Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, thank you for submitting your manuscript for publication. This study includes a deep analysis of the BoP from the perspective of business model innovation using various methods and techniques. The data collection process is well developed and explained, the contributions of the paper are clearly stated, and practical implementations for businesses and policymakers are provided. At the same time, the following recommendations can be made to improve the quality of the paper:

1. Conceptual framework. It is not clear what the purpose of the framework is and what it captures? The relationship illustrated by the arrow is not clearly explained and discussed.

Page 5: You stated, “The framework has two dimensions”, later, you said, “The third dimension is the innovation literature related to BoP context”. Please revise these parts to make them consistent.

2. The research questions should be revised and expanded to include each section of the analysis in order to make the text logic and consistent.

For example:

RQ1. What is the distribution of papers over time. (section 4.1)

RQ2. What are the trending topics. (section 4.2)

RQ3. What is the Intellectual Structure of selected papers. (section 4.3)

And so on.

3. Proofreading: language proofreading is required.

 

Language proofreading is required.

Author Response

Point 1: Conceptual framework. It is not clear what the purpose of the framework is and what it captures? The relationship illustrated by the arrow is not clearly explained and discussed.

 Response 1: The purpose of the conceptual framework is to provide a visual representation of the BoP (Bottom of the Pyramid) generations, and indicate that each one exerted a different influence in the enterprise’s business model. To address this feedback, we included an explanation on the arrows for the conceptual framework depicted in Figure 1, and for the revised framework in Figure 13.

The arrows in Figure 1 now include the following explanation:

“The arrow connecting the two dimensions indicates the dynamic and evolving re-lationship between the different waves of BoP literature and the configuration of business model components, since each successive BoP wave has exerted a distinct influence on the way business models are conceptualized and designed for the BoP context. The arrow highlights the potential for reciprocal influence, where advancements in BoP literature may lead to adaptations and innovations in the understanding and ap-plication of business models for BoP ventures.”.

The text preciding Figure 13 now includes the following explanation:

“The extended framework now includes a third dimension, comprised by four sub-categories: innovation type, structural frame, eco-system and sustainability. Each of these sub-categories represents unique approaches and perspectives that influence the configuration of business model components in the context of the BoP. The three arrows in the framework symbolize the dynamic and interrelated relationships between the BoP wave, business model components, and the ideas depicted in this new dimension. Each arrow highlights the potential influence of one dimension on the others, emphasizing the iterative and adaptive nature of the BoP business model evolution. The third arrow, newly introduced in the extended framework, signifies that the new dimension also exerts an influence on the configuration of business model components, in combination with the BoP wave. This arrow underscores the intricate interplay between the evolving BoP literature and the dynamic landscape of innovation, ecosystems, structural frames and sustainability practices.

By integrating this third dimension, the framework emphasizes the importance of considering multiple factors, beyond the BoP wave alone, in the design and adaptation of business models for the BoP context. The extended framework thus provides a holis-tic view of the complex and multifaceted nature of BoP business models. It invites re-searchers and practitioners to investigate the intricate relationships between the BoP wave, business model components, and the various elements of innovation, ecosys-tems, and sustainability to create more inclusive, effective, and socially impactful solutions for the Bottom of the Pyramid.”

 

Point 2: Page 5: You stated, “The framework has two dimensions”, later, you said, “The third dimension is the innovation literature related to BoP context”. Please revise these parts to make them consistent.

Response 2: The phrase regarding the third dimension was misplaced and has been removed.

Point 3: The research questions should be revised and expanded to include each section of the analysis in order to make the text logic and consistent. For example: RQ1. What is the distribution of papers over time. (section 4.1). RQ2. What are the trending topics. (section 4.2). RQ3. What is the Intellectual Structure of selected papers. (section 4.3)

Response 3: The research questions were reorganized to include its subtopics, and the related result-sections were included. Additionaly, the results’ section was reorganized to directly relate to the research questions.

Point 4: Proofreading: language proofreading is required.

Response 4: English proofreading was executed in the revised version now submitted.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor,

I have completed reviewing this article (sustainability-2539549-).

Title: Exploring BoP generations through Business Model innovation lens: a review and framing

Suggestion: Major revision

 

 

This article applied bibliometric, network, and content analysis to map the intellectual and conceptual structure and understand the key variables relating to BoP business models. The authors extracted 161 articles from Web of Science and Scopus databases and screened documents manually and with the assistance of VOS Viewer 1.6.18, Biblioshiny, IBM SPSS, UC INET6, and NVivo12, using abductive and deductive coding techniques. The results show that articles are mostly in the exploratory phase, applying qualitative research methods, mainly case studies, and relying on interviews or public data. It is a very meaningful paper which gives the public some guidances when starting to make some policies on BoP generations through business model innovation lens. However, there are some major issues that need to be addressed.

 

Content:

(1)The part of the introduction that leads to the problem of this paper lacks hierarchy and logic, so that the expression of the background part and the research problem of this paper do not have a strong sense of connection, so, what is the research gap of this 

paper?

(2) The description of the work done in this paper is not clear enough in introduction, i.e., what kind of role does the corresponding software/methodology play in solving the problem of this paper respectively?

(3)The theoretical and substantive significance of the contribution of this paper needs to be condensed  in introduction .

(4)The literature review section tells the content and development of BoP and business models applied to BoP more clearly. However, the literature review as a specific elaboration of the research shortcomings of the part. It is not clear at this time what is the current research gap that this paper is addressing?

(5)The results of the article should correspond to the order of the introductory questions in the presentation of the abstract and conclusion, and the results can be condensed into a two-part answer.

Format:

(6)Tables should be in 3-line tables/open tables would be more aesthetically pleasing, there is a lack of clarity in the picture section.

 

(7)The last paragraph of the introduction describes only five sections, but states that it is divided into six sections.

Dear Editor,

I have completed reviewing this article (sustainability-2539549-).

Title: Exploring BoP generations through Business Model innovation lens: a review and framing

Suggestion: Major revision

Author Response

Point 1: The part of the introduction that leads to the problem of this paper lacks hierarchy and logic, so that the expression of the background part and the research problem of this paper do not have a strong sense of connection, so, what is the research gap of this paper?.

 Response 1:

We appreciate your insights and have carefully considered your comments to enhance the clarity and coherence of the research problem. To address your review, we have restructured the introduction to establish a more cohesive connection between the background and the research problem. By providing a clearer and more logical progression of ideas, we aim to underscore the research gap of this paper effectively.

The research gap of this paper lies in the realm of BoP Business Models. While significant research has been devoted to exploring poverty alleviation through market-based strategies in the BoP domain, there remains a lack of comprehensive understanding of how companies have configured their BoP Business Models to address contextual challenges while creating social value. Despite the advancements in incorporating the BoP as co-creators in value-creation processes and acknowledging the multidimensionality of poverty, there is a need to delve deeper into the innovative mechanisms adopted by enterprises to navigate BoP markets successfully.

Our paper seeks to address this research gap by conducting a thorough bibliographic analysis of the academic literature surrounding BoP Business Models. By mapping the intellectual evolution of this field and analyzing various dimensions of BoP Business Models, we aim to uncover novel strategies and solutions adopted by enterprises. Through this exploration, we intend to provide a comprehensive overview of the state of BoP Business Model research, identify potential research gaps, and pave the way for further investigations and advancements in the field.

Point 2: The description of the work done in this paper is not clear enough in introduction, i.e., what kind of role does the corresponding software/methodology play in solving the problem of this paper respectively?

Response 2: We included brief explanations about the sofware usage in the introduction. The introdution now includes the following information:

“Throughout the research process, MS Excel served as a fundamental data man-agement and analysis tool, enabling organization, cleaning, and aggregation of biblio-graphic data from diverse sources. Additionally, MS Excel facilitated the generation of essential summary statistics, including the distribution of papers over time, supporting data preparation for visualization in other software tools. Specifically, it played a piv-otal role in addressing research questions such as RQ 1.1, which focused on under-standing the temporal distribution of publications.

VOSviewer was employed for keyword co-occurrence analysis, contributing to the exploration of trend topics as outlined in RQ 1.2. By employing VOSviewer, we gained valuable insights into the interconnectedness of keywords within the literature, aiding in identifying prominent themes. Moreover, VOSviewer was utilized for co-citation analysis, a critical component of RQ 1.3, allowing for a comprehensive understanding of the intellectual structure of published papers.

Biblioshiny also made substantial contributions to answering RQ 1.2 and RQ 1.3 by providing a thematic map and organizing top authors' production over time, re-spectively. It allowed for effective visualization and organization of data, further en-hancing our understanding of the thematic structure and authorship trends in the BoP Business Models literature.

NVivo12, a qualitative data analysis software, was instrumental in handling un-structured data, particularly textual information derived from academic articles and other textual sources. Employing NVivo12 facilitated content analysis of the academic literature on BoP Business Models, enabling efficient coding and categorization of re-search themes. By employing this software, we attained a rigorous approach to com-prehending the intellectual structure of the field.

Lastly, IBM SPSS played a crucial role in exploring the relationships among codes through cross-tabulation, contributing to our investigation of specific research themes. In parallel, UCINET6 contributed valuable insights through core-periphery and net-work analysis, enhancing our understanding of network relationships within the BoP Business Models literature.”

 

Point 3: The theoretical and substantive significance of the contribution of this paper needs to be condensed in introduction .

Response 3: We condensed our contribution in introduction with the following paragraph:

“By offering a clear intellectual map and understanding of the evolution of BoP Business Models, we provide a foundation for informed decision-making and policy development to address poverty and foster sustainable development. Moreover, our examination of innovation strategies, such as frugal innovation and bricolage, and their integration with different structural frames, business ecosystems, and sustaina-bility approaches, presents valuable insights for enterprises seeking to operate suc-cessfully in BoP markets. Ultimately, this study aims to inspire further research and advancements in the field, fostering inclusive and sustainable solutions to address poverty-related challenges.”

 

Point 4: The literature review section tells the content and development of BoP and business models applied to BoP more clearly. However, the literature review as a specific elaboration of the research shortcomings of the part. It is not clear at this time what is the current research gap that this paper is addressing?

Response 4: We hope that the gap has been clarified by the review made in the introduction session of the paper. The literature review section aims at proving background on the themes being discussed, building the necessary knowledge for the results and discussions.

 

Point 5: The results of the article should correspond to the order of the introductory questions in the presentation of the abstract and conclusion, and the results can be condensed into a two-part answer.

Response 5: Results were organized as follows: “The results will be presented in three sections. The first two sections are orgnanized to answer the two main research questions. In answering RQ1, we will use sections 4.1.1 to 4.1.6 to discuss sample demographics, trend topics, intellectual struc-ture, research methods, geographies and economic sectors, and BoP enterprise categorization, respectively. In answering RQ2, we will use sections 4.2.1 to 4.2.8 to discuss themes related to the following BoP aspects: value stream, partnerships, resources, in-novation, types of innovation, structural frames, ecosystems and sustainability. Finally, future research agenda is presented in section 4.3”.

 

Point 6: Tables should be in 3-line tables/open tables would be more aesthetically pleasing, there is a lack of clarity in the picture section.

Response 6: Tables were revised for further clarity. Pictures with better resolution will be provided.

 

Point 7:The last paragraph of the introduction describes only five sections, but states that it is divided into six sections.

Response 7: Thank you for pointing that. The introduction has been revised accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Review report of article sustainability-2539549

 

In brief, the manuscript titled “Exploring BoP generations through Business Model innovation lens: a review and framing”

 

(a) is an important and exciting work;

(b) provides a systematic analysis of the BoP vs. BM literature;

(c) applies three different perspectives of the analysis (bibliometric, network, content) solidly;

(d) fits the journal’s scope and standards.

 

General findings related to the manuscript:

The manuscript provides results of a huge analytic work and represents significant efforts in the description of the selected area. Based on the reviewer’s perspective, the manuscript is prepared carefully in general. However, there are some minor adjustable and one major answerable question that appears in the text.

 

The detailed comments following the structure of the paper are presented in the followings:

 

1. Research questions

1a.

Line 76

The author mentions in RQ1 the “intellectual map around Business Models for BoP”. But later on the term “intellectual map” is not described and is mentioned only one time! Since RQ1 is one of the research questions of the study it is a must to define the term “intellectual map”, otherwise the question can not be answered scientifically correctly.

 

1b.

None of the research questions are answered exactly in the discussion section or in the conclusion section. The content of the question is discussed, but the exact answers to the questions are missing. Please answer the research questions in some well-aimed, summative sentences. à This can result in an increased number of citations in the future.

 

2. Stacked references

Lines 207-218

These stacked references in the text are really rough. Please describe a bit the content of the references (at least a half sentence by reference)

 

3. Not clear methodology

Line 227

Please change “combined with” to AND in the sentence, since the present form of the text is not defines well the combination of the search keywords. (Later, in the first section of Figure 2, the combination is introduced well…)

 

4. The missing PRISM protocol

Lines 232-242

 

Please provide/visualize/restructure the exclusion process by the PRISM protocol, that should be applied in MDPI journals in the case of systematic literature reviews.

 

5. Not clear limitation

Lines 881-882

The last sentence is not clear. What kind of subjectivity of the coding process is mentioned in the text? Please provide a bit more detailed information related to the limitation.

 

In general:

The reviewer would like to congratulate to the manuscript, it will be a very nice review soon for sure! However, the current form of the manuscript looks quite good as well.

 

Overall proposal:

 

The manuscript has significant potential; although, the manuscript requires revision. The reviewer suggests minor revision before publication.

Author Response

Point 1: Research questions 1a.Line 76. The author mentions in RQ1 the “intellectual map around Business Models for BoP”. But later on the term “intellectual map” is not described and is mentioned only one time! Since RQ1 is one of the research questions of the study it is a must to define the term “intellectual map”, otherwise the question can not be answered scientifically correctly.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback on our research questions and the term "intellectual map." We agree with your observation that the term "intellectual map" was not adequately defined in the initial version of the paper. Upon consideration of your comment, we realize that the topics covered in the Results section indeed compose the intellectual map of the study. These topics include sample demographics, trend topics, intellectual structure, research methods, geographies and economic sectors, and BoP enterprise categorization. To make this clearer and address your concern, we have made the necessary revisions.

 

In the revised version of the paper, we have renamed Section 4.1 as "Intellectual Map" to explicitly denote that this section provides an overview of the core components of the intellectual structure of the BoP Business Models research field. Subsequently, the subsections 4.1.1 to 4.1.6 now appear under the "Intellectual Map" section, each one delving into specific aspects that contribute to the comprehensive understanding of the intellectual landscape surrounding BoP Business Models.

 

By restructuring the sections in this way, we aim to provide a more transparent and coherent presentation of the intellectual map, enabling readers to better grasp the research framework and the contributions each section makes to the overall analysis.

 

Additionally, we have opened the main question (RQ1) into sub-questions that clearly state the relationship between questions and results:

RQ1: What is the intellectual map around Business Models for BoP?(section 4,1)

               RQ1.1: What is the distribution of papers over time (section 4.1.1)

               RQ1.2: What are the trend tropics, and how is the thematic structure organized? (section 4.1.2)

               RQ1.3: What is the intelectual structure of published papers? (section 4.1.3)

               RQ1.4: Which are the main research methods applied? (section 4.1.4)

               RQ1.5: What are the main geographies and economic sectors researched? (section 4.1.5)

               RQ1.6: What categories could be applied to orgnize BoP enterprises? (section 4.1.6)

 

Point 2: 1b.None of the research questions are answered exactly in the discussion section or in the conclusion section. The content of the question is discussed, but the exact answers to the questions are missing. Please answer the research questions in some well-aimed, summative sentences. à This can result in an increased number of citations in the future.

 

Response 2: Thank you for your feedback regarding the clarity of our research question answers. We appreciate your input and have taken it into consideration in our revisions.

In the Discussion section, we have thoroughly examined each research question and its corresponding sub-questions to provide in-depth insights into the intellectual landscape of Business Models for the Bottom of the Pyramid (BoP). Throughout the discussion, we have presented comprehensive and well-aimed analyses, covering various dimensions, trends, and research methods related to BoP Business Models. The content of each research question has been extensively explored and contextualized, contributing to a holistic understanding of the BoP research field.

Moreover, in the Conclusion section, we have summarized the key findings and implications of our study, including the main contributions to the academic community and the identification of potential future research avenues. While we have not presented the exact answers in the form of succinct sentences, we have thoroughly addressed and discussed the research questions and sub-questions, offering valuable insights and comprehensive conclusions. The content presented in the Discussion and Conclusion sections serves to inform researchers and practitioners alike about the state of the field, challenges, opportunities, and directions for future investigations.

To further enhance the clarity and accessibility of our research question answers, we have taken your suggestion into account. In the revised version of the paper, we have included summative sentences at the end of the most descriptive subsections in the discussion section, namelly: “trend topics” (also incorporating “sample demographics”) and “intelectual structure”. These sentences concisely capture the main takeaways from research question #1, providing readers with clear and well-defined answers to each inquiry.

Regarding RQ#2, we understand that it has been adequately answered through tables number 7-10.

We hope that these revisions will contribute to increased citations in the future, as the improved clarity and succinctness of our research question answers will facilitate better comprehension and dissemination of our findings among the academic community.

 

Point 3: Stacked references. Lines 207-218. These stacked references in the text are really rough. Please describe a bit the content of the references (at least a half sentence by reference).

 

Response 3: Thank you for pointing out the issue with the stacked references in the text (Lines 207-218). We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the overload of references in that section. The purpose of stacking the references was to provide a comprehensive list of authors who have contributed to the discussion of each Bottom of the Pyramid (BoP) generation.

However, we acknowledge that this approach might have compromised the fluency and clarity of the text, making it challenging for readers to fully grasp the content of each reference. In light of your feedback, we have revised the text to remove them, or to replaced them with more concise and informative descriptions of each reference. This adjustment aims to enhance the readability and understanding of the content without losing the valuable contributions of the cited authors..

 

Point 4: Not clear methodology. Line 227. Please change “combined with” to AND in the sentence, since the present form of the text is not defines well the combination of the search keywords. (Later, in the first section of Figure 2, the combination is introduced well…)

 

Response 4: Adjustment made to that excert. The text now states: “The research string specified the keywords "base of the pyramid" OR "bottom of the pyramid" OR "base of pyramid" OR "bottom of pyramid", AND "Business Model*".”

 

Point 5: The missing PRISM protocol. Lines 232-242. Please provide/visualize/restructure the exclusion process by the PRISM protocol, that should be applied in MDPI journals in the case of systematic literature reviews.

 

Response 5: The exclusion process has been revised to adhere to the PRISMA protocol.

 

Point 6: Not clear limitation. Lines 881-882. The last sentence is not clear. What kind of subjectivity of the coding process is mentioned in the text? Please provide a bit more detailed information related to the limitation.

 

Response 6: We appreciate the reviewer's feedback and acknowledge that the limitation statement in our conclusion could be further clarified. Regarding the subjectivity of the coding process, we apologize for not providing more detailed information. The coding process involved the abductive coding method, wherein first-order concepts were identified and grouped into code categories, and subsequently into dimensions. While efforts were made to ensure consistency and objectivity during the coding process (with the use of NVIVO, for example), the inherent subjectivity of qualitative analysis could influence researchers' choices and interpretations. As a result, different researchers may arrive at different coding decisions when confronted with similar data points, and therefore we consider this as a limitation that is inherently associated with the method chosen for the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This is an interesting study. Authors need to argue why they choose two particular databases. Authors should include articles not written in English. How to reach figure 3? Please have a detail explanation. Table 7 is too small and with low resolution. Word tree diagrams are OK. All of a sudden, you have BM Innovation. You need to state in the beginning your research objectives/questions. The greatest weakness of this paper is on future research. Authors only state the topics in descriptive manner. You need to integrate and diverse some research ideas for future researchers.

Need a native speaker to do the proof reading

Author Response

Point 1: Authors need to argue why they choose two particular databases.

 Response 1: We appreciate the reviewer's observation and feedback. The selection of databases for this study was based on careful consideration to ensure a comprehensive and rigorous analysis of the literature on BoP Business Models. The Web of Science database was chosen because of its inclusion of journals with impact factors in the Journal Citation Report (JCR) base, which are known for their high-quality and influential publications. By incorporating the Web of Science, we aimed to capture relevant research from well-established and reputable sources. Additionally, the Scopus database was included to complement the coverage of peer-reviewed articles. Scopus consolidates an extensive base of scholarly publications, further enhancing the breadth of papers included in our analysis. By utilizing both databases, we ensured that a wide range of papers, from various academic journals, were encompassed in our review. This approach aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of the state of research on BoP Business Models and ensure that the included papers were peer-reviewed, thereby contributing to the credibility and reliability of our findings..

 

Point 2: Authors should include articles not written in English.

Response 2: While we recognize the importance of considering research published in multiple languages to ensure comprehensive coverage, we regret to inform you that the authors do not possess the language skills required to effectively analyze papers in languages other than English. Moreover, due to limited resources, it was not feasible for us to undertake the translation of non-English papers for analysis. Additionally, the software tools we utilized in our research, such as VOSViewer and NVIVO, are optimized for analyzing and visualizing data from English-language sources. Including papers in multiple languages could potentially compromise the accuracy and effectiveness of our analysis and hinder the cohesive interpretation of the results.

Nevertheless, we acknowledge that future research endeavors focusing on BoP Business Models could benefit from a more diverse approach that includes research published in various languages. We encourage other researchers with multilingual capabilities to explore this aspect further and expand the scope of research in this domain.

 

Point 3: How to reach figure 3? Please have a detail explanation..

Response 3:  Figure 3 ilustrates the process that we have employed, which is the abductive coding process. The objective of this process is to identify and organize first-order concepts into code categories and dimensions. The process involves systematically analyzing the data to identify relevant first-order concepts and then grouping them into cohesive code categories based on their thematic relationships. Additionally, these code categories are further organized into dimensions to provide a comprehensive framework for understanding the data.

We will use the example illustrated in Figure 3 to further explain the process. The first step of the abductive coding process involves identifying and coding first-order concepts such as "financial value," "social value," and "environmental value." These concepts represent specific elements found in the data that are related to the overall theme of value proposition. Similarly, other first-order concepts like "awareness," "acceptability," and "affordability" are identified and grouped into the code category of "value offer" based on their thematic similarities.

Next, we organized these code categories into a higher-level structure called a dimension, specifically the "business model" dimension. This dimension serves as a broader framework that encompasses various code categories related to the business model domain. The business model dimension effectively captures the interconnections and interdependencies among the identified code categories, providing a comprehensive understanding of the data within the context of business models.

By employing this abductive coding process and organizing the first-order concepts into code categories and dimensions, the research framework gains depth and coherence, enabling a systematic and rigorous analysis of the data. This approach allows researchers to draw meaningful insights and make informed interpretations, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of the research subject.

Overall, the utilization of this abductive coding process enhances the robustness and validity of the research findings, providing a solid foundation for scholarly analysis and advancing knowledge in the field. The resulting figure effectively illustrates the interconnectedness of dimensions, code categories, and first-order concepts, contributing to a nuanced and comprehensive depiction of the research landscape.

 

Point 4: Table 7 is too small and with low resolution.

Response 4: We have included a section break to allow the table to be presented in another layout, improving resolution.

 

Point 5: All of a sudden, you have BM Innovation. You need to state in the beginning your research objectives/questions..

Response 5: We appreciate your insightful comments and have carefully considered your suggestion regarding the inclusion of "BM Innovation" in the research objectives/questions from the outset. We acknowledge that the discussion on "BM Innovation" emerged as a significant finding during our analysis of the sample of articles. Although it was not explicitly mentioned in the initial research objectives/questions, we believe that its inclusion was warranted due to its relevance as a crucial component of the business model (BM), and we believe that BM Innovation can be considered on par with other BM components, such as BM Value Stream, BM Partnerships, and BM Resources.

As the analysis progressed, we realized the importance of delving into the topic of BM Innovation to better understand its role and implications for enterprises operating in the BoP markets. The emergence of BM Innovation as a distinct theme was a result of our rigorous examination of the literature and was not preconceived in the research design.

To address this unexpected but vital aspect, we dedicated several result sections to thoroughly develop the theme of "BM Innovation." These sections, including BM Innovation itself, Types of Innovation, Structural Frame, Ecosystem, and Sustainability, provided a comprehensive exploration of the subject matter. By doing so, we aimed to shed light on the innovative mechanisms and solutions adopted by enterprises to address the contextual challenges of BoP markets while ensuring their sustainability and social impact.

 

Point 6: The greatest weakness of this paper is on future research. Authors only state the topics in descriptive manner. You need to integrate and diverse some research ideas for future researchers.

Response 6: We acknowledge the importance of providing comprehensive future research directions to inspire further inquiry in the field. To address this concern, we have revised and expanded the section on future research agenda. Instead of merely stating the topics descriptively, we have now integrated and diversified the research ideas to offer more substantial directions for future researchers. We have provided detailed explanations and context for each research topic, highlighting their significance and potential contributions to the field of Bottom of the Pyramid (BoP) business models. We hope that the enhanced future research agenda provides a more cohesive and substantial information for further exploration in the field. Your valuable feedback has helped us improve the paper, and we are grateful for the opportunity to enhance the quality and impact of our research.

The future research agenda now includes the following paragraphs:

“A future research agenda based on the sampled articles will be outlined in this section, aimed at bridging the existing knowledge gaps, foster innovation, and promote sustainable practices in BoP markets.

Future research should focus on conducting in-depth investigations to gain a deeper understanding of social value and its implications within BoP business models. This entails exploring the underlying mechanisms and contingencies related to the creation of social value by BoP enterprises. Researchers can delve into the specific ele-ments of business models that contribute to the generation of social value and investi-gate how contextual factors influence these elements. Furthermore, understanding the challenges faced by enterprises in creating social value and identifying effective strat-egies to overcome them can enhance the social impact of BoP business models.

Another potential theme for future studies is examining the impact of value chains and business ecosystems on BoP enterprises. Gaining insights into how these factors shape and influence their business models can provide valuable information. Investigating how large enterprises can effectively integrate micro-small enterprises (MSEs) into their value chains while ensuring a fair balance of power is crucial for fos-tering inclusive and sustainable economic development. Understanding the dynamics of such partnerships and the role of larger enterprises in supporting the growth and sustainability of MSEs can provide valuable guidance for fostering collaborative and mutually beneficial relationships.

To promote productivity increase and production cost reduction in BoP enterpris-es, future research should concentrate on stimulating the adoption of innovation strategies like bricolage and frugal innovation. Exploring cases in various contexts can offer valuable insights into their applicability and potential for addressing the chal-lenges faced by BoP businesses. Additionally, investigating the factors that facilitate or hinder the implementation of these innovation techniques can provide practical guidance for entrepreneurs.

Enhancing financial inclusion for the BoP community is another area for future research. Conducting exploratory or interpretive studies focusing on specific groups, such as migrant labor and small businesses, can shed light on their specific needs, preferences, and challenges in accessing financial services. Moreover, investigating innovative financial inclusion models and understanding their impact on the econom-ic empowerment of the BoP can open avenues for designing targeted interventions to enhance financial inclusivity.

Comprehensive exploration of business ecosystems in the BoP context is an addi-tional research direction. Investigating factors influencing how small social enterprises (SSEs) interact within these ecosystems can provide valuable insights into their dy-namics. Understanding how collaborations between multiple social enterprises within symbiotic ecosystems are formed and sustained can shed light on the dynamics of such relationships. Additionally, researchers can explore the distribution of benefits and value within these ecosystems and identify variations in the nature and intensity of symbiotic interactions.

Future research should also focus on identifying and researching important mar-keting phenomena and aspects specific to the BoP context. Investigating the unique marketing challenges faced by enterprises serving the BoP and exploring effective marketing strategies tailored to this context can be valuable for enterprises seeking to improve their market penetration and impact.

The influence of various stakeholders, including enterprises, social organizations, NGOs, and government departments, on the construction and functioning of digital platforms in the BoP context should be thoroughly explored. Understanding the roles and interactions of these stakeholders can provide insights into the dynamics of plat-form-based enterprises and how they contribute to inclusive economic development.

Finally, future research should investigate the link between different types of in-novation and sustainability in BoP business models. Understanding how innovation strategies contribute to environmental and social sustainability can inform the design of more effective and responsible business practices. Additionally, exploring commu-nity-based social enterprises (CBSEs) concerning leadership practices and capabilities can shed light on the factors that influence sustainability outcomes in these enterpris-es, especially during times of crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Research can al-so focus on the mediating relationships between sustainability leadership competen-cies and sustainability performance outcomes, providing insights into the pathways through which sustainability practices impact social development in business.”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, thank you for the revised manuscript; now, the paper can be recommended for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

I think this manuscript could be considered for publication in present form.