Author:
Verwaal Ernst,Klein Martin,La Falce Jefferson
Abstract
AbstractAlmost two decades ago, Prahalad and Hammond [Harv Bus Rev, 80(9):48–59, 2002] introduced the base/bottom of the pyramid (BOP) approach to profitably serving the poor with business models adapted from developed markets while alleviating poverty. In response to disappointing results and ethical criticism, the BOP approach evolved from a just-for-profit approach with a passive role of the poor to an inclusive development approach that integrates the principles of the triple bottom line. A recent review of the BOP literature [Dembek et al., J Bus Ethics 165(3):365–382, 2020], however, reveals a lack of empirical evidence to support the sustainable BOP approach. In this paper, we specify the assumptions underlying the sustainable BOP approach and test them using structural equation modeling with clustered robust standard errors on a unique dataset of 212 firms. Our findings show that BOP business model involvement and adaptive capacity are significant drivers of the triple bottom line at the BOP; however, business model adaptive capacity does not guarantee an ecologically sustainable performance at the BOP. We find that there is a need for further extension of the ethical foundations of the sustainable BOP approach.
Funder
Erasmus Research Institute of Management
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Law,Economics and Econometrics,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),General Business, Management and Accounting,Business and International Management
Reference97 articles.
1. Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10(1), 43–68.
2. Alexius, S., & Furusten, S. (2020). Enabling sustainable transformation: Hybrid organizations in early phases of path generation. Journal of Business Ethics, 165(3), 547–563.
3. Anderson, J., & Markides, C. (2007). Strategic innovation at the base of the pyramid. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(1), 83–88.
4. Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.
5. Arnold, D. G., & Williams, L. H. (2012). The paradox at the base of the pyramid: Environmental sustainability and market-based poverty alleviation. International Journal of Technology Management, 60(1–2), 44–59.
Cited by
8 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献