IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v170y2021ics0040162521002894.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conditional acceptance of digitized business model innovation at the BoP: A stakeholder analysis of eKutir in India

Author

Listed:
  • Sengupta, Tuhin
  • Narayanamurthy, Gopalakrishnan
  • Hota, Pradeep Kumar
  • Sarker, Tapan
  • Dey, Subhendu

Abstract

The current research explores the contingencies behind the acceptance or rejection of digitized business model innovation at the Bottom of the Pyramid (BoP). Building on the existing literature on business model innovation and using the lens of stakeholder theory, we explore the contingencies that decide the success or failure of digitized business models at the BoP. We conducted an inductive case study of eKutir, an Indian social enterprise that uses a digital platform to deliver value for farmers in Orissa. Our analysis reveals that stakeholder's stability and stakeholder's incentives are the critical contingencies deciding the conditional acceptance of the digitized business model innovation. Our results also confirm that accessibility, availability, affordability, awareness and acceptability are the most important factors contributing to the stakeholder's adoption of digitized business model innovation. Further, we infer that age, respect, power and authority are key differentiating factors contributing to stakeholder's stability which can significantly influence the acceptance of digitized business model innovation. We conclude with a framework that can guide the successful implementation of digitized business model innovation at the BoP.

Suggested Citation

  • Sengupta, Tuhin & Narayanamurthy, Gopalakrishnan & Hota, Pradeep Kumar & Sarker, Tapan & Dey, Subhendu, 2021. "Conditional acceptance of digitized business model innovation at the BoP: A stakeholder analysis of eKutir in India," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:170:y:2021:i:c:s0040162521002894
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120857
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162521002894
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120857?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Minna Halme & Juha Laurila, 2009. "Philanthropy, Integration or Innovation? Exploring the Financial and Societal Outcomes of Different Types of Corporate Responsibility," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 84(3), pages 325-339, February.
    2. Youngjin Yoo & Richard J. Boland & Kalle Lyytinen & Ann Majchrzak, 2012. "Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(5), pages 1398-1408, October.
    3. Sripad K. Devalkar & Sridhar Seshadri & Chitrabhanu Ghosh & Allen Mathias, 2018. "Data Science Applications in Indian Agriculture," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 27(9), pages 1701-1708, September.
    4. Paolo Letizia & George Hendrikse, 2016. "Supply Chain Structure Incentives for Corporate Social Responsibility: An Incomplete Contracting Analysis," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 25(11), pages 1919-1941, November.
    5. Esben Rahbek Gjerdrum Pedersen & Wencke Gwozdz & Kerli Kant Hvass, 2018. "Exploring the Relationship Between Business Model Innovation, Corporate Sustainability, and Organisational Values within the Fashion Industry," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 149(2), pages 267-284, May.
    6. Freeman, R. Edward, 1994. "The Politics of Stakeholder Theory: Some Future Directions1," Business Ethics Quarterly, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 409-421, October.
    7. Hullova, Dusana & Laczko, Pavel & Frishammar, Johan, 2019. "Independent distributors in servitization: An assessment of key internal and ecosystem-related problems," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 422-437.
    8. Tobias Hahn & Frank Figge & Jonatan Pinkse & Lutz Preuss, 2018. "A Paradox Perspective on Corporate Sustainability: Descriptive, Instrumental, and Normative Aspects," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(2), pages 235-248, March.
    9. Ernkvist, Mirko, 2015. "The double knot of technology and business-model innovation in the era of ferment of digital exchanges: The case of OM, a pioneer in electronic options exchanges," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 285-299.
    10. Rouwette, Etiënne & van Kranenburg, Hans & Freeman, Edward, 2017. "Reviewing the role of stakeholders in Operational Research: A stakeholder theory perspectiveAuthor-Name: de Gooyert, Vincent," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 262(2), pages 402-410.
    11. Tang, Christopher S. & Sodhi, ManMohan S. & Formentini, Marco, 2016. "An analysis of partially-guaranteed-price contracts between farmers and agri-food companies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 254(3), pages 1063-1073.
    12. Wiprächtiger, David & Narayanamurthy, Gopalakrishnan & Moser, Roger & Sengupta, Tuhin, 2019. "Access-based business model innovation in frontier markets: Case study of shared mobility in Timor-Leste," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 224-238.
    13. Aiello, Giuseppe & Enea, Mario & Muriana, Cinzia, 2015. "The expected value of the traceability information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(1), pages 176-186.
    14. Nicky J. Welton & Howard H. Z. Thom, 2015. "Value of Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 35(5), pages 564-566, July.
    15. Vershinina, Natalia & Rodgers, Peter & Tarba, Shlomo & Khan, Zaheer & Stokes, Peter, 2020. "Gaining legitimacy through proactive stakeholder management: The experiences of high-tech women entrepreneurs in Russia," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 111-121.
    16. Love, James H. & Roper, Stephen & Bryson, John R., 2011. "Openness, knowledge, innovation and growth in UK business services," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1438-1452.
    17. Mary Tripsas, 2009. "Technology, Identity, and Inertia Through the Lens of “The Digital Photography Company”," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 441-460, April.
    18. Andrew L. Friedman & Samantha Miles, 2002. "Developing Stakeholder Theory," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 1-21, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nizar Abdelkafi & Jinou Xu & Margherita Pero & Federica Ciccullo & Antonio Masi, 2023. "Does the combination of sustainable business model patterns lead to truly sustainable business models? Critical analysis of existing frameworks and extensions," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 93(4), pages 597-634, May.
    2. Paiola, Marco & Khvatova, Tatiana & Schiavone, Francesco & Jabeen, Fauzia, 2022. "Paths toward advanced service-oriented business models: A configurational analysis of small- and medium-sized incumbent manufacturers11A previous version of the present article was presented at the EI," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    3. Mariana Voros Fregolente & Marly M. Carvalho, 2023. "Exploring BoP Generations through Business Model Innovation Lens: A Review and Framing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-37, August.
    4. Ancillai, Chiara & Sabatini, Andrea & Gatti, Marco & Perna, Andrea, 2023. "Digital technology and business model innovation: A systematic literature review and future research agenda," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    5. Adomako, Samuel & Amankwah-Amoah, Joseph & Ahsan, Mujtaba, 2023. "Base of the pyramid orientation, imitation orientation and new product performance in an emerging market," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    6. Gupta, Suraksha & Kanungo, Rama Prasad, 2022. "Financial inclusion through digitalisation: Economic viability for the bottom of the pyramid (BOP) segment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 262-276.
    7. Paul Hong & Balasudarsun N. L. & Vivek N. & Sathish M., 2022. "Sustainable Agricultural Business Model: Case Studies of Innovative Indian Farmers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-16, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhe Zhang & Xin Wang & Ming Jia, 2021. "Echoes of CEO Entrepreneurial Orientation: How and When CEO Entrepreneurial Orientation Influences Dual CSR Activities," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 169(4), pages 609-629, April.
    2. Del Bosco, Barbara & Misani, Nicola, 2011. "Keeping the enemies close: The contribution of corporate social responsibility to reducing crime against the firm," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 87-98, March.
    3. Wafaa A. H. Ahmed & Bart L. MacCarthy, 2021. "Blockchain-Enabled Supply Chain Traceability in the Textile and Apparel Supply Chain: A Case Study of the Fiber Producer, Lenzing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-21, September.
    4. Uri Gal & Tina Blegind Jensen & Kalle Lyytinen, 2014. "Identity Orientation, Social Exchange, and Information Technology Use in Interorganizational Collaborations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1372-1390, October.
    5. Chi, Maomao & Wang, Weijun & Lu, Xinyuan & George, Joey F., 2018. "Antecedents and outcomes of collaborative innovation capabilities on the platform collaboration environment," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 273-283.
    6. Meike Nicole Schulte & Cody Morris Paris, 2024. "Working the system—An empirical analysis of the relationship between systems thinking, paradoxical cognition, and sustainability practices," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 4154-4171, September.
    7. Andreas Hein & Maximilian Schreieck & Tobias Riasanow & David Soto Setzke & Manuel Wiesche & Markus Böhm & Helmut Krcmar, 2020. "Digital platform ecosystems," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 30(1), pages 87-98, March.
    8. Montecchi, Matteo & Plangger, Kirk & West, Douglas C., 2021. "Supply chain transparency: A bibliometric review and research agenda," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 238(C).
    9. Yang, Ya & Chi, Huihui & Tang, Ou & Zhou, Wei & Fan, Tijun, 2019. "Cross perishable effect on optimal inventory preservation control," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(3), pages 998-1012.
    10. Ardito, Lorenzo & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio & Dezi, Luca & Castellano, Sylvaine, 2020. "The influence of inbound open innovation on ambidexterity performance: Does it pay to source knowledge from supply chain stakeholders?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 321-329.
    11. Gaukler, Gary & Ketzenberg, Michael & Salin, Victoria, 2017. "Establishing dynamic expiration dates for perishables: An application of rfid and sensor technology," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 617-632.
    12. Emilio Abad-Segura & Francisco Joaquín Cortés-García & Luis J. Belmonte-Ureña, 2019. "The Sustainable Approach to Corporate Social Responsibility: A Global Analysis and Future Trends," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-24, September.
    13. Tang, Christopher S. & Sodhi, ManMohan S. & Formentini, Marco, 2016. "An analysis of partially-guaranteed-price contracts between farmers and agri-food companies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 254(3), pages 1063-1073.
    14. Vahid Nooraie, S. & Parast, Mahour Mellat, 2016. "Mitigating supply chain disruptions through the assessment of trade-offs among risks, costs and investments in capabilities," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(P1), pages 8-21.
    15. Anne-Sophie Brillinger, 2018. "Mapping Business Model Risk Factors," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(05), pages 1-29, June.
    16. Mbalyohere, Charles & Lawton, Thomas C., 2018. "Engaging Stakeholders Through Corporate Political Activity: Insights From MNE Nonmarket Strategy in an Emerging African Market," Journal of International Management, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 369-385.
    17. Guo, Bin & Zhang, Jiale & Tan, Ziyan, 2024. "Firm digitalization as strategic response: An integrated model based on the awareness-motivation-capability (AMC) framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    18. Garrod, Brian & Fyall, Alan & Leask, Anna & Reid, Elaine, 2012. "Engaging residents as stakeholders of the visitor attraction," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 1159-1173.
    19. Samantha Miles, 2012. "Stakeholder: Essentially Contested or Just Confused?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 108(3), pages 285-298, July.
    20. Wallbach, Sören, 2020. "Assimilation and Diffusion of Multi-Sided Platforms in Dynamic B2B Networks: Inhibiting Factors and Their Consequences," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 123277, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:170:y:2021:i:c:s0040162521002894. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.