For verification of this paper, please visit on http://www.socialresearchfoundation.com/innovation.php#8

Grassroots innovation, which refers to the bottom-up approach to innovation initiated by local communities and individuals, has gained increasing attention in recent years. This state-of-the-art literature review examines the existing research on grassroots innovation and its potential for sustainable development, social change, and inclusive innovation. The paper highlights the diversity of grassroots innovation practices, including frugal innovation, social innovation, and eco-innovation, and identifies the key drivers, barriers, and enablers of grassroots innovation. Additionally, the review examines the role of policy and governance in promoting grassroots innovation, as well as the challenges of scaling up and sustaining grassroots innovations. The findings of this literature review suggest that grassroots innovation has significant potential for addressing societal challenges and promoting inclusive and sustainable development. However, more research is needed to understand the factors that contribute to the success or failure of grassroots innovation initiatives and to develop effective strategies for scaling up and replicating grassroots innovations.

Aim of the study is to conduct a state-of-the-art literature review to examine the existing research on grassroots innovation, including its potential for sustainable development, social change, and inclusive innovation, as well as its drivers, barriers, enablers, role of policy and governance, and challenges of scaling up and sustaining grassroots innovations. The overall goal of the study is to gain a deeper understanding of the concept of grassroots innovation and its implications for addressing societal challenges and promoting inclusive and sustainable development.

Researchers’ Insight on Grassroots Innovation and Innovator

Grassroots innovation is an essential driver for sustainable production and consumption, characterized by creating unique and sustainable solutions to local problems by commoners, such as cooperatives, voluntary associations, community groups, and social economy initiatives (Seyfang and Smith, 2007). It aims to address societal issues with funding from grants, reciprocal exchanges, and volunteer workforces (Seyfang and Longhurst, 2016). The movements like cooperatives, voluntary associations, unofficial community groups, volunteer work, and the social economy, fall under grassroots innovation (Seyfang and Smith, 2007). Grassroots innovators arise through experience, knowledge, and abilities ingrained at the individual and community levels (Reinsberger et al., 2015). Cities are becoming more innovative and sustainable, and academics, practitioners, and policymakers are paying more attention to considering entrepreneurs and innovative business models (Vergragt et al., 2016). As a result, grassroots innovations are essential to the transition to sustainability. According to Seyfang and Longhurst (2016), the primary goal of grassroots innovation is to address societal issues, with grants, reciprocal exchanges, and a volunteer workforce serving as the primary funding sources (Grabs et al., 2015). (Hossain, 2018) states that there needs to be a synthesis of the industries where grassroots innovation is most common, and most of the movements at the grassroots face conflicts. He talked about the motivating factors and obstacles for grassroots ideas. He also discovered that studying grassroots innovation is prevalent in five industries: cohousing, agriculture, community energy, and organic food. It highlights the number of problems with the triple tension (scaling up, sustainability, and success). Rising electricity costs fuel grassroots innovation, falling costs of renewable technology, and governmental clean energy efforts (Wainstein and Bumpus, 2016). The idea of grassroots innovations has developed into a valuable subsection of the immense literature on transitions. Grassroots innovations are niches sustained by the ideological commitment of the local players (Seyfang and Smith, 2007). Thomas et al. (2014) state that technological, scientific, and innovation communities rarely include grassroots innovations in their foresight exercises or innovation programs. The World Commission on Environment and Development states that grassroots innovations that produce knowledge are integral for policies and sustainable innovation (1987). Grassroots innovations for processing of food on a small scale for impoverished people living in rural areas of India are fundamentally different from, for example, methods of building houses that are affordable and suitable for the location, especially for the urban poor in Argentina. Regarding local inclusion and control over technological development and inventive social organization, grassroots innovation methods have identical visions and principles. Grassroots innovation's entrepreneurial components may be chosen and emphasized if they best fit the current market structures and knowledge institutions (Thomas et al., 2014).

As promoted by the Honey Bee Network in India, grassroots innovation encourages regional inventiveness and creativity. Understanding how grassroots innovation works allows researchers to collect ethnographic data about people’s recent experiences, their ability to generate original solutions to pressing problems, and the coping strategies that allow them to do so. There are two major reasons why the creativity of grassroots innovators is so important. It’s possible, first, that there is transferable information about how various innovation processes may be built to include local knowledge and stress the variety of grassroots settings. Second, the knowledge of the characteristics of grassroots innovation that are realized and engrained to varying degrees depending on the specific location can be known. These details may be used to provide location-specific data on how easily social inclusion technologies can be implemented elsewhere. The creation of more broadly marketable technology and social entrepreneurship can benefit from this understanding (Gupta et al., 2003; Kaplinsky, 1990; London and Hart, 2011).

The success of grassroots innovations depends on three levels –the individual level, the group level, and the societal level (Grabs et al., 2015). When properly encouraged, grassroots innovation may be a powerful source of new ideas (Ornetzeder and Rohracher, 2013).A few examples of prior grassroots movements are the Honey Bee Network Movement, the People’s Science Movement, and the Community Currency Movements (Seyfang and Longhurst, 2013) (Smith et al., 2014). Grassroots innovation often occurred outside of the purview of government or corporate goals (Yalçn-Riollet et al., 2014). They are more of a source of creative variety than of thorough and useful information for long-term sustainable growth (Seyfang et al., 2013). Dissident voices and movements, pushing for fresh ideas and the application of innovation, are the source of many grassroots innovations. To advance grassroots innovation is crucial to foster an entrepreneurial culture and an innovative attitude (Hua et al., 2010). However, there is no need to categories inventions as “grassroots” or “mainstream” because of the many commonalities between the two (Jain and Verloop, 2012).

Compared to the current unsustainable system, grassroots innovation can provide a more sustainable way of existence (White and Stirling, 2013). Large companies use grassroots innovations only while undergoing considerable organizational and technical design changes (Hess, 2013). Grassroots innovations frequently question accepted procedures, beliefs, and technologies. Additionally, they support novel organizational structures and distribution methods (Seyfang, 2011). They also question their operational settings' pre-existing institutional, legal, and regulatory components (White and Stirling, 2013).

Grassroots innovators are successful because of a culture that values negotiation, social learning, democracy, openness, and diversity (Ornetzeder and Rohracher, 2013). The following are some of the ways in which grassroots innovators are distinct from mainstream innovators: (1) Grassroots innovators are motivated by social needs rather than payment seeking; (2) Innovators that prioritized ideology before financial gain were the ones that ultimately succeeded; (3)The safe haven for grassroots ideas was established by shared norms and beliefs; (4) Innovators were pioneers in community ownership models.; (5) Innovators depended on volunteer work, grants, or mutual exchange; and (6) Social factors were important to innovators (Seyfang and Longhurst, 2013). Grassroots innovations were crucial to the shift toward sustainability because of their transformative capacity (Leach et al., 2012). As a result of local experimentation, grassroots innovators have formed a network that develops creative solutions for numerous urgent concerns (Feola and Nunes, 2014). Niche markets have emerged in response to the development of socio-technical innovation that challenges established norms, technologies, and creators (Martinez-Alier et al., 2010).

Principal Theories Cited in Literature on the Grassroots Innovation

The critical theories used to investigate grassroots innovation have been conceptual niche management (CNM) (Monaghan, 2009), strategic niche management (SNM) (Vries et al., 2016), multi-level viewpoint (Ornetzeder and Rohracher, 2013), niche-to-regime transition theory (Boyer, 2014), and knowledge economy (Gupta, 2012).Community-based activity, specialized sources for social movements supporting condensed consumption, and sustainable practices are only a few examples of how the literature on grassroots innovations is similar to the study on transitions in general (Boyer, 2014). Several important niche development processes, including network creation, learning, and capacity building on the one hand, and empowering, nurturing, and safeguarding niche inventions on the other, may benefit from grassroots innovations, as suggested by Ornetzeder and Rohracher (2013). Some scholars argue that the difference between a regime and a niche is more phenomenological in nature than ontological (Hoppe et al., 2015).Rather than upsetting the established order, grassroots innovations, as described by Kirwan et al. (2013), make use of existing local resources and expertise. New socio-technical practices can spread within a suitable context more easily with the help of niches; say Seyfang and Longhurst (2013). Transitions in socio-technical systems and sustainability have given rise to the literature on grassroots innovations (Martin and Upham, 2015). Radical innovation can germinate in socio-technical shifts as "spaces" (Seyfang et al., 2014). When strong niche performance is coupled with the compatibility of an existing regime, niche expansion occurs (Smith, 2007). Broader aspects like demographics, economic factors, ecology, structural framework, materials, and patterns have a role in regime change (Rotmans et al., 2001).

Challenges Faced During the Grassroots Innovations

Grassroots innovators encounter many difficulties. They require assistance throughout the entire value chain, not just on specific occasions (Cabannes, 2012). They have to rely on meagre funds from a variety of unreliable sources (Middlemiss and Parrish, 2010), are often at odds with one another ideologically (Seyfang and Longhurst, 2013), and find it challenging to forge meaningful connections with a larger group (Smith, 2011). Financial, legal, and situational pressures or compulsions, as well as diffusion, are significant barriers to grassroots innovations (Boyer, 2014). Grassroots innovations must overcome numerous obstacles if they successfully spark social changes (Feola and Nunes, 2014). One of the most prominent challenges grassroots innovation faces is converting a clearly defined demand into a “business plan” (Cabannes, 2012). Connecting local creative capacity with global dimensions is a significant problem for grassroots innovation (Leach et al., 2012). Funding for grassroots innovation comes from a wide variety of sources, including individual donations, fundraisers, grants, private sponsorship, lotteries, sales of locally-produced commodities, state authorities, and sponsors (Feola and Nunes, 2014). Funders and specialized funding organizations do not view urban agriculture as a significant concern; for example, financial support for grassroots innovations in urban areas is quite restricted (Cabannes, 2012). To foster their success, Grassroots innovators struggle to connect with knowledgeable individuals, research institutions, and advisors to obtain the required support, such as information access and communication channels (Creech et al., 2014). They struggle to keep up with the environment's constant change (Douthwaite et al., 2009). Their uneven dispersion challenges the tales about the momentum of innovations (Wu and Zhang, 2013). They struggle to get by, much less develop (Hargreaves et al., 2013). Because different owners have different interests, it is challenging to establish institutional infrastructures (Hargreaves et al., 2013). They need to launch a full-scale lobbying campaign to get institutional and governmental backing (Ornetzeder and Rohracher, 2013). Grassroots groups need help distinguishing between context-sensitive solutions and appropriate technology that enables local creativity. Additionally, they depend dangerously heavily on outside assistance (Smith et al., 2014). According to Cabannes (2012), urban grassroots innovators are hesitant to request loans from traditional financial institutions. Most non-business actors who work with grassroots innovations need to be stronger individuals. As a result, officials need to pay more attention to grassroots initiatives (Bergman et al., 2010). Public policy often overlooks breakthroughs that are localized, fragmented, and on a smaller scales (Gupta, 2012). In order to overcome several obstacles, as stated in the following section, networking is essential. 

Networking for Grassroots Innovations

Networking is crucial for grassroots innovations to scale up and move beyond their immediate environment (Hoppe et al., 2015). The success of grassroots innovations depends heavily on networks that have been in existence since forever, in the context of geography, size, space, and the socio-technical revolution (Feola and Nunes, 2014). When networking activities collaborate with multiple stakeholders, niches can benefit (Seyfang and Haxeltine, 2012). Social networks and interpersonal interactions have given rise to grassroots innovations and adaptations (Anderson and McLachlan, 2012). In order to establish community momentum, network-building efforts concentrate on the internal dynamics of communities (Kirwan et al., 2013). The creation of sustainable grassroots innovation is greatly aided by a robust global network of civil society (Ely et al., 2013). Activist networks provide grassroots ideas that provide basic solutions for sustainable advancement (Leach et al., 2012). Connecting grassroots creativity with larger institutions both near and far is beneficial (Feola and Nunes, 2014). According to Gupta (2012), grassroots inventions can’t be built in isolation from other participants. Designers, fabricators, and financiers are all essential to the process.

For sustainability experiments to succeed, it is important to first develop sociological and cognitive “niche” protection, which requires a focus on cultural practices, institutions, and networks (Longhurst, 2015). The intra-organizational network can help grassroots ideas grow (Xiao et al., 2013).

Learning for Grassroots Innovations

Learning gives grassroots innovations a chance to learn and develop their skills to make better inventions through experimentation (Hoppe et al., 2015). Bradbury and Middlemiss (2015) contend that an association’s culture of education is the most crucial enabler of learning. Learning demands a variety of structural circumstances at the local level (Ornetzeder and Rohracher, 2013). On the other hand, learning processes take place locally and globally (Seyfang and Longhurst, 2013). According to Bradbury and Middlemiss (2015), informal learning is less effective than experiential learning in fostering sustainable behaviors. The introduction of grassroots innovations, especially in rural regions, requires extensive training and the use of practical applications (Pattnaik and Dhal, 2015). Sustainable policy regimes may be learned from the public and local service providers to create rules that are flexible enough to allow bottom-up initiatives (Monaghan, 2009). Peer-to-peer information sharing facilitates the diffusion, propagation, and development of some grassroots ideas. Learning and building expertise include a process of sharing information (Feola and Nunes, 2014). To reach extreme cheapness, it is crucial to learn from grassroots innovators and indigenous knowledge keepers (Gupta, 2012).

Success of the Grassroots Innovations

In the existing literature, the grassroots innovations’ triumph is described in various ways (Ornetzelder and Rohracher, 2013). Feola and Nunes (2014) claim that four primary criteria—human, external, organizational, and resource—are used to characterize the success of transition innovations. In addition, grassroots innovators stress that the success of their inventions may be measured by how well they strengthen social links within their communities, improve environmental performance, empower their constituents, serve social purposes, etc. (Feola and Nunes, 2014). Scalability, reproducibility, and acceptance into other contexts are essential criteria by which Seyfang and Longhurst (2015) evaluate the effectiveness of grassroots innovations (Hoppe et al., 2015). The narratives around various grass-roots innovations may evolve in ways that have varying effects on the dynamics at play within and between them (Feola, 2014).

According to Smith et al. (2005), niche pressures, the environment, and the potential for change must be present at the time of the success of grassroots innovations. According to Seyfang and Haxeltine (2012), the key advantages of grassroots innovations are the spaces they foster for developing novel concepts and methods for testing novel delivery systems. These spaces allow citizens to express alternative values and achieve concrete goals. 

Drivers of Grassroots Innovators

Factors for grassroots innovation were social responsibility, ecological awareness, appropriate development, and sustainable consumption given by (Hilmi, 2012). He also identified specific traits of grassroots innovations in various categories. For example, grassroots innovation is the novelty of solutions to problems of daily living faced by bottom communities; its technicality could be better. The market is also low or medium; it primarily innovated for the social enhancement of communities in emerging markets, it seeks bottom-up development, it is for maintaining sustainability, it is scalable, and it also uses open-source software. Through sharing and integration, it will increase performance on a global scale. In the beginning, vulnerable communities in the developing world are its primary target market. Finally, it offers innovative platforms or solutions to new product conceptions in the industrialized world (Waal, 2016). Grassroots innovations are "simple, easy to implement, low cost and replicate, and such goods have substantial social benefits on the lives of the marginalized," as characterized by Hanna (2010). Gupta (2019) put out six Grassroots Innovations parameters: adaptability, affordability, sustainability, informal innovation, and local fit. Grassroots Innovation is particularly suited to Bottom Of Pyramid-focused innovations due to all six factors' confluence. According to Nakata and Weidner (2012), an accessible price is an extent to which a product can be acquired when access to credit and cash are both restricted. These goods are affordable and fit the Bottom of Pyramid clients' purchasing capacity (Chikwecheand Fletcher, 2012; Viswanathan and Sridharan, 2012). Native knowledge, as defined by Sillitoe and Marzano (2009), is the knowledge that has been acquired locally over time and is particular to a particular community, culture, or society. This information is typically passed down by oral and practical means. According to Subba Rao (2006), the ability to carry out socioeconomic growth of the community is a result of their traditional understanding of grassroots innovation.

Grassroots innovators typically develop to meet their own needs and address local issues affecting their community. These innovators are supported mainly by their family, friends, and neighbors rather than by official private or public organizations. Another dimension known as “Local Fit” is explained by De Keersmaecker et al. (2012). The researcher described the innovation's compatibility with regional resources, needs, and socioeconomic conditions. The sustainability dimension is described by Seyfang and Smith (2007) as innovations that enhance economic development while also taking social and environmental values into account. Adaptability is a critical component of grassroots innovation, as defined by (Li et al., 2008) as a product that can be easily modified to perform new purposes or to improve product performance in various circumstances. Gupta (2019) details the various traits of grassroots innovations: adaptability, informal network, indigenous knowledge, local fit, usually licensing under commons, and sustainability. Bottom-up solutions, sustainable development, contextual factors, and community values are the four pillars upon which Lakitan’s (2012) definition of grassroots innovation depends (Seyfang and Smith, 2007). The social economy, as opposed to the market economy, underpins grassroots innovations, which focus more on social and institutional than technological innovation and are driven by social need and ideological commitment than financial gain. Furthermore, the “protected space” that fosters their growth is often one of substitute culture and values (rather than regulatory frameworks and subsidies), and grassroots innovations take many different organizational forms (rather than principally commercial income).

To ensure a comprehensive review, the systematic literature review approach outlined by Tranfield et al. (2003) was used. This involved conducting keyword searches, selecting relevant articles, and performing descriptive analyses. The search began by adding the keyword "grassroots innovation" to the search term. Additional keywords, including "grassroots innovator," "entrepreneurial self-efficacy," were later added. The search was conducted in various online databases such as Web of Science, ABI Inform, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Shodhganga. The selected publications were mainly focused on entrepreneurship and were sourced from journals such as the Journal of Small Business Management, Journal of Business Research, Small Enterprise Research, Academy of Management Review, among others. Selection of Articles The initial search was conducted for peer-reviewed and English-language articles, resulting in the discovery of 256 contributed articles. The researcher then scrutinized the abstracts of these articles to identify those that discussed grassroots innovation among entrepreneurs and grassroots innovators. After removing 75 overlapping and irrelevant articles, 181 articles were included for further analysis. The selected articles were focused on grassroots innovators' entrepreneurial self-efficacy, its antecedents and consequences, or conceptual papers solely based on the literature. A further 8 papers were excluded as they were book reviews, blogs, conference-presented papers, incomplete papers, and press-presented papers. Ultimately, 173 articles were used for the in-depth investigation. A detailed analysis of 102 publications resulted in the creation of an integrated model of grassroots innovation and a research agenda. Descriptive Analysis To analyze the 256 articles that were selected, the researcher compiled the data into a spreadsheet, summarizing each article's key points. The analysis revealed that the field of entrepreneurial self-efficacy experienced an upsurge in publications beginning in 2010, indicating a growing interest in this area. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal and the Journal of Business Venturing were the two journals that published the most articles about self-efficacy of entrepreneurs, with 6 and 3 articles, respectively. The publications were categorized as qualitative or quantitative studies, with most studies employing a quantitative approach (102 articles). The findings of these studies provide valuable insights into the factors that influence grassroots innovation.

In conclusion, this literature review highlights the significance of grassroots innovations in fostering sustainable development and addressing the challenges faced by marginalized communities. The review indicates that grassroots innovations have emerged as a viable alternative to top-down approaches and can lead to the democratization of innovation. However, while the potential of grassroots innovations is evident, more research is needed to understand the dynamics of innovation processes at the grassroots level and to identify the conditions that enable or hinder their success. Nevertheless, this review provides valuable insights for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners who seek to promote inclusive and sustainable innovation that benefits all sections of society. Overall, it is clear that grassroots innovations offer a promising pathway towards a more equitable and sustainable future, and their potential should not be underestimated. Innovation has long been regarded as the exclusive domain of experts, technocrats, and policymakers. However, in recent years, a new wave of innovation has been sweeping across the globe, one that is driven not by experts in ivory towers but by ordinary people in their communities. These are grassroots innovations – small-scale, bottom-up initiatives that are aimed at addressing the challenges faced by marginalized communities and promoting sustainable development. While grassroots innovations may not have the glamour or resources of high-tech innovation, they are proving to be a powerful force for social change, demonstrating the potential of ordinary people to drive innovation and shape their own futures. Based upon the extensive literature review, future research should include more longitudinal studies to understand the long-term impact of grassroots innovations on the communities they serve. This could include tracking changes in social, economic, and environmental indicators over time to assess the sustainability of grassroots innovations. Comparative studies across different regions and cultures can provide insights into the contextual factors that influence the success or failure of grassroots innovations. This could include examining the role of cultural norms, institutional frameworks, and political structures in shaping innovation processes at the grassroots level. Participatory research approaches that involve community members in the research process can help to ensure that the voices of marginalized communities are heard and that research questions are framed in ways that are relevant to their needs and priorities. Future research should explore the intersectionality of grassroots innovations, including the ways in which gender, race, class, and other social categories shape innovation processes and outcomes. Understanding how grassroots innovations can be scaled up and mainstreamed into policy and practice is also an important area for future research. This could include identifying strategies for sustaining and replicating grassroots innovations, as well as examining the role of policymakers, funders, and other stakeholders in supporting grassroots innovations. Overall, future research on grassroots innovations should aim to provide a deeper understanding of the potential of these innovations to promote social, economic, and environmental sustainability, and to inform policies and practices that support their development and dissemination.

1. Anderson, C. R., and McLachlan, S. M. (2012). Exiting, enduring and innovating: Farm household adaptation to global zoonotic disease. Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 82-93. 2. Bergman, N., Markusson, N., Connor, P., Middlemiss, L., and Ricci, M. (2010). Bottom-up, social innovation for addressing climate change. Energy transitions in an interdependent world: what and where are the future social science research agendas, Sussex, 25-26. 3. "Boyer, R., 2014. Sociotechnical transitions and urban planning a case study of Eco cohousing in tompkins county, New York. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 34 (4), 451-464." 4. "Boyer, R., 2014. Sociotechnical transitions and urban planning a case study of eco cohousingin tompkins county, New York. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 34 (4), 451-464." 5. Cabannes, Y. (2012). Financing urban agriculture. Environment and Urbanization, 24(2), 665-683. 6. Chataway, J., Hanlin, R., and Kaplinsky, R. (2014). Inclusive innovation: an architecture for policy development. Innovation and Development, 4(1), 33-54. 7. Chikweche, T., and Fletcher, R. (2012). Revisiting the marketing mix at the bottom of pyramid (BOP): From theoretical considerations to practical realities. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(7), 507–520. 8. "Creech, H., Paas, L., Gabriel, G.H., Voora, V., Hybsier, C., Marquard, H., 2014. Small scale social-environmental enterprises in the green economy: supporting grassroots innovation. Dev. Pract. 24 (3), 366-378" 9. Culbertson, S. S., Smith, M. R., and Leiva, P. I. (2011). Enhancing entrepreneurship: The role of goal orientation and self-efficacy. Journal of Career Assessment, 19(2), 115-129 10. De Keersmaecker, A. E. K., Parmar, V. S., Kandachar, P. V., and Baelus, C. (2012). Towards scaling up grassroots innovations in India: A preliminary framework. 11. "de Vries, G.W., Boon, W.P., Peine, A., 2016. User-led innovation in civic energy communities. Environ. Innovation Societal Transitions 19, 51-65." 12. De Waal, G. A. (2016). An extended conceptual framework for product-market innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 20(05), 1640008. 13. Deevi, S. C. (2012). Next generation business strategies for the base of the pyramid: New approaches for building mutual value. Research Technology Management, 55(1), 66. 14. Douthwaite, B., Beaulieu, N., Lundy, M., and Peters, D. (2009). Understanding how participatory approaches foster innovation. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 7(1), 42-60. 15. Ely, A., Smith, A., Stirling, A., Leach, M., and Scoones, I. (2013). Innovation politics post-Rio+ 20: hybrid pathways to sustainability? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31(6), 1063-1081. 16. Feola, G., and Nunes, R. (2014). Success and failure of grassroots innovations for addressing climate change: The case of the Transition Movement. Global Environmental Change, 24, 232-250. 17. "Feola, G., Nunes, R., 2014. Success and failure of grassroots innovations for addressing climate change: the case of the transition movement. Glob. Environ. Change 24, 232e250." 18. Grabs, J., Langen, N., Maschkowski, G., and Schäpke, N. (2016). Understanding role models for change: a multilevel analysis of success factors of grassroots initiatives for sustainable consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134, 98-111. 19. Gupta, A. K. (2012). Innovations for the poor by the poor. International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, 5(1-2), 28-39. 20. Gupta, A. K., Sinha, R., Koradia, D., Patel, R., Parmar, M., Rohit, P., and Vivekanandan, P. (2003). Mobilizing grassroots’ technological innovations and traditional knowledge, values and institutions: articulating social and ethical capital. Futures, 35(9), 975-987. 21. Gupta, A., Shinde, C., Dey, A., Patel, R., Patel, C., Kumar, V., and Patel, M. (2019). Honey bee network in Africa: co-creating a grassroots innovation ecosystem in Africa. 22. "Gupta, A.K., 2012. Innovations for the poor by the poor. Int. J. Technol. Learn. Innovation Dev. 5 (1e2), 28e39." 23. Gupta, S. (2020). Understanding the feasibility and value of grassroots innovation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(5), 941-965. 24. Hanna, N. K., and Hanna, N. K. (2010). Telecenter Enterprises and Grassroots Innovation. Enabling Enterprise Transformation: Business and Grassroots Innovation for the Knowledge Economy, 185-216. 25. Hargreaves, T., Haxeltine, A., Longhurst, N., and Seyfang, G. (2011). Sustainability transitions from the bottom-up: Civil society, the multi-level perspective and practice theory (No. 2011-01). CSERGE working paper. 26. "Hargreaves, T., Hielscher, S., Seyfang, G., Smith, A., 2013. Grassroots innovations in community energy: the role of intermediaries in niche development. Global environmental Change 23 (5), 868e880." 27. Haxeltine, A., Kemp, R., Dumitru, A., Avelino, F., Pel, B., and Wittmayer, J. (2015). TRANSIT WP3 deliverable D3 2–“A first prototype of TSI theory”. TRANSIT. 28. Hess, D. J. (2013). Industrial fields and countervailing power: The transformation of distributed solar energy in the United States. Global environmental change, 23(5), 847-855. 29. Hilmi, M. F. (2012). Grassroots Innovation from the Bottom of the Pyramid. Current opinion in creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship, 1(2). 30. Hoppe, T., Graf, A., Warbroek, B., Lammers, I., and Lepping, I. (2015). Local governments supporting local energy initiatives: Lessons from the best practices of Saerbeck (Germany) and Lochem (The Netherlands). Sustainability, 7(2), 1900-1931. 31. Hossain, M. (2016). Grassroots innovation: A systematic review of two decades of research. Journal of Cleaner Production, 137, 973-981. 32. Hossain, M. (2018). Frugal innovation: A review and research agenda. Journal of cleaner production, 182, 926-936. 33. Hossain, M., and Anees-ur-Rehman, M. (2016). Open innovation: An analysis of twelve years of research. Strategic outsourcing: An international journal. 34. Hossain, M., and Anees-ur-Rehman, M. (2016). Open innovation: An analysis of twelve years of research. Strategic outsourcing: An international journal. 35. "Hua, L., Jiang, Y., Lin, Y., 2010. Grassroots innovation, characteristics, status quo and suggestions. In: Abstract Presented at the 7th International Conference on Innovation and Management, pp. 2048-2053." 36. "Jain, A., Verloop, J., 2012. Repositioning grassroots innovation in India's S and T policy: from divider to provider. Current Science 103 (3), 282." 37. Kaplinsky, R. (1990). The economies of small: appropriate technology in a changing world. Intermediate Technology Publications. 38. Kirwan, J., Ilbery, B., Maye, D., and Carey, J. (2013). Grassroots social innovations and food localisation: An investigation of the Local Food programme in England. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 830-837. 39. Lakitan, B. (2012, October). Role of government in energizing grassroots innovations. In Proceeding of International Seminar Enhancing Grassroots Innovation Competitiveness for Poverty Alleviation (EGICPA). Indonesia: Yogyakarta (pp. 28-35). 40. Leach, M., Rockström, J., Raskin, P., Scoones, I., Stirling, A. C., Smith, A., and Olsson, P. (2012). Transforming innovation for sustainability. Ecology and Society, 17(2). 41. Li, Y., Xue, D., and Gu, P. (2008). Design for product adaptability. Concurrent Engineering, 16(3), 221-232. 42. London, T., and Hart, S. L. (2010). Next generation business strategies for the base of the pyramid: New approaches for building mutual value. Pearson Education India. 43. Longhurst, N. (2015). Towards an ‘alternative’geography of innovation: Alternative milieu, socio-cognitive protection and sustainability experimentation. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 17, 183-198. 44. "Martin, C.J., Upham, P., Budd, L., 2015. Commercial orientation in grassroots social innovation: insights from the sharing economy. Ecol. Econ. 118, 240e251." 45. Martínez-Alier, J., Pascual, U., Vivien, F. D., and Zaccai, E. (2010). Sustainable de-growth: Mapping the context, criticisms and future prospects of an emergent paradigm. Ecological economics, 69(9), 1741-1747. 46. Middlemiss, L., and Parrish, B. D. (2010). Building capacity for low-carbon communities: The role of grassroots initiatives. Energy Policy, 38(12), 7559-7566 47. Monaghan, A. (2009). Conceptual niche management of grassroots innovation for sustainability: The case of body disposal practices in the UK. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(8), 1026-1043. 48. Nakata, C., and Weidner, K. (2012). Enhancing new product adoption at the base of the pyramid: A contextualized model. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(1), 21-32. 49. Ornetzeder, M., and Rohracher, H. (2013). Of solar collectors, wind power, and car sharing: Comparing and understanding successful cases of grassroots innovations. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 856-867. 50. Pattnaik, B. K., and Dhal, D. (2015). Mobilizing from appropriate technologies to sustainable technologies based on grassroots innovations. Technology in Society, 40, 93-110. 51. Rao, S. S. (2006). Indigenous knowledge organization: An Indian scenario. International Journal of Information Management, 26(3), 224-233. 52. Reinsberger, K., Brudermann, T., Hatzl, S., Fleiß, E., and Posch, A. (2015). Photovoltaic diffusion from the bottom-up: Analytical investigation of critical factors. Applied energy, 159, 178-187. 53. Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., and Van Asselt, M. (2001). More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. foresight. 54. Seyfang, G., and Haxeltine, A. (2012). Growing grassroots innovations: exploring the role of community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 30(3), 381-400. 55. Seyfang, G., and Longhurst, N. (2013). Desperately seeking niches: Grassroots innovations and niche development in the community currency field. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 881-891. 56. Seyfang, G., and Longhurst, N. (2016). What influences the diffusion of grassroots innovations for sustainability? Investigating community currency niches. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 28(1), 1-23. 57. Seyfang, G., and Smith, A. (2007). Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental politics, 16(4), 584-603. 58. Seyfang, G., Hielscher, S., Hargreaves, T., Martiskainen, M., and Smith, A. (2014). A grassroots sustainable energy niche? Reflections on community energy in the UK. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 13, 21-44. 59. "Seyfang, G., Longhurst, N., 2013a. Desperately seeking niches: grassroots innovations and niche development in the community currency field. Glob. Environ. 60. Change 23 (5), 881e891." 61. Sillitoe, P., and Marzano, M. (2009). Future of indigenous knowledge research in development. Futures, 41(1), 13-23. 62. Smith, A., Fressoli, M., and Thomas, H. (2014). Grassroots innovation movements: challenges and contributions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 63, 114-124. 63. Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American journal of evaluation, 27(2), 237-246. 64. Vergragt, P. J., Dendler, L., De Jong, M., and Matus, K. (2016), “ Transitions to sustainable consumption and production in cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134, 1-12. 65. Viswanathan, M., and Sridharan, S. (2012), “Product Development for the BoP: Insights on Concept and Prototype Development from University‐Based Student Projects in India”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 29(1), pp. 52-69. 66. Wainstein, M. E., and Bumpus, A. G. (2016). Business models as drivers of the low carbon power system transition: a multi-level perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 126, pp. 572-585. 67. White, R., and Stirling, A. (2013), “Sustaining trajectories towards Sustainability: Dynamics and diversity in UK communal growing activities”, Global environmental change, Vol. 23(5), pp.838-846. 68. Wu, B., Zhang, L., 2013, “Farmer innovation diffusion via network building: a case of winter greenhouse diffusion in China”, Agric. Hum. Values, Vol. 30 (4), pp.641-651 69. Xiao, X., Califf, C. B., Sarker, S., and Sarker, S. (2013), “ICT innovation in emerging economies: a review of the existing literature and a framework for future research”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 28(4), pp. 264-278. 70. Yalçın-Riollet, M., Garabuau-Moussaoui, I., Szuba, M., 2014, “Energy autonomy in Le Men e: a French case of grassroots innovation”, Energy Policy, Vol.69, pp. 347-355.