Abstract
Past studies on entrepreneurial framing note that business model value is framed to impress target beneficiaries, while business model impact is framed as bestowing socio-economic benefits on the wider community. However, these studies assume that there is no theoretical difference between these framings. We challenge this assumption by studying 15 enterprises offering a range of innovative sanitation solutions across 14 Indian states. Secondary data were supported by 32 semi-structured interviews with entrepreneurs and stakeholders between 2018 and 2023. Our analysis contributes to the literature on entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial framing by revealing distinct BMV framings associated with value creation/delivery emphasis, and impact framings associated with issue/outcome/reference point framings. We highlight the salient role that lock-in and reputed associations play in BMV creation emphasis framings. Finally, we extend understanding of how BMV and impact framings can interact to augment or diminish impact framing, particularly in relation to reference point othering.
Entrepreneurial business model value (BMV) framing concerns how entrepreneurs use rhetorical devices to emphasize aspects of their venture to gain support, minimize resistance, and legitimize the business model's value (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014; Snihur et al., 2018, 2022). Entrepreneurs use language to reinforce existing understandings of businesses or introduce new ones by framing their business models as novel, familiar, or superior in the value they offer target customers (Ansari et al., 2016; Mahajan et al., 2023; Schnackenberg et al., 2019; Sharp, 2021; Tracey et al., 2011). Entrepreneurs may also highlight the social–environmental impact of their business model (BMI) for broader societal stakeholders (Lee & Huang, 2018; Moss et al., 2018; Taeuscher & Rothe, 2023). For both BMV and BMI framing, entrepreneurs use frames of reference—subjective baselines drawn from the cultures in which they are operating—to shape the adoption of BMV and BMI by the intended audiences (George et al., 2006; Miller & Sardais, 2013; Werner & Cornelissen, 2014). Yet, despite these distinct target audiences, neither entrepreneurship studies (De Cupyer et al., 2024; Pedersen et al., 2018; Tennant, 2015) nor the entrepreneurship framing literature (Fisher et al., 2017; Snihur et al., 2022) have explored any distinctions in BMV and BMI framing.
Recent studies examining business modeling choices in entrepreneurship (De Cupyer et al., 2024; Saebi et al., 2019; Taeuscher & Rothe, 2023) acknowledge that innovative value and the social impact of enterprises can be framed differently and even create different typologies of social enterprises. These studies examine how business model governance shapes relationships with value and impact beneficiaries, depending on whether they pay for value (De Cupyer et al., 2024) or participate in co-creation (Saebi et al., 2019). They also highlight variations across enterprises: value and impact may benefit the same customers, partially overlap, or serve entirely distinct groups (De Cupyer et al., 2024). Yet, these studies do not explore (any potential) differences in how entrepreneurs frame value and impact for distinct audiences or the implications of this. This lack of interest in BMV and BMI framing distinctions may be traced to the definition of value proposition adopted by most entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship framing studies: the promised benefit to the target audience, encompassing both customer value and beneficiary impact (Adner, 2017). Hence, while value-adopting customers and impact-wielding societal stakeholders are acknowledged to be different beneficiary segments, and impact framing and value framing are recognized as possibly different actions within entrepreneurial framing (e.g., Taeuscher & Rothe, 2023), they are all associated with the broad definition of value proposition. As such, there is no exploration of whether (and how) the framings of BMV and BMI are distinct, their (potential) varied antecedents, and the associations between them. Beyond intuitive assumptions—such as the idea that distinct audiences for value and impact might drive differences in entrepreneurial framing, or that frequent overlap between these audiences could create associations in how they are framed, there remains no clear theoretical understanding of the distinctions between BMV and BMI framing, or the implications of specific associations. Thus, scholars, entrepreneurs, and policy makers are largely unaware of how and why they differ in practice (if it does), and whether one framing might, in practice, augment or hinder the other. In this study, we challenge this lack of clarity and ask: How do BMV and BMI framings differ (if at all), and if their framings are associated, how can this be explained?
Our study is set in the context of India's sanitation concern, which entrepreneurs are seeking to address through a variety of innovative toilet solutions. They are seen to frame their proposed solutions by manoeuvring frames of reference such as caste, gender, colonialism, class/resources, and sustainability. Between 2018 and 2023, we gathered data from the founders and key stakeholders of 15 enterprises offering sanitation solutions, operating across 14 Indian states. We used secondary sources to substantiate the data gathered from 32 semi-structured interviews, and employed an abductive approach to reveal how participants framed their BMV and BMI for their different audiences, and the patterns of association for these framings.
Our study makes three major contributions to the literature on entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship framing. First, we challenge the existing theoretical non-distinction between BMV and BMI framings in entrepreneurship and framing studies by explaining how BMV framings usually emphasize value creation or value delivery (e.g., novelty, pragmatism), while BMI framings are focused on the issues or outcomes for a broad group of societal members (or a subsection of it). Our study contributes to literature by showing how the entrepreneurs’ field level frames and their perceptions about the field level frames of the decision makers on BMI are critical in determining the actual beneficiaries of an enterprises’ impact. Second, our framework contributes to entrepreneurial framing literature by linking distinct BMV framing focuses to specific BMI framing approaches, highlighting the influence of lock-in and reputational associations. Third, we offer guidance for future research in entrepreneurship and framing by showing how interactions between business model frames can expand or constrain BMI framing, emphasizing the role of “reference point othering” in framing impact. In terms of practical contributions, our study helps policy makers and other entrepreneurial ecosystem actors gauge the authenticity of the framing justifications of entrepreneurs, which may be unrealistic or even duplicitous, and even explore how their own frames of references may be influential in including or excluding potential impact beneficiaries (Garud et al., 2023). Similarly, our study guides entrepreneurs in determining which framing approaches are best suited to their value and impact audience groups and which will help them create genuine impact from their BMV.
Background and Literature
The theoretical background of this paper draws from the entrepreneurship business modeling and entrepreneurial framing literature.
Value and Impact in Entrepreneurial Framing
Framing uses language to reinforce existing interpretive frames or introduce new ones (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). Persuasive language (e.g., metaphors) creates a mental image of the aspect being framed (Cornelissen et al., 2011; Essén & Värlander, 2019). Within any field, early attempts at framing will generate a transient broad understanding of conventional behavior in the field, known as field-level frames (Lounsbury et al., 2003). When entrepreneurs use persuasive language to introduce new understandings of their business model to their audiences (Snihur et al., 2022), they are trying to legitimize the value of their business model by aligning it with existing field-level frames or to radically challenge the extant frames (Werner & Cornelissen, 2014). Past studies suggest that entrepreneurs align with existing field-level frames by highlighting their social or economic goals, the problems they are solving, their novel technologies, the similarity of their business model to known models, or their association with reputed stakeholders in order to impress, minimize resistance, or gain approval from target customers (Amit & Zott, 2015; Garbuio et al., 2018; Saebi et al., 2019). Since the value of a business model is usually measured in terms of enhancements in social or economic efficiencies and/or novelties for an intended group of target beneficiaries (Covin et al., 2015; Saebi et al., 2019; Zott & Amit, 2008), business models are usually framed around the value they generate for their customers, whether in terms of the nature of value creation and/or how it is delivered. 1 For instance, green business models may use framings around how they create value by allying with sustainable farmers, and how they deliver value by partnering with eco-friendly distribution channels; they thus legitimize their business model and gather approval from their target customers and even broader societal members (Fisher et al., 2017; Snihur et al., 2022). Alternatively, in firms focused on poverty alleviation through subsidized food kit delivery systems, value and impact are often intertwined within the same value proposition. In this case, there is no difference in the framing language used for customers and impact stakeholders, as there is significant overlap between the two audiences.
While BMV can encompass indirect societal impact (Martí, 2018; Pedersen et al., 2018), its primary beneficiaries are typically narrower than those of broader societal impact. Shein's BMV framing—low-cost fashion for price-conscious consumers—triggered backlash from broader stakeholders concerned with labor ethics and environmental sustainability, illustrating how BMV and impact framings may diverge.
Entrepreneurship research often explores how social enterprises capture economic value from customers and/or impact beneficiaries (De Cupyer et al., 2024), while shared value literature examines how value and impact are co-created (Saebi et al., 2019) and framed as distinct yet interconnected (Taeuscher & Rothe, 2023). Strategic management studies on shared value and CSR decoupling (Bothello et al., 2023; Edmans, 2021; Kramer & Porter, 2011) similarly differentiate value and impact, critiquing impact as an add-on to shareholder value and instead proposing an expanded “pie” for both shareholders and stakeholders.
While related, our study focuses on how BMV and BMI framings target two distinct stakeholder groups—customers and societal members—each exerting different levels of influence on the firm's bottom line, rather than on shareholder-stakeholder value distinctions.
In addition to emphasising specific aspects of value creation or delivery, entrepreneurial framing studies observe that framing approaches can vary to meet the venture's needs, the issue or problem being addressed (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014; Geradts et al., 2022; Hervieux & Voltan, 2018), or the outcome prognosis (Geradts et al., 2022; Hervieux & Voltan, 2018). Framing approaches may also be distinguished by whether the framed content has been performed or not; that is, whether the frame is illocutionary or perlocutionary (Garud & Gehman, 2019; Snihur et al., 2022), with the perlocutionary framing approach being seen as more authentic. Illocutionary entrepreneurship framing involves framing actions that create an enterprise by using language to reinforce existing frames (like making a promise to build something the audience can understand). However, such actions may mask any failures, framing effects, biases or unintended consequences that might only be revealed later. This type of framing relies on favorable conditions to promise the creation of an enterprise based on existing frames. In contrast, perlocutionary framing involves actions that can change existing frames and bring a new enterprise into being, but the effects may not be immediate, guaranteed, or visible. This framing focuses on creating the necessary conditions for a new entrepreneurial frame to be relevant to its target audience. While the same enterprise can use both illocutionary and perlocutionary framing, and both types of framing may be adopted to convey value or impact, the intentions preceding the framing actions and the adoption of existing or new frames to relate to the target audiences will differ. Thus, while acknowledging the distinct needs of value and impact framing—and the variations possible within each—entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial framing research is yet to clearly establish them as separate framing actions with plausible connections and varied underlying drivers. Our review of the framing literature on BMV and BMI suggests that regardless of the framing approach used, framing depends on specific intentions and the application of methods and reference points (whether pre-existing or novel) that link situations to actions or outcomes, or causes to effects (Barsalou, 2012; Lakoff, 2008). These frames of reference can be individually subjective, providing baselines or reference points for framing outcomes or actions in social-judgment scenarios (George et al., 2006; Miller & Sardais, 2013). Thus, frames of reference are key to our exploration of how we can differentiate the framing of a venture's BMV from the framing of its impact.
Frames of Reference and Business Model Impact Framing
Aspects of a business model or impact may be framed in various ways depending on the framing entrepreneur, their mindful/mechanical adoption of framing references, and the intended framing recipients (Werner & Cornelissen, 2014). For instance, ethical frames of references observed in social entrepreneurs are often seen to purposefully integrate ethical reflection with business theorizing (Bruder, 2021). Understanding the specific frames of reference that entrepreneurs use to determine their entrepreneurial decisions and actions is particularly important when there are wide variations in the subjective baselines associated with those decisions and actions, and the distinctions have significant impact on how value and impact are framed for targeted audiences. For instance, Bullough and Renko (2017) have observed that entrepreneurial ventures in Afghanistan were shaped differently according to how female and male entrepreneurs in Afghanistan framed danger (at home vs. further afield).
Also determining the outcomes and actions of value and impact framing, frames of reference are critical to the study of impact framing. Entrepreneurial cognitive studies observe that when entrepreneurs are presented with chronic stimuli conditions, they tend to have similar decision frames (i.e., they fall back on pre-existing frames of reference), whereas when they are facing mundane equivocal conditions, they tend to explore opportunities to introduce new frames of reference, generating distinct decision frames (Palich & Bagby, 1995).
Impact is the social-environmental benefit an enterprise provides to broader stakeholders including (but not limited to, and perhaps even distinct from) its value-wielding customers. The enterprise may have to be creative when generating impact from business models designed to provide an economic value to a group of target customers, especially since the temporal frame of reference for impact is likely to be longer than for value creation, inducing the entrepreneur to frame only BMV (Gartner & Shane, 1995). In other words, the entrepreneurial framing of BMI may occur in non-distinctive external conditions, in which entrepreneurs must resort to non-traditional frames to convey and legitimize the social and environmental benefit brought into being (illocutionary framing) or propose competing frames that promote new hybrid forms of organizations (perlocutionary framing). Biodiesel enterprises are examples of the latter, in that they creatively frame impact around competing agrarian and industrial frames of reference (Hiatt & Carlos, 2019). Thus, the entrepreneurship framing literature observes that when audiences differ (e.g., the value adopting market is industrial and the impact benefiting audience is agrarian), distinct frames may be needed for each audience, or existing frames may have to be recombined to appeal to both (Fisher et al., 2017; Snihur et al., 2022). Sinhur et al. (2022) calls on future researchers to explore this question, especially in the context of sustainability-related enterprises where the framings of the business model's value and impact are relevant.
Methods
Setting the Stage for India's Sanitation Concern
The Swachh Bharat (Clean India) Mission has reported that the 108 million toilets built under its aegis by October 2019 have rendered India open-defecation free (Swachh Bharat Mission, 2019). Yet, academic studies and the World Health Organization observe that open defecation remains an issue (Chaplin, 2011; Heller, 2017; Hueso & Bell, 2013, World Health Organization 2017). Evidently, the history of India's sanitation problems is lengthy and complex; it is also subject to a variety of framings.
Studies claim that up until the 1700s, India's sanitation was on a par with that of Europe (Biswas & Jamwal, 2017; Blumer, 2013). However, when the East India Company developed Mumbai and Kolkata into major cotton and opium trade centers (Chaplin, 2011), swathes of the population left their villages to work in the new factories. They lived in crowded chawls with little in the way of proper sanitation access (Leith, 1864), and were forced to openly defecate near water bodies (Farooqui, 1996). Since remedying this would have required extra taxes and the resulting infrastructures would have primarily benefited the poor (Doshi, 2014), Mumbai's water projects fell behind the world's standards. This marked the beginning of India's path to significant sanitation inequity. Since Independence, India has focused on developing sanitation infrastructures (Hueso & Bell, 2013), but the legacy of the colonial narratives and the deeply embedded caste and patriarchal systems continue to generate inequities in sanitation access (Devika, 2010). We acknowledge here that our qualitative reading of the reference framing in this study has been influenced by our knowledge of these caste, gender, colonialist, class-based, and sustainability-oriented frames. We provide a brief overview of the same to help the readers develop an understanding of the varied frames of reference at play.
India's sanitation concerns and the actions addressing them are deeply embedded in societal frames of reference around gender and class inequities, inequitable and unsustainable sharing of common resources, colonization effects on infrastructure, and caste-based discrimination (Hammer & Spears, 2016; Lamba & Spears, 2013; O’Reilly et al., 2017). In India, sanitation is regulated and governed by the state and local governments, and the solutions are driven by self-governing urban local bodies with input from entrepreneurs. Thus, it is critical to understand how the societal frames of reference adopted by these entrepreneurs determine their decisions about how to create and deliver value and impact. Past studies examining India's sanitation concern observe that the distinct value and impact which entrepreneurs aim to deliver are based on the frames of reference (e.g., women's empowerment, slum upgradation, addressing the legacies of colonial slums, and alleviating inequities for rag pickers and scavenging castes) they have adopted (Goyal et al., 2021; Ramani et al., 2017; Shand & Colenbrander, 2018). For instance, entrepreneurs may frame India's sanitation concern around women and children's safety and hygiene and thus aim to provide smart toilets in India's urban slums; societal frames of references around the impracticality of western flush toilets in water scarce regions may prompt entrepreneurs to look at closed system toilets (Wankhade, 2015). Moreover, based on the onus of responsibility apportioned to entrepreneurial decisions in solving India's sanitation concerns, academic studies on the topic adopt a neoliberal or sustainability/circular economy frame of reference, which adds another subjective baseline to these entrepreneurial cases (Goyal et al., 2021; Mehta et al., 2019; Ramani, 2019). Studies proposing a neoliberal view speak of entrepreneurial business models where value and impact are co-developed with the same target customers and usually draw on frames of references around empowering women and better livelihoods for scavenging castes (Goyal et al., 2021; Mehta et al., 2019). Studies that draw on a sustainability-oriented frame of reference focus on more equitable sharing of common resources and reduced hygiene inequities for all (e.g., Cullet, 2018; Ramani, 2019). In many of these studies, the entrepreneurial sanitation solution (e.g., building toilets in schools to facilitate the education of girls) often aligns with impact provided to wider stakeholders (e.g., empowerment of women; Ramani, 2019; Ramani et al., 2017). However, since most studies on Indian sanitation focus on describing the impact and/or value they generate, little is known about how the BMV and BMI framings are distinct and/or associated in each venture, and how a combination of the varied frames of reference impact the BMV and BMI framings. We address that gap in this study.
Data Collection
Our study adopts an abductive multiple case design. The primary source of data is semi-structured interviews with the founders and stakeholders of enterprises offering solutions for the sanitation concern in India. The first wave of study participants came from the list of India Sanitation Coalition (ISC) best initiative award winners in 2017 and 2018; snowballing techniques identified additional participants. Participants are defined as commercial and not-for-profit enterprises (excluding corporate, government, individuals, and media initiative winners) that create new ventures or self-employment (Gartner, 1985) within the realm of India's sanitation concern (see Table 1 for full details of the enterprises).
Sample Details.
Over 2018 to 2023, we conducted 25 interviews with entrepreneurs and seven interviews with key stakeholders (customers, suppliers, and technology collaborators) of 15 enterprises conducting operations across 14 Indian states. Our interviews, conducted via Zoom or Skype video calls, typically lasted between 60 and 90 minutes. Though our online interviews were initially motivated by budgetary constraints and later by COVID-related travel restrictions, the method enabled us to rewatch the recorded interviews to examine the responses (and observe non-verbal cues) repeatedly over years as we continued data analysis. Additionally, online interviewing helped create a face-to-face interview setting that mimicked the social dynamics between researchers and interviewees (Lobe et al., 2022; Salmons, 2012; Wakelin et al., 2024).
Our sample includes enterprises that generate product and service innovations, raise public awareness, or educate on sanitation initiatives. They provide smart toilets, robotic sewage cleaning, closed system and circular economy-based solid waste management techniques, and train and emancipate manual scavengers. Their operating age ranges from 4 to 25 years, with an average age of 11 years. They have a variety of funders, from angel investors to international charities. Table 2 shows the sample's characteristics.
Sample Characteristics of the Analyzed Groups Across BMV and BMI Framings.
The semi-structured interviews were facilitated by our intimate familiarity with the Indian context and regional cultural practices. Although we raised different questions to the entrepreneurs and stakeholders, all questions were open-ended and broad, and concerned their motivations for positioning themselves in the Indian sanitation context. We asked how and why they came to start the business, how they delivered sanitation solutions, why they chose a specific solution or region of operation, who benefits from their solutions, what challenges they have faced in implementing their solutions, and what were their critical motivating life experiences (if any). We were careful not to prompt participants to discuss factors related to gender, education, religion, societal norms, bureaucratic red-tape, or corruption; however, many volunteered information about these. The complete interview protocols for both the entrepreneurs and the stakeholders are available from the authors on request.
Interviews were conducted in Malayalam (the vernacular language of Kerala), Tamil (the vernacular language of Tamil Nadu), and Hindi and English (official languages of India), which are spoken fluently between the two authors. The authors transcribed all interviews, save for those conducted in Hindi, which were transcribed by three graduate research assistants. Interviews were then translated into English and backtranslated. The respondents were Indians, except for one UK national, and two of the entrepreneurs were women. We gathered additional documents from the enterprises; these ranged from feasibility studies to media appearances (see Table 3 for the complete list). Our multiple primary and secondary data sources helped reduce the risk of retrospective and single view biases.
Sample and Data Sources.
Data Analysis
Data incorporated interview transcriptions, our observations of non-verbal cues during the interviews, follow-up email exchanges, LinkedIn messages, phone calls, and relevant archival data. Toward the end of 2021 and in 2023, and again in 2025, we updated the case histories with other published interviews, blogs, press releases, podcasts, and company and stakeholder webpages. In 2023, we added our observations from the recorded interviews and noted gradual changes in the enterprises’ business operations, regions of operations, or technological innovations. Thus, we had 110–160 pages of case-related documents on each enterprise. We used NVivo 12 to organize the data and develop the first order codes, and Microsoft Excel was used thereafter.
Stage 1
Each author individually coded all information related to the enterprises’ BMV and impact framings for every case. Our initial codes were broad and drew on understandings in existing data (Covin et al., 2015; Martí, 2018; Pedersen et al., 2018, p. 269; Saebi et al., 2019; Santos, 2012; Zott & Amit, 2008) to delineate BMV and BMI framing. We created a shared understanding of constructs by drawing on construct definitions from prior literature (see Table A1 in Appendix for the complete list) and developed it through negotiation of understandings as our analysis progressed. We observed at this stage that BMV and BMI framings would often appear in the same response paragraph, but with consistently different word representations.
Stage 2
We identified sub-themes in the BMV framing excerpts, using lay terms such as value source, delivering value, focus, newness, idealistic approach, practical approach, known models, approach to trap customers, and name dropping. We assigned these to the broad categories of value source or delivering value by reference to their focus. We repeated the process for the BMI framing excerpts and came up with focus on outcome, focus on problem, challenging frames, episodic impact, impact for some, othering, and guarding frames. These sub-themes could be categorized as problem based or outcome based. Themes could be around the nature of framing itself (ontology of framing) or the content being framed (epistemology: the value of familiarity or lock-in being framed).
Stage 3
We assigned standard nomenclature to our sub-themes; this was drawn from literature on business models and entrepreneurial business model framing. BMV sub-themes were thus value creation, value delivery approach, emphasis, novelty, idealism, pragmatism, familiarity of models, lock-in, and reputed associations (Pan et al., 2020; Zott & Amit, 2008). BMI sub-themes were outcome-based framing, issue-based framing, challenging field-level frames, episodic impact, impact for some, impact with othering reference point, and guarding field-level frames (Barbosa et al., 2019; Cornelissen & Werner, 2014; Geradts et al., 2022; Hervieux & Voltan, 2018; Taeuscher & Rothe, 2023). All BMV and BMI themes were assigned to sub-themes, with coding disagreements resolved through negotiation in the light of existing studies (Amit & Zott, 2001, 2015; Forsyth et al., 1988; Pan et al., 2020; Park, 2005; Singhapakdi et al., 1999). It was evident that the respondents had reached a common understanding of how BMV and BMI were framed for their enterprise. Thus, although analysis of the interviews response is at individual level, the variance in entrepreneurial framing is discussed at enterprise level.
Stage 4
We overlaid the sub-themes on the 15 enterprise cases to identify any associations between BMV framing themes, BMI framing themes, and organizational characteristics. We observed that cases with BMV framings of novelty, idealism, and lock-in had issue-based BMI framing only, while cases with BMV framings of familiarity of models, pragmatism, and reputed associations had outcome-based BMI framings only. Organizational characteristics showed no patterns. In practice, Stages 2, 3, and 4 required much back and forth between coding, pattern recognition, and referring to extant literature. For instance, although lock-in and reputed associations were observed during Stage 2 of the analysis, they were not as prominent in the interview responses as familiarity and novelty. Initially, a clear structure seemed to emerge, linking a particular type of BMV creation theme (and a specific type of BMV delivery theme) to a corresponding BMI impact theme. However, within this structure, it appeared that the same BMV framing could lead to both episodic impact and impact for some, and that the same type of BMV frame could lead to both the guarding of field frames and the challenging of them. Although reference point othering explained this in terms of impact framing, there was no distinction in value framing, at least not until lock-in and reputed associations were reintroduced into the analysis.
The observed types of BMV framing, impact framing, and their associations in the framework are depicted in Figure 1. It can be seen that our framework does not agree with any existing theoretical frameworks (De Cupyer et al., 2024; Saebi et al., 2019; Taeuscher & Rothe, 2023), although our observed sub-themes in BMV framing and impact framing are in line with extant literature (Barbosa et al., 2019; Cornelissen & Werner, 2014; Geradts et al., 2022; Hervieux & Voltan, 2018; Pan et al., 2020; Taeuscher & Rothe, 2023; Zott & Amit, 2008). Additionally, we observed a BMI framing theme that was associated with specific BMV framing; this had not been explicitly recognized in the entrepreneurial framing literature. We abductively drew on our data (Ketokivi & Mantere, 2010) and existing studies (Forst, 2017; Martí, 2018; Rorty, 1998; Stokes & Gabriel 2010; van Dijk, 2015) to refine this theme as a frame of reference through which groups/individuals may be cast in the role of “others.” We call this theme “reference point framing with othering.” Table 4 shows the empirical derivation of our business model framing and impact framings.
A Framework of Business Model Value and Impact Framings.
Themes and Illustrative Evidence.
Findings
In this section, we use illustrative evidence to support the differences identified between the BMV and BMI framings. We then explain the linkages between them across four specific groupings of cases. All terms are defined based on our data and past studies. We use pseudonyms to refer to the enterprises and interviews (e.g., N2 is the second interview with Neun's founders or stakeholders). Extracts that highlight framing themes are presented in bold.
BMV and BMI Framing
We attribute the differences our study found between BMV framing and BMI framing to the framing approach adopted. All enterprises framed their BMV using emphasis framing, which accentuates a qualitative aspect of BMV creation or delivery (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). For instance: Indians have always had toilets. We
Enterprises framed impact in three ways: by the problem/issue being addressed, by the outcome of the BMV, and by reference point framing with othering. The Achts entrepreneur gives an example of issue-based impact framing: All those childhood memories … shattered when I went to Delhi … I got to realize that there are a lot of … drain lines which are actually ending up in Yamuna and all … are carrying the household sewage …
In contrast, Vier's entrepreneur framed impact in terms of outcomes, specifically societal outcomes in urban areas: When they travel in urban areas, people like my mother and sister should A number of enterprises frame their impact similarly by reference to their own baselines around who does or does not deserve sanitation benefits, which we term reference point framing with othering (Barbosa et al., 2019; George et al., 2006; Miller & Sardais, 2013). Othering is an act whereby a group, individual, or object is deemed to be “other” and associated with distinct (generally lower) levels of human right entitlements (Forst, 2017; Martí, 2018; Rorty, 1998; Stokes & Gabriel 2010; van Dijk, 2015). In our study, the reference points sometimes came from caste, gender or patriarchal norms, and sometimes from frames of reference toward western solutions.
Field-Level Frames and Reference Point Othering
We observed varied field-level frames of reference that were consistent with what had been observed in past entrepreneurship studies on the Indian sanitation concern (Goyal et al., 2021; Mehta et al., 2019; Ramani, 2019). In these frames of reference, we saw reflections of societal frames around caste, class, gender, sustainability, and attitude toward western solutions in a post-colonial India.
For example, a Zwei entrepreneurial founder describes how they challenged field-level frames around having to pursue a profession (manual scavenging), simply because one has been born into a certain caste: We would sometimes interact with officials in xxxxx [a state in Northern India] where it was hard to explain, or for them to relate to the fact that manual scavengers would want to or could be retrained for any other profession, forget training them to use robotic sewage cleaning devices, but the use of technology; something that was not deeply connected to the culture helped create the necessary distance to start imagining possibilities (I suppose) beyond what they had always known to be true. (Zwei founder, Z2) Western solutions are not built for many parts of our country. How without water would people use flush toilets? (Acht's stakeholder, A2) Yes, we did think alliances with Sxxxxh foundations, in Bxxxr would be relevant, but
In each case the frames of reference used to challenge or guard the frames are related to whether beneficiaries are treated as equal or as others. While in some cases frames are drawn from societal understandings around caste, in others they are drawn on frames around gender, sustainability, or skepticism toward western solutions.
We next explain how specific BMV, and impact framing themes are observed to be associated in four enterprise groupings and highlight field level frames in the excerpts. We limit our examples in the interests of brevity, but more illustrations of each theme and case grouping are provided in Table 2.
BMV and Impact Framing Associations
We observed four groups of cases in which specific BMV creation (around novelty/familiarity/reputed association/lock-in) and delivery (around idealism/pragmatism) emphasis framings are associated with specific impact framings (issue/outcome/reference). We illustrate the evidence from each of these groups in the following sections.
Novelty, Idealism, and Challenging Field-Level Frames
Zwei, Acht, and Neun framed their business models with emphasis on creating value through novelty and delivering it through idealism. They framed their impact by challenging field-level frames. Our understanding of the BMV framing themes of novelty and idealism is informed by prior works (Amit & Zott, 2015; Forsyth et al., 1988; Pan et al., 2020; Park, 2005; Singhapakdi et al., 1999). The ways in which business models can offer novelty are legion, but they all offer a unique source of value creation. An idealistic approach to BMV delivery reflects the framer's absolute judgement on moral questions, social norms, or laws, and they believe that with such a frame they can always achieve the desired consequences. Our respondents’ BMV framings around value creation through novelty and value delivery through idealism are aligned with issue-based impact framings that challenge extant field-level understandings of entrepreneurial ability to deliver positive social and environmental value. For example: That is the whole point of our product,
Acht's technology partner uses issue-based impact framing to challenge dominant field-level narratives that Western technologies are ill-suited for remote, water-scarce regions, referencing climate change and highlighting the unique value of their solution:
Novelty, Lock-in, Idealism, and Guarding Field-Level Frames with Othering
Drei and Vier portray BMV framings that emphasize value creation through novelty and lock-in, and they have an idealistic approach to value delivery. They frame their impact by guarding existing field-level frames with reference points drawn from othering. BMV framing of lock-in is one that emphasizes aspects that grab the attention of the customer or partner, transforming them into key stakeholders (Amit & Zott, 2015). We observe that when enterprises focus on locking in customers or partners, they often ignore or trivialize the sanitation issues of others; their impact is thus framed as guarding the social and environmental value of the venture in line with some dominant field frames. For instance: We are Yes, we want to make female urinals.
Familiarity, Pragmatism, and Episodic Impact
Most of our enterprises (Eins, Fünf, Zehn, Zwölf, Dreizehn, Vierzehn, and Fünfzehn) frame their impact around the familiarity of existing models, adopting a pragmatic approach and framing their impact as episodic and centered around the outcome rather than the issue. We define BMV framing around familiarity as one that highlights commonalities with existing business models, products, services, and technologies, which are used as linkages to a source of value creation (Pan et al., 2020). We define BMV framing of pragmatic value delivery as an approach that is open to multiple perspectives and does not adhere to a morally superior ideology (Ferraro et al., 2015; York, 2009). Pragmatism “does not embrace moral relativity and simply says ‘anything goes’ from an ethical perspective” (York, 2009, p. 103). We define episodic impact as an outcome-based inconsistent framing of impact to provide social and environmental value to the wider community where and when possible (Ansari et al., 2016; Sharp, 2021).
For instance, members of the Dreizehn collective said: If we flow against the flow we’ll be very slow. Recently we saw
Eins pragmatically describes their interactions with a community that was resistant to their business model:
A similar outcome-oriented approach is demonstrated by the entrepreneur of Zwölf, a social enterprise advocating and working for the emancipation and retraining of manual scavengers.
Familiarity, Reputed Associations, Pragmatism, and Impact for Some
Three cases, Sechs, Sieben, and Elf, display BMV framings of value creation around the familiarity of their model, reputed associations, and value delivery around pragmatism. They use technologies and revenue models that are familiar to their end customers, and their outcome-based impact is framed with an othering reference point, thus limiting impact to some beneficiaries. Framing BMV creation with reputed associations includes highlighting ties with reputed stakeholders to legitimize some facet of the enterprise's capability for value creation (Fisher et al., 2017). Outcome-based impact framing with an othering reference point display is a frame of reference where othering limits the social and environmental value of the venture to people considered the same and/or worthy of the sanitation right. For example, the Sechs entrepreneur says:
In summary, value creation through lock-in and reputed associations shapes how enterprises frame impact. Those using lock-in strategies (e.g., Drei and Vier) build exclusive stakeholder relationships, idealizing value delivery for urban, economically privileged beneficiaries while excluding marginalized groups through othering aligned with dominant norms. Similarly, enterprises leveraging reputed associations (e.g., Sechs, Sieben, and Elf) adopt familiar models and elite endorsements, framing impact around visible, donor-approved outcomes rather than systemic change. In both cases, impact is selectively distributed, reinforcing societal hierarchies. While we observed hierarchies of gender, caste, and class in Indian sanitation, our findings invite exploration of dominant field-level frames in other contexts.
Discussion
Our study contributes to existing studies on entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial framing in three ways. First, we make a case for understanding BMV and BMI as distinct entrepreneurial framings. Second, we identify relationships between specific BMV and BMI framing types and the key role of BMV lock-in and reputed association framing in this relationship. Finally, we highlight how reference point impact framing with othering could augment or diminish impact framings.
Separating BMV and BMI Framing in Entrepreneurship and Entrepreneurial Framing
This study contributes to entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial framing literature by clarifying an undertheorized distinction: how entrepreneurs frame BMV for direct customers versus how they frame business model impact (BMI) for broader society. While prior work often treats value and impact framing as overlapping or interchangeable (Fisher et al., 2017; Snihur et al., 2022), our findings show they operate through distinct logics, shaped by different audiences and justifications.
BMV framings use emphasis framing to highlight qualitative business model dimensions (e.g., novelty, familiarity, and stakeholder lock-in) that resonate with customers and partners. Impact framings, in contrast, draw on regional field-level frames (e.g., caste, gender, and postcolonial critiques) to justify societal contributions. By empirically demonstrating this distinction, we offer a new lens for understanding how ventures balance commercial viability and legitimacy in socially embedded contexts.
Value and impact may sometimes be framed for the same decision-makers, as in the case of Eins selling toilets and Zwei selling robotic sewage cleaners to municipal bodies. Here, the same decision maker in the local municipal governing body evaluates both the economic value for sanitation governance and the social impact on communities. Even in such cases, entrepreneurs draw on distinct frames—field-level frames remain central to impact framing to establish broader legitimacy.
Thus, our study advances entrepreneurship and framing research (De Cuyper et al., 2024; Fisher et al., 2017; Saebi et al., 2019; Snihur et al., 2022; Taeuscher & Rothe, 2023) by highlighting a key distinction often overlooked due to assumptions that value and impact form a unified proposition. Prior studies tended to frame this difference mainly by audience—customers versus societal stakeholders. While overlaps occur (e.g., enterprises supporting smallholder farmers provide both value and impact to the smallholder farmers), entrepreneurs still craft distinct narratives. The outcome-oriented nature of impact and the commercial logic of value often co-exist but require tailored framing to resonate with decision-makers.
We argue that entrepreneurs align impact framing with dominant field-level narratives to appeal to decision-makers evaluating societal contributions. Even when value and impact address the same customer, articulating impact through field-level frames builds additional legitimacy. This alignment becomes critical when value and impact recipients differ, as field frames may diverge from customer expectations, requiring targeted framing strategies.
Future research should further explore audience distinctions in BMV and BMI framing, particularly when value and impact recipients differ. Where they overlap, scholars could examine how field-level frames shape BMI decisions and influence entrepreneurial strategies—potentially marginalizing certain beneficiary groups. Similarly, future work may investigate other field-level frames (e.g., political ideologies and racism) to assess whether they intersect with BMV framing in comparable ways.
Reputation and Lock-in in BMV and BMI: Implications for Entrepreneurial Framing
Our study contributes to the entrepreneurial framing literature (e.g., Garud et al., 2023; Snihur et al., 2022) by uncovering underexplored theoretical connections between BMV and BMI framing types, with a particular emphasis on the distinct roles of lock-in and reputed associations. We show that BMV framings emphasizing novelty and idealism are more likely to generate issue-based impact framings that challenge dominant field-level norms. In contrast, when BMV framing is built around lock-in mechanisms—such as exclusive partnerships, target customer entrenchment, or embedded delivery systems—it often leads to guarded impact framings that align with the needs and values of the locked-in stakeholders rather than with wider societal concerns. Similarly, reputed associations, such as ties to elite donors or respected institutions, are used to legitimize BMV but tend to shape outcome-focused impact framings that are selectively visible and measurable, privileging beneficiaries that fit within donor or partner expectations. These mechanisms frequently rely on reference point othering, which limits the recognition of needs outside the privileged or “deserving” groups.
Incorporating reputed associations and lock-ins into BMV framing sets the stage for framing impact using reference point othering, which limits the outcome or the issue. When enterprises have a pragmatic approach to value delivery and rely on stakeholder reputation to legitimize their value to intended customers, impact is framed for a select few. Even when entrepreneurs believe they are idealistically framing value delivery, once locked-in target customers become the focus, the existing field-level frames of the issue are guarded. Thus, by linking reference point othering with BMV legitimizations around reputed associations and lock-ins, we highlight a hitherto unobserved bridge between BMV and impact framing.
By articulating how lock-in and reputed associations serve not only as strategic tools for value creation but also as preconditions for narrowing the scope of impact framing, we add nuance to the literature on entrepreneurial framing and how different frames can integrate. We suggest that unlike in past studies (e.g., Hiatt & Carlos, 2019), where two frames are combined to form a hybrid frame for the same audience—addressing two different field-level frames—distinct framings targeting varied audiences within an enterprise's overall framing can also influence one another. This contributes a new layer to our understanding of how entrepreneurial ventures may unintentionally or strategically reinforce existing social hierarchies through their framing choices. Our findings challenge potential intuitive assumptions that pragmatic or idealistic delivery modes alone determine inclusivity, showing instead that the structural design of the BMV, particularly through lock-in and reputed associations—prefigures who are included in, or excluded from, the impact narrative. This insight advances literature on entrepreneurial framing by highlighting how framing devices used to legitimize the venture can simultaneously constrain its transformative potential.
The Distinct Role of Reference Point Framing with Othering in Impact Framings
Our illumination of the role that othering frames of reference play in entrepreneurial framing extends the entrepreneurship and framing literature. Although studies have noted negative aspects of framing (Garud et al., 2023) and exclusionary performances in the business model (Martí, 2018; Miller, 2005), our study finds that reference point framing with othering plays a part in the illocutionary framing of impact (as opposed to the impact of performance). Moreover, by associating the entrepreneur's othering frames of reference with how they frame impact, we reveal a precursor to performance exclusion. When the focus is on the outcome, reference point othering is associated with a belief that it is sufficient to generate the outcome for the target customers. When the focus is on the issue, reference point othering limits the framing of the impact to the issues of a select few. Furthermore, we nuance the linking of impact performance exclusions with faults in the business model or with framing effects and biases (Martí, 2018; Miller, 2005) by bringing out the illocutionary role of reference point impact framing. Taken together, these findings offer a more detailed theoretical understanding of how and why reference point framing can cause exclusion of potential beneficiaries.
Practical Implications for Policy Makers and Entrepreneurs
Policy makers who direct government incentives to enterprises claiming a social mission will find our study of assistance. Our findings suggest that policy makers who wish to distinguish authentic impact seekers from air-dreamers or charlatans should refer to the theoretical relationships between the type of BMV and the framing of impact. For instance, our findings imply that when an enterprise pragmatically frames its BMV around familiar models, their pragmatic approach will likely focus them on possible outcomes, such that they frame impact episodically. This study also highlights that it is important that entrepreneurs—particularly those operating in socially embedded and culturally complex contexts—clearly distinguish between how they frame BMV for customers and how they frame impact for broader society. Our findings show that effective ventures craft separate narratives for each, with BMV framing often emphasizing qualities like novelty, familiarity, or reputed associations to attract and retain stakeholders, and BMI framing drawing more heavily on regional field-level norms around caste, gender, or postcolonial attitudes (perhaps to appease the decision makers who decide on allowing access to beneficiaries). Entrepreneurs who fail to distinguish these framings risk diluting their social mission or alienating key customer bases. Practitioners should therefore adopt framing strategies that are audience-specific and responsive to the socio-cultural environment in which they operate.
Moreover, ecosystem actors—such as incubators, investors, and funders—should assess not only the content of a venture's impact claims but also how these claims are framed. Ventures that rely heavily on reference point framing (e.g., based on caste or gender) may unintentionally reinforce exclusion, while others may be challenging dominant norms through idealistic and issue-based framings. Support organizations should help entrepreneurs recognize these framing choices and their implications for inclusion, legitimacy, and long-term impact. At the same time, funders (or other decision makers who may be influential in deciding the impact beneficiaries) should reflect on how their own reputational influence may shape which impacts are pursued and which communities are served. Similarly, our findings can help entrepreneurs determine whether their claimed impact framings are aligned with the BMV. Ensuring coherence may help entrepreneurs gain the trust and confidence of funders, which may be especially critical for enterprises that seek to challenge field-level frames. Coherence can also help the impact-oriented entrepreneur to identify the right mix of BMV and BMI framing approaches for their impact intentions and audiences.
Limitations and Future Research
The BMV and impact framing types and field-level frames observed in our study are not exhaustive, and our own framing biases will have affected our theme observations. The consistency of the multiple responses that emerged from the individual enterprises has prevented us from understanding each respondent's characteristics as antecedents of the individual framings. Our study did not capture the evolution of framing approaches and how this might be associated with the characteristics of individual framers. Our data revealed organizational/business model differences but no significant organizational contingencies to the proposed relationships between BMV and impact framings. Future researchers can diversify their sample selection criteria to examine these issues. Additionally, though our study includes responses from a few stakeholders, future scholars may consider including investor narratives to decipher how they understand value and impact and if it resonates with the entrepreneurial framing.
Our cross-sectional study did not allow an examination of the performance of impact and its link with BMV framing. Longitudinal multi-case designs could help address this. In addition, our study points up the need for future scholars of entrepreneurial framing to examine framing within contexts of multiple pre-existing frames to explore how multiple types of reference point framings affect impact framing.
Future research in entrepreneurial framing can build on this study by exploring three key areas. First, our study proposes that future entrepreneurship and framing scholars rather than focusing on the BMV and BMI recipients (or potentially different value and impact recipients) revise their research questions to ask: Whose frames of reference determine the impact beneficiaries and value recipients and how are the entrepreneurs who are framing the value and impact making sense of these frames of references? Second, we urge future entrepreneurship framing researchers to test our propositions regarding the unique role of BMV lock-in and reputed associations in setting the stage for impact framing using reference point othering with varied frames of references (not limited to caste or postcolonial narratives) and thereby limiting the outcome or the issue in varied contexts: In varied entrepreneurial contexts, are there similar or other BMV and BMI framing interactions that are impacted by reference point othering? Third, the impact of reference point othering in complex field contexts calls for analysis of how intersecting field-level frames like caste, gender, class, political views, shape exclusionary or inclusive impact: How do intersecting field-level frames influence the use of reference point othering distinctly in the illocutionary and the perlocutionary framing of impact?
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
We are thankful without implication for the constructive feedback from Prof. Joep Cornelissen, Dr. Samuel Horner, and Dr. Leighann Spencer at various stages of this study.
Informed Consent
An informed consent was secured from all study participants and no identifying information is revealed in the article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals
This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of University of New Brunswick. In 2019, the approval was extended (No. REB 2019-071).
Notes
Appendix
Construct Definitions.
| Construct | Definition |
|---|---|
| Framing | Framing is the act of using language to reinforce existing interpretive frames or introduce new ones (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). Framing manifests in the use of persuasive language such as numerical illustrations, metaphors, analogies, hyperboles, cause and effect, or conditional reasoning to provide a pictorial representation through words (Cornelissen et al., 2011; Geradts et al., 2022; Hervieux & Voltan, 2018; Hoppman et al., 2020). |
| Entrepreneurship | Entrepreneurship can be either new venture creation or self-employment (Gartner, 1985). |
| Entrepreneurial business model value framing | Entrepreneurial business model framing is the act wherein entrepreneurs individually and/or with their key team members and stakeholders draw their audiences’ attention to salient features in their venture through rhetorical devices in an effort to gather support for, minimize resistance to, and legitimize the value of their business model (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014; Snihur et al., 2018; Snihur et al., 2022). |
| Business model value, value creation, capture and delivery | The value of a business model is usually measured in terms of enhancements in social or economic efficiencies and/or novelties for an intended group of target beneficiaries (Covin et al., 2015; Saebi et al., 2019; Zott & Amit, 2008). The value created is the value for all stakeholders. Value captured is the value for the focal firm (Amit & Zott, 2015). Value delivery is how the business model value is delivered to the intended beneficiary (Teece, 2010). |
| Impact | Impact is measured at a wider societal/community level (Martí, 2018). “The narrow view of value in business model thinking is expanded to approximate the broader concept of impact” in social/sustainability studies (Pedersen et al., 2018, p. 269). |
| Othering | Drawing from prior works on the social orders of justification around the exclusion of beneficiaries (Forst, 2017; Martí, 2018), abuse of power (van Dijk, 2015), and human right violations (Rorty, 1998; Stokes & Gabriel 2010), we define othering as the framing in which a group, individual or object are “others” by reference to those who are considered as the “same” by the framer. Framing with othering includes associating distinct levels of human right entitlements with groups of people considered to be the same or others. |
| Issue-based framing | Framing focused on the key social/environmental issues that the BMV addresses. Issue-based framings (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014), are similar to other studies’ classifications of problem-focused/diagnostic framings (Geradts et al., 2022; Hervieux & Voltan, 2018). |
| Challenge field-level frame | We define issue-based impact framing to challenge field-level frames to include challenging extant field-level understandings of entrepreneurial ability to deliver positive social and environmental value. |
| Guard field-level frame | Framing impact as guarding the social and environmental value of the venture in line with some dominant field frames. Guarding often excludes beneficiaries considered to be others; impact is framed with a reference point of othering wherein the sanitation issue of others is ignored or trivialized. |
| Episodic impact | From our data and past studies on how entrepreneurs frame impact to override resistance episodically or situationally (Sharp, 2021) or minimize resistance from incumbent frames or counter frames (Ansari et al., 2016), we define episodic impact as an outcome-based inconsistent framing of impact to provide social and environmental value to the wider community where and when possible. |
| Impact for some | Outcome-based impact framing with an othering reference point for some displays the use of othering as a frame of reference to limit the social and environmental value of the venture to people considered as the same and/or worthy of the sanitation right. |
| Outcome-based framing | Framing focused on the key societal/environmental solutions from the BMV. Past studies have observed outcome-based framings and termed them as prognostic or solution-based framing (Geradts et al., 2022; Hervieux & Voltan, 2018). |
| Reference point framing | Based on our data analysis and past studies (Barbosa et al., 2019), reference point framing is the use of a frame of reference in framing. Frames of reference are specific frames that are individually subjective and provide baselines or reference points to frame outcomes or actions in decision making on social-judgment scenarios (George et al., 2006; Miller & Sardais, 2013). Specific aspects of a business model or an impact may be framed in alternative ways depending on the framing entrepreneur, their mindful/mechanical adoption of framing references, and the intended framing recipients (Werner & Cornelissen, 2014). |
| Emphasis framing | Specific aspects are emphasized in the framing (Cornelissen & Werner, 2014). |
| Business model value creation with novelty | Based on our reading of our data and past studies (Amit & Zott, 2015; Pan et al., 2020), we define the novelty of a business model as including technologies, activities, or linkages between them, or ways of governing them that are relatively new to a region of operation, and offering a unique value to end customers which distinguishes the enterprise from existing business models in the region. |
| Business model value delivery with idealism | Based on our reading of our data and past studies (Forsyth et al., 1988; Park, 2005; Singhapakdi et al., 1999), we define idealism in business models as the framer's judgement on moral questions, social norms, or even laws; their decisions are morally absolute, and they believe that with such a morally absolute frame they can always achieve the desired consequences. |
| Business model value creation with lock-in | Based on our reading of our data and past studies (Amit & Zott, 2001, 2015), we define a BMV lock-in as one that emphasizes business model aspects that help grab customers’ or partner's attentions, such that they are retained as key stakeholders. |
| Business model value creation with familiarity | Based on our reading of our data and past studies (Pan et al., 2020), we define BMV framing around familiarity as one that highlights commonalities with existing business models, products, services, and technologies, and which uses this linkage as a source of value creation. |
| Business model value delivery with pragmatism | From past studies on American pragmatism (Ferraro et al., 2015; York, 2009), and our data, we define BMV framing of pragmatic value delivery approaches as a clear, evolutionary approach that is open to multiple perspectives on value delivery and opposed to adherence to any fixed moral ideology. In other words, our understanding of pragmatism from our data is akin to York's (2009) description: “it does not embrace moral relativity and simply says ‘anything goes’ from an ethical perspective.” |
| Business model value creation with reputed associations | In line with Fisher et al. (2017) and our data analysis, framing BMV creation with reputed associations includes highlighting ties with reputed technology partners, marketers, or VCs to legitimize the enterprise's technological, innovation diffusion, or financial capability for value creation. |
| Innovation | Schumpeter (2000) says that innovation is the introduction of new techniques, supply sources, products, and industrial organizations. |
| Stakeholder | “Stakeholders are groups and individuals who have an interest in the activities and outcomes of an organization and upon whom the organization relies in order to achieve its own objectives” (Phillips et al., 2019). |