Next Article in Journal
Hyperspectral Classification of Hazardous Materials Based on Deep Learning
Previous Article in Journal
Socioeconomic Inequality and Associated Factors Affecting Health Care Utilization among the Elderly: Evidence from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 9
10.3390/su15097658
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Applying Enterprises’ Frugal Innovation in Ecologically Vulnerable Areas: A Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis of the Influence Paths

by
Shudan Zhang
1,
Rina Su
2,
Yunhui Zhao
2,*,
Jing Liu
2 and
Chenlu Li
3
1
School of Accounting, Inner Mongolia University of Finance and Economics, Hohhot 010051, China
2
School of Business Administration, Inner Mongolia University of Finance and Economics, Hohhot 010051, China
3
College of International Education, Dalian Jiaotong University, Dalian 116028, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(9), 7658; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097658
Submission received: 9 March 2023 / Revised: 3 May 2023 / Accepted: 4 May 2023 / Published: 6 May 2023
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Frugal innovation has become popular in ecologically vulnerable areas in the past decade, as it was initiated under a resource-constrained innovation paradigm. However, there has been limited research on its influence factors and fundamental operating mechanisms in such areas. This paper aims to address this gap by using qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to analyze unique datasets from three ecologically vulnerable areas in China. Based on the theory of planned behavior, the study identifies three key influence factors in frugal innovation: behavioral attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavior control. The relationships among these factors and pathways are also described. The study’s findings suggest: (1) frugal innovation is an integrated product of multiple influence factors and pathways, where the same goal can be achieved through different pathways; (2) Three pathways for conducting high-level frugal innovation are identified: attitude-oriented, norm-oriented, and attitude-norm-oriented pathways. Behavioral attitudes and subjective norms are the two dominant factors that influence enterprises to carry out frugal innovation. (3) Perceived behavior control does not play a leading role in frugal innovation as the resource-constrained environment in ecologically vulnerable areas and the characteristics of enterprises heavily influence frugal innovation. (4) The lack of behavioral attitudes and subjective norms are the main causes leading to the low-level frugal innovation of enterprises. In conclusion, this study systematically investigates the different influence factors and pathways of frugal innovation in ecologically vulnerable areas. The findings enrich the frugal theory and promote the effective development strategy of innovation for enterprises in such areas.

1. Introduction

Innovation is undoubtedly an inexhaustible drive of economic development, and brings enormous benefits of economic growth, which in turn not only benefits all people but also guarantees equality of opportunity and participation [1]. While innovation continues to increase the wealth and well-being of society, the flaws and limitations of traditional innovations are often unavoidable due to constraints from natural resources and social environments [2]. For example, poverty, disease, environmental crisis, and other social problems have been troubling humans, and, in some regions, have a tendency to aggravate. Most traditional innovations assume sufficient resources, with the premise of pursuing profit and functional surplus, emphasizing the more the better [3]. With increasing constraints of resource and environmental, the innovation paradigm needs to be shifted and the starting point of innovation should be to develop products and services that are sustainable and affordable, rather than simply seeking premium benefits and unnecessary functional satisfaction. Under the new innovation paradigm, India was the first country to apply frugal innovation, a radical and successful reversal of the traditional innovation paradigm. Since then, frugal innovation has become a new innovation paradigm of “seeking more with less, seeking better with less” [4], which aims at the middle- and low-level consumers of Bottom of Pyramid (BOP), promoting sustainable and green development [5]. As a new innovation paradigm, frugal innovation possesses great potential to balance innovation, development, and poverty by solving complex social problems and creating social value.
The factors of environment, resources, technology, market, product affordability, and local government regulations frequently influence the development of frugal innovation [6,7,8,9], especially in ecologically vulnerable areas. Ecologically vulnerable areas are typically located in two or more types of ecological areas, and their border regions often experience poor ecological environment stability, susceptibility to external interference, and development in unfavorable directions [10,11]. Due to the influence of geographical structure and climate conditions, as well as human factors, ecologically vulnerable areas generally face problems such as resource scarcity, insufficient infrastructure, low technological level, relatively backward economic development, and a concentration of impoverished populations, resulting in unsustainable development [12,13]. How to achieve sustainable development has become challenging for the survival and development of ecologically vulnerable areas. Frugal innovation simultaneously addresses economic and environmental efficiency [14], providing new directions to address these issues.
As the pillar of regional economic development, transforming the adverse factors in ecologically vulnerable areas into driving forces and opportunities for sustainable economic and social development has become a top priority for regional economic growth. Frugal innovation, which changes the supporting logic behind traditional innovation paradigms, could drive the sustainable development of ecologically vulnerable areas and play a leading role in improving human well-being. The theory of planned behavior, as a behavioral intention model, has demonstrated a high explanatory power for human behavior: behavioral attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control can account for 27% of the behavioral variance and 39% of the behavioral intention variance [15]. Behavior attitudes towards resource conservation and environmental protection, subjective norms, and perceived behavior control to frugal innovation are all crucial factors for enterprises to consider for high-level frugal innovation [16]. These factors are not independent, and they will generate different combinations through dynamic interactions to influence frugal innovation.
This paper utilizes the theory of planned behavior and a fuzzy-set approach (fsQCA) to investigate frugal innovation among enterprises in ecologically vulnerable areas. The roles of behavioral attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavior control played on frugal innovation are investigated, and the driving paths of enterprises in ecologically vulnerable areas are identified. The following three questions are answered: (1) Which condition configuration drives the enterprise frugal innovation in “reaching the same goal by different pathways”? (2) Which conditions are more important for enterprises to carry out frugal innovation? (3) How to encourage enterprises to carry out frugal innovation? This study constructs a dynamic model of frugal innovation to study the influence mechanisms and pathways of behavior attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavior control, particularly for the frugal innovation of enterprises in ecologically vulnerable areas. The purpose is to provide a theoretical reference for promoting the development of frugal innovation of enterprises in ecologically vulnerable areas.

2. Literature Review and Model Construction

2.1. Literature Review

Frugal innovation emphasizes value for money, obtaining a good-enough product at a lower cost to meet the local and BOP consumer needs [6,17,18]. It is a new innovation paradigm that focuses “doing more with less”, reducing resource consumption, and creating more value [4]. In order to improve resource efficiency and reduce environmental pollution and ecological damage, enterprises must seek appropriate innovation paradigm and change the traditional innovation mode of high-input, high-consumption, and high-function products, striving for low-cost and low-consumption to obtain the same function of products and innovative breakthroughs while protecting the ecosystem [9,19]. In contrast to traditional innovation models that are resource-based, expensive, and enjoyed by the wealthy, frugal innovation is a bottom-up, homegrown approach to innovation which relies on the ingenuity of limited resources to meet consumer needs [20,21]. The purpose of frugal innovation is to meet emerging market needs among BOP consumers. Enterprises need to understand the characteristics of consumers according to the specific market environment and follow the principles of low cost and high quality, building unique innovation capability to provide high quality products or services for BOP community [7].
The restrictions of limited resources and cost-saving triggered the original intention of frugal innovation. Frugal innovation has led to many noticeable benefits to society, for example, costs reduction by relying on local R&D centers to adapt products to local needs, materials or tools repurposed for completely different uses by making changes to existing technologies, and the simplification of redundant functions on existing products through the application of modern, cheap, and useful technology to solve “old problems” in more effective ways [22]. With the unique capability of using less resources to obtain greater profits, frugal innovation has become an ideal way to solve the problem with limited resources and minimum development effort. The advantage of frugal innovation is “more with less” [23], and it has been proved to be better and more inclusive with a high degree of flexibility and a skillful use of existing resources and technologies. This new paradigm for innovation has quickly gained attraction in emerging markets with its favorable characteristics in ecologically vulnerable areas, such as being strong, portable, simple, high-tech, being capable of large-scale production, and being environmentally sustainable [24].

2.2. Model Construction

As a new innovation paradigm, the concept and the development of frugal innovation have been extensively studied. These days, the focus has started to switch to the influential factors in frugal innovation and the different pathways of frugal innovation are identified from the perspective of enterprise [16]. More work is needed to clarify the following key questions: (1) Although the existing research has provided a rich explanation for the enterprise’s frugal innovation, full explanations for the different pathways of frugal innovation are still lacking. (2) The factors that affect the frugal innovation of enterprises are interdependent, and the unified symmetric relationship needs to study systematically independent variables and dependent variables. (3) The relationship between the configuration of condition variables and the outcomes of frugal innovation is still uncertain. A variety of outcomes have been observed from those enterprises that have used frugal innovation, i.e., certain configurations of condition variables lead to the appearance of outcome variables, some other configuration of condition variables lead to the disappearance of outcome variables, and the conditions that lead to the same result are often not the same. In view of the above limitations, the paper attempts to introduce the fsQCA method to explore the dynamic interactions of enterprise behavior attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavior control in frugal innovation, revealing the interactive relationship between different influencing factors and shedding light on the “black box” of the frugal innovation from the perspective of enterprise.
(1)
Behavior Attitude
Behavior attitude is an individual’s evaluation of their own behavior. An individual’s attitude to any behavior is determined by their strong belief concerning behavior, which will lead to a particular result and their evaluation of that result [25]. Behavior attitude is the main influencing factor of individual behavior and is also the main influencing factor of enterprise behavior [26,27,28]. Notably, it is the decisive factor in the development of small- and medium-sized enterprises and the reduction of environmental impacts [29]. Behavioral attitude is divided into cognitive and affective dimensions, and individuals think about the impact on themselves and others when they are making decisions [26,30].
Based on French and Park’s sub-dimensions of behavior attitude, this study divides behavior attitude into two dimensions: value attitude and environmental attitude. They are combined with the characteristics of enterprises in ecologically vulnerable areas to analyze whether the enterprise is willing to carry out frugal innovation. Value attitude refers to the economic value that frugal innovation brings to enterprises and consumers. It is believed that frugal innovation can reduce costs, increase market share, and obtain higher profits, and at the same time can improve the life quality of consumers to achieve inclusive development. Environmental attitudes refer to frugal innovation as an inclusive innovation model, which will not only bring economic value to enterprises and consumers but can also realize social value, reduce the consumption of resources, and can improve the utilization of resources to achieve ecological value. Economic value is the premise of the survival and development of enterprises. Enterprises in ecologically vulnerable areas are often faced with a lack of variety of resources which demand resource-saving innovation paradigms. While achieving the economic value, we should also consider the ecological fragility, which has the characteristics of high sensitivity, high instability, low anti-interference, etc. The development of enterprises should be based on the premise of protecting the ecological environment and reducing the consumption of resources. Therefore, enterprises should carry out innovative behaviors in favor of environmental protection and play the role of a regional ecological barrier. To some extent, environmental values are even more important than economic values from a long-term point of view.
(2)
Subjective Norms
Subjective norms reflect a person’s crowd psychology, that is, an individual’s perception of what the majority of people think about what they are doing. Individual behavior is influenced by the opinions of important people. Subjective norms indicate the influence of external factors on behavior, and individuals tend to perform behaviors that bring favorable results for themselves and conform to the expectations of others. Subjective norms are determined by an individual’s perception of what an influential person thinks he should or should not do and to what extent he will follow the opinion of an influential person. Cialdini distinguished subjective norms into prescriptive norms and descriptive norms and found that descriptive norms influence behavioral intentions independently of behavioral attitudes [31,32]. Through discourses analysis, Qu X.Y. found that subjective norms can be further refined into motivational norms, prescriptive norms, and imitative norms [16]. As a result of subjective norms, the behavior and concept of stakeholders will affect the enterprise’s decision-making process, and in turn affect the frugal innovation of enterprises. For example, consumption capacity, consumption habits, and policy-oriented government will promote or inhibit the enterprise’s frugal innovation.
This paper divides subjective norms into two secondary conditions: prescriptive norms and descriptive norms. The prescriptive norms come from the internal pressure of the enterprise, the government supervision departments, the industry norms, and so on. In order to improve environmental problems, government regulatory departments will formulate environmental regulatory standards for enterprises and conduct supervision, which has a certain deterrent effect on the innovative behavior of enterprises. Failure to implement eco-friendly innovation strategies will result in severe penalties. To avoid punishment, the enterprise will establish corresponding rules and regulations to regulate innovative behavior. These measures and pressure will be transformed into the driving force of frugal innovation, which could promote or limit the enterprise to carry out frugal innovation. Descriptive norms focus on the impact of the attitudes of key stakeholders, especially competitors and consumers. On the one hand, the behavior of the competitors will affect the enterprise’s frugal innovation. When the competitors raise the social responsibility consciousness, they all adopt frugal innovation, reduce the cost, and their innovative products are widely accepted by the market. To some extent, this will play an exemplary role in promoting other enterprises to carry out frugal innovation. At the same time, with the enhancement of consumers’ environmental awareness and the limited purchasing power of most consumers, more easy-to-use, low-cost, and environmentally friendly products will come out in the market, and these also have an important impact on the innovation behavior of enterprises. The enterprises in ecologically vulnerable areas are obviously more susceptible to the impact of successful enterprises and innovative models of enterprises in developed regions owing to their geographical, market, economic, and other development environments. Those exemplary roles, together with policies and regulations, will also guide enterprises in ecologically vulnerable areas to innovative development.
(3)
Perceived Behavioral Control
Perceived behavioral control refers to the degree to which an individual perceives the difficulty of performing a certain behavior. It reflects an individual’s perception of factors that promote or hinder the implementation of behavior [33]. In many cases, the performance of an action is influenced by multiple factors, such as skill, ability, time, money, cost, cooperation with others, etc. [34]. The perceived behavioral control has an important effect on an individual’s behavioral intention. It was pointed out that perceived behavioral control explains 13% of purchase intention, which is higher than the effect of behavioral attitudes and subjective norms on purchase intention [35]. There is a significant relationship between perceived behavioral control and enterprise behavior [36], which can be divided into two sub-dimensions: self-efficacy and environmental controllability [16,37,38]. Self-efficacy emphasizes the individual’s subjective cognition of one person’s own ability when he/she carries out a certain behavior, and to a certain extent, it reflects the self-confidence of the individual and the belief of internal control. Environmental controllability refers to the control ability of individual to a specific behavior, which reflects the belief of individual external control.
This study explores the effect of perceived behavioral control on the frugal innovation of enterprises in ecologically vulnerable areas from two dimensions of perceived internal control and perceived external control. Perceived internal control is embodied in whether enterprises can carry out frugal innovation to obtain competitive advantage and achieve sustainable development with their existing learning and management ability. Perceived external control is embodied in whether the enterprise can obtain external resources such as talents, capital, partners, and so on.
In conclusion, based on the theory of planned behavior, set theory, and configuration theory, the study constructs a framework for analyzing the frugal innovation of enterprises in ecologically vulnerable areas. Six secondary conditions were analyzed at three different levels: behavioral attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. The different combinations of the six secondary conditions promote the different levels of the enterprises’ frugal innovation (Figure 1). Using the qualitative comparative analysis method, the paper discusses the matching mode of multi-factors, and the results will produce different configurations with equivalence, which will help enterprises in ecologically vulnerable areas to implement frugal innovation more efficiently.

3. Research Methods and Variable Sets

3.1. Research Methods

Three main methods were available to study the matching of factors: the first method is to construct a new index, the second method is to analyze the moderating effect or interaction effect of the model, and the third method is to adopt the method of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). QCA is a new research method in the field of social science, which goes beyond qualitative and quantitative, and synthesizes the advantages of the two main research methods to deal with the cause-and-effect complexity in social phenomena. According to the types of variables, it can be divided into three main analysis techniques: clear set analysis (csQCA), multiple value analysis (mvQCA), and fuzzy set analysis (fsQCA). By evaluating the consistency and coverage, the qualitative and quantitative methods for the combination of conditions with high full consistency were obtained. The fsQCA method has advantages in antecedent complexity and causal asymmetry. The fsQCA method was chosen for two reasons. Firstly, mainstream quantitative analysis focuses on “net effects” and a lack of analysis of “portfolio” issues, whereas, in reality, many outcomes are caused by multiple concurrent and complex antecedents. Secondly, in practice, where one condition works depending on the others, there is no uniform symmetry between independent and dependent variables [39], and the QCA approach emphasizes causal asymmetry according with management practice. In this study, the fsQCA method analyzes the antecedent configuration of enterprise’s frugal innovation in ecologically vulnerable areas. The following three aspects are considered. (1) The frugal innovation is a problem with complex antecedent conditions. The traditional regression analysis method emphasizes “net effect”, and it is difficult to explain the multiple concurrent causality. (2) The path leading to the frugal innovation of enterprises is not unique, the combination of different antecedents may lead to the same result, and the traditional regression method cannot explain the effect of “the same destination”. (3) There is asymmetry in the enterprise’s frugal innovation. For example, descriptive norms can explain the high-level frugal innovation of enterprises, and traditional statistical methods believe that enterprises without the impact of descriptive norms will lead to low-level frugal innovation. In fact, even without the exemplary role of descriptive norms, the administrative department/agency issued the relevant documents, and prescriptive norms will also promote enterprises to carry out frugal innovation.

3.2. Variable Sets

(1)
Data Collection
In this study, the enterprises in the ecologically vulnerable areas were selected as the research objects, and in three regions of Inner Mongolia, Ningxia, and Qinghai, P.R. China. Questionnaire surveys were used to collect the relevant data of the enterprises’ frugal innovation. Overall, 300 questionnaires were distributed, 216 questionnaires were collected, the response rate was 72%, there were 154 valid questionnaires, and the effective rate was 71.2%. According to the QCA’s requirement for the number of study samples, the number of enterprises should be at least 27, the 128 samples theoretically cover all the possible types of enterprises, which can guarantee the internal validity of the results. This article explored the impact of the combination of six secondary conditions on frugal innovation. In order to avoid or reduce the common method deviation caused by the same data source, the questionnaire is completed anonymously, and the time and space are separated, and the items are clear and concise.
(2)
Variable measurement
As shown in Table 1, this study explores the configuration effects of six secondary conditions: value attitude, environment attitude, prescriptive norm, descriptive norm, perceived internal control, and perceived external control. These are the driving factors of enterprises’ frugal innovation in ecologically vulnerable areas. The paper uses the maturity scale, and the scale has been modified and improved. Variables were measured on all scales using the Likert seven-point scale, ranging from complete disagreement to full agreement on seven scales, with corresponding scores ranging from 1 to 7, with higher scores representing a higher degree of agreement.
(3)
Variable Sets and Calibration
Before using the fsQCA method, the variables must be converted into sets and calibrated. Each condition and result are considered as an independent set, and each sample has an affiliation score in these sets. The process of assigning an ensemble affiliation score to the sample is calibration. According to published research, there are three basic methods for calibrating the sampled ensemble affiliation value. (1) The thresholds are from pre-set scale anchor points [40]. The main representatives are Likert scales, which provide these qualitative anchor points (e.g., strongly agree, neither agree nor disagree, and strongly disagree) that can be directly conceptualized for calibration. (2) The calibration method is based on the sample’s maximum, median, and minimum values [41]. (3) The direct method is the dominant approach in most of the literature. Calibration is performed at the percentile of the sample data [42,43]. For example, Fiss calibrated the variable data with tracing points using quartiles [41]. In addition, different scholars must determine the anchor points according to the actual distribution of the sample data [44]. Since the data in this study are questionnaire data, it is more suitable to use the first method for calibration. To calibrate variables into sets, three critical values should be set according to theory and practice—full in, full out, and crossover point—and the membership degree of the transformed set was between 0–1. Referring to the studies of Fiss [41], Du. Y.Z. [45], and Wu, Q. [46], this paper obtains the relevant data through Likert’s 7-pointscale and adopts the direct calibration method to calibrate the antecedent condition, resulting in the membership scores of fuzzy sets. The calibration standard for crossover point is the mean, and the calibration criterion of full in of value attitude, environmental attitude, prescriptive norms, descriptive norms, perceived internal control, perceived external control, and frugal innovation is “mean plus one standard deviation”. The calibration criterion of full out is “mean minus one standard deviation”. The calibration of antecedent and outcome variables is shown in Table 2.

4. Data Analysis and Empirical Results

4.1. Reliability and Validity Analysis

From the reliability and validity analysis in Table 3, the Cronbach’s coefficient and combined reliability (CR) of value attitude (VA), environment attitude (EA), prescriptive norms (PN), descriptive norm (DN), perceived internal control (PIC), perceived external control (PEC), and frugal innovation (FI) are greater than 0.7, indicating that the questionnaire was reliable. The factor analysis method was used to test the construct validity. The KMO was more than 0.7, the cumulative variance contribution rate was at least 58.4%, and the factor load of each item was greater than 0.6, with an average extraction variance (Ave) above 0.5. The results suggest that the questionnaire had satisfactory structure validity.

4.2. Necessity Conditions Analysis

The necessity of each antecedent condition needs to be tested before conducting configuration analysis. The study tests whether each variable constitutes the necessary condition for frugal innovation and analyzes the sufficient condition of each variable which cannot be taken as the necessary condition separately. The “Bourg algebra minimization” was used to determine the most explanatory conditional configuration for the case. In QCA, when a result occurs, a condition persists, and that condition becomes a necessary condition for the result [44]. Consistency is an important criterion for measuring the necessary condition, which is considered a necessary condition for the outcome when the consistency level exceeds 0.9 [44]. Table 4 shows the necessary condition testing results of high-level or low-level frugal innovation of enterprises in ecologically vulnerable areas by fsQCA 3.0 software. As shown in Table 4, the consistency of all individual antecedent conditions does not exceed 0.9. Therefore, there is no necessary condition of high-level or low-level frugal innovation.

4.3. Sufficient Analysis of Conditional Configuration

Configuration analysis aims to identify the sufficient conditions that lead to different outcomes under various circumstances. Using set theory, the study discusses whether the set resulting from the configuration under multiple conditions is a subset of the outcome set. Consistency is also used to measure the sufficient of configuration, and the acceptable minimum standards and calculation methods are different from the analysis of necessary conditions. Schneider et al. pointed out that the consistency level of sufficient should be at least 0.75 [47]. According to the specific research situation, different consistency thresholds have been adopted in previous studies, such as 0.76 and 0.8, etc. [47,48]. The frequency threshold is determined according to the sample size [47]. For small and medium-sized samples, the frequency threshold is 1 [49]. For large samples, the frequency threshold is greater than 1. In the specific study, we also considered the distribution of cases in the truth table and the researcher’s familiarity with the observed cases. The paper does not directly set the consistency threshold and frequency threshold, but determines the reasonable threshold after comprehensively considering the best practices of the following four QCA methods: (1) The truth table rows (configuration) with results of 0 and 1 should be covered and roughly balanced [39]. (2) The frequency threshold includes at least 75% of observation cases [45]. (3) To reduce potential conflicting configurations, the minimum value of PRI (Proportional Reduction in Consistency) consistency is not less than 0.75. (4) Avoid the possible simultaneous subset relations, that is, a truth table row (configuration) is the sufficient configuration of both high-intention and low-intention to frugal innovation [47]. According to the above four best practice standards, the consistency threshold of the study is 0.80 and the frequency threshold is 1.
When analyzing the data using fsQCA 3.0, it was found that there were five paths for the configuration of high-level frugal innovation and two paths for low-level frugal innovation, as shown in Table 5. The consistency level of the high-level and low-level frugal innovation, whether a single configuration or an overall solution, was higher than the minimum standard of 0.75. The consistency of the high-level frugal innovation overall solution is 0.785, with a coverage rate of 0.363, and the consistency of the low-level frugal innovation overall solution was 0.777, with a coverage rate of 0.194. These results are consistent with previous QCA studies in the field of organization and management [49]. According to the simplified solution and the intermediate solution, value attitude (VA), environmental attitude (EA), descriptive norm (DN), and perceived internal control (PIC) are the core conditions, and prescriptive norm (PN) and perceived external control (PEC) are the marginal conditions. The first five configurations in Table 5 represent the sufficient condition combinations for high-level frugal innovation, while the last two configurations represent the sufficient condition combinations for low-level frugal innovation.
In high-level configuration 1, value attitude plays a crucial role, and in configuration 2 and configuration 3, environmental attitude plays a crucial role, that is, the enterprise’s behavior attitude determines the enterprise’s adoption of frugal innovation. Therefore, these three configuration paths are called “Attitude-oriented”. In configuration 4, descriptive norms play a key role, while perceived external control plays a supporting role. Therefore, this configuration is called “Norm-oriented”, that is, subjective norms determine the frugal innovation of enterprises. In configuration 5, value attitudes, environmental attitudes and descriptive norms play a central role in the frugal innovation of enterprises, and prescriptive norms are marginal conditions. Therefore, this path is called “Attitude-Norm-oriented”. Further details are described below.
(1)
Attitude-oriented
In high-level frugal innovation, there are three types of attitude-oriented configurations. Configuration 1 is the value attitude-oriented type, while configuration 2 and configuration 3 are the environment attitude-oriented types. Configuration 1 (H1): VA x~DN x~PNx~PICx~PEC indicates that if the enterprise believes that frugal innovation can improve its business values, such as economic benefits, market share, etc., regardless of subjective norms and internal and external perceived behavior control, it will have a positive view of the economic value of frugal innovation and be willing to carry out frugal innovation. It is important to note that the frugal innovation driven by configuration 1 mainly focuses on the value of enterprises and consumers. For example, at the initial stage of some enterprises’ entrepreneurship, “survival” is the main goal of enterprises at this stage. Therefore, as long as the products have the market can bring economic value to enterprises, and enterprises can survive, then enterprises are willing to implement frugal innovations. Configuration 2 (H2): ~VAxEAx~DNx~PICx~PEC indicates that an enterprise will adopt frugal innovation as long as it believes that the frugal innovation can bring environmental value, even if it lacks information concerning economic value. In this case, there may be government requirements, and even if the enterprise does not perceive its external control ability of external talents, funds, partners, and its own internal control ability. As long as enterprises have a positive evaluation of the environmental value from frugal innovation, they will be highly interested in high-level frugal innovation. Configuration 3 (H3): ~VAxEA x~PNx~PICx~PEC shows that enterprises are willing to adopt frugal innovation, as long as they believe it can improve environmental value, even without government regulations and the role of perceived internal and external control capabilities. H2 and H3 belong to socially responsible enterprises. These enterprises mainly pursue environmental values and focus on the improvement of the overall interests of society. They may possibly carry out frugal innovation under the influence of relevant systems and regulations of enterprises, industries, and government regulatory departments/agencies, or they may be influenced by other important stakeholders.
Proposition 1.
Enterprises with high-level frugal innovation in ecologically vulnerable areas are enterprises with positive behavior attitude towards the frugal innovation. This means that a favorable perception of the economic and environmental value generated by frugal innovation is likely to drive high-level frugal innovation in these enterprises.
(2)
Norm-oriented
Configuration 4 (H4): ~VAx~EAxDNx~PNx~PICxPEC shows that enterprises can be influenced by the behavior of managers or other enterprises to adopt frugal innovation, even in the absence of information on the economic value and environmental value it can create. The norm-oriented frugal innovation path shows that descriptive norms have a significant impact on enterprise behavior, which is influenced by the collectivist culture of China. According to group theory, individuals’ behavioral intentions are more affected by groups. Research shows that people in a collectivist society are more affected by the influence of others and take certain actions [48]. Therefore, if the frugal innovation products on the market have achieved good results or the relevant enterprises have achieved good results through frugal innovation, even if the enterprises have not formed a good behavior attitude towards frugal innovation for the time being, the demonstration effect of these enterprises or the market will also promote their adoption of frugal innovation. In order to improve the vulnerable ecological environment, the government will also adopt relevant incentive policies to support enterprises to carry out frugal innovation that are conducive to environmental value. Therefore, even if enterprises do not immediately perceive the economic value and environmental value of frugal innovation, they are willing to carry out high-level frugal innovation in order to obtain the support of the government in relevant aspects. Moreover, if an enterprise perceives that it can obtain the relevant external capabilities of frugal innovation, it also enhances its level to carry out frugal innovation.
Proposition 2.
The collectivist cultural in China makes Chinese enterprises more susceptible to being influenced by demonstration. In ecologically vulnerable areas, the economic, market, cultural, and other development environments that enterprises face mean that descriptive norms will have a significant impact on the level of frugal innovation, with the perceived external control ability playing a supporting role. Descriptive norms will promote the adoption of high-level frugal innovation by enterprises.
(3)
Attitude-norm-oriented
Configuration 5 (H5): VAxEAxDNxPNx~PICx~PEC shows that enterprises have a positive evaluation to frugal innovation, that is, enterprises believe that frugal innovation can bring economic value to enterprises while also bringing environmental value. Additionally, there is the influence of stakeholders and the directive documents of relevant government agencies, even if they do not perceive the internal learning and management capabilities of enterprises, as well as the acquisition of external talents, funds, and partners. Enterprises are also willing to carry out the high-level frugal innovation. This driving path shows the important influence of subjective norms on individual decision-making in collectivist countries such as China, whether it is the policy directives of the administrative and regulatory authorities or the exemplary role of other important influencers, plus the influence of behavioral attitudes. These antecedents jointly drive the high-level frugal innovation of enterprises.
Proposition 3.
To enhance frugal innovation in enterprises, it is necessary to increase their awareness and knowledge of frugal innovation and cultivate a positive attitude towards it. Additionally, enterprises should set an example and enhance the impact of prescriptive norms within their organization, industry, and regulatory bodies.
(4)
Configuration Analysis of Low-level Frugal Innovation
The pathways of low-level frugal innovation support the three propositions mentioned earlier. If an enterprise does not form a positive behavioral attitude towards frugal innovation, or it believes that frugal innovation cannot bring economic value and environmental value to the enterprise, there is no demonstration effect, relevant rules, or regulations. Even if some external resources can be obtained, the level to carry out frugal innovation is low. From the configuration analysis in Table 5, whether it is the configuration path of high-level frugal innovation or the configuration path of low-level, the two secondary conditions’ effect of perceived behavior control, perceived internal control, and perceived external control are not obvious, mainly due to the following reasons. (1) Because the samples selected in this study are enterprises in ecologically vulnerable areas, they were affected by historical and geographical reasons and had poor economic, resource, environmental, and other development conditions. From the internal perspective, enterprises’ learning and management capabilities are relatively weak. From an external perspective, the adverse development conditions in ecologically vulnerable areas lead to enterprises’ weak ability to absorb external funds, talents, and partners. The restrictions of these internal and external factors make the perceived behavior control ability of enterprises relatively weak. (2) Most enterprises in ecologically vulnerable areas have weak innovation ability due to lack of funds and talents, outdated concepts, backward management, and other weak conditions. This weakens enterprises’ perceived behavior control ability. (3) Frugal innovation is an emerging innovation paradigm. Most enterprises have insufficient knowledge of it and are affected by the relatively weak innovation ability of enterprises in ecologically vulnerable areas. From a subjective perspective, behavioral attitudes and subjective norms are important factors that influence enterprises in ecologically vulnerable areas to carry out frugal innovation. Perceived behavior control, as an element of the ability to implement a certain behavior, will have a higher level to implement a certain behavior if it can be improved.
Proposition 4.
To encourage frugal innovation in enterprises operating in ecologically vulnerable areas, it is essential for them to gain a better understanding of frugal innovation and its distinction from traditional innovation. Additionally, enhancing their perceived behavior control will help improve their capacity to carry out frugal innovation.

4.4. Robustness Analysis

The number of configurations and their results may be influenced by varying calibration standards and consistency levels. Therefore, it is important to analyze the robustness of result by adjusting the threshold and changing the consistency level [41]. If the configuration subsets remain clear and consistent despite changes in calibration threshold or consistency level, then the result is considered robust; otherwise, they are not. In this paper, the threshold is reduced from 0.8 to 0.78, and the analysis results are shown in Table 6. Compared with Table 5, the consistency of the overall solution in Table 6 increased from 0.785 to 0.801, and the coverage of the overall solution changed slightly, from 0.363 to 0.348. Five different configuration paths were also formed, and their respective consistency were higher than the acceptable minimum level. The formation conditions of the five configurations for high-level frugal innovation in Table 5 and Table 6 are shown very similarly, indicating that the results are robust.

5. Conclusions and Implications

5.1. Research Conclusions

Using the fsQCA method, this paper effectively identified five paths that lead to the high-level frugal innovation of enterprises in ecologically vulnerable areas. From the subjective perspective of enterprises, it shows that enterprises’ frugal innovation may progress in multiple parallel paths and can reach “the same goal by different paths”. According to the core conditions and the explanation logic behind the five paths, this study investigated the driving mechanism of the three leading types of frugal innovation: attitude-oriented, norm-oriented, and attitude-norm-oriented. Each has their own driving mechanisms: (1) the attitude-oriented frugal innovation driving mechanism includes three driving paths. Those paths are determined by the perception of enterprises to the economic value and environmental value of frugal innovation, which promotes enterprises to carry out frugal innovation. (2) The norm-oriented frugal innovation driving mechanism is the linkage match between the exemplary role of society to frugal innovation. (3) Attitude-norm-oriented frugal innovation driving mechanism is combination of the influence of behavioral attitude and the influence of subjective norms, so this type is more likely to stimulate the high-level frugal innovation of enterprises. The fundamental function of enterprises is to create customer value [50]. In order to do so in ecologically vulnerable areas, it is necessary to meet the needs of most middle- and low-level consumers. Therefore, local enterprises need to take leads and focus on frugal innovation.

5.2. Contribution in Terms of Theoretical Analysis

Two aspects of theoretical contributions to frugal innovation in ecologically vulnerable areas are summarized below.
(1) The study uses the three key antecedents of the planned behavior theory to analyze the driving path of the frugal innovation of enterprises in ecologically vulnerable areas. The finding enriches the frugal innovation theory. By analyzing the influencing factors of frugal innovation from an objective perspective, this research shows macro- and micro-conditions that are the driving forces of frugal innovation, such as resource scarcity, environmental pollution, technological level, consumer purchasing power, institutional deficiencies, etc. [7,9]. The paper also analyzes the collaborative linkage mechanism of behavior attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavior control of the frugal innovation, and finds five paths that affect high-level frugal innovation, which helps promote enterprises in ecologically vulnerable areas to carry out frugal innovation.
(2) This study used the QCA method to identify causal asymmetry in the frugal innovation driving mechanism. The “causal asymmetry” means that the path leading to high-level frugal innovation is not the opposite of the path, leading to low-level frugal innovation. In other words, the factors that produce low-level frugal innovation cannot be directly derived from the opposite of the factors that produce high-level frugal innovation. This proves that the QCA method breaks the causal symmetry assumption in linear regression [51], leading to a deeper understanding of frugal innovation. It is revealed that frugal innovation may lead to different outcomes due to the variations and interdependence among frugal innovation factors and paths experienced by those enterprises.

5.3. Management Implications

The findings in this work may also guide management improvement for enterprise in ecologically vulnerable areas.
(1) Improve enterprises’ awareness of frugal innovation and further influence enterprises to form positive attitudes to frugal innovation. As the key influencing factor of the behavior intention, behavior attitude guides the occurrence of behavior. There is no exception for enterprises regarding this. Enterprises should be encouraged to carry out frugal innovation, which will eventually bring economic value. Various levels of frugal innovation will also bring long-term environmental value and corporate social responsibility to enterprises.
(2) Exercise full power of subjective norms. Leverage the full power of internal and external institutional norms of enterprises. Widely publicized successful examples of enterprises can be used to lead more enterprises into frugal innovation. As a collectivist country, China is more affected by subjective norms than western countries, and ecologically vulnerable areas belong to undeveloped areas. Therefore, it is easier to imitate the innovation model of successful enterprises or enterprises in developed areas first, so the effect of demonstration in ecologically vulnerable areas may be led by the successful examples in the developed areas.
(3) Explore the external resources of the enterprise and improve the enterprise’s perceived behavior control ability. Although the conclusion of this study has not found the important impact of perceived behavior control capability on the frugal innovation of enterprises in ecologically vulnerable areas, perceived behavior control has an important role in promoting behavior intention. Therefore, it is necessary to strengthen the enterprise’s external development environment, creating a development environment that can attract more external resources for the enterprise. Together with strong enterprise learning and management abilities to improve the innovation ability from the inside, improved perceived behavior control ability of enterprises in ecologically vulnerable areas can promote enterprises to carry out high-level frugal innovation more effectively.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.Z.; Methodology, S.Z.; Software, S.Z.; Writing—original draft, S.Z.; Formal analysis, R.S.; Writing—review and editing, R.S.; Visualization, R.S.; Supervision, Y.Z.; Project administration, Y.Z.; Investigation, J.L.; Resources, J.L.; Data curation, C.L.; Validation, C.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was partially supported by Program for Innovative Research Team in Universities of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (NM-GIRT2202), Natural Science Foundation of Inner Mongolia (2021MS07001), Natural Science Foundation of Inner Mongolia (2019MS07025), Young Talents of Science and Technology in Universities of Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (NJYT-20-A02).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available from authors upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The researchers would like to express their gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their efforts to improve the quality of this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cai, R.X. Inclusive growth: Theoretical development and policy system—The inclusive issue of China’s economic and social development. Leadersh. Sci. 2010, 447, 13–15. [Google Scholar]
  2. Chen, J.; Zheng, G. Sustainable Competitive Advantage Determined by Innovation Management, 3rd ed.; Peking University Press: Beijing, China, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  3. Prahalad, C.K.; Mashelkar, R.A. Innovation’s holy grail. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2010, 88, 132–141. [Google Scholar]
  4. Radjou, N.; Prabhu, J. Frugal innovation. A new business paradigm. Insead Knowl. 2013, 10, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  5. Shahid, M.; Hossain, M.; Shahid, S.; Anwar, T. Frugal Innovation as a Source of Sustainable Entrepreneurship to Tackle Social and Environmental Challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 406, 137050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Colledani, M.; Silipo, L.; Yemane, A.; Lanza, G.; Bürgin, J.; Hochdörffer, J.; Georgoulias, K.; Mourtzis, D.; Bitte, F.; Bernard, A.; et al. Technology-based Product-services for Supporting Frugal Innovation. Procedia CIRP 2016, 47, 126–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Chen, J.; Wang, K.; Chieh, H.C. Frugal innovation: A rising innovation paradigm. Technol. Econ. 2014, 33, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  8. Li, C.Y.; Meng, Q.X.; Zhou, Z.L. The frugal innovation practice of emerging market countries and its policy implication under a low carbon economy. Sci. Technol. Prog. Policy 2015, 32, 94–99. [Google Scholar]
  9. Xing, X.Q.; Ge, H.F. Motivation, characteristics and strategies of frugal innovation. Sci. Technol. Prog. Policy 2015, 32, 14–18. [Google Scholar]
  10. Barrow, C.J. Land Degradation; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991; pp. 96–105. [Google Scholar]
  11. Ran, S.H.; Jin, J.J.; Xue, J.H. The Theory and Method of Vulnerable Ecological Area Evaluation. J. Nat. Resour. 2002, 17, 117–122. [Google Scholar]
  12. Liu, H.J.; Zou, C.X.; Gao, J.X.; Ma, S.; Wang, W.J.; Wu, K.; Liu, Y. Definition of the Scope of Ecological Environment Vulnerable Areas in China. Biodivers. Sci. 2015, 23, 725–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Li, H.; Zhang, P.Y.; Cheng, Y.Q. The concept of vulnerability and its evaluation methods. Prog. Geogr. 2008, 27, 18–21. [Google Scholar]
  14. Abbas, S.; Liu, Z. Orchestrating Frugal Eco-Innovation: The Plethora of Challenges and Diagnostics in Lean Startups of Emerging Economies. Innov. Manag. Rev. 2022, 19, 339–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Armitage, C.J.; Conner, M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 40, 471–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Qu, X.Y. An Exploratory Study on the Affecting Factors of Frugal Innovation of Small and Micro Businesses Based on Discourse Analysis and Concept Lattice-Weighted Group DEMATEL. Sci. Sci. Manag. Sci. Technol. 2017, 38, 104–113. [Google Scholar]
  17. Zhao, B.; Lan, F.Y. Connotation of frugal innovation—Based on the grounded research of Chinese manufacturing enterprises. Econ. Manag. Rev. 2020, 36, 26–36. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hang, C.; Chen, J.; Subramian, A.M. Developing disruptive products for emerging economies: Lessons from Asian cases. Res. Technol. Manag. 2010, 53, 21–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tanguy, A.; Carrière, L.; Laforest, V. Low-Tech Approaches for Sustainability: Key Principles from the Literature and Practice. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2023, 19, 2170143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhang, J.; Ruan, H.P.; Xu, Q.R. Frugal Innovation: An Emerging Paradigm in and for Emerging Economy. Sci. Sci. Manag. Sci. Technol. 2017, 38, 32–45. [Google Scholar]
  21. Rossetto, D.E.; Borini, F.M.; Bernardes, R.C.; Frankwock, G.L. A new scale for measuring frugal innovation: The first stage of development of a measurement tool. In Proceedings of the VI Simposio Internacional de Gestão de Projetos, Inovação e Sustentabilidade—SINGEP, São Paulo, SP, Brazil, 14 November 2017. [Google Scholar]
  22. Altmann, P.; Engberg, R. Frugal Innovation and Knowledge Transferability. Res.-Technol. Manag. 2016, 59, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Xu, H.; Liu, T.T.; Zhang, C.M. “Do More with Less”: How to Achieve Frugal Innovation for CMNEs Under Constraint of Resource—A Comparative Study on Two Cases. R&D Manag. 2020, 32, 136–151. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kumar, N.; Puranam, P. Have You Restructured for Global Success. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2011, 89, 123–128. [Google Scholar]
  25. Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research; Addison-Wesley: Boston, MA, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  26. French, D.P.; Sutton, S.; Hennings, S.J.; Mitchell, J.; Wareham, N.J.; Griffin, S.; Hardeman, W.; Kinmonth, A.L. The importance of affective beliefs and attitudes in the theory of planned behavior: Predicting intention to increase physical activity. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2005, 35, 1824–1848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Liem, G.A.D.; Bernardo, A.B.I. Epistemological beliefs and theory of planned behavior: Examining beliefs about knowledge and knowing as distal predictors of Indonesian tertiary students’ intention to study. Asia-Pac. Educ. Res. 2010, 19, 127–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kim, Y.G. Ecological concerns about genetically modified (GM) food consumption using the theory of planned behavior (TPB). Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 159, 677–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sánchez-Medina, A.J.; Romero-Quintero, L.; Sosa-Cabrera, S. Environmental management in small and medium-sized companies: An analysis from the perspective of the theory of planned behavior. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e88504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Park, H.S. Relationships among attitude and subjective norms: Testing the theory of reasoned action across cultures. Commun. Stud. 2000, 51, 162–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cialdini, R.B.; Kallgren, C.A.; Reno, R.R. A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1991, 24, 201–234. [Google Scholar]
  32. Cialdini, R.B.; Reno, R.R.; Kallgren, C.A. A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1990, 58, 1015–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ajzen, I. The Theory of planned behavior: Some unresolved issues. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kraft, P.; Rise, J.; Sutton, S.; Røysamb, E. Perceived difficulty in the theory of planned behavior: Perceived behavioral control or affective attitude. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2005, 44, 479–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Godin, G.; Kok, G. The theory of planned behavior: A review of its applications to health-related behaviors. Am. J. Health Promot. 1996, 11, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Kautonen, T.; Tornikoski, E. Predicting entrepreneurial behavior: A test of the theory of planned behaviour. Appl. Econ. 2013, 45, 697–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ajzen, I. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 32, 665–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Guo, L.F.; Cui, Y.W.; Ma, J.Q. Research on responsible innovation behavior of employees in new R&D institutions under the background of innovation driving force. Sci. Tec-Hnology Prog. Policy 2019, 36, 125–132. [Google Scholar]
  39. Rihoux, B.; Ragin, C.C. Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques; Sage Publications: Sauzend Oaks, CA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  40. Ordanini, A.; Parasuraman, A.; Rubera, G. When the Recipe Is More Important Than the Ingredients: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) of Service Innovation Configurations. J. Serv. Res. 2014, 17, 134–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Fiss, P.C. Building Better Casual Theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organizational research. Acad. Manag. J. 2011, 54, 393–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Chen, Z.; Zhang, X.; Chen, F. Do Carbon Emission Trading Schemes Stimulate Green Innovation in Enterprises? Evidence from China. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2021, 168, 120744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Liu, Y.; Dong, F. How Technological Innovation Impacts Urban Green Economy Efficiency in Emerging Economies: A Case Study of 278 Chinese Cities. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 169, 105534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ragin, C.C. Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2008; pp. 190–212. [Google Scholar]
  45. Du, Y.Z.; Jia, L.D. Configuration perspective and qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): A new way of management research. J. Manag. World 2017, 6, 155–167. [Google Scholar]
  46. Wu, Q.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Q.; Cheng, X. Configuration analysis of entrepreneurial orientation, strategic flexibility and internationalization degree affecting enterprise performance. Chin. J. Manag. 2019, 16, 1632–1639. [Google Scholar]
  47. Schneider, C.Q.; Wagemann, C. Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  48. Rahmati, N. National culture and adoption of mobile commerce: An overview. In Proceedings of the European and Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 25–26 May 2008; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhang, M.; Chen, W.H.; Lan, H.L. Why Do Chinese Enterprises Completely Acquire Foreign High-Tech Enterprises—A Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) Based on 94 Cases. China Ind. Econ. 2019, 4, 117–135. [Google Scholar]
  50. Zhang, X.M.; Chen, D.Q. Business model, value co-creation and governance risk of enterprises in the era of mobile internet-based on the case analysis of Luckin Coffee’s financial fraud. J. Manag. World 2020, 36, 74–86. [Google Scholar]
  51. Chen, C.; Jia, L.D. Research on the Driving Pattern of China’s Enterprise Cross-border M&A Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Nankai Bus. Rev. 2016, 19, 113–121. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 07658 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual mode of frugal innovation.
Figure 1. Conceptual mode of frugal innovation.
Sustainability 15 07658 g001
Table
Table 1. Measurement of variables.
Table 1. Measurement of variables.
Conditional VariableSecondary Condition VariableItemsBasis
Behavioral attitudesValue attitude (VA)The products or services with low price and applicable functions are recognized, and the income is on the rise
Low price and simple products or services can obtain higher market shares
Pursuing low-cost but not low-tech products or services can improve the consumers’ living quality		French; Park;
Guo, L.F., et al. [38]; Qu, X.Y. et al. [16]
Environment attitude (EA)Low-cost but not low-tech products or services can reduce the pollution to the environment
Low-cost but not low-tech products or services can improve the utilization of resources
Low-cost but not low-tech products or services can reduce the energy consumption of enterprises
Subjective normsPrescriptive norms (PN)Establish rules and regulations to encourage innovation in resource conservation and environmental protection
Create the industry standards for enterprise environmental innovation
Impact of the regulatory authorities on the enterprise’s innovation behavior		Cialdini, et al. [32];
Qu, X.Y., et al. [16]
Descriptive norms (DN)Competitors in the same industry have carried out innovation in resource conservation and environmental protection and achieved good results
More productions of easy, cheap, and environmental protection appearing in the market
Government support to science, technology, and finance
Perceived behavioral controlPerceived internal control (PIC)The enterprise has good learning ability, and can obtain new thoughts and new methods by learning
Enterprises have good management ability, keeping up with learning
Enterprises can master innovative methods to save resources and protect the environment		Ajzen, et al. [33];
Guo, L.F., et al. [38]; Qu, X.Y., et al. [16]
Perceived external control (PEC)Enterprises can obtain the resources for innovation practice
Enterprises can obtain relevant talents to carry out innovation
Enterprises can obtain innovative partners
Frugal innovation (FI)Significantly reduce unnecessary resources and cost waste in the process of product or service development and operation
Products or services are sustainable to the ecological environment in the process of R&D, production, and sales
Focus on strengthening the core functions of products or services and enhance the ease of use and durability.		Rossetto, et al. [21]
Table
Table 2. The calibration of antecedent and outcome variables.
Table 2. The calibration of antecedent and outcome variables.
VariablesDimensionsCalibration
Full outCrossover PointFull in
Condition variablesBehavioral attitudesVA4.15535.11116.0669
EA4.01915.13336.2475
Subjective normsPN4.29355.25936.2251
DN4.28485.23706.1892
Perceived behavioral controlPIC3.86675.01486.1629
PEC2.20163.45924.7168
Result variableFrugal innovationFI3.96244.75565.5488
Table
Table 3. Reliability and validity analysis.
Table 3. Reliability and validity analysis.
VariablesDimensionsCronbach’sCRAVE
Behavioral attitudesValue attitude (VA)0.8680.8700.690
Environment attitude (EA)0.8990.8990.748
Subjective normsPrescriptive norms (PN)0.8540.8560.666
Descriptive norm (DN)0.8030.8000.572
Perceived behavioral controlPerceived internal control (PIC)0.8930.8950.739
Perceived external control (PEC)0.9260.9260.807
Frugal innovation 0.7790.7860.552
Table
Table 4. Analysis of necessary conditions.
Table 4. Analysis of necessary conditions.
High-Level Frugal InnovationLow-Level Frugal Innovation
Condition VariablesConsistencyCoverageConsistencyCoverage
VA0.5620.6060.6000.566
~VA0.5970.6300.5830.538
EA0.6200.6500.5730.524
~EA0.5450.5930.6140.585
PN0.5660.6100.5980.564
~PN0.6000.6280.5860.542
DN0.5750.6240.5620.534
~DN0.5700.6000.6040.555
PIC0.5920.6200.5850.536
~PIC0.5560.6050.5840.556
PEC0.5180.6100.5650.582
~PEC0.6500.6290.6210.530
Note: “~” means that the result of a logical operation is “Not”.
Table
Table 5. Configuration analysis of frugal innovation.
Table 5. Configuration analysis of frugal innovation.
Conditional VariablesHigh-LevelLow-Level
Attitude-OrientedNorm-OrientedAttitude-Norm-Oriented
H1H2H3H4H5L1L2
VASustainability 15 07658 i001Sustainability 15 07658 i002Sustainability 15 07658 i002Sustainability 15 07658 i002Sustainability 15 07658 i001Sustainability 15 07658 i002Sustainability 15 07658 i002
EA Sustainability 15 07658 i001Sustainability 15 07658 i001Sustainability 15 07658 i002Sustainability 15 07658 i001Sustainability 15 07658 i002Sustainability 15 07658 i002
DNSustainability 15 07658 i002Sustainability 15 07658 i002 Sustainability 15 07658 i001Sustainability 15 07658 i001Sustainability 15 07658 i003
PNSustainability 15 07658 i003 Sustainability 15 07658 i003Sustainability 15 07658 i003Sustainability 15 07658 i004 Sustainability 15 07658 i003
PICSustainability 15 07658 i002Sustainability 15 07658 i002Sustainability 15 07658 i002Sustainability 15 07658 i002Sustainability 15 07658 i002Sustainability 15 07658 i002Sustainability 15 07658 i002
PECSustainability 15 07658 i003Sustainability 15 07658 i003Sustainability 15 07658 i003Sustainability 15 07658 i004Sustainability 15 07658 i003 Sustainability 15 07658 i004
Consistency0.8150.8390.8160.8020.8440.8070.802
Raw coverage0.1680.2000.1720.1070.1320.1450.133
Unique coverage0.0530.0320.0100.0460.0350.0610.048
Overall solution coverage0.3630.194
Overall solution consistency0.7850.777
Note: referring to [44], Sustainability 15 07658 i001 = core casual condition (present). Sustainability 15 07658 i004 = peripheral casual condition (present). Sustainability 15 07658 i002 = core casual condition (absent).Sustainability 15 07658 i003 = peripheral casual condition (absent). Blank spaces indicate “do not care”.
Table
Table 6. Results of robustness test after adjusting threshold.
Table 6. Results of robustness test after adjusting threshold.
Conditional VariablesH1H2H3H4H5
VASustainability 15 07658 i001 Sustainability 15 07658 i002 Sustainability 15 07658 i001
EA Sustainability 15 07658 i001Sustainability 15 07658 i001 Sustainability 15 07658 i001
DNSustainability 15 07658 i002Sustainability 15 07658 i002 Sustainability 15 07658 i001Sustainability 15 07658 i001
PNSustainability 15 07658 i004 Sustainability 15 07658 i003Sustainability 15 07658 i003Sustainability 15 07658 i004
PICSustainability 15 07658 i002Sustainability 15 07658 i002Sustainability 15 07658 i002Sustainability 15 07658 i002
PECSustainability 15 07658 i003Sustainability 15 07658 i003 Sustainability 15 07658 i004Sustainability 15 07658 i003
Consistency0.8340.8310.8320.8050.892
Raw coverage0.1530.2210.1600.0930.104
Unique coverage0.0490.0610.0130.0350.022
Overall solution coverage0.348
Overall solution consistency0.801
Note: referring to [44], Sustainability 15 07658 i001 = core casual condition (present). Sustainability 15 07658 i004 = peripheral casual condition (present). Sustainability 15 07658 i002 = core casual condition (absent). Sustainability 15 07658 i003 = peripheral casual condition (absent). Blank spaces indicate “do not care”.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhang, S.; Su, R.; Zhao, Y.; Liu, J.; Li, C. Applying Enterprises’ Frugal Innovation in Ecologically Vulnerable Areas: A Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis of the Influence Paths. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7658. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097658

AMA Style

Zhang S, Su R, Zhao Y, Liu J, Li C. Applying Enterprises’ Frugal Innovation in Ecologically Vulnerable Areas: A Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis of the Influence Paths. Sustainability. 2023; 15(9):7658. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097658

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhang, Shudan, Rina Su, Yunhui Zhao, Jing Liu, and Chenlu Li. 2023. "Applying Enterprises’ Frugal Innovation in Ecologically Vulnerable Areas: A Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis of the Influence Paths" Sustainability 15, no. 9: 7658. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097658

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop