Frugal Innovation Hijacked: the Co-Optive Power of Co-Creation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Download date: 25. Sep. 2021 This version of the article is stored in the institutional repository DHanken Frugal innovation hijacked Annala Tesfaye, Linda; Fougère, Martin Published in: Journal of Business Ethics DOI: 10.1007/s10551-021-04883-4 Publication date: 2021 Document Version Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of Record Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Annala Tesfaye, L., & Fougère, M. (2021). Frugal innovation hijacked: The co-optive power of co-creation. Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04883-4 General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in Haris/DHanken are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from Haris/DHanken for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in DHanken ? Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will investigate your claim. Journal of Business Ethics https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04883-4 ORIGINAL PAPER Frugal Innovation Hijacked: The Co‑optive Power of Co‑creation Linda Annala Tesfaye1 · Martin Fougère1 Received: 11 July 2020 / Accepted: 24 June 2021 © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract In this paper we investigate how diferent discourses on frugal innovation are articulated, and how the dynamics between these diferent discourses have led to a certain dominant understanding of frugal innovation today. We analyse the dynamic interactions between three discourses on frugal innovation: (1) innovations for the poor, (2) grassroots innovations by the poor, and more recently (3) co-creating frugal innovations with the poor. We argue that this latter discourse is articulated as a hegemonic project as it is designed to accommodate demands from both business and poor communities. We draw on Laclau and Moufe’s concepts of ‘chain of diference’, ‘empty signifer’ and ‘foating signifer’ to explain the advent of the hegemonic discourse on co-creating innovations with the poor. We show how a foating signifer with radical potential, frugal innovation, has been hijacked and co-opted in a hegemonic project that has leveraged powerful ambiguous signifers, with co-creation acting as an empty signifer. To clarify what is problematic in this hegemonic intervention, we expose how contemporary frugal innovation discourse contributes to a project of governing and exploiting rather than helping the poor, in ways that beneft formal economic actors while further worsening global inequalities. Keywords Chain of diference · Co-creation · Empty signifer · Floating signifer · Frugal innovation · Sustainable innovation Introduction 20 times as prevalent, from being mentioned only 13 times in the Brundtland report’s approximately 400 pages, to 26 ‘Innovation’ continues to be a catch-word with positive asso- times in the 40-page Agenda 2030 document (UN Sustain- ciations, a signifer that is deployed in business and policy able Development, 2015). The UN Sustainable Development to imply good impacts on the economy and society (Godin, Goals (SDGs) have explicitly made innovations the key for 2016; Gripenberg et al., 2012; Perren & Sapsed, 2013). tackling sustainability challenges of numerous sorts: “with- Having become a defning feature of (Western) hegemonic out innovation there is no way to overcome the challenges modernity during the twentieth century (see Godin, 2016), of our time” (UN Secretary-General, 2017). the term today stands for that which provides the solu- Various types of innovation concepts have recently pro- tions for market needs and wants, as well as for a variety liferated in the arena of sustainable development: inclu- of societal ills and problems—thus, its absolute positiv- sive, reverse, grassroots, green, social innovations—just to ity is taken for granted (see e.g., Gripenberg et al., 2012; name a few—have created diverse sets of meanings under Liu & Pechenkina, 2019). While it was not a particularly the umbrella of sustainable innovation. This paper looks dominant concept in the Brundtland report (WCED, 1987), into the recent emergence of a new member in the family ‘innovation’ has now become highly prevalent within con- of sustainable innovations: frugal innovation. In its lit- temporary sustainable development discourse—apparently eral sense, the word frugal means “simple”, “plain”, or “using money or supplies in a very careful way” (Merriam Webster, 2019). Frugal innovations are typically framed as * Martin Fougère innovations driven by scarce resources and regional cir- [email protected] cumstances of poverty and exigency (Pansera & Martinez, Linda Annala Tesfaye 2017). Commonly credited for enhancing efciency of [email protected] resource utilization (Zeschky et al., 2014), frugal innova- 1 Hanken School of Economics, Arkadiankatu 22, P.O. tions generally refer to products, technologies and services Box 479, 00101 Helsinki, Finland Vol.:(0123456789)1 3 L. A. Tesfaye, M. Fougère developed in and for resource-constrained environments. For our analysis, we draw on Laclau and Moufe’s (1985, A typical example would be the Mitticool, a clay refrigera- p. 130) concept of ‘chains of diference’ to illustrate the tor that does not require electricity and costs less than 50 hegemonic formation of the governance-driven discourse USD (Wierenga, 2015). Mitticool was developed by a clay of co-creating innovations with the poor. A chain of difer- craftsman in a Gujarati village and it continues to be an ence smoothens the diferences between the elements of a economic success story of frugal innovations. discourse, preventing or preempting the expression of antag- The idea of frugal innovation is not new: develop- onism through for example practices of cooptation (How- ing “good-enough”, simple products for ‘the poor’ can arth, 2006), and thereby making it possible for diferences be traced back to the appropriate technology movement to be tolerated or even celebrated while largely preserving in the 1970s, initiated by Ernst Schumacher (Kaplin- or reinforcing the hegemonic order. We separate the dis- sky, 2011; Schumacher, 1973). Frugal innovations have courses and their historical developments in a sequence for gained heightened attention in their countries of origin presentational purpose, although we do acknowledge their (The Economist, 2014), and their growing global reputa- parallel and interactive character. By focusing on the unfold- tion has attracted powerful actors from the global North ing of the meanings surrounding frugal innovation, we want to get involved in the business as well (Hossain, 2016; to explore and trace the three discourses, which are reinforc- Pansera & Owen, 2017). Transnational corporations such ing, contesting and shaping meanings associated with the as Philips, Bosch, General Motors and 3 M have allegedly concept of frugal innovation. In framing our study through adopted frugal innovation practices in their subsidiaries discourse theoretical concepts such as ‘chain of diference’, and established collaborative research centers in India, ‘empty signifer’ and ‘foating signifer’, we contribute to Kenya, China and South Africa. the analysis of the foundational ideas and notions underpin- Why are innovations—and more specifcally frugal inno- ning frugal innovation, and we expose how contemporary vations—increasingly incorporated in sustainable develop- frugal innovation discourse serves a purpose in a hegemonic ment discourse? Whose interests are being served while project of governing the poor in ways conducive to ‘wealth promoting frugal innovations as win–win solutions to sus- creation’ and ‘economic development’ as per mainstream, tainable development challenges? Despite the increasing elite-driven defnitions. We engage with ‘theories’ of frugal popularity of frugal innovations, the academic literature on innovation and co-creation not to ‘improve’ or ‘contribute them remains scant and calls for more empirical and theo- to’ them but instead to problematize their impacts and power retical studies to answer such questions (Bhatti, 2012; Hos- efects. We believe there is an inherent value in problema- sain, 2018; Knorringa et al., 2016; Tiwari et al., 2016). In tizing and unpacking how ‘theories’ attached to hegemonic this paper we investigate how diferent discourses on fru- projects have undesirable efects when deployed as powerful gal innovation relate to the ‘sustainable innovation’ feld of discourses, and thus we do not pursue a ‘theoretical con- discursivity, and how the dynamics between these difer- tribution’ to these theories. Our approach here is ‘ethico- ent discourses have led to a certain dominant understand- political’ (see e.g., Bell & Willmott, 2020), and we could ing and implications of frugal innovation today. Through a describe its inherently critical stance towards contemporary genealogical problematizing review (Alvesson & Sandberg, neoliberal hegemony as follows: we take issue with the ‘one 2020; Quistgaard Steensen & Villadsen, 2020), we fnd that policy fts all’ neoliberal solution of making as many people discourses on frugal innovation can be traced back to dis- as possible ‘innovators’ and ‘entrepreneurs’ while prioritiz-