research (Dabić et al., 2022; Hindocha et al., 2021; Pisoni et al., 2018), with some exemplary cases being repeatedly cited across various works (Hossain, 2021; Hossain et al., 2022; Rao, 2013). However, when screening extant literature, often one cannot find a detailed explanation of the criteria used to argue that a given product or service constitutes a FI or a description of the assumptions that researchers make concerning the characteristics that make a case an example of FI. Scholars have performed single or multiple case studies to explore various issues such as the competences of FI to address global sustainability (Basu et al., 2013) or the diffusion patterns of FI (Hossain et al., 2016), but little elaboration goes into how the cases were identified as FI in the first place and why those cases constitute FIs. Thus, while FI literature has significantly evolved in scope and depth and interested scholars have contributed conceptual and empirical papers that reinforce our understanding of the features that characterize a FI, what we are currently lacking is a broader and more detailed account of the way in which authors are operationalizing these criteria in practice. It is on these grounds that this study states, together with Hindocha et al. (2021), that current literature lacks clarity and transparency on how the identification of a certain FI is being analytically performed.

For example, Hossain (2021) conducts a multiple case study to explore business model elements of FI at grassroots level and selects three cases from India, arguing that they “share many aspects in origin and efforts,” making them “appropriate for exploring the FI phenomenon” (Hossain, 2021. p. 3) but gives no further explanation of how that appropriateness was identified. Similarly, studying the sustainability of FI by grassroots entrepreneurs, Pansera and Sarkar (2016) give a detailed description of their case selection, with a good explanation of the procedure followed for the identification of grassroots entrepreneurs in India. However, when it comes to FI, the authors inform that the selected cases “pointed to clear evidence of frugal innovation with strong social impact” (Pansera and Sarkar, 2016. p. 7), but again leave the reader without further information on the analysis done to identify said clear evidence of FI.

(Dressler and Bucher, 2018) study 4 South African cases, which the authors inform were chosen of 11 cases resembling FI. While the authors state that they followed the FI features proposed by Weyrauch and Herstatt (2016), it is not possible to see how the criteria were applied for the identification and selection of cases. This is precisely the limitation found in current literature that this paper wants to address, by proposing a framework that brings together current FI criteria and provides one structure for its empirical operationalization.

Some scholars have made recent contributions in this direction. Focusing on the technical and economic aspects of product innovations, Lim and Fujimoto (2019) propose a four-dimensional framework that refers to the technical properties, the economic and cost performance properties and the supply and demand effects of frugal products. Also following a product-oriented perspective, Von Janda et al., (2020) introduce an index of product frugality with four dimensions: cost of consumption, simplicity, basic quality and sustainability. As explained in the discussion of findings, contrary to their proposal and in line with scholars intrigued by the frugality–sustainability link (De Marchi et al., 2022; Rosca et al., 2017, Rosca et al., 2018), we argue that sustainability cannot be considered an intrinsic attribute of FI, as the extent to which a FI can contribute to sustainability is an empirical question. Centering attention on developed markets, Winkler et al. (2020) propose a FI evaluation model adapting the three criteria from Weyrauch and Herstatt (2016) and expanding it to consider services as well. Interestingly, while the model is aimed at developed markets, the case of the Indian Tata Nano is one of the three used to illustrate its application. This reaffirms the fact that the defining attributes of FI are valid regardless of the geographical location where it is taking place, in line with the findings from Pisoni et al. (2018) who suggest that FI, if understood as a whole process rather than a specific typology of innovation, is transferable and adaptable to any territorial or industrial context. Most recently, Rossetto et al., 2023 introduce a measuring scale for FI capabilities with three dimensions: focus on core functionalities, substantial cost reduction and shared sustainable engagement. The authors indicate that it is a first attempt to provide managers with a tool for assessing the strengths and weaknesses of their organizations to develop FIs. My proposal builds on these earlier works, moving beyond product-oriented definitions and stressing the relevance of context for FI.

Scholars within base of the pyramid literature have often referred to the need of understanding the unique conditions of resource-scarce markets and developing solutions that are tailored to their local requirements (Agarwal and Brem, 2017; London and Hart, 2004). Authors within FI discourse have also linked its understanding to the context where it is embedded (Agarwal et al., 2021; Borchardt et al., 2021; Chakravarty, 2022; Pansera and Sarkar, 2016). In fact, Weyrauch and Herstatt (2016) already pointed out that the FI attributes were strongly dependent on the specific context and should, therefore, be identified considering its local conditions by “prov(ing) each of the three criteria” (p. 10), contrasting the features of a FI example against an existing counterpart. Several other authors like Rao (2013) and Pisoni et al. (2018) have also echoed this stance, noting that the frugal approach to innovation cannot be understood without taking into consideration the specificities of the context where the innovation is taking place. However, as I have noted before, the hurdle today is that most of the case-based literature is only providing minimal information with respect to the way in which the FI attributes are being assessed, with a lot of this contextual considerations remaining implied and undeclared. This restricts the informative potential of cases and hinders collaboration and communication within the FI interested community.

A recent exception worth noting is the single case study performed by Musona (2021) in the context of smallholder agriculture in Kenya, in which the author provides an explanation of the parameters used in the study to qualify the case as a FI, following the criteria given by Weyrauch and Herstatt (2016). The author performed a qualitative assessment of each criterion to determine – as a Yes/No factor – whether the agricultural innovation under study could classify as a FI. To do so, the cost reduction feature is compared against conventional soil testing services available in Kenya. The other two criteria seem to be implicitly assessed against the local circumstances. This can be inferred from affirmations like “[…] farmers do not need to travel to access soil testing services” or “improved farmer resilience” (p. 172). Regrettably, however, as the local benchmark for these two criteria is not clearly described, the reader is left with an incomplete understanding of the attributes that qualify said product as a FI in the Kenyan market.

This is an illustration of how, thus far, FI has often been tacitly taken as a relative construct against a mainstream benchmark. Table 1 provides an overview of instances in which, since the early FI literature, scholars have portrayed innovations being frugal when compared against an existing solution in the market.

Acknowledging this relative nature of FI authors have recently argued that the best way for identifying an FI might be to compare it against its closest incumbent alternative (Hindocha et al., 2021). However, although this comparative nature seems to be a central element by which to determine if and how an innovation is frugal, to date, we need structured theoretical frameworks that make explicit this relative character and complement the few existing approaches that attempt to deal with the relative nature of FI. This paper provides one respond to this research need, suggesting a framework that makes the relativeness of FI explicit and operational, and considers a local benchmark in the context where the innovation is embedded.

In line with Dabić et al. (2022), this study was performed recognizing that a combination of existing literature and expert views is a useful and adequate research technique in the current stage of advancement of the FI field. I propose complementing this approach with an exploratory and abductive analysis of cases. Therefore, as depicted in Figure 1, this study implemented a multi-method approach to theory building by integrating findings from three distinct sources that were reflexively analyzed in consecutive stages.

First, a review and synthesis of existing literature was conducted with the aim of identifying common elements and criteria used to characterize FI. For this purpose, the umbrella review method, also known as review of reviews, or overview of reviews (Moro et al., 2023) was followed. Umbrella reviews are most commonly used within health sciences (Hartling et al., 2014) and to a lesser extent in social sciences like organizations and management, where a couple of works exist such as the review of reviews by Kim et al. (2018) on hospitality and tourism literature or the recently published work by (Moro et al., 2023) Moro et al. (2023) to synthesize the literature on Product-Service systems. I chose this novel approach of literature inquiry, as it is an effective method to bring together existing reviews on one topic and compile and synthesize their main findings around a specific question of interest. Given the purpose of analysis, the search for review articles was conducted in the academic databases of Scopus and Web of Science using the keywords “frugal innovation” AND “systematic literature review” OR “structured review” and was limited to titles, keywords and abstracts. The titles and abstracts of the resulting papers were screened to identify only those works that specifically devote their review to the understanding of FI. The literature review conducted by Albert (2022) for the assessment of the sustainability impacts of FI was excluded, because it focuses entirely on sustainability aspects and would thus provide minimal input regarding the features that characterize a FI. A manual inclusion of one meta-synthesis (Sarkar and Mateus, 2022) and one critical review (Hindocha et al., 2021) were performed given its acceptance as types of structured reviews of academic literature. Thus, this umbrella review included a total of ten articles including systematic literature reviews, critical reviews and meta-synthesis of FI literature (Table 2). Each review was read in full to identify and synthetize the elements presented as the main characteristics of FI.

In the second stage, the FI attributes identified from the literature were analyzed following an abductive reasoning approach with a sample of 28 ^[1] innovations. Secondary data on each case were retrieved from publicly available sources such as the enterprise own website, social media outlets, press material, published reports and blogs that either were directly from the enterprise or commented about their work. An iterative and reflexive analysis of literature and data was conducted to allow insights to emerge. Each individual case was thought through, identifying its local benchmark and contrasting that local reality against the features present in the case.

As a third and last stage in the research process, interviews with experts from the FI intellectual community were conducted for peer scrutiny, discussion and feedback, enhancing the credibility and dependability of this study. The framework was discussed in paired interviews with FI experts from the Frugal Innovation Hub – FIH of Santa Clara University and the Latin American Frugal Innovation Network – RELIF. Paired interviewing, also known as dyadic interviewing, is a method for qualitative data collection in which one researcher interviews two people together, with the purpose of allowing simultaneous interaction in response to open ended questions about how they perceive a certain issue (Szulc and King, 2022; Wilson et al., 2016). Paired interviewing was chosen over other types of group data collection, such as focus groups, as the former have been found to allow for more in-depth, frequent and sustained interactions between participants in a less dispersed and fragmented fashion than in focus groups, making participants less hesitant to speak up and giving more time per person to articulate their perspective (Szulc and King, 2022; Wilson et al., 2016). Paired interviews are also useful for ensuring that the participants remain on topic in comparison to groups with more participants, who could take the conversation in various directions (Wilson et al., 2016).

Three sets of paired interviews with a total of six participating experts were conducted online via zoom in August 2023, each lasting 1 h on average. Initially, each interviewed pair was asked what they did to identify an innovation as frugal, to learn about their current practices for FI identification. Then, the framework was introduced for discussion, to gain participant’s feedback and reactions. The paired interviews provided a space for the critical evaluation of the proposed components and the utility of the framework with the purpose of refining it in its final form.

RELIF and the FIH were used for the identification of interviewees, as they would provide experts with sufficient experience in FI and capable to discuss the framework from a realistic and well-informed point of view. While I acknowledge that other relevant FI experts exist in other research centers not included in the present research, I minimized this limitation by having a selection of interview participants that included experts based in developed (i.e. The USA and Spain) and emerging (i.e. Colombia, Mexico and Peru) countries. In addition, this selection complements and broadens the geographical scope of findings from the literature which largely come from authors based in Europe and India.

The overview and synthesis of the literature reviews lead to the identification of 26 elements that have been used by scholars to characterize the phenomenon of FI (Table 3). Affordability was the most accepted characteristic of FI, being present in all the reviews analyzed. This affordability relates to the ability of being cost effective and achieving a substantial cost reduction, which also implies a minimization of the use of resources. Another widely accepted feature is that FIs are meant for contexts under resource constraints. This, however, does not necessarily imply that FI only caters to the needs of low-income users.

Contrary to what was found in the earlier literature (Agarwal et al., 2017), FI scholars have moved away from describing it as a good-enough solution, toward and emphasis in the achievement of an optimized performance. What is descriptive of FI is its capacity to offer an adequate level of value and quality that is sufficient for its intended purpose. This sufficiency and optimization shall come already from its design, by being simple and easy to operate, with a focus on its essential functions and eliminating all unnecessary features.

The participation of different types of actors in the development of FI, whom might have varied motivations, was also mentioned as a relevant feature in half of the reviews. Similarly, the potential of FI to contribute to sustainability was proposed as a characteristic of FI in four articles. However, multiple works have in fact questioned the assumption that all FIs are inherently sustainable (Albert, 2022; Rosca et al., 2017, 2018) and have called for a better and empirically grounded understanding of the ways in which positive sustainability contributions of FI might occur, as well as its potential negative consequences (De Marchi et al., 2022; Leliveld and Knorringa, 2018; Pansera, 2018; Pansera and Sarkar, 2016). In line with these arguments, in this study, we contend that sustainability cannot be considered a feature to identify FI. The most recent reviews (De Marchi et al., 2022; Sarkar and Mateus, 2022) were found to also highlight the appropriateness and adaptability to the local context as an important feature of FI.

The abductive analysis of FI features found in the literature demonstrated that the assessment process is quite intuitive, and the identification of certain FI features is more obvious in some cases than others. This has two implications. First, the intuitive nature of the process confirms the need to insist in the sharing of assumptions when presenting any given case as a FI. This can be done by describing what is assumed as the benchmark and how the features are analyzed against it. Second, it is clear that the valuation of each FI attribute cannot be done as a dichotomous Yes/No or Fulfilled/not fulfilled parameter, as it was done for instance in the work by Musona (2021). Rather, using a parameter to establish the likelihood of occurrence seems more adequate, as the way in which a certain case resembles FI features can be a matter of degrees instead of an absolute.

In addition, while it is true that several actors seem to be engaged with the development and adoption of FIs and they could most likely have varied motivations for doing so, this study revealed that their analytical consideration is not determinant to establish whether an innovation is or not frugal. While the presence of multiple actors and motivations has been found to be a recurrent element in FIs, it is neither unique to FI nor a necessary condition for an innovation to be frugal. Thus, I find it redundant and imprecise to include actors or their motivations as determining attributes of FI and propose its consideration as a transversal element that influences the implementation of FI.

As a result of this analysis, an initial version of the framework was obtained considering three components to be individually assessed against a mainstream benchmark: affordability and cost minimization, optimal, design, function and performance, and focus on a resource constrained context; and one transversal element, not to be assessed as FI attribute, but to be taken into consideration: multiplicity of actors and motivations.

When asked about their current practices for FI identification, interviewees shared that they would use as a guide the main characteristics proposed in FI literature, particularly the ten competencies by Basu et al. (2013) or the proposal from Weyrauch and Herstatt (2016), either the three defining criteria or the nine initial features identified by the authors before compilation. All interviewees communicated that they would develop some guiding list with the characteristics and try to qualitatively determine if any or some are present to a certain extent, but acknowledge that their approaches are mostly subjective, without a standard procedure and not necessarily documented. One participant has developed a checklist with the ten competencies of Basu et al. (2013) to determine the degree of frugality adequacy, and another one has used the FI capability scale from (Rossetto et al., 2023) as a measurement guide. Five of them inform often looking into what is currently available in the market as a form of comparison. Interview participants would favor the existence of a framework that provides a structure for a systematic analysis of FI features and believe that a framework could help in focusing the identification stage, bringing nuance into what is presented as a FI.

When introduced to the proposed framework, interviewees agreed that it includes the main characteristics that have been presented in academic literature to describe FI. They also believed that including the consideration of the context is positive and relevant given the high importance of local conditions for FI. All but one agreed that sustainability should not be included as one feature of FI, as the extent to which a FI can contribute to sustainable development is not straightforward. Also, as an outcome of this peer scrutiny, it was possible to improve the wording used to label the framework components. The labelling of the benchmark columns, which are intended to describe the conditions that are currently the norm in the local market, was changed from “mainstream benchmark” to the more specific wording “local mainstream benchmark”. The addition of the word local emphasizes the fact that the identified benchmark should correspond to the conditions of the local context because what is mainstream in one setting might not necessarily be mainstream in a different one.

Feedback from the paired interviews was also valuable to identify that under certain circumstances the local mainstream might effectively be a lack of a particular product or service. This validates the significance of a tool that makes explicit the contextual considerations relative to which the frugality of an innovation has been considered. Another aspect highlighted in the interviews was the need to make sure that the framework provides space for each user to explain and share their assumptions and reasoning in its application, in benefit of transferability. Thus, while the implementation of the framework would be subjective in nature, this sharing of assumptions would enhance communication within the interested FI community, exchanging results that are clearly qualified. The sharing in an open online space was suggested as a convenient way for people to interact with and use the results.

The framework is conceived with three components that identify the main features of FI and one transversal element. The first two components reaffirm the main characteristics that have recurrently being proposed in academic literature as central to FI. From one side, its cost reduction and affordability and, from the other, its optimization of design, functionality and performance. The third component makes explicit the centrality of context for the development, adoption and diffusion of FI, which has been recently noted by interested scholars (Chakravarty, 2022). The multiplicity of actors and motivations is suggested as transversal element. To establish the level of likelihood, a qualitative scale with four levels, high, medium, low and none, is proposed. The framework is depicted in Figure 2 and its components and likelihood scale are further explained in Sections 5.1 and 5.2, respectively.

Taking the relevance of context as a core stand, the framework provides an indicative general structure for the identification of FI, which should be context specific in its operationalization. By establishing a defined mainstream benchmark, as perceived in the local context, the application of the framework enables an identification of FI that responds to the context specificities. What is mainstream in one context might not be mainstream in a different setting. The framework responds to these relevant differences and allows for setting up a mainstream benchmark against which to identify a FI depending on the context that such innovation is meant for. This proposal resonates with the views by Halme et al. (2022) on the importance of rigor within context. As the authors note, the serious consideration of contextualization “allows theorizing that is both locally relevant and analytically generalizable to theoretical categories” (p. 2). Otherwise, lack of situatedness might result in the production of knowledge that is distorted and decontextualized. There might be situations for which the current local norm or convention is the absolute absence of a given product/service, such as places lacking sanitation or energy access. Even on those cases, the user of the framework can set up – and describe – that nonexistence as a benchmark for comparison, producing an analytical identification of FI that is more situated within the local reality.

Cost reduction and affordability are a key indicator of FI in the literature (Agarwal et al., 2017; Pineda-Escobar et al., 2023; Rosca et al., 2017; Sarkar and Mateus, 2022; Weyrauch and Herstatt, 2016; Zeschky et al., 2011). This cost minimization can be from either the producer or consumer perspective. From the consumer viewpoint, affordability would most frequently come from a reduced purchasing price, although it may also be via alternative business models such as pay-per-use, providing greater access to those with different cash flows. There is no specific reduction target to classify a product as frugal (Sarkar and Mateus, 2022), which is the most adequate given the contextual character of FI; hence, economic benchmarks such as costs and prices must be relative in terms of time and location. From a producer perspective, the cost reduction and minimization of resource use may come at various stages of the innovation process. From the acquisition of raw materials (some of which may be available for free or may be cost-positive when the producer is actually paid to collect discarded materials that are later integrated into its business processes), to the implementation of the innovation.

Another frequently mentioned characteristic of FI is that it concentrates on the core functionalities of a product or service, eliminating all unessential functions and overengineering, which turns the innovations simple and easy to operate (Dabić et al., 2022; Weyrauch and Herstatt, 2016). This, however, shall occur without affecting the quality and equally providing good value to the end user. Performance optimization shall be context-responsive, achieving the level of performance needed in the context it is intended for (Sarkar and Mateus, 2022). Besides, FI may incorporate the use of either low- or high-end technologies (Le Bas, 2020; Pineda-Escobar et al., 2023; Sarkar and Mateus, 2022) and do a minimal resource use, using what is locally available and sometimes even incorporating the use of otherwise discarded materials. In addition, FIs are seen as robust, being durable, requiring low maintenance and capable of operating in harsh environments or under resource constraints, such as inadequate – or inexistent – energy access (Dabić et al., 2022; Sarkar and Mateus, 2022).

The third component of the framework highlights the fact that all FI shall be meant for a context of resource constraints, as was noted since the early FI literature (Pisoni et al., 2018; Zeschky et al., 2011). FIs are meant to respond to the needs of un(der)served users in contexts of resource constraints (either economic, social, technological, material, environmental and/or institutional), who often times are part of disadvantaged communities. As such, the contextualization of a FI is key. It is important that researchers and practitioners pay close attention to the appropriateness, adaptability, acceptability and availability of the innovation in the local context (Chakravarty, 2022; Pineda-Escobar et al., 2023), when considering the likelihood of it being frugal.

Resource constrained contexts are not unique to low-income settings and can also be present in developed countries. The identification against a local mainstream benchmark allows taking into consideration the differences in the perception of resource constraints given the particularities of the context, making the framework generalizable to both the developed and the developing world. It also allows taking into consideration the resource constraints present in the destination market, in the event that the innovation is being designed in a resource-abundant context but is meant to be implemented and diffused in a resource constrained setting (Sarkar and Mateus, 2022).

FI will rarely occur by the actions of a single actor. On the contrary, FI seems to typically involve a multiplicity of actors with diverse motivations for their engagement. FI can originate from multinational corporations, SMEs and social enterprises, non-governmental organizations, universities and research centers, grassroots individuals and communities, all of whom may collaborate in varied ways and at different stages of the innovation process (De Marchi et al., 2022; Pisoni et al., 2018; Sarkar and Mateus, 2022). Moreover, FI might arise from various motivations, ranging from social and environmental concerns to a pure market interest or a response to external shocks (Dabić et al., 2022; Sarkar and Mateus, 2022) with many FIs perceived to be pursuing a hybrid economic and social goal (De Marchi et al., 2022). Given that the multiplicity of actors and motivations is neither unique to FI nor a necessary condition for an innovation to be frugal, it is not to be operationalized as an identification feature of FI. It is necessary, however, that such diversity of actors and motivations is kept into consideration to understand, for example, the intensity and type of cross-sector collaborations that occur or the motives for engagement of developers and supporting actors. Issues of agency, power dynamics, potential conflicts of interest and trade-offs shall also be recognized. Note that the diversity in actors might come from not only the developers’ side but also a variety of end-users of an innovation.

As was presented in the findings section, this study concludes that the way in which a certain case resembles FI features will be a matter of degrees instead of an absolute. Thus, it proposes the use of given criteria to qualitatively determine the likelihood of certain innovation being a FI. It is important to take into account that this framework is recommended as an initial indicator of said likelihood, and it is not intended to accept or reject an innovation as frugal or not frugal.

It considers a qualitative likelihood scale based on the extent of fulfilment of the different criteria for each of the three FI features identified in the framework components (Figure 2). The assessment of each criterion shall be done in comparison against the local mainstream benchmark and assign a value of 1, 0.5 or 0, depending on whether the criterion is fulfilled in full, partially or unfulfilled, respectively. The level of likelihood for each FI component is obtained by adding the criteria individual results. Four likelihood levels are proposed as shown in Table 4. It is recommended that the information used for establishing the likelihood level is described in the framework for both the local mainstream benchmark and the case under analysis.

As noted in the beginning of the paper, one drawback in current FI literature is the fact that authors will rarely share their assumptions in how they identify a FI. In response to this caveat, the framework aims to provide one tool for more open and discursive communication of one’s suppositions and views, by making them explicit and qualifying the results. Thus, it shall be implemented in such a way that the user describes and explains the local mainstream benchmark and the information behind the establishment of the perceived level of likelihood.

As the framework is conceived for the identification of possible cases of FI, the fit with each component would most likely be determined based on secondary data. Thus, its implementation provides a preliminary indication of the existence of a FI and gives room for the assumptions to be validated with further empirical analysis based on primary field data.

For the purposes of the larger project that this paper is a part of, I aimed at identifying cases with a higher likelihood of having a FI. Thus, only the cases that scored high in all three components of the framework were selected, discarding those with a medium, low or inexistent likelihood in either one, two or all three components, as it would imply that their affordability, performance optimization or focus on a resource constraint context is less probable. A summary for a subset of cases is included in the  Appendix to illustrate its implementation. As a tool, however, the framework is flexible enough to allow for the identification and selection of cases based on diverse reasons. For this study, the highest likelihood in all three components was deemed necessary, but this might not always be the interest of the researcher or practitioner using the framework.

The proposed framework responds to two shortcomings in current FI literature. First, current case study research often lacks a detailed explanation of the characteristics considered to identify a case as an example of FI. Case authors are providing minimal information with respect to the way in which the FI attributes are being assessed to claim that an innovation is frugal and are seldom sharing the specificities of the context where the innovation is taking place. Second, while FI seems to have a relative nature, with frugality being gauged, often tacitly, in comparison against an existing conventional benchmark, its relativeness has hardly been explicitly put forward for its identification and study.

By explicitly incorporating a local mainstream benchmark into our understanding of FI, this work helps to clarify some of the ambiguities that research on FI has to deal with, proposing one means for the structured identification of what can constitute a FI and why. The paper addresses an important void, not only in extant literature but in its underlying research, and it transforms the observation of this void into a suitable structure to operationalize the empirical identification of FI. A general yet context specific structure is proposed that facilitates the systematic identification of possible FI cases relative to their context and their existing local mainstream benchmark, contributing to the evolution of FI discourse and practice.

It directs specific attention to the contextual character of FI, highlighting the requirement for the innovation to be responsive to the needs of the un(der)served, in not only technical terms but also socio-cultural appropriateness, adaptability and acceptability. As its point of departure is that FI is best described by comparing it against a local mainstream benchmark, the framework has flexibility to be used in any context for the identification of FI. It brings clarity into why a particular product, service, process or business model is being presented by scholars and practitioners as a FI, building a common understanding to discuss commonalities and differences among FIs in a contextualized fashion. It can also contribute to building a bridge for smooth communication and collaboration between the various intellectual communities with an interest in FI, a need that has been recently identified for bringing consistency and cohesion to the field (D’Angelo and Magnusson, 2021).

The operationalization of the framework is highly place-specific, and its results will not be generalizable. While under methodological conventions this might appear as a limitation for the broader applicability of the framework, I pose, under a rigor-within-context approach (Halme et al., 2022), that such contextualization is a relevant and necessary contribution to FI research and practice. The framework results in the production of knowledge that is situated and locally relevant, while being analytically analogous under the general framework structure. In this way, it deviates away from the assumption that research output should be generalizable to be legitimate and rigorous, which entails the risk of misrepresenting the complexities of local contexts and generating knowledge that is weak and with limited explanatory power (Halme et al., 2022). On the contrary, the framework favors the production of knowledge that is insightful, relevant and rightly situated. The high context specificity of FIs and the societal relevance of issues related to desirability, acceptance and appropriateness of innovations justifies the usage of a framework that is general in its overall structure but specific in its local implementation.

This study has provided an initial framework to operationalize the identification of FI. Therefore, follow-up research that tests its applicability and contributes to its refinement and further development is welcomed and encouraged. Beyond its identification, scholars have also noted the need to better understand how FI ought to be measured, for which the development of adequate tools is also required. In this sense, this framework may also serve as preparatory work to pave the wave for future research asking rightly situated questions on relative frugality of innovations.

The sustainability of FI is another relevant question for further research. As noted in this study, FIs cannot be considered inherently sustainable, and we shall not use sustainability as one feature to characterize the phenomenon. However, it is fundamental to have an improved understanding of the conditions under which FI can have a positive contribution to sustainability. New studies can explore the frugality–sustainability connection in more depth, providing adequate analytical tools for this endeavor.

Finally, future research can consider the multiplicity of actors and motivations that are present in FI to explore questions around co-creation, collaboration, power dynamics, potential conflicts of interest and trade-offs. From a policy perspective, it would be relevant to understand how the local innovation systems can engage with these multiple actors to stimulate the development and implementation of FI.

Special thanks to PhD supervisors Peter Knorringa and Georgina Gomez for their very valuable insights and guidance in the conception and development of this study. Thanks to the anonymous reviewers whose comments and feedback helped in enhancing the overall clarity and quality of this work.

The funding of Erasmus University Rotterdam for making this publication open access is acknowledged.

Table A1