Gender-aware inclusive value chain: A theoretical perspective

Achieving SDG5 requires an analytical and practical framework enabling a win–win participation of women with poor resources in gender-blind societies. Women with poor resources are mostly excluded from formal economic systems and face gender inequalities. In agricultural and food value chains, women are not equally included as men in highly attractive value chains, so they end up engaging in informal (less lucrative) agri-food activities alongside the value chains. However, the existing literature fails to design an adequate framework that efficiently addresses gender inequality and the poverty conditions of women in low-income countries, mostly gender-blind. This study contributes to filling this knowledge gap by proposing a gender-aware inclusive value chain from a theoretical perspective. For this purpose, we conducted a deep and extensive state-of-the-art study on value chain development and strategies over the past three decades. Two main types of value chains are drawn from this literature review: (1) conventional value chains, mainly exclusive or adverse, including the bottom of the pyramid populations and gender-blind; and (2) gender-aware value chains mostly focus on value chains that are controlled by women. Hence, the paper proposes a third type of value chains inspired by the Foucauldian perspective of human being: gender-aware inclusive value chain (GAIVC). This perspective considers a value chain similar to the human body in its functioning because the human body is composed of different organs that are autonomous but complementary to each other. GAIVC is also composed of different elements (actors/stakeholders, farms, storage, infrastructure, and so on) that should be complementary and non-competitive. From this perspective, it provides more opportunities for poor resource women to evolve into a non-discriminatory environment based on gender. It also breaks down the power relations between the chain actors, as they have to cooperate and avoid the chain from collapsing from within and outside threats. In this way, the sustainability of value chains is guaranteed, and all actors involved receive fair rewards from chain participation.

Introduction

Worldwide, women face unequal and exclusionary conditions in the agricultural (food) value chains. Although one-third of women's employment is in agriculture (including forestry and fishing), women are still largely overlooked by private and public sector actors and institutions in these value chains (UN Women, 2018; Kini, 2022). Women's positions in such value chains are largely influenced by gender inequality, thus hindering their empowerment [FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation), 2011].

It urges the fight against gender inequality and women's exclusion, particularly in low-income countries. In this perspective, the sustainable development goal (SGD5) “achieving gender equality and empower all women and girls” is the very expression of the commitment of the international community to mobilize, on an equal basis, all the human resources, for the process of wealth creation to alleviate poverty and “leave no one behind” [UN (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs), 2016]. In particular, leaving no one behind refers to the inclusion of specific vulnerable groups such as women, children, people with disabilities, elderly, small-scale farmers, fishers, indigenous people, migrants, and refugees in the development process' (van Tulder, 2018; Van Hees et al., 2019; Kini, 2022). Furthermore, SDG5 and SDG12 (inclusion in value chains) clearly show the relevance of considering these groups of people from the bottom of the pyramid (BoP) into the inclusive business component of inclusive development (Likoko and Kini, 2017).

However, the literature lacks a sound bottom-up approach addressing both gender issues and BoP inclusion in business and value chains (Kini, 2022). In particular, there is insufficient knowledge of an appropriate approach to address gender inequalities faced by resource-poor women and men in both the value chain and business. In addition, there is insufficient evidence on how business models for inclusiveness in urban food value chains affect the capabilities and functioning of women survival entrepreneurs (WSEs).

This study aims to fill these gaps in knowledge by providing a theoretical but empirically testable framework. For this purpose, the paper answers the question: How can value chains be conceptualized from a gender awareness and inclusiveness perspective?

The paper is organized as follows: Section “Critical review of the existing literature” presents the state-of-the-art literature on interlinked concepts such as value chain, inclusive business, gender awareness in business/entrepreneurship, capabilities and functioning, and firm-level economic wellbeing; Section “Theoretical perspective and discussion” answers the question while presenting the theoretical and analytical perspectives.

Critical review of the existing literature

To overcome the prevailing gender inequalities and constraints amidst resource scarcity, women's empowerment is viewed as a solution, as stated in SDG5. In particular, women's empowerment in value chains encompasses “business development interventions that focus on improving vertical linkages along the value chains (in production, processing, and trade functions) in order to improve their terms of participation” (Riisgaard et al., 2010, p. 6). Empowerment aims to “increase the capabilities of a target group in order to improve their terms of value chain participation” (Riisgaard et al., 2010, p. 7). However, empirical studies show that such business interventions tend to support organized groups instead of individuals (Riisgaard et al., 2010; Ros-Tonen et al., 2019). From this perspective, it is important to thoroughly review all the interlinked concepts, that is, value chain, business with the poor (inclusive business), and gender awareness in business and capabilities (at the group and individual levels), particularly for women in survival entrepreneurship (see “Institutions and entrepreneurship” and “Capability analysis framework: functioning, capabilities and agency”).

Value chain

The literature between 1980 and 2019 shows a contested debate on value chains among scholars and practitioners. There are multiple definitions of value chains, ranging from simple to extended value chains (Kaplinsky and Morris, 2000). However, a common feature of these definitions is that a value chain describes the range of activities, from the production of goods and services to their final consumption [Freeman and Liedtka, 1997; Christopher, 2000; Kaplinsky and Morris, 2000; Mutua et al., 2014; FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation), 2014, 2015; Bamber and Staritz, 2016; Bougdira et al., 2016]. On the one hand, some refer to the value chain definition as:

“A value chain refers to the full range of activities which are required to bring a product or service from conception through the different phases of production (involving a combination of physical transformation and the input of various producer services), delivery to final consumers, and final disposal after use” (Kaplinsky and Morris, 2000, p. 4).

Others usually refer to the definition by FAO for whom: “a value chain is the full range of farms and firms and successive coordinated value-adding activities that produce particular raw agricultural materials and transform them into given food products that are sold to final consumers and dispose after use, in a manner that is profitable throughout as broad-based for society, and does not permanently deplete natural resources” [FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation), 2014, p. 6].

The first definition of the value chain covers all economic sectors, whereas the second focuses on the agricultural sector (including agribusiness). This is likely because access to food is one of the most crucial issues worldwide, particularly in developing countries (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO, 2019). Value chain has also been defined as an analytical and operational model (Safari, 2011; Agri-ProFocus, 2014). Such a model takes the idea that “a product is rarely directly consumed at the place of its production as its starting point. Instead, the product is transformed, combined with other products, transported, packaged, and displayed until it reaches the final consumer. In this process, the raw materials, intermediate products, and final products are owned by various actors who are linked by trade and services, whereby each actor adds value to the product” (Safari, 2011, p. 18; Agri-ProFocus, 2014, p. 9).

This paper adopts this definition, as it is applicable to all types of value chains, including food commodities, textiles, mobile phones, and so on. Two main strands of value chain literature can be identified: conventional value chain literature, which is critiqued to be largely poor-exclusive and “gender neutral,” and gender-aware value chain literature.

Conventional value chains

Conventional value chain literature is embedded in two main positions. The first position considers value chains from an agile manufacturing approach [Freeman and Liedtka, 1997; Zhang et al., 2002; Roper et al., 2008; Singer and Donoso, 2008; FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation), 2014; Tarafdar and Qrunfleh, 2016]. The related body of literature focuses on strategic alliances within the chain and partnerships to achieve speed and flexibility in production and marketing processes. Therefore, responsive and networking strategies between chain actors feature centrally in value chain analysis and development.

The second position considers value chains from a governance and management perspective (Carter and Rogers, 2008; Seuring and Müller, 2008; Sarkis et al., 2011; McDonald, 2016; Mishra et al., 2016). This approach proposes the use of information and communication technologies to (better) connect stakeholders in the chain. Furthermore, this innovation-based approach ensures that goods and services are delivered at home and in time, while recording the traceability of their flows over the chain (Roper and Arvanitis, 2012; Bougdira et al., 2016; McDonald, 2016). Interestingly, producers and consumers do not need to physically meet each other because the chain is formally organized. Only the price and information on the quality of the product provided by the supplier are sufficient for the demander to purchase. However, traceability can be challenging depending on the length of the value chain. Indeed, with regard to the length of a value chain, the literature distinguishes between long value chains [Bolwig et al., 2010; DANIDA (Danish International Development Agency), 2010] and short value chains (Marsden et al., 2000). A long value chain involves many intermediaries from various locations. This requires looking into the horizontal and vertical linkages existing in the chain as well as the impact of intermediaries' activities on the price, quality, and availability of products (Bolwig et al., 2010). In this regard, it may be difficult for consumers to have clear traceability of the products they purchase (Marsden et al., 2000). By contrast, a short value chain represents horizontal and vertical integration within the value chain (Marsden et al., 2000), which allows the producer to reach the consumer directly and quickly with few (or no) intermediaries. Furthermore, the control of information and knowledge shared between stakeholders (producers and consumers) and exchanged goods and services' traceability, among others, are the core elements in the short value chain (Marsden et al., 2000). Two main weaknesses can be identified from this conceptual and theoretical debate on value chains. The first weakness is neoliberal underpinning, which implies a market-oriented focus on profit maximization and individual gains. This mostly overlooks power differences within value chains, particularly the disenfranchised position and role of small producers and the poor (Hickey, 2010). The formal governance context is presumed to have been largely taken for granted. This limits the applicability of this literature to developing country contexts where formal structures, rules, and regulations are often not in place, informality is high, and collaborative arrangements among value chain actors who are resource-poor are a common strategy. The second weakness is that the early value chain literature is not gender-aware or even attentive to broader power differences that structure socioeconomic relations within and around the value chain. Hence, value chains are seen as “gender-neutral,” assuming equal access and control over different nodes and relationships in and outside the value chain by women and men as if they participate under similar conditions.

Gender awareness in value chains: Focus and limitations

The literature on gender-aware value chains has increasingly emerged in the last 20 years, focusing on integrating gender inequalities faced by women into the conceptualization and theorizing of value chains [USAID (US Agency for International Development), 2009; Riisgaard et al., 2010; Boodhna, 2011; Coles and Mitchell, 2011; Farnworth, 2011; Farnworth et al., 2015; Laven and Pyburn, 2015; FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation), 2016; Ros-Tonen et al., 2019]. First, a gender-aware value chain approach analytically increases the visibility of the roles of men and women in various segments of the chain as well as gender-specific barriers to entry and opportunities for participation and development. For instance, some barriers include low access to markets due to the cultural seclusion of women (Farnworth, 2011; Waithanji et al., 2013), reduced income control by women caused by increased commercialization (Njuki et al., 2011), and women's lack of access to technology [FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation), 2011]. These barriers determine the level of entry into value chains and the capacity of an actor to compete with others. This enhances our understanding of how different value chains function and the results for different actors along the chain.

Second, gender dynamics also play an important role in understanding value chain strategies [FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation), 2011; Farnworth, 2011; Njuki et al., 2011; Waithanji et al., 2013]. Gender dynamics refers to the relationships and interactions between women and men [USAID (US Agency for International Development), 2009]. These dynamics can be captured by analyzing the scale and participation of (groups of) women and men in the chains (Coles and Mitchell, 2011). At the household and community scale, gender dynamics shape individual and community interactions, which in turn influence the value chain. That is, household and community cultural norms for men's and women's roles influence individuals' behavior, so that their interactions in a value chain also affect the dynamics of this value chain. Moreover, with regard to participation and decision making, gender dynamics influence value chain governance and management. That is, in gender-neutral societies, the governance system is dominated by men who lead decision-making because they are more powerful than women. This literature on gender-aware value chains bring novelty to value chain theory in the sense that it puts at the heart how cultural norms shape the power relationships between both. By focusing on these gender issues, this literature values the specific position and roles of women in value chains and points out the restricted level of women's inclusion on an equal basis compared to that of men.

However, even if this body of literature is relevant to addressing the specific context of gender inequality in value chain participation, it does not address the resource constraints and informality conditions of the women and men involved in those value chains. Moreover, this study does not specifically consider the case of the bottom of the pyramid (BoP) population in value chains. The consideration of the BoP population in value chains from a gender-aware perspective requires an inclusive approach. The reason for considering the BoP population is that, to achieve the SDGs, all policies, development interventions, and businesses should leave no one behind. Hence, an appropriate approach addressing gender inequalities faced by resource-poor women and men in value chains is the main gap that still needs to be filled. To achieve this, this study holds that a more inclusive approach to value chain theory may be a solution, and this is how it contributes to inclusive development.

Inclusive approach to value chains

The literature sheds light on the possibility of a more inclusive approach to value chains. This perspective places human beings at the center and integrates gender issues and BoP women's inclusion, as shown in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. The scope of Gender-aware Inclusive Value Chain. Source: The Author.

This figure indicates the scope of the inclusive approach to value chains, which is rooted in a gender sensitive interpretation of Foucault's “archaeology of knowledge” in human sciences which studies: “man in so far as he lives, speaks, and produces. He is a living being that grows, that has functions and needs, that sees opening up a space whose movable coordinates meet in him, in a general fashion, his corporeal existence interlaces him through and through with the rest of the living world, since he produces objects and tools, exchanges the things he needs, organizes a whole network of circulation along which, what he is able to consume flows, and in which he himself is defined as an intermediary stage, he appears in his existence immediately interwoven with others; lastly, because he has a language, he can constitute a whole symbolic universe for himself, within which he has a relation to his past, to things, to other men, and on the basis of which he is able equally to build something like a body of knowledge (in particular, that knowledge of himself…)” (Foucault, 1972, p. 383).

Analogical to this definition, this study sees a value chain as a living process or system that lives, speaks, and produces. As such, the value chain grows, has functions, and needs; it is like a system defined by Bressy and Konkuyt (2008), but different because it is not only profit-oriented, nor solely about marketorientation and competitiveness. Instead, such a system operates to allow the entire chain to live, speak, and produce over time and space. Consequently, the value chain performs well if each component plays its role in a durable manner. This makes a distinction between the living performance (existing aspect), communicative performance (speaking aspect), and productive performance (producing aspect) of the system.

First, a value chain lives when its existing components exist—physical elements, including stakeholders (people) and other physical entities (infrastructure, production sites, warehousing, shops, roads, equipment/materials, and livestock). In a healthy human body, all of these (autonomous) elements interact to keep the body alive and grow over time without any competition among and between themselves; they cooperate and unify. This assumes that all value chain elements are as important as those in the human body because none of them can be excluded or marginalized by others for any purpose; they are individually necessary to allow the entire value chain to be alive and operating. Thus, stakeholders individually and collectively determine the other components of the chain and influence the shape and dynamics of the value chain. Therefore, stakeholders can be assimilated into the nervous system which orders and regulates the tasks of the other components in the value chain. Hence, stakeholders' socioeconomic characteristics (individual and collective agencies and capabilities) significantly influence the shape and dynamics of the value chain. Finally, the process of growth or development in the value chain is determined by each component's capacity to ensure its own function as a necessary condition to keep the value chain “alive.”

Second, just as a human being speaks, value chains also speak. A value chain's speech refers to the communication system used inside and outside; a value chain has an internal and external environment that communicates over time. Internal communication is similar to how a human body's components communicate with each other, thus creating an interlinked communication and information system. For example, the information and networking systems used by stakeholders in the value chain are information, services, and service flows between similar components and other components of the chain. The value chain also communicates with its external environment, comprised of other value chains and natural environments (small scale and/or large scale) related to climate change risks or pollution concerns. Therefore, this assumes that sustainable internal and external environments positively influence communicative performance, as well as gains from value chain participation.

Third, just as a human being produces to meet its needs and ensure its functions, the value chain is assumed to produce goods and services. Functions refer to all the activities in the value chain. Porter (1985) identified five primary functions in a chain and four support activities in the human-centered approach to the value chain. (a) The primary functions of the value chain are inbound logistics, operations, outbound logistics, marketing and sales, and services, whereas the support functions are procurement, technology, human resource management, infrastructure, and culture (Porter, 1985). (b) The value chains' needs refer to Maslow's theory on living beings' needs under the “hierarchy of basic needs” (Maslow, 1943). However, instead of considering all five basic needs identified by Maslow, the physical survival needs and physical safety needs stand to fit better in the approach, as they are preconditions for other needs in a human being's life. Physical and survival needs refer to the need for resources (e.g., human, natural, informational, and communicative resources) that feed the value chain and allow it to survive and perform in both internal and external environments. Moreover, physical safety needs are related to keeping the value chain safe in its external environment. In other words, how to maintain the value chain free of dangers and threats from the other value chains in its external environment (e.g., competition from the other value chains) and from natural environment risks, particularly climate change concerns (pollution, droughts, and floods).

However, this inclusive approach to value chains is complex, as it requires a large amount of information and data, as well as techniques and tools to analyse them. Indeed, the longer the chain, the more data are required. For example, when the chain is long, there are many intermediaries at the different nodes of the chain (e.g., transport, information, and communication service providers) that are widely spread in space (Bolwig et al., 2010). Therefore, obtaining information and data from these types of stakeholders is costly in terms of time and financial resources. Some specific information, such as quality goods and services, may not be traceable; therefore, the accountability of actors in the chain is sometimes difficult to establish. A costly investment is required to make goods and services traceable in a long value chain (Bougdira et al., 2016). In contrast, in a short value chain, there are fewer or no intermediaries involved, thus facilitating knowledge and information sharing among low-income stakeholders in the chain, and traceability information can be low cost (Marsden et al., 2000). Therefore, the approach assumes that the shorter the length (fewer intermediaries) of the value chain, the more gender-aware and inclusive it is, and the higher the expected outcomes (i.e., material and non-material gains). Hence, the concept of a short value chain fits better in the context of this research, as women's empowerment in such a value chain is much more relevant than in a long chain (which hides more disparities because of intermediaries and environmental costs (e.g., pollution] in goods transportation). Moreover, the dynamics of short chains in terms of temporal evolution may be more deeply analyzed compared to a long chain, as stakeholders on the supply side are not numerous in a short chain. In contrast, the space side of the short-value chain fundamentally depends on context or location. The case at hand concerns (peri) urban areas.

From the gender-aware and inclusive perspective of value chains, it is worth examining the literature and drawing on the inclusive business approach that fits in.

Inclusive business

The concept of inclusive business (IB) has been anchored in the debate between two epistemological stances: the resource-based approach and the cultural cognitivism approach (Likoko and Kini, 2017). The resource-based approach examines the firm's potential resources or internal capacities, which are the basis of its competitive advantage (Wernerfelt, 1984; Sullivan, 1998). Therefore, the firm performs when it is able to combine its scarce resources efficiently to achieve maximum output (profit maximization).

However, this approach appears to be exclusive to the poor and creates more inequalities among populations, according to the cultural cognitivism view of the firm that tries to address this limitation (Penrose, 1959; Nooteboom, 2006). Indeed, the latter approach calls for the inclusion of local populations and communities in doing business (Sullivan, 1998), in such a way that inclusive business models must aim to include low-income communities into a business value chain by addressing stakeholders' needs and perceptions, and adjusting the product to the target market (Golja and PoŽega, 2012).

Unfortunately, the challenge of inclusive business is related to its operationalisation. Divergent positions from practitioners and scholars are found in the literature, even if both recognize that inclusive businesses have to target low-income and marginalized populations (Likoko and Kini, 2017). On the one hand, scholarly discourses on inclusive business support the inclusion of BoP populations into business to alleviate poverty (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004; London and Hart, 2011). For example, one school of thought claims that inclusivity involves the creation of a positive development impact using economically viable business models that do not lead to negative ecological impacts in the short and long terms (Wach, 2012). Another definition claims that the departure of the inclusive business approach from an exclusive focus on profit generation gives it the potential to supersede development programs (Wach, 2012). As such, inclusive business is seen as “sustainable business solutions that go beyond philanthropy and expand access to goods, services, and livelihood opportunities for low-income communities in commercially viable ways” (Bonnell and Veglio, 2011, p. 2). Another group of scholars defined inclusive business as accounting for human dignity or human rights considerations in businesses through (a) protection against third-party abuse, (b) respect for human rights, and (c) access to legal remedies by local people (Ioannou and Serafeim, 2012; Sopov et al., 2014). Thus, a business model is considered inclusive if it is durable, equitable, effective, adaptable, and credible.

On the other hand, most inclusive business models from practitioner communities focus on the inclusion of the BoP (UNCTAD, 1999; UNDP, 2010; Dietrich and Bauer, 2013; Naguib et al., 2013; Petkoski, 2014; Likoko and Kini, 2017), as the poor are employees, producers, business owners, and/or consumers of affordable goods and services (UNDP, 2010; Naguib et al., 2013). From this perspective, IB is considered a business that integrates smallholders/small producers/employees into markets with mutual benefits for the poor and the business community while enabling the poor to move out of poverty and establish food security. Such inclusion is not just a company's responsibility, but also the responsibility of producers, the public sector, buyers, and NGOs [FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation), 2015].

From these discourses on inclusive business, both practitioners and scholars (Likoko and Kini, 2017), inclusive business must be connected to inclusive development (Gupta et al., 2015). As such, the related theoretical stance rejects the idea of the firm or corporation as the main driver of business in the sense that it only includes the BoP population as raw material suppliers, workers, or simple input distributors (Likoko and Kini, 2017); however, it shares the human rights approach where the BoP population benefits win–win businesses and is not adversely included (Hart, 2007; Sopov et al., 2014). Therefore, inclusive businesses should aim to provide sustainable livelihoods (Naguib et al., 2013) to companies and poor communities, and companies should not be the only drivers of these business models [FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation), 2015]. In addition, such business models tend to be less attractive to capital investors because most are risk-averse [Bannick et al., 2015; FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation), 2015], thus, there is a need for an alternative funding mechanism to guarantee the sustainability of such a business model.

Gender awareness in business

The understanding of inclusive business in section “Inclusive business” is still general, as it does not consider the specific issues of gender inequality between men and women in doing business or starting a business first. Indeed, the literature shows that men and women entrepreneurs do not face the same realities. The current section fills this knowledge gap.

Gender in business

In business, gender refers to the roles, behaviors, activities, and attributes that a given society at a given time is appropriate for men and women. In addition to the social attributes and opportunities associated with being male and female and the relationships between women and men and between girls and boys, gender also refers to the relationship between women and men. These attributes, opportunities, and relationships are socially constructed and learned through socialization processes. They are context- and time-changeable. Gender determines what is expected, allowed, and valued in a woman or a man in a given context' (UN Environment, 2019, p. 695).

Taking a gender-aware approach to studying inclusive businesses has five implications. First, it questions the dominance of profit maximization as the sole motive for engaging in business. For example, considering gender in entrepreneurship ends the definition of entrepreneurs as “rational money-driven” individuals pursuing financial profit maximization (West and Zimmerman, 1987; Vossenberg, 2016). Aside from profit incentives to engage in business, social-relational and psychological aspects of wellbeing (Pouw and Kini, 2016; Pouw, 2017), particularly self-esteem, are needed for social relations or to feel socially useful.

Second, it sees entrepreneurs as decision makers with an unbalanced distribution of “powers, resources, and responsibilities for paid and unpaid work” (Vossenberg, 2016, p. 11).

Third, it considers entrepreneurs as “socially embedded human beings who have a gender, body, class, age, family, religion and ethnicity, and live within a specific historical, social, economic and geographical context” (Brush et al., 2009; Vossenberg, 2016, p. 12). As such, looking through a gender lens shows that it is not just microeconomic factors that affect the opportunities for women to participate in business (Vossenberg, 2016, p. 12), but also macro factors such as institutions (Acemoglu and Robinson, 2012; Sen, 2015), and “different types of women entrepreneurs can have different practical or strategic needs” (Vossenberg, 2016, p. 12).

Fourth, a gender lens shows how social identity, including age, gender, health, and religion, can influence entrepreneurs and account for inequalities (Vossenberg, 2016, p. 12).

Fifth, a gender-aware perspective on inclusive business distinguishes at least two types of entrepreneurs: survival and growth-oriented entrepreneurs (see Vossenberg, 2016), or necessity and opportunity entrepreneurs (Fuentelasz et al., 2015; Zoumba, 2018). On the one hand, survival or necessity entrepreneurs are (1) those with little or no intention/motivation to grow or expand their businesses (Hurst and Pugsley, 2011); (2) involved in low-quality or subsistence entrepreneurial activities motivated by necessity (Schoar, 2010; Fuentelasz et al., 2015); and (3) creating jobs for their owners (Reynolds, 2010; Hurst and Pugsley, 2011). They struggle to balance their business with unpaid care responsibilities and are challenged to earn enough income to satisfy their households' needs (Karim, 2001; Berner et al., 2012; Vossenberg, 2016). The main reason for staying survival entrepreneurs (SE) is that they do not have the capabilities, freedom, or expand their business beyond the limits of their own labor and management capacities (Berner et al., 2012; Vossenberg, 2016). Thus, such entrepreneurial activities provide few benefits to society as a whole (Baumol, 1990). However, such entrepreneurs represent a significant part of business; for example, 31 and 37% of start-ups (nascent businesses) recorded in Ghana and Nigeria, respectively, were necessity entrepreneurs and had no intention of growing their businesses (Xavier et al., 2013, p. 60). Consequently, entrepreneurship development policies often fail because they fail to acknowledge the fact that surviving entrepreneurs do not necessarily have a growth ambition (Vossenberg, 2016). On the other hand, growth-oriented or opportunity entrepreneurs are (i) engaged in more productive and transformational entrepreneurship; (ii) tend to be more innovative by creating new products, processes, and jobs; and (iii) extend the tax base for the government (Sobel, 2008; Hurst and Pugsley, 2011; Fuentelasz et al., 2015). A rich body of literature provides the underlying factors enabling a business to grow (moving from survival-to growth-oriented), which are embedded in the theory of institutions (North, 1990) and the politics of inclusive development (Sen, 2015). According to this literature, the fundamental determinants of an enterprise's growth are political (regulatory), such as institutions that encourage businesses (North, 1990; Acemoglu, 2009; Khan, 2010; Sen, 2015).

Institutions and entrepreneurship

Entrepreneurship and business evolve within an institutional environment that is conducive to business. “Institutions refer to the regularized patterns of interaction by which society organizes itself: the rules, practices and conventions that structure human interaction” (UN Environment, 2019 p. 698). Institutions can also be “the rules of the game or, more formally, the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction” (North, 1990, p. 3). As such, institutions can potentially shape societal choices with respect to technology and (capital) accumulation (Acemoglu, 2009). Thus, institutions encompass law, social relationships, property rights and tenurial systems, norms, beliefs, customs, and codes of conduct, and as such, they can be “formal (explicit, written, often having the sanction of the state) or informal (unwritten, implied, tacit, mutually agreed and accepted)” (UN Environment, 2019, p. 698). In the entrepreneurial debate, strong evidence supports the notion that institutions have an important impact on the entry, survival, and growth of enterprises (Eesley et al., 2018; Chowdhury et al., 2019).

First, institutions affect the quality and quantity of entrepreneurship in four layers (Chowdhury et al., 2019). The first layer comprises the informal institutions of a country, which are anchored in society and include habits, customs, and beliefs (Bruton et al., 2010; Eesley et al., 2018; Chowdhury et al., 2019). Indeed, informal institutions first influence individuals' “choice to be entrepreneurs, the industries and sectors they will enter, and the appropriate strategies they will consider” (Eesley et al., 2018, p. 395). In contrast, “norms of the various stakeholders” expressed in terms of “strategies” adopted influence the firms (Pache and Santos, 2010; Eesley et al., 2018, p. 395). Informal institutions play an important role, particularly when institutional voids occur (Mair et al., 2012). This is the case, for example, when there are contestations on right actions resulting in the “formation of informal norms and sanctions that allow the development of functioning markets” (Eesley et al., 2018, p. 395).

The second layer comprises the formal regulatory institutions of a country (Eesley et al., 2018; Chowdhury et al., 2019), which can reduce the uncertainty and risk associated with entrepreneurial activity (Smallbone and Welter, 2012). A rich body of literature shows evidence of the effects of formal institutions embedded in the rules of law. Indeed, formal institutions affect entrepreneurship, notably the quantity of entrepreneurship (North, 1990; Eesley et al., 2018). For example: (1) simplifying the “procedures for obtaining licenses and permits to start new firms increases venture formation” (Klapper et al., 2006; Eesley et al., 2018, p. 394); (2) a decrease of the government's regulation burden engenders an increase of entry rates in business (Levie and Autio, 2011). However, formal institutions can negatively influence entrepreneurship if the cost of complying with regulations is high (Klapper et al., 2006). For example, complying with environmental taxes leads to the environmental orientation of entrepreneurial ventures, which may not be affordable for certain poorer entrepreneurs (H?risch et al., 2017).

The third layer of institutional influence is governance, which drives resource allocation in a country (Chowdhury et al., 2019). For example, some authors have shown that entrepreneurial activities are highly sensitive to changes in government stability, internal and external conflicts, ethnic tension, control of corruption, and rules of law (Gholipour and Tajul, 2012).

The last layer of institutional influence is resource allocation, jointly determined by the first three layers (Chowdhury et al., 2019). For example, the “quality of the institutional environment influences an entrepreneur's attitudes, motives, and ability to mobilize resources” (Reynolds, 2010; Chowdhury et al., 2019, p. 54); and “shapes the rules of the game, which in turn affects the quality of entrepreneurship” (McMullen et al., 2008; Chowdhury et al., 2019, p. 54–55). Second, many studies have shown that institutions are interactive and dynamic over time (Eesley et al., 2018; Chowdhury et al., 2019). This suggests that focusing on interactions of informal institutions tends to be stronger or more influential compared to formal institutions in terms of the quantity of entrepreneurship. Indeed, a change in formal institutions aimed at boosting entrepreneurship can be a failure due to “the effects of informal institutional forces to seek legitimacy” (Eesley et al., 2018, p. 395). Informal institutions can shape firm behavior if they do not fit with formal institutions because “the normative and cultural-cognitive elements provide the social framework within which entrepreneurship occurs” (Eesley et al., 2018, p. 396). In addition, informal institutions are extremely influential because, instead of “being imposed on individuals by policymakers, they are ‘taken-for-granted' social and cultural norms that are embedded in continuing social relationships” (Tolbert and Zucker, 1983; Eesley et al., 2018, p. 396). Third, many studies showcase that entrepreneurship in turn significantly influences the institutions (Chowdhury et al., 2019), both in the short and long-term (Samadi, 2019), in regard to the “level of economic development of countries” (Chowdhury et al., 2019, p. 55; Samadi, 2019). The main conclusion of these studies is that “entrepreneurs are an important source of institutional changes, especially in developing countries” (Samadi, 2019, p. 3). For example, as “institutions influence individual behavior, over time entrepreneurs also take the initiative to change the institutions that are beneficial to them' (Chowdhury et al., 2019, p. 54). Thus, this theoretical debate concludes on the ‘bidirectional' relationship between institutions and entrepreneurship (Chowdhury et al., 2019, p. 53), particularly in “innovation-driven countries and in the long run” (Samadi, 2019, p. 11).

Despite the relevance of this debate, it does not clearly show what and how institutional factors drive growth orientation at both firm and country levels, particularly when adopting a gender lens for entrepreneurship in low-income countries. Sub-section “Gender awareness and inclusiveness in business” intends to address this point.

Gender awareness and inclusiveness in business

Integrating gender awareness and inclusiveness is challenging and is tied to the operationalisation of inclusiveness. Some authors define an inclusive business as one that is innovative, credible, affordable (equitable), adaptable, and viable (efficient) (Sopov et al., 2014; Likoko and Kini, 2017). This study uses the operational definition of inclusive business to challenge the integration of gender awareness. First, a business is innovative if it brings new ideas and creates opportunities by removing economic, social, ecological, and geographic barriers (Likoko and Kini, 2017). Thus, it enhances the social and economic wellbeing of disenfranchised members of society (George et al., 2012), and maintains local ecosystems (Adams et al., 2016) by promoting sustainable value creation (Hart et al., 2003). As such, innovation is dynamic and based on learning processes which bring together scientific and local knowledge (Odame, 2014). Some authors consider a business to be innovative if it is technologically simple in terms of both tools and practices. For example, Sopov et al. (2014) showed that incremental technologies built on customary wisdom and practices can easily be assimilated into communities (Sopov et al., 2014). In contrast, other authors believe that this view of innovation is restrictive, as innovation is only seen in terms of technological change in products and processes (Blake and Hanson, 2005). For the latter, this view of innovation is tied to export-based theory in the neoliberalist development model, where, for example, cities are only considered as production centers for products exported to the areas outside for further distribution and consumption.

From an operational perspective, integrating gender awareness as an innovative dimension of inclusive business means creating opportunities for disenfranchised (i.e., poor) women survival entrepreneurs (WSEs) from poor communities, addressing existing economic, social, ecological, and geographic barriers, and creating sustainable value, thus enhancing their wellbeing. In particular, such a business focuses on breaking gender barriers and ensures that the tools and practices used are built on customary wisdom. It also considers the local scale (e.g., urban informal settlements) by capturing the place-specific nature of a market that enables the creation of a successful business, in accordance with Blake and Hanson (2005).

Second, a business is credible if it offers real benefits in the form of stable and long-term commercial relationships that can be tracked and reported (Sopov et al., 2014). In other words, such a business builds up strong and stable commercial connections both vertically and horizontally in the value chain in which they evolve. The business is also credible when these commercial relations are gender-aware and if no gender barrier exists which makes (individual) WSEs powerless among the stakeholders.

Third, a business can be affordable if it is equitable and effective (Sopov et al., 2014). It is equitable if it allows market access for smallholders with an equitable balance of risk, responsibilities, and benefits, whereas it is effective when it strengthens the purchaser's access to consistent supplies at a reasonable price (Sopov et al., 2014). From the perspective of gender awareness, this business is affordable if it allows them access to markets to sell food which the poor can afford; their prices are not only for profit making, but other social and environmental benefits can allow their business to sustain over time. However, this is only possible if gender barriers do not exist, thus allowing women to make decisions by themselves (i.e., increasing their capabilities).

Fourth, a business is efficient or commercially viable or profitable if it improves its financial sustainability (Sopov et al., 2014) making profits durable. Thus, from the perspective of gender awareness, a business is viable if no or few gender barriers exist and if it generates sustainable profits, including financial returns and non-monetary benefits.

Fifth, a business is adaptable if it enables flexible responses to changing market, social, and environmental conditions (Sopov et al., 2014). From the perspective of gender awareness, a business is adaptable if its actors (e.g., women with poor resources) can cope with their business environment, including market conditions, institutions, social/cultural norms, and the natural environment (climate risk). Hence, the integration of gender awareness and inclusiveness in business is a good way to increase successful women's capabilities.

Capabilities and functioning

Capability approach

Addressing gender inequality and women's exclusion through empowerment in value chains is feasible if it is possible to enhance their capabilities (Riisgaard et al., 2010). Extensive literature has been built on Sen's work on the capability approach in terms of contestations. Although this literature recognizes the relevance and holistic basis of the capability approach as a strength, it also highlights its weakness relative to its operationalisation. Indeed, the first body of literature considers the capability approach a normative framework for the evaluation of individual wellbeing and social arrangements (Sen, 1985; Bebbington, 1999; Nussbaum, 2000; Alkire, 2002; Clark, 2002; Frediani, 2010). Another body of literature considers the capability approach an informational space for making evaluative judgements (Sen, 1997; Deneulin and Stewart, 2002; Frediani, 2010). Both perspectives defend the idea that human wellbeing is multidimensional, including income and perceptions. By contrast, a third body of literature focuses on concerns related to the operationalisation of the capability approach and its openness and incompleteness in assessing capabilities (Comin, 2001; Biggeri et al., 2006; Alkire, 2007; Crocker, 2007; Comim et al., 2008; Frediani, 2010). The main idea is that the complexity of the capability approach allows for various interpretations and operationalisations of the capability concept. Based on this contested debate, what does the capability approach encompass in practice? Sub-section “Capability analysis framework: functioning, capabilities and agency” gives an answer to this question.

Capability analysis framework: Functioning, capabilities and agency

The capability approach, as developed by Amartya Sen, focuses on the moral significance of an individual's capability (ability) to achieve the kind of life they have reason to value and to enhance the substantive choices they have (Sen, 1999; Wells, 2012). As such, the approach puts human beings at the center and manages to assess their actual abilities that they achieve and acquire (Wells, 2012). This definition involves three main concepts which constitute the core elements of the capability approach: functioning (also achievement), abilities or capabilities, and agency and the way they are interlinked. First, functioning consists of the states of “being and doing” (Wells, 2012, Core concepts and Structure of Sen's Capability Section, para.2), that is, the states and actions forming individual's being (Sen, 1992).

Second, capabilities refer to the “set of valuable functioning that a person has effective access to” (Sen, 1992; Wells, 2012, Core concepts and Structure of Sen's Capability Section, para.2). Thus, “a person's capability represents his or her effective freedom to choose between different functioning combinations,” that is, a choice “between different kinds of life that she or he has reason to value” (Gore, 1997; Wells, 2012, Core concepts and Structure of Sen's Capability Section, para.2). As such, capabilities are a mixture of achievable functioning for a person and therefore constitute her opportunity set (Gore, 1997). Regarding the concept of freedom, the literature distinguishes wellbeing freedom from agency freedom (1992). The former refers to what an individual considers important for her wellbeing, whereas agency freedom pertains to one's freedom to select and make what she or he values the most (Sen, 1992; Frediani, 2010). This distinction is interesting as it sees freedom as both an instrument to reach development and an outcome of development (Sen, 1992).

Third, regarding agency, an agent acts and generates a change (Sen, 2001). A person's achieved change merely depends on his or her personal values and goals. Agency refers to a person's capability to engage in the economic, social, and political activities of society (Alkire, 2005).

In this study, the capability approach attempts to understand WSEs at two levels: as an individual agent and a collective agent (Narayan, 2005). First, an individual agent is related to the WSEs individually considered as agents. From this perspective, the capability analysis framework is applied to each WSE to understand her capabilities and functioning in the context of her living area, vulnerability, and her cultural, environmental, political, and social positions that affect her agency. This implies looking at the resources she has access to and which can be converted into valuable functions based on her ability to do so. For example, the ability of a WSE to convert the resource that she has access to valuable functioning depends on her personal physiology, social norms, or cultural and physical environment (Wells, 2012). In this vein, individual capabilities, functioning, and agency can be distinguished. In other words, WSEs have individual access to resources, individual opportunities, and individual abilities to make valuable choices related to (i) their individual goals and values, (ii) individual freedoms and individual capacities to convert resources into their individual functioning, and (iii) individual cross-cultural norms, social positions, political power relations, and so on.

Second, the collective agent refers to each WSEs' group as an organization of human beings, since inclusive business intervention in the value chain usually targets organized women in the group (Ros-Tonen et al., 2019). WSEs' groups are organizations comprised of members who are part of society. The structure and dynamics of such organizations are deeply embedded in the behavior of the individuals that compose them. For this level of analysis, and by analogy to the individual level, this study refers to the concepts of collective capabilities, collective functioning, and collective agency. In other words, WSEs' groups have collective access to resources, collective opportunities and choices, collective abilities, collective goals and values, collective freedoms, collective agency to convert their collective resources into collective functioning, and so on. The group mentioned herein is another entity or organization whose dynamics involve another type of consideration.

The theory of organizations in economics, management science, and sociology can help explain the motivations and purposes of creating an organization and its functioning (Hatch and Cunliff, 2006; Bressy and Konkuyt, 2008; Natemeyer and Hersey, 2011; Aïm, 2013). A relevant reference that structures the analysis is the principal-agent problem theory. In this theory, the concept of agency is different from that in the capability approach: an agent is a person acting on someone else's behalf (Sen, 2001). In other words, agency in the theory of organizations is linked to the concept of information asymmetry, which claims that economic agents do not have access to the same level of information (Akerlof, 1970; Hatch and Cunliff, 2006; Natemeyer and Hersey, 2011). Consequently, WSE groups can be analyzed within this framework of organization theory.

Therefore, this study does not reject the concept of an agent presented by Sen (2001). Instead, it considers Sen's definition of an agent as complementary to the definition of agency from the theory of organizations. Therefore, beyond the fact that an agent is a member of society, his or her behavior as an economic agent within an organization can also reveal additional information about his or her access to resources and his or her abilities to transform them into valuable functioning.

In so doing, the current study came across a holistic-specific understanding of WSEs' capabilities, which is analogous to the concept of glocalisation in international marketing (Sarroub, 2009; Hollensen, 2014). The holistic side (global) considers the capability approach to identify all the factors influencing the access of human beings (agents) to resources and their capacities to convert them into valuable functioning. The specific side (local) of the analyses focuses on a human being as an economic agent, that is, influenced by both his or her agency as a member of society and his or her economic agency in the economic arena, hereof called the value chain. It appears that both types of agencies are two sides of the same coin as they express two different but interlinked realities (Wells, 2012).

Overall, this rich literature shows that the capability approach is often applied to human beings. However, this approach is too broad for use in specific cases of WSEs. The capability approach considers all societal and environmental factors of life within the community, such as values, culture, and norms (Sen, 1985, 2001). As such, the capability approach contributes to understanding the interactions between WSEs and their living environment (household and community) and how this affects their daily profit-making activities. However, the capability approach does not fully capture the behavior of women as individual economic agents within their (business) associations/groups. To bridge this gap, firm-level economic wellbeing provides a sound analytical framework.

Firm level economic wellbeing: Firms, businesses and entrepreneurs

A firm-level economic wellbeing refers to “the business command over resources, relations, performances, goals and satisfaction thereof' (Pouw, 2017, p. 95). Three main concepts are involved: firms, businesses, and entrepreneurs (Pouw, 2017). A firm is defined as “an organization engaged in the paid production of goods and services to customers for profit and other gains. In addition, a firm has a legal component, whereas a business refers to any profit-making activity” (Pouw, 2017, p. 97). In contrast, “an entrepreneur is a person who organizes, manages and assumes the risks and rewards for a business venture, including non-monetary business risks and rewards” (Pouw, 2017, p. 97).

From this perspective, firms, businesses, and entrepreneurs (FBEs) usually operate with the motivation to make profits and/or social and/or environmental gains. Specifically, they are key resource agents that produce paid goods and services, create employment, and form part of an entrepreneurial environment in which individual women and men can find jobs (Pouw, 2017). Societal norms and behavioral rules and practices, including those related to gender, influence women's and men's activities, access to resources, and generated outcomes in FBEs (Pouw, 2017). The outcomes of FBEs activities contribute to firm-level economic wellbeing, which is partly influenced by the entrepreneurial or stakeholders' subjective evaluations of aspired goals and satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

This theoretical thinking on firms, businesses, and entrepreneurship suggests having a particular look at the concept of profit-making; profit-making guides the definition of business in value chain analysis. Indeed, the position of Pouw (2017) on business nature within the framework of firm-level economic wellbeing is questionable because it implicitly acknowledges the existence of competition among value chain stakeholders. As in industrial economic theory, profit-making businesses lead to competition among market actors (Encaoua, 1986; Jaworski et al., 2000; Carlton and Perloff, 2005). The main idea is that perfect competition leads to efficiency and innovation of firms, with more affordable goods and services exchanged in the market, and generates profits for successful firms (Encaoua, 1986; Carlton and Perloff, 2005; Brooke, 2010). This perspective is contestable regarding WSEs' survival characteristics (Zoumba, 2018; Likoko et al., 2019), which does not fit the conventional entrepreneurial model (see Gender awareness in business). While conventional firms require initial capital (apart from their workforce) to start their activities, they usually lack such capital (Vossenberg, 2016; Pouw, 2017). As they lack access to credit, the financial risk undertaken differs from that undertaken by a conventional firm. Therefore, the concept of profit needs to be differentiated as normal vs. supernormal profit. Supernormal profit refers to profit above normal profit, defined as the minimum return necessary to keep a firm in business; this particularly happens in a market with a monopoly (Encaoua, 1986; Carlton and Perloff, 2005). Normal profit enables a firm to pay a reasonable salary to its workers, managers, and shareholders, as is the case in a market with perfect competition (Encaoua, 1986; Jehle and Reny, 2000; Bianchi and Henrekson, 2005; Carlton and Perloff, 2005; Hawley, 2009; Brooke, 2010).

Supernormal profit (typically for monopolies) is seen as an extra profit or “abnormal profit” because it is above the necessary profit, thus it creates incentives for other firms to enter the value chain or business sector if they can (Carlton and Perloff, 2005; Brooke, 2010). Therefore, it generates competition between firms that supply goods and services. As the poorest engaged in survival, entrepreneurial activities are usually vulnerable to business competition, raising concerns about their ability to seek supernormal or normal profits. Indeed, the poorest are the most vulnerable to uncertainty or risk, which determines the expectations to earn profit (Knight, 2006; Brooke, 2010), but they lack the means to bear such uncertainty or risk. Thus, they expect revenues earned from their activities to be able to cover the costs of inputs used in their business and their households' basic needs (food, education, health care). Hence, in this study, profit-making activities refer to earning at least an income or profit (after deducting their direct costs), which can be negative, as stated by Knight (2006).

Hence, the firm-level economic wellbeing perspective is an important framework enabling the identification of agents involved in a value chain and how they organize, manage, and assume the risks and rewards for any profit-making activity. The framework also helps to identify the businesses or profit-making activities encountered in value chains, and to what extent they are gender-aware and inclusive. However, the FBE cannot provide clear information on the social institutions that women face in their households and communities and how they behave in such conditions. Furthermore, this theoretical model does not explain how the economic environment of women in business (their business group) affects their social lives (within their household and community). This knowledge gap can be filled using the capability approach, particularly the holistic-specific approach. In particular, the firm-level economic wellbeing approach helps identify resources, roles, activities, and outcomes (Pouw, 2017). Resources can be referred to as assets to which WSEs have access to (Bebbington, 1999; Frediani, 2010). Specifically, resources encompass time, natural, spatial, human, and financial resources (Pouw, 2017). Activities are referred to as business activities, including food production, processing, and marketing (WFEs Project, 2015). The outcome, which is the result of the process of transforming resources, is the economic wellbeing of WSEs (Pouw, 2017). This encompasses material gains (profit earned) and non-material gains such as good customer relations, solid business reputation, brand name, and so on Pouw (2017). From a broad perspective, the outcome of this process can be referred to as the achievement of women's empowerment (Sen, 1992).

Theoretical perspective and discussion

From the literature presented above, this paper suggests a different conceptualization of a value chain aimed at addressing gender inequality and the inclusion of BoP people, particularly women survival entrepreneurs. By naming it “gender-aware inclusive value chains (GAIVC), this perspective of value chains brings in the Foucauldian perspective on humans to the conceptualization of a value chain. Indeed, a value chain should be analogous to the human body, as it is the best way to address the issue of gender inequalities and inclusion of BoP populations in the food system, particularly WSEs at the community or local level.

Hence, three main concepts and their interactions characterize a gender-aware inclusive value chain (GAIVC): (1) WSEs' capabilities, functioning, and agency; (2) gender-aware inclusive business (GAIB); and (3) the other components. They form the theoretical perspective proposed by this paper.

Theoretical perspective

WSEs as societal and economic entities

The capability approach and firm-level economic wellbeing are individually limited to clearly explaining WSEs behaviors (and their groups) both as individual members of society/communities/households and economic agents within their business groups (see Gender awareness in business and Firm level economic wellbeing: firms, businesses and entrepreneurs). Thus, this study combines the capability approach with the firm-level economic wellbeing framework (i.e., the resources, roles, and activities in a business). This helps obtain information on agents (individual women) as members of society and how this influences their daily entrepreneurial activities. Second, the paper assesses how an “economic” agent makes the connection between his or her agency (behavior) as a member of society and as an entrepreneur. This allowed us to capture how WSEs behave as agents within their groups and how this influences their gains from their activities. Interestingly, combining both approaches helps to better understand how institutions, including groups' governance, affect the dynamics of GAIVC.

Three main elements were involved: (a) WSEs as societal and economic agents, (b) capabilities, and (c) functioning. First, in the local food system (e.g., in urban areas), WSEs usually produce and sell or produce and/or buy their products at the production site or marketplace. The self-consumption of their production exists, but is marginal because their prime objective is to sell their products and obtain revenue. In this framework, WSEs are expected to drive the business model and are among the key stakeholders/agents (nervous system) of GAIVC. A better understanding of these agents requires a thorough examination of their socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., age, education, marital status, ethnic group, living place, access to food). Thus, in this paper, WSEs or their “agency” will be better described through these individual and collective socio-demographic characteristics.

Second, as “capabilities” is a concept difficult to operationalise, and it only focuses on WSEs as societal agents, this paper bridges the disconnection with the firm level approach. Thus, “capabilities” are the sets of valuable functioning, or the sets of resources (i.e., assets that include time, natural, space, human, relational and financial resources) at WSEs' disposal (See section “Capabilities and functioning”). In addition, a distinction is made between individual and collective resources for WSEs individually and WSEs groups. Moreover, the study considered all changes in these resources due to the WSE's business model as “capabilities.”

Third, “functioning” refers to achieved empowerment or functioning according to the capability approach. This study adopts the definition of firm-level economic wellbeing by stating that “functioning” refers to the most valued changes in WSEs' living conditions brought about by the changes in their capabilities (i.e., time, natural, space, human, relational, and financial resources) due to business. They are material and non-material, and include quality food, relations, reputations, control of resources, and decision making. Collective valued resources and individual valued resources also exist for individuals and groups, respectively.

Hence, WSEs' agency and capabilities are key elements that affect their business strategies, and vice versa. By adopting the definition of strategy as a set of plans or decisions made to help organizations achieve their objectives (Mainardes et al., 2014), this study considers that WSEs' characteristics significantly determine these dynamic strategies and vice versa. These strategies respond to the dynamics of the internal and external environments in which WSEs evolve. Thus, the first hypothesis (H1) that “WSEs' individual and collective characteristics or agency, capabilities, and strategies primarily shape their business model” can be formulated and field-tested.

Gender-aware inclusive business: Dimensions, indicators and relationships

Gender-aware inclusive businesses alleviate both gender inequality and women's exclusion from formal economic systems (see section “Inclusive business”). It encompasses food production, processing, and vending activities, whereby each activity is considered innovative, adaptable, applicable, affordable, and viable. It has five dimensions with several indicators or variables (see Table 1). This table provides questions that helps draw up the indicators of such a business model for field testing and implementation. Table 2 presents the operational indicators of gender-aware inclusive businesses.

TABLE 1

Table 1. Conceptualizing a gender-aware inclusive business (GAIB).

TABLE 2

Table 2. Gender-aware inclusive business components, indicators.

From this table, the components and indicators of gender-aware inclusive business are drawn.

How does a gender-aware inclusive business approach bring about changes in WSEs' various resources and agencies (see WSEs as societal and economic entities)? To answer this question, a second (field-testable) hypothesis (H2) is: “an innovative, credible, affordable, adaptable, and viable business is materialized by a significant increase in WSEs' individual resources as well as positive change in their agency/behavior.”

“Other components”

The “other components” of the gender-aware inclusive value chain comprise the structures, non-WSE actors, environment, and institutions. The “structures” refer to the physical and nonphysical elements. Physical elements include infrastructure, such as buildings, roads, equipment, and warehouses. Non-physical elements comprise (a) vertical linkages or vertical integration, that is, how actors at different nodes of the value chain are organized (e.g., are producers and vendors of their products in the marketplace?) (b) The horizontal linkages or coordination, that is, how actors at the same node of the value chain are organized (e.g., are food producers organized into groups or not?). Thus, a third (field-testable) hypothesis (H3) is that “infrastructure, level of vertical integration and level of horizontal coordination in a value chain shape the capabilities, agency and strategies of WSEs.

“Non-WSE actors” refer to the other people (food consumers or purchasers and other stakeholders such as service providers – NGOs, public services, financial services – intervening in the value chain) and how they communicate together with WSEs. Communication refers to how information and knowledge flow among and between stakeholders at the same node and across nodes. For example, how do public service providers reach WSEs when a new technology is available for adoption, or how consumers are informed of the availability of food products from gardens?

“Environment” refers to natural environment (e.g., climate change risk, droughts and floods) and competitive environment (other value chains surrounding the ones which involve WSEs environment). For example, how do conventional food value chains influence organic food value chains in urban food systems?

“Institutions” refers to all formal and informal political, economic and gender norms and rules in the business field (see Gender awareness in business). “Political institutions” refer to formal and informal rules (laws, policies, political corruption) adopted at the state level to regulate social and political life. The idea is to understand how policies and governance systems contribute to forging WSEs' capabilities, agencies, and strategies, as well as the business model involved.

“Economic institutions” refer to formal and informal market rules (including corruption) that shape the business environment. The idea is to understand how these rules contribute to forging WSEs' capabilities, agencies, and strategies, as well as their business model.

“Gender” refers to the formal and informal norms on how women and men's roles are perceived and how these cultural power-relations are displayed in the business. For example, how do women culturally perceive themselves vis-à-vis men, what is the power balance relationship between them, and what future do they perceive in terms of gender equality? Gender policies addressing gender inequality and empowerment of powerless people can also shed light on gender issues. Analyses of how institutions influence WSEs' capabilities, agency, and strategies, as well as their business model, are contextual.

Hence, the field-testable hypothesis is that the other components individually shape WSEs' business strategies, capabilities, and functioning. Figure 2 below shows the conceptual model on gender-aware inclusive value chains.

FIGURE 2

Figure 2. The conceptual framework of Gender-aware Inclusive Value Chain.

Discussion

This result on value chain concept can be compared to the “inclusive value chain collaboration” recently proposed by Ros-Tonen et al. (2019). The latter sound analytical framework has two main commonalities with the what is proposed in this paper. First, both studies address gender issues and BoP populations' (smallholders notably) in an integrated manner in value chain conceptualization. In doing so, both studies consider human right and dignity (Ioannou and Serafeim, 2012) in the analysis and collaboration in a value chain. Second, both studies consider “inclusive value chains” as a framework where inclusive business models are conducted (Ros-Tonen et al., 2019, p. 13; Kini, 2022).

However, the current paper contrasts with Ros-Tonen et al. (2019) on the following points. First, the authors' theoretical model merely pertains to existing global value chains (and how to integrate the BoP population as well as address gender barriers in such value chains); whereas, the model proposed in the current paper is more directed toward new value chains. Second, they focus on long value chains (international or cross-country); whereas GAIVC focuses on short value chains perspective. While relevant, the authors position of value chain is the one which has been criticized by Likoko and Kini (2017). The latter assume that this way of integrating the BoP populations in business is merely the position defended by SNV and WBCSD (2011) or multinationals, which integrated these populations as consumers, suppliers/distributors or producers of certain raw materials (Likoko and Kini, 2017). In such a way, the BoP population cannot be drivers of the business, meaning that they have little power or influence on the value chain dynamics. This is recognized by Ros-Tonen et al. (2019, p. 14) themselves when they state that in such value chains, there is a great potential of adverse incorporation and exclusion, thus they are not inclusive of all the farmers. Third, their model cannot fully address the problem of power relations as BoP populations are powerless in such business value chains and are forced to adopt decisions made by the drivers of the business (mostly the multinationals) (Kini, 2022). In contrast, the approach to value chain proposed in the paper is meant to address the unequal power relations. Indeed, if each stakeholder sees herself or himself as complementary instead of a competitor, the power relationship (gender-based or poverty-based) has a great chance to be balanced among and between themselves (Kini, 2022).

Conclusion

This paper has provided a sound bottom-up approach addressing both gender issues and BoP inclusion in business and value chains. Indeed, gender-aware inclusive value chains presented in this paper provide sufficient knowledge addressing gender inequalities faced by resource-poor women. In addition, empirically testable hypotheses described in this paper show how business models for inclusiveness in food value chains affect the capabilities and functioning of women survival entrepreneurs (WSEs).

Hence, this paper has contributed to the literature by bringing the Foucauldian perspective on humans to the conceptualization of a value chain. From the conceptualization of the gender-aware inclusive value chain, this paper has identified the existing (actors, structures, environment and institutions), communicative (knowledge and information flow) and productive (production outputs) components of the value chains. It also shows the interactions existing between elements of each component and how they contribute to the overall performance of the value chain.

The proposed framework is designed for policy makers, NGO (as development practitioners), and businesses, particularly in low-income countries where poverty and gender inequalities hinder their development. Indeed, it may serve as a tool to truly implement, assess, and monitor business models, “so called” inclusive of the poorest, particularly the poor resources women based on the proposed indicators.

To Kini (2022) “the main challenges will be significant when scaling-up this model to a larger dimension, exposing it to rural-urban interactions at local, meso and national levels. The current research did not investigate this, and future research should fill this gap in knowledge. Indeed, political and economic institutions will be at the heart of such upscaling, and a deep understanding of these political and economic institutions will help to assess the accuracy of the business models proposed as a result of the current research. As the dominant business model supports vertical and horizontal integration in the value chains in the food sector, the most powerful actors in the sector could become real threats for the actors participating in the gender-aware inclusive businesses and value chains, as they might see their market shares reduced. Therefore, improving the understanding of the power of economic and political institutions to support the implementation of poor-driven business models will be insightful for further decision making” (p. 207).

Moreover, “to scale-up this business model and the value chain from a small scale (within urban or local areas) to the national scale, the process should target the urban areas to replicate the business model. At a small scale, and in each city of a country, this model can produce very interesting outcomes in terms of income, food supply (diversity), food quality, relationships to the benefit of the whole urban communities. In other words, at a small scale, such a model could cope with the competition of the other value chains. Thus, this small-scale business model might be gradually extended to cover much more of a country” (Kini, 2022, p. 207).

However, the proposed theoretical model does not explicitly highlight an important performance indicator related to the percentage or weight with respect to the entire value chain. Indeed, given that some hypotheses of the model are related to individual characteristics, collective characteristics, infrastructure, or sustainable enterprise, it appears appropriate to correlate the number of participants in association with the number of associations in each city according to the number of inhabitants. In other words, larger cities may require a greater number of members per group, thus strengthening the value chain. Therefore, this paper recommends future applications should consider these performance indicators when testing the hypotheses introduced in the theoretical model.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.

Funding

NWO WOTRO project number W08.250.200: WFEs in Kenya and Burkina Faso: Building inclusive business models for food security in the city slums of Kisumu and Ouagadougou.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the Amsterdam Institute for Social Sciences Research (AISSR), University of Amsterdam, for providing access to academic facilities. We particularly thank the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NOW-WOTRO) funded project Women Food Entrepreneurs in Kenya and Burkina Faso: Building inclusive business models for food security in the city slums of Kisumu and Ouagadougou which supported this research over the period 2016–2019 in the Netherlands.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Acemoglu, D. (2009). Introduction to Modern Economic Growth. Princeton, NJ; New York, NY: Princeton University Press.

Google Scholar

Acemoglu, D., and Robinson, J. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty. New York, NY: Random House. doi: 10.1355/ae29-2j

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Denyer, D., and Overy, P. (2016). Sustainability-oriented innovation: a systematic review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 18, 180–205. doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12068

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Agri-ProFocus. (2014). Gender in Value Chains: Practical Toolkit to Integrate a Gender Perspective in Agricultural Value Chain Development. Available online at: https://agriprofocus.com/upload/ToolkitENGender_in_Value_ChainsJan2014compressed1415203230.pdf (accessed April 14, 2017).

Google Scholar

Aïm, R. (2013). L'essentiel de la théorie des organisations, Gualino, coll. ≪Les Carrés. Paris. p. 152.

Google Scholar

Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q. J. Econ. 84, 488–500. doi: 10.2307/1879431

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alkire, S. (2002). Valuing Freedoms: Sen's Capability Approach and Poverty Reduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/0199245797.001.0001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alkire, S. (2005). Subjective quantitative studies of human agency. Soc. Indicat. Res. 74, 217–260. doi: 10.1007/s11205-005-6525-0

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Alkire, S. (2007). “Choosing dimensions: the capability approach and multidimensional poverty,” in Chronic Poverty Research Centre Working Paper 88, OPHI, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford, Oxford. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.1646411

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bamber, P., and Staritz, C. (2016). The Gender Dimensions of Global Value Chains. The Gender Dimensions of Global Value Chains. Geneva: International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD).

Google Scholar

Bannick, M., Goldman, P., and Kubzansky, M. (2015). Frontier Capital: Early Stage Investing for Financial Returns and Social Impact in Emerging Markets. Washington, DC: Omidyar Network.

Google Scholar

Baumol, W. J. (1990). Entrepreneurship: productive, unproductive, and destructive. J. Polit. Econ. 98, 893–921. doi: 10.1086/261712

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bebbington, A. (1999). Capitals and capabilities: a framework for analyzing peasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty. World Dev. 27, 2021–2044. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00104-7

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Berner, E., Gomez, G., and Knorringa, P. (2012). Helping a large number of people become a little less poor: the logic of survival entrepreneurs. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 24, 382–396. doi: 10.1057/ejdr.2011.61

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bianchi, M., and Henrekson, M. (2005). Is neoclassical economics entrepreneurless? KYKLOS 58, 353–377. doi: 10.1111/j.0023-5962.2005.00292.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Biggeri, M., Libanora, R., Mariani, S., and Menchini, L. (2006). Children conceptualizing their capabilities: results of a survey conducted during the First Children's Congress on Child Labour. J. Hum. Dev. Capab. 7, 59–83. doi: 10.1080/14649880500501179

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Blake, M. K., and Hanson, S. (2005). Rethinking innovation: Context and gender. Environ. Plann. A. 37, 681–701. doi: 10.1068/a3710

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bolwig, S., Ponte, S., Du Toit, A., Riisgaard, L., and Halberg, N. (2010). Integrating poverty and environmental concerns into value-chain analysis: a conceptual framework. Dev. Policy Rev. 28, 173–194. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7679.2010.00480.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bonnell, V., and Veglio, F. (2011). Inclusive Business for Sustainable Livelihoods. Field Actions Science Reports [Online], Vol. 5. Available online at: http://journals.openedition.org/factsreports/840 (accessed July 04, 2021).

Google Scholar

Boodhna, A. (2011). Sourcing Gender: Gender Productivity and Sustainable Sourcing Strategies. The New Business Models for Sustainable Trading Relationships Project. London: International Institute for Environment and Development/Sustainable Food Lab.

Google Scholar

Bougdira, A., Ahaitouf, A., and Akharraz, I. (2016). “An intelligent traceability system: efficient tool for supply chain sustainability. Technologies and materials for renewable energy, environment and sustainability,” AIP Conf. Proc. (Beirut), 1758, 030010-7. doi: 10.1063/1.4959406

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bressy, G., and Konkuyt, C. (2008). Management and Business Economics. Memory aid. 9th Edn. Paris: Dalloz Campus.

Brooke, G. T. (2010). Uncertainty, profit and entrepreneurial action: Frank Knight's contribution reconsidered. J. Hist. Econ. Thought. 32, 221–235. doi: 10.1017/S1053837210000179

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brush, C. G., De Bruin, A., and Welter, F. (2009). A gender-aware framework for women's entrepreneurship. Int. J. Gend. Entrep. 1, 8–24. doi: 10.1108/17566260910942318

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bruton, G. D., Ahlstrom, D., and Li, H. L. (2010). Institutional theory and entrepreneurship: where are we now and where do we need to move in the future? Entrep. Theory Pract. 34, 421–440. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2010.00390.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Carlton, D. W., and Perloff, J. M. (2005). Modern Industrial Organization, 4th ed. New York, NY: Pearson.

Google Scholar

Carter, C. R., and Rogers, D. S. (2008). A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new theory. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 38, 360–387. doi: 10.1108/09600030810882816

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Chowdhury, F., Audretsch, D., and Belitski, M. (2019). Institutions and entrepreneurship quality. Entrep. Theory Pract. 43 51–81. doi: 10.1177/1042258718780431

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Christopher, M. (2000). The agile supply chain: competing in volatile markets. Ind. Mark. Manag. 29, 37–44. doi: 10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00110-8

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Clark, D. A. (2002). Visions of Development: A Study of Human Values. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Google Scholar

Coles, C., and Mitchell, J. (2011). “Gender and agricultural value chains. A review of current knowledge and practice and their policy implications,” ESA Working paper No. 11-05, March 2011. Rome: Agricultural Development Economics Division, FAO.

Google Scholar

Comim, F., Qizilbash, M., and Alkiré, S. (2008). The Capability Approach: Concepts, Measures and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge Books Online. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511492587

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Comin, F. (2001). “Operationalizing Sen's capability approach,” in Paper presented at the Conference on Justice and Poverty: Examining Sen's Capability Approach. June 5–7, Cambridge.

Google Scholar

Crocker, D. (2007). Deliberative participation in local development. J. Hum. Dev. Capab. 8, 431–455. doi: 10.1080/14649880701462379

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

DANIDA (Danish International Development Agency) (2010). Gender and Value Chain Development. Evalutation Study Report. Copenhagen.

Google Scholar

Deneulin, S., and Stewart, F. (2002). Amartya Sen's contribution to development thinking. Stud. Comp. Int. Dev. 37, 61–70. doi: 10.1007/BF02686262

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Dietrich, M., and Bauer, A. (2013). “The inclusive business market in the Philippines,” in A Report of the Asian Development Bank (ADB), presented at the 2nd Inclusive Business Forum, on 16 September 2013 (Mandaluyong). Last accessed on 16-12-2017, at 10, 12.

Google Scholar

Eesley, C. E., Eberhart, R. N., Skousen, B. R., and Cheng, J. L. C. (2018). Institutions and entrepreneurial activity: The interactive influence of misaligned formal and informal institutions. Strategy Sci. 3, 393–407. doi: 10.1287/stsc.2018.0060

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Encaoua, D. (1986). “Réglementation et concurrence: quelques éléments de théorie économique,” in Économie and Prévision n°76, 1986–5. Numéro Spécial. Déréglementation, Privatisation et Concurrence (Paris). pp. 7–46. doi: 10.3406/ecop.1986.6011

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation) (2011). The State of Food and Agriculture 2010–2011: Women in Agriculture: Closing the Gender Gap for Development. Rome, Italy: FAO. Available online at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i2050e/i2050e00.htm

Google Scholar

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation) (2014). Developing Sustainable Food Value Chains Guiding Principle. Rome.

Google Scholar

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation) (2015). Inclusive Business Models. Guidelines for improving linkages between producer groups and buyers of agricultural produce [Internet]. Organ. Food Agric. New York, NY: United Nations.

Google Scholar

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation) (2016). Developing Gender-sensitive Value Chains – A Guiding Framework. Rome.

Google Scholar

FAO IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO. (2019). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2019. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, and WHO.

Google Scholar

Farnworth, C. R. (2011). Gender-Aware Value Chain Development. Expert Group Meeting: Enabling Rural Women's Economic Empowerment: Institutions, Opportunities and Participation. UN Women in Collaboration with FAO, IFAD and WFP. Accra, Ghana 20–23 September 20.

Google Scholar

Farnworth, C. R., Kruijssen, F., Longley, C., and Kantor, P. (2015). Gender integration in livestock and fisheries value chains: emerging good practices from analysis to action. Int. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol. 11, 262–279. doi: 10.1504/IJARGE.2015.074093

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Foucault, M. (1972). The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York, NY: Routledge Classics, Taylor and Francis e-Library.

Google Scholar

Frediani, A. A. (2010). Sen's capability approach as a framework to the practice of development. Dev. Pract. 20, 173–187. doi: 10.1080/09614520903564181

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Freeman, E., and Liedtka, J. (1997). Stakeholder capitalism and the value chain. Eur. Manag. J. I5, 286–296. doi: 10.1016/S0263-2373(97)00008-X

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Fuentelasz, L., González, C., Maícas, J., and Montero, J. (2015). How different formal institutions affect opportunity and necessity entrepreneurship. Bus. Res. Q. 18, 246–258. doi: 10.1016/j.brq.2015.02.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

George, G., McGahan, A. M., and Prabhu, J. (2012). Innovation for inclusive growth: towards a theoretical framework and a research Agenda. J. Manag. Stud. 49, 4. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2012.01048.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gholipour, H., and Tajul, A. M. (2012). Governance matters and entrepreneurial activities. Thunderbird Int. Bus. Rev. 54, 701–712. doi: 10.1002/tie.21494

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Golja, T., and PoŽega, S. (2012). Inclusive business – what it is all about? Managing inclusive companies. Int. Rev. Manag. Mark 2, 22–42. Available online at: https://www.econjournals.com/index.php/irmm/article/view/95/82

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Gore, C. (1997). Irreducibly social goods and the informational basis of Amartya Sen's capability approach. J. Int. Dev. 9, 235–250. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1328(199703)9:2<235::AID-JID436>3.0.CO;2-J

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Gupta, J., Pouw, N., and Ros-Tonen, M. (2015). Towards an elaborated theory of inclusive development. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 27, 541–559. doi: 10.1057/ejdr.2015.30

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hart, S., Milstein, M., and Overview, E. (2003). Creating sustainable value. Management 17, 56–69. doi: 10.5465/ame.2003.10025194

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hart, S. L. (2007). Capitalism at the Crossroads: Aligning Business, Earth, and Humanity, 2nd Edn. Wharton School Publishing.

Google Scholar

Hatch, M. J., and Cunliffe, A. L. (2006). Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Hawley, F. B. (2009). The risk theory of profit (1893). Q. J. Econ. 7, 459–479. doi: 10.2307/1882285

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hickey, S. (2010). The government of chronic poverty: from exclusion to citizenship? J. Dev. Stud. 46: 7, 1139–1155. doi: 10.1080/00220388.2010.487100

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hollensen, S. (2014). Global Marketing. London: Pearson. doi: 10.15358/9783800649297

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hörisch, J., Kollat, J., and Brieger, S. A. (2017). What influences environmental entrepreneurship? A multilevel analysis of the determinants of entrepreneurs' environmental orientation. Small Business Econom. 48, 47–69. doi: 10.1007/s11187-016-9765-2

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Hurst, E., and Pugsley, B. (2011). “What do small businesses do?,” in Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Fall. doi: 10.3386/w17041

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ioannou, I., and Serafeim, G. (2012). What drives corporate social performance? The role of nation-level institutions. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 43, 834–864. doi: 10.1057/jibs.2012.26

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jaworski, J., Kohli, A., and Sahay, A. (2000). Market-driven versus driving markets. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 28, 45–54. doi: 10.1177/0092070300281005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Jehle, G. A., and Reny, P. J. (2000). Advanced Microeconomic Theory, 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Addison Wesley.

Google Scholar

Kaplinsky, R., and Morris, M. (2000). A Handbook for Value Chain Research. Ottawa, ON: IDRC.

Google Scholar

Karim, N. A. (2001). “Jobs, gender and small enterprises in Bangladesh: factors affecting women entrepreneurs in small and cottage industries in Bangladesh,” in SEED Working Paper No. 14 – Series on women's entrepreneurship development and gender in enterprises.

Google Scholar

Khan, M. (2010). Political Settlements and the Governance of Growth-enhancing Institution. London: School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS). [Mimeo].

Google Scholar

Kini, J. (2022). Statut Agricole des Ménages et Sécurité Alimentaire au Burkina Faso. Thèse de Doctorat Unique, Ecole Doctorale de Droit, Sciences Politique, Economique et de Gestion. Ouagadougou: Université OuagaII.

Google Scholar

Klapper, L., Laeven, L., and Rajan, R. (2006). Entry regulation as a barrier to entrepreneurship. J. Financ. Econ. 82, 591–629. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2005.09.006

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Knight, F. H. (2006). Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. New York, NY: Dover Publications.

Google Scholar

Laven, A., and Pyburn, R. (2015). Facilitating gender inclusive agri-business. Knowl. Manag. Dev. J. 11, 10–30. Available online at: https://km4djournal.org/index.php/km4dj/article/view/203/343

Google Scholar

Levie, J., and Autio, E. (2011). Regulatory burden, rule of law, and entry of strategic entrepreneurs: an international panel study. J. Manag. Stud. 48, 1392–1419. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.01006.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Likoko, E., Pouw, N. R. M., Okeyo-Owuor, J., and Odame, H. (2019). “Rethinking women in survival entrepreneurship and wellbeing in Kenya,” in The Wellbeing of Women in Entrepreneurship, eds M. T. Lepely, K. Kuschel, N. Beutell, N. R. M. Pouw, and E. Eijdenberg (New York, NY: Routledge), 374–390.

Google Scholar

Likoko, E. A., and Kini, J. (2017). Inclusive business—a business approach to development. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 24, 84–88. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2017.03.001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

London, T., and Hart, S. (2011). Next Generation Business Strategies for the Base of the Pyramid [Internet]. Pearson Educ.Inc. Publ. as FT Press Up. Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.

Google Scholar

Mainardes, E. W., Ferreira, J. J., and Raposo, M. L. (2014). “Strategy and strategic management concepts: Are they recognised by management students?,” in Ekonomika a management, Vol. 1. doi: 10.15240/tul/001/2014-1-004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mair, J., Marti, I., and Ventresca, M. (2012). Building inclusive markets in rural Bangladesh: how intermediaries work institutional voids. Acad. Manag. J. 55, 819–850. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.0627

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Marsden, T., Banks, J., and Bristow, G. (2000). Food Supply Chains Approaches: Exploring Their Role in Rural Development. Sociologia Ruralis, Vol 40, Number 4. European Society for Rural Sociology. ISSN 0038–0199. doi: 10.1111/1467-9523.00158

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychol. Rev. 50, 370–396. doi: 10.1037/h0054346

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

McDonald, C. M. (2016). Integrating packaging and supply chain decisions: selection of economic handling unit quantities. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 180, 208–221. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.08.003

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

McMullen, J., Ray Bagby, D., and Palich, L. (2008). Economic freedom and the motivation to engage in entrepreneurial action. Entrep. Theory Pract. 875–895. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00260.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mishra, D., Sharma, R., Kumar, S., and Dubey, R. (2016). Bridging and buffering: strategies for mitigating supply risk and improving supply chain performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 180, 183–197. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.08.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Mutua, E., Njuki, J., and Waithanji, E. (2014). Review of Gender and Value Chain Analysis, Development and Evaluation Toolkits. Nairobi, Kenya: International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI).

Google Scholar

Naguib, J., Oppermann, A., and Rosendahl, C. (2013). Inclusive Business Models Options for Support Through PSD Programmes [Internet]. Bonn and Eschborn: Dtsch. Gesellschaft für Int. Zusammenarbeit.

Google Scholar

Narayan, D. (2005). Measuring Empowerment: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives. Edited by D. Nayaran. Washington, DC: World Bank. doi: 10.1037/e597202012-001

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Natemeyer, W., and Hersey, P. (2011). Classics of Organizational Behavior (1995), 4th ed. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Google Scholar

Njuki, J., Kaaria, S., Chamunorwa, A., and Chiuri, W. (2011). Linking smallholder farmers to markets, gender and intra-household dynamics: does the choice of commodity matter? Eur. J. Dev. Res. 23, 426. doi: 10.1057/ejdr.2011.8

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nooteboom, B. (2006). “Elements of a cognitive theory of the firm in cognition and economics,” in Advances in Australian Economics, Volume 9. p. 145–175.

Google Scholar

North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511808678

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women's capabilities and social justice. J. Human. Develop. 1, 219–247. doi: 10.1080/713678045

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Odame, H. S. (2014). Innovation Dynamics and Agricultural Biotechnology in Kenya [PhD Dissertation]. Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam.

Google Scholar

Pache, A. C., and Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: the internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Acad. Manag. Rev. 35, 455–476. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2010.51142368

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Penrose, E. (1959). The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Google Scholar

Petkoski, D. (2014). Firmenich in India Changing the Rules of Engagement With Low Income Consumers Firmenich's Response. Geneva: World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

Google Scholar

Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance with a New Introduction. New York City, NY: The Free Press, Edition.

Google Scholar

Pouw, N. (2017). An Introduction to Gender and Wellbeing in Microeconomics. New York, NY: Routledge Focus. doi: 10.4324/9781315735047

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Pouw, N. R. M., and Kini, J. (2016). Participatory Assessment of Development in Rural Burkina Faso; A New Methodology For Resolving Old Pains. Revue CEDRESETUDES, Revue Economique et Sociale Africaine, n°62- Série économie-2è Semestre.

Google Scholar

Prahalad, C., and Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value creation [Internet]. J. Interact. Mark. 18, 5–14. doi: 10.1002/dir.20015

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Reynolds, P. (2010). New firm creation: a global assessment of national, contextual, and individual factors. Found. Trends Entrep. 6, 315–496. doi: 10.1561/0300000034

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Riisgaard, L., Fibla, A., and Ponte, S. (2010). Gender and Value Chain Development. Evaluation Study, 2010. The Danish Institute for International Studies, Global economy, regulation and development.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Roper, S., and Arvanitis, S. (2012). From knowledge to added value: a comparative, panel-data analysis of the innovation value chain in Irish and Swiss manufacturing firms. Res. Policy. 41, 1093–1106. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Roper, S., Du, J., and Love, J. H. (2008). Modelling the innovation value chain. Res. Policy 37, 961–977. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.005

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Ros-Tonen, M. A., Bitzer, V., Laven, A., de Leth, D. O., Van Leynseele, Y., and Vos, A. (2019). Conceptualizing inclusiveness of smallholder value chain integration. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 41, 10–17. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2019.08.006

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Safari, E. (2011). Perceptions of the Accommodation Sector Regarding the Tourism Value Chain with Specific Reference to the Western Province of Rwanda [Master Thesis]. Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town.

Google Scholar

Samadi, A. (2019). Institutions and entrepreneurship: unidirectional or bidirectional causality? J. Glob. Entrep. Res. 9, 3. doi: 10.1186/s40497-018-0129-z

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., and Lai, K.-H. (2011). An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain management literature. Int. J.Prod. Econ. 130, 1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.11.010

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sarroub, L. K. (2009). Glocalism in literacy and marriage in transnational lives. Crit. Inq. Lang. Stud. 6, 63–80. doi: 10.1080/15427580802679419

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Schoar, A. (2010). “The divide between subsistence and transformational entrepreneurship,” in NBER Innovation Policy and the Economy, eds J. Lerner, and S. Stern (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 57–81. doi: 10.1086/605853

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sen, A. (1985). Commodities and Capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Google Scholar

Sen, A. (1992). Inequality Re-examined. Oxford, NY: Russell Sage Foundation Clarendon Press Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN 9780198289289.

Google Scholar

Sen, A. (1997). Human Capital and Human Capability. World Development. p. 25.

Google Scholar

Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.

Google Scholar

Sen, A. (2001). Economic development and capability expansion in historical perspective. Pac. Econ. Rev. 6, 179–191. doi: 10.1111/1468-0106.00126

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sen, K. (2015). “The political determinants of economic growth: An analytical review,” in The Politics of Accumulation and Growth, Part II of “The Politics of Inclusive Development: Interrogating the Evidence”, eds S. Hickey, K. Sen, and B. Bake.

Google Scholar

Seuring, S., and Müller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 16, 1699–1710. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.04.020

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Singer, M., and Donoso, P. (2008). Upstream or downstream in the value chain? J. Bus. Res. 61, 669–677. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.043

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Smallbone, D., and Welter, F. (2012). Entrepreneurship and institutional change in transition economies: the commonwealth of independent States, Central and Eastern Europe and China compared. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 24, 215–233. doi: 10.1080/08985626.2012.670914

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

SNV and WBCSD (2011). Inclusive Business: Creating value in Latin America – Alliance for Inclusive Business. ISBN: 978-958-44-7346-2 p. 102–108. 36. Available online at: (accessed March 14, 2017). UNCTAD: The Social R.

Google Scholar

Sobel, R. (2008). Testing Baumol: Institutional quality and the productivity of entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 23, 641–655. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2008.01.004

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sopov, M., Saavedra, Y., Sertse, Y., and Vellema, W. H. (2014). Is Inclusive Business for you? Managing and Upscaling an Inclusive Company: Lessons from the Field. [Internet]. Wageningen UR: Centre for Development Innovation.

Google Scholar

Sullivan, D. (1998). Ontology comment international business : international business: vision [Internet]. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 29, 877–885. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490057

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tarafdar, M., and Qrunfleh, S. (2016). Agile supply chain strategies and supply chain performance: complementary roles of supply chain practices and information systems capability for agility. Int. J. Prod. Res. 55, 925–938. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2016.1203079

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Tolbert, P., and Zucker, L. (1983). Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: the diffusion of civil service reform, 1880–1935. Admin. Sci. Quart. 28, 22–39. doi: 10.2307/2392383

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

UN (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs) (2016). Leaving no One Behind: The Imperative of Inclusive Development. Report on the World Social Situation 2016. New York, NY: United Nations publication. ISBN 978-92-1-130336-0.

Google Scholar

UN Environment (2019). Global Environment Outlook-Geo-6: Healthy Planet, Healthy People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/9781108627146

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

UN Women (2018). Available online at: https://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/economic-empowerment/facts-and-figures (accessed November 4, 2020).

Google Scholar

UNCTAD (1999). The Social Responsibility of Transnational Corporations [Internet].

Google Scholar

UNDP (2010). Business Solutions to Poverty: How inclusive business models create opportunities for all in Emerging Europe and Central Asia [Internet]. United Nations Dev. Program. UNDP Reg. Bur. Eur. Commonw. Indep. States.

Google Scholar

USAID (US Agency for International Development) (2009). Promoting Gender Equitable Opportunities in Agricultural Value Chains: A Handbook. Prepared by Rubin, D. and C. Manfre for USAID.

Google Scholar

Van Hees, S. G. M., O'Fallon, T., Hofker, M., Dekker, M., Polack, S., Bank, L. M., et al. (2019). Leaving no one behind? Social inclusion of health insurance in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review. Int. J. Equtiy Health. 18, 134. doi: 10.1186/s12939-019-1040-0

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

van Tulder, R. (2018). Business and The Sustainable Development Goals: A Framework for Effective Corporate Involvement. RSM Positive Change Series. Available online at: http://hdl.handle.net/1765/110689

Google Scholar

Vossenberg, S. (2016). Gender-aware women's entrepreneurship development for inclusive development in Sub-Saharan Africa. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53, 1689–1699. Available online at: https://includeplatform.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/INCLUDE-GRF-Vossenberg-Gender-Aware-Women%E2%80%99s-Entrepreneurship-Development.pdf (accessed March 16, 2017).

Google Scholar

Wach, E. (2012). IDS practice paper research summary 9: measuring the “inclusivity” of inclusive business [Internet]. IDS Pract. Pap. 2012, i–ii. doi: 10.1111/j.2040-0225.2012.00009_1.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Waithanji, E., Njuki, J., and Bagalwa, N. (2013). “Gendered participation in livestock markets,” in Women, Livestock Ownership and Markets: Bridging the Gender Gap in Eastern and Southern Africa, eds J. Njuki, and P. Sanginga (New York, NY: Routledge), p. 21.

Google Scholar

Wells, T. (2012). “Sen's capability approach,” in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, eds J. Feiser, and B. Dowden. Rome: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy/American Academy.

Google Scholar

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 5, 171–180. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250050207

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

West, C., and Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doing gender. Gend. Soc. 1, 125–151. doi: 10.1177/0891243287001002002

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

WFEs Project (2015). WFEs in Kenya and Burkina Faso: Building Inclusive Business Models for Food Security in the City Slums of Kisimu and Ouagadougou.

Xavier, S. R., Kelley, D., Kew, J., Herrington, M., and Vorderwülbecke, A. (2013). The Global Enterpreneurship Monitoring (GEM) 2012 Global Report. Available online at: https://www.gemconsortium.org/report/gem-2012-global-report

Google Scholar

Zhang, Q., Vonderembse, M. A., and Lim, J. S. (2002). Value chain flexibility: a dichotomy of competence and capability. Int. J. Prod. Res. 40, 561–583. doi: 10.1080/00207540110091695

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Zoumba, N. B. (2018). L'entrepreneuriat par Nécessité et par Opportunité: Essai de Compréhension dans le Contexte Burkinabè. Gestion et Management. Français: Université Paris-Est. Available online at: https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-02096312 (accessed September 11, 2020).

Google Scholar