Entrepreneurship at the Bottom of the Pyramid: A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

The objective of this study is to review and synthesize entrepreneurship in the context of the bottom/base of pyramid (BoP). The concept of the BoP approach, which describes the possibility of profitably in both serving the poor and alleviating poverty, has iterated from 1.0 to 3.0 since 2002. It has transformed from engaging the poor as “customers” (BoP 1.0) to engaging them as “producers” (BoP 3.0). However, although the poor in BoP markets perform as active, central focal actors to identify and create entrepreneurial opportunities, inadequate attention has been paid to the question of how to engage the poor as entrepreneurs. Understanding this question is critical because entrepreneurship has been regarded as an effective tool to relieve poverty. Therefore, this research focuses on three specific questions: (1) What are the characteristics of entrepreneurs in the BoP market? (2) What are the contents of their entrepreneurial activities? and (3) What are the consequences? To answer these questions, this paper conducted a systematic literature review of 56 studies on entrepreneurship at the BoP in the scientific database Web of Science by using PRISMA to guide the review process. From the findings of the three research questions, the study also further identifies four types of entrepreneurs at the BoP (i.e., survival entrepreneurs, community entrepreneurs, professional entrepreneurs, and full entrepreneurs). With a discussion on future directions for these four types of entrepreneurs, this review highlights the heterogenous roles of the poor at the BoP and their challenges to create wealth, which is beneficial for directing the focuses of this topic.

1. Introduction

The 17 Goals of Sustainable Development (SDG) proposed by the United Nations addresses the importance of poverty alleviation as a priority, along with zero hunger, good health and well-being, quality education, and gender equality, among others. People living at the bottom of the pyramid (BoP) are the targets of these development goals. The BoP or the subsistence market warrants greater attention from the perspectives of both academia and practitioners [1]. The definition of people living at the BoP is those living at or below USD 1500 per annum [2] or at the threshold of USD 1 or 2 per day [3]. Initially, the seminal work of Prahalad and Hart [2] (p. 1) asserted that the BoP is a “prodigious opportunity for the world’s wealthiest companies to seek their fortunes and bring prosperity to the aspiring poor.” Multinational corporations work as agents to grow and make profits in the subsistence market, along with fighting against poverty [4].

With the evolution of the concept and practice of the BoP over time (from BoP 1.0 to BoP 3.0), how to engage the poor and what role is played by the poor, however, are questions that have changed greatly [4]. BoP 1.0 perceives “the poor” as customers in the niche markets that create value for large firms. Then, the poor changed to represent partners with businesses; therefore, BoP 2.0 regards the poor as co-creators in the local community. BoP 3.0 redefines the role of the poor at the BoP: the role of the poor has transferred to producers to serve the local community (i.e., BoP 3.0). During this process, large firms outside the BoP markets benefited from selling to the poor, and simultaneously brought information, knowledge, and skill, and reshaped the mindset of the poor [5]. This spillover effect creates wealth for the poor and enables them to contribute their own value to the local community as “producers.” However, it also can be observed that several social and environmental issues arise because larger businesses outside BoP markets may pay greater attention to financial returns or may overlook potential negative externalities toward local communities [6]. Therefore, businesses call for greater engagement of the poor and they are expected, as entrepreneurs, to achieve local prosperity through the balancing of three bottom lines [7]. The research focuses from academia accordingly changes from how MNEs benefit from the BoP [5,6,7] to the question of how the poor at the BoP contribute to wealth creation at the BoP.

The research on BoP 3.0 is still evolving, and numerous studies have reported that individuals in BoP markets do not merely act as small producers for products and services. They also have a role as active, central focal actors to identify and create entrepreneurial opportunities and proactively create networks with stakeholders inside and outside of BoP markets. Entrepreneurship has been found to be an effective tool to achieve economic prosperity, social justice, and ecosystem viability [8]. Entrepreneurs can seize opportunities overlooked by others [9]. Previous studies on the BoP have discussed how the poor engage in business as customers, partners, and producers [10,11,12,13]. As more businesses have expanded to BoP markets, the information, knowledge, and technologies they have brought have empowered the poor at the BoP to proactively consider how to create new business opportunities by seeking, employing, and integrating resources. Recent studies in management and social science have also provided solid evidence that the poor from BoP markets can perform as entrepreneurs to improve the socioeconomic well-being of BoP communities [14,15,16,17]. There have been literature reviews that demonstrated the role of the poor at the BoP as customers, co-creators, and producers [18,19,20,21]. However, there is a lack of synthesis of the literature of BoP 3.0 to demonstrate how the poor can perform as active entrepreneurs at the BoP. Lack of attention of this emerging phenomenon will hinder scholars from having the full understanding of how and why the BoP approach is important to wealth creation and poverty alleviation, which is also detrimental to achieving the SDG 17 goals. As an extension of the review of Dembek et al. [4], which compares the characteristics of BoP 1.0 (as customers), 2.0 (as partners), and 3.0 (as producers), the objective of this study is to review the roles of the poor at the BoP as entrepreneurs. To achieve this objective, this paper sets three specific questions as follows:

• What are the characteristics of local entrepreneurs at the BoP (characteristics)?
• What are the contents of entrepreneurial activities at the BoP (contents)?
• What are the consequences of entrepreneurial activities at the BoP (consequences)?

By answering these questions, our study intends to propose an integrated framework to advance our understanding of entrepreneurship at the BoP. In Section 2, we first summarize the evolution stages in BoP studies and highlight our focus in this literature review. Then, we introduce our methods to include and exclude literature of entrepreneurship at the BoP (Section 3). This is followed by a content analysis of literature in Section 4. In Section 5, we conclude the primary findings and limitations and propose future directions.

2. Evolvement of the Concept of BoP

The seminal work of Prahalad and Hart [2] introduced the approach of the BoP as the heart of business thinking [22]. Prahalad and Hart [2] suggested that the subsistence market can be profitable, driven by volume and capital efficiency. Since then, an increasing number of studies have been conducted in the field of BoP in subsistence markets.

The concept of the BoP has evolved from BoP 1.0 to BoP 3.0 [23,24]. The initial concept of the BoP was built on the premise that financially profitable business activities can alleviate poverty [21]. BoP 1.0 considers the poor potential consumers and that businesses aim to sell to the poor to fulfill their interests. Simultaneously, studies discussed the possibility of integrating business profits with the goal of alleviating poverty and benefiting the poor [4].

However, criticism of “selling to the poor” arises because multinational corporations are encouraged to pursue profits and growth in the subsistence market in developing countries, which benefits the corporations only [4] and harms the poor as consumers [10]. For example, Nestlé was labeled a “baby killer” because its advertising provided propaganda stating that bottle-feeding, instead of breastfeeding, makes babies healthier and stronger, which resulted in illness and infant deaths in poor communities in developing countries [25]. It has been found that the fundamental needs of the poor were ignored and the purchasing power of the poor was overstated [10]. Furthermore, the assumptions made under the BoP 1.0 approach were from a Western perspective [26]. Therefore, the BoP in subsistence markets in developing countries should not be treated the same as in developed countries owing to different philosophies of business practice, specific economic conditions, and development trajectories [1].

BoP 2.0 addresses the value co-creation approach between businesses and the poor [11]. The business target of BoP 2.0 is not regarded as only the consumers but also the business partners. Researchers argue that a genuine approach to poverty alleviation requires sustained interventions, including improving employment opportunities for the poor, productivity, and market access [10]. The corporate BoP strategy has progressed to a focus on “business co-venturing” with the poor. This iterative approach emphasizes the close relationship between the business and BoP communities, shifting business attention to developing deep dialogue and achieving shared interests [24]. BoP 2.0 addresses the need to overcome the harsh economic realities and social and environmental problems of BoP communities [18]. Hence, there is a need for corporations to embed themselves in the local community, build capacities to foster engagement and co-creation, and generate and meet local demands [24,27]. In addition, BoP 2.0 enables corporations to develop beyond the organizational structure while having access to corporate resources and capabilities [28]. Notwithstanding its development, criticism of BoP 2.0 is twofold. Involving the poor as business partners loses their focus on providing long-term employment opportunities, which can harm them in legal, regulatory, and social respects [4]. Conversely, BoP 2.0 encourages unsustainable consumption behaviors: researchers claim that corporations are profit-driven [28]. This argument has been challenged by Davidson [29], who articulated that corporations are responsible for a multitude of stakeholders rather than shareholders alone. A broader perspective increases the potential for business success [30].

BoP 3.0 does emphasize the concept from a broader perspective, enabling a strong focus on the complex and multidimensional nature of achieving sustainable development and well-being in the subsistence market [12,13]. This approach regards the BoP as consumer–merchants [5,31] or BoP producers [32,33], addressing the importance of a collaborative, innovative, and interactive business system. A “BoP producer” is defined as a low-income producer who operates small-scale businesses primarily in the informal sector [11]. BoP producers are primarily involved in farm-based activities, resale of products, and engagement in the subsistence service sector [34]. Instead of making profits, the main goal of BoP producers is to earn a living. Bonded with the local communities, BoP producers provide essential products and services, mainly for the subsistence market to which they belong [16], rarely engaging in the manufacturing sector. Hence, the businesses they conduct have low entrance barriers and high competition, resulting in disadvantageous market positions and minimal opportunities to increase their scale. The lack of entrepreneur skills, the liabilities of poverty, and the deficiencies of social, human, and financial capital further increase the liabilities of local producers in BoP markets [35] and weaken the possibilities of poverty alleviation through their business efforts [15]. Nonetheless, engaging the poor as producers has significant social implications, which are associated with higher levels of self-esteem, dignity [7], and “greater levels of well-being in BoP markets” [12] (p. 267). Although engaging the poor at the BoP can create positive social impacts, the entrepreneurial activities conducted by the poor are normally for-profit only, which is different from the concept of social entrepreneurship. Social entrepreneurship is defined as the entrepreneurship activities for a social cause, combining both commerce and social issues [36]. People connected to the cause can benefit from social entrepreneurial activities to improve their lives. The entrepreneurship at the BoP normally does not include a focus on social issues, but the wealth created by entrepreneurship activities can help the poor to improve their economic condition, and eventually is beneficial for poverty alleviation within their community. Therefore, entrepreneurship at the BoP is an approach to how businesses can solve the social issue of poverty, but the purpose of these entrepreneurial activities is for commercial intentions only.

From the evolution of the role of the poor at the BoP, it can be concluded that the locals in BoP markets have greater initiatives to participate in business and wealth creation, and academic attention has shifted from their role as customers (i.e., participants in business) to their role as entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs are active, risk-taking, and innovative self-starters with access to sufficient resources [37]. Therefore, entrepreneurial endeavors produce jobs, new businesses, and other responsibilities that may enhance societal well-being [17]. According to Korosteleva and Stępień-Baig [15], the term “BoP entrepreneur” is defined as individuals who live in a subsistence community, are forced or inspired to be involved in starting a business, and attain a specific degree of business achievements. Unlike larger corporations from outside BoP markets, BoP entrepreneurs are acquainted with the market and other underprivileged customers because they are community members and poor themselves. This enables them to traverse the subsistence market’s business opportunities while establishing intimate social bonds with members of the community [16]. BoP entrepreneurs have also been gradually acquiring greater capacities to create local business ecosystems, by identifying and creating entrepreneurial opportunities, which is beyond producers. The government sectors also realize the benefit of development through entrepreneurship rather than merely depending on traditional development tools (e.g., grants, donations, or aid).

Although Kumar et al. [19] have reviewed the drivers of entrepreneurship at the BoP, to date, there is a lack of systematic reviews on the role of these individuals at the micro level. Contributions of local entrepreneurs are central to sustainable development of the BoP community. Therefore, the overall goal of this review is to reveal the characteristics of BoP entrepreneurs, the businesses they have founded, the impacts they have created, and the factors that have facilitated and constrained their entrepreneurial activity. Specifically, we synthesize these questions into an integrated model (characteristics–content–consequences).

3. Methodology

To answer the aforementioned research questions, this study employed the structured systematic literature review approach of Tranfield et al. [38] to map the current evidence and gain nuanced insights into the emerging research themes pertaining to these research fields [39,40]. This study followed the PRISMA guidelines and checklist to conduct the systematic review [41]. As guided, the whole process was divided into three stages. Stage 1 focuses on the planning of the review, including the database, keywords, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. Stage 2 executes the plan, demonstrating the detailed process of paper selection and results. The execution process strictly followed PRISMA guidelines and specific information of how to include and exclude papers is listed in Figure 1. The other two stages did not incorporate this selection process. Stage 3 reports the descriptive results of the review.

• Stage 1: Planning the review

Stage 1 aimed to develop the search strategy and protocol. First, the study defined our research objective as reviewing the research on entrepreneurship at the BoP. Second, the conceptual boundaries were clearly defined. Because the review tended to include a broad range of literature in these fields, the journals in the specific entrepreneurship field and business and management journals that encompass this topic were included. Specifically, BoP entrepreneurs, producers, founders, and the team that reflects the entrepreneurial orientation were targeted. Third, the review developed the review protocol. The database utilized for searching was the Web of Science [21]. Web of Science is one of the most widely used datasets for literature reviews as it incorporates peer-reviewed journal articles in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) with high impact. The reference list of searched articles was also examined to ensure the inclusion of potential articles covering the topic. Subsequently, this study employed broad terms to form a search string, including [bottom of the pyramid]; [BoP]; [bottom of the pyramid OR BoP AND entrepreneur]; [bottom of the pyramid OR BoP AND producer]; [bottom of the pyramid OR BoP AND founder]; [bottom of the pyramid OR BoP AND team]. These broad terms were chosen for the search to achieve a holistic collection of the relevant literature for the initial search [39]. The time frame was not restricted but traced back to the original conceptualization of BoP [2] and the identity of entrepreneurs [42]. Additional filters included limiting the results to English publications and peer-reviewed journal SSCI articles. Books, conference proceedings, and newspapers lacking peer-reviewed processes were explicitly excluded. These further filters ensured the relevance of the business and management discipline and the quality of the articles [43]. All authors were involved in the selection process and they worked independently for the selection before joining together for synthesis and agreement. All procedures involved in the planning stage reinforced the rigor of the reviewing process and minimized the risk of bias.

• Stage 2: Conducting the review

Stage 2 involved conducting the review of the literature selected on the basis of the protocol. By employing the aforementioned search strings, the study initially identified 2964 articles published by October 2022. Duplicated articles were removed, along with non-English publications, non-peer-reviewed articles, non-SSCI articles, and non-empirical studies. Hence, the study accepted the remaining 123 articles for assessing quality and relevance. Further removal was conducted on the basis of a review of the titles, abstracts, and published journal names, ensuring that the literature discussed our focused topics. Finally, after considering all selection criteria, 56 articles remained for the review. All 56 articles were coded and the content was analyzed. Data first recorded were the features of each article, including author(s), title, publication year, journal name, methodology, geographical spread, the identity of strategic leaders, and industry. Through coding and analysis, the research identified three analytical themes related to the review objective [44]. The study analyzed the articles using an inductive approach, exploring the themes without any restrictions or bounded theories. This approach allowed us to identify different theoretical perspectives and topical themes around strategic leadership and the BoP. The three themes identified were characteristics, contents, and consequences. The researchers agreed on the procedures and methods for coding. The articles were then coded independently by the researchers and emerging themes were discussed on the basis of the coding results. The review paid particular attention to the coding procedures and consistency [4].

• Stage 3: Descriptive analysis and reporting

Stage 3 is to analyze descriptive statistics of the reviewed articles. Of the 56 articles reviewed, most (98.2%) originated from developing countries, including India, Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Kenya, Benin, Ghana, and Mexico. A summary of the sources (n = 56) based on the geographical spread can be found in

Table 1. Summary of the Sources.

Geographical Spread of Studies	Author(s) and Publication Year
Asia	[7,10,14,16,31,33,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62]
Africa	[32,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73]
Central & South America	[5,34,74,75,76,77,78,79,80]
Mixed places or others	[3,11,81,82,83,84,85,86]

. Only one article (1.8%) focused on a developed country (France) as its research target. The corpus of knowledge seemed to be representative of the following geographical areas: Central and South America, Africa, and Asia. However, the literature did not give as much attention to North America, Europe, or Oceania. It makes logical sense that more poor people suffer in developing countries. Nonetheless, it also presents a viable line of inquiry for further empirical study: namely, the analysis of BoP entrepreneurs in developed countries. The BoP covers a significant portion of the population in developed countries as well, who currently receive little attention. Overall, it could be concluded that greater attention has been paid to how the poor are engaged as producers in developing countries.

The analysis also revealed that the top five journals to publish articles on this topic were the Journal of Public Policy & Marketing (n = 6), Entrepreneurship & Regional Development (n = 5), the Journal of Business Research (n = 4), the Journal of Macromarketing (n = 4), and Technological Forecasting & Social Change (n = 4). Most of the articles were qualitative studies (n = 45), followed by quantitative studies (n = 9), and mixed method studies (n = 2).

4. Findings

This section is presents content analysis to answer the three research questions regarding how to engage the poor at the BoP. In the following, the study synthesizes the findings of the three themes of characteristics of BoP entrepreneurship, the content of entrepreneurial activities, and the consequences of entrepreneurship to answer the research questions.

4.1. Research Question 1: Characteristics of BoP Entrepreneurship

BoP scholars have explored the factors that may motivate entrepreneurship in BoP markets and labeled these factors with terms such as “antecedents,” “initiators,” and “drivers.” For instance, Kolk et al. [21] proposed in their research framework that multinational enterprises (MNEs), local large firms, local small-medium-sized enterprises, Non-government organizations (NGOs), and the government are key initiating stakeholders. Kumar et al. [20] suggested that push factors (individual personal situations) and pull factors (individual desires) drive BoP businesses forward. Further, they considered poor infrastructure and governance deficits, low resource endowments, and characteristics of BoP enterprises key antecedents [20]. Nevertheless, little is known regarding the key characteristics of BoP entrepreneurship or the identity of entrepreneurs in the BoP market [63]. In reviewing the papers, we first identified nine categories of characteristics and integrated them into two general aspects: individual characteristics and business characteristics. Specifically, individual BoP entrepreneurial characteristics include social status, gender, educational background, capabilities, psychological factors, and beliefs, whereas business characteristics show what a BoP business resembles, including elements of legitimacy, nature, and operations (see

Table 2. Characteristics of BoP entrepreneurship.

	Category	Coding Results
Individual characteristics	Social status	Under USD 2/day; lack of a safety net; scarcity of poorness; low income; part of self-help group (SHG) network; involuntary entrepreneurs; from lower social class; struggle to survive; multiple occupations; a business and a laborer’s job; self-employment; motivated by survival needs and few possibilities for upward mobility
	Gender	Female majority; urban poor women; member of a women’s SHG affiliated with a non-profit organization; women in the majority
	Education	Low literacy; literacy gaps; non-literate; low level of education; lesser knowledge, information, and skills base; low-to-moderately-literate population; low formal education; illiteracy
	Capabilities	Extremely poor and weak; resource-poor; lack efficient means of communication; limited access to complementary infrastructure; lack the skills, vision, creativity, and drive of an entrepreneur; financial constraints; no specialized skills; acute resource constraints; digital
	Psychological factors	Myopic/alert; lack of a safety net; intense non-business pressures; resource scarcity
	Beliefs	Survivalist; collectivism; fatalism; little or no social responsibility concerns
Business characteristics	Legitimacy	Not registered; do not pay any taxes; obligation to share a high perceived level of public sector corruption; not subject to any taxes or even minimum-wage restrictions; tax rates perceived as too high; low tax morality; high resistance against the state; do not perceive it risky to run an unregistered business
	Nature	Rural areas; rural areas with scant infrastructure; embeddedness in social relations; ease of entry; street businesses; self-employed in agriculture; low capital, skills, and technology requirements; part of a diversification strategy, often run by idle labor, with interruptions, and/or part-time; sole-owned; no brand capital; low public visibility; raise capital; too small a scale; no paid staff; few assets; low entry barriers; too much competition; low productivity
	Operations	Consumer–merchant; owns some land; the residual claimants of earnings; meagre earnings that cannot lift their owners out of poverty

).

4.1.1. Individual Characteristics

Social status. Entrepreneurs living in the subsistence market struggle to survive [45]. Their daily living expenses are typically less than USD 2 per day or a comparable amount in other currencies [46]. Coming from a lower socioeconomic class [45] and having a low income [16] results in poverty issues at the BoP [64,81]. Normally, BoP business owners lack motivation [87] to proactively employ business opportunities for wealth creation. Instead, they choose to establish businesses to cope with survival threats in the form of self-employment [3,47,82]. Owing to the flexibility of self-employment, BoP entrepreneurs often have multiple jobs or run several small businesses and their incomes are therefore not stable [10]. BoP entrepreneurs may, for instance, run their businesses and work as laborers at the same time [3]. They consequently have limited opportunities for career advancement [47] or for alleviating poverty completely.

Educational background. BoP entrepreneurs are characterized as having low literacy levels because they have limited opportunities for formal education [81,88] or to reach higher educational levels [14,48]. Some people have not even received any formal education at all, which has left them illiterate or otherwise non-literate [7,64]. Therefore, BoP entrepreneurs may be limited in their ability to acquire the necessary knowledge, information, and skill set. The market for subsistence goods is frequently extremely competitive, fragmented, and subject to rapid change [74]. Without the proper education, BoP entrepreneurs are unable to take advantage of market opportunities and gain a competitive advantage [49].

Gender. Most BoP studies have investigated this issue from both gender-neutral and gender-inclusive perspectives. Researchers have observed that most entrepreneurs in BoP markets are women [82]. Therefore, greater attention has been paid to female entrepreneurs. The research topics focus on women in general as BoP entrepreneurs [32,50,83], women in developing contexts [40], urban poor women [51], and women who are connected to and supported by NGOs [88]. Although female entrepreneurs are also primarily motivated to establish businesses to support their family income for survival, especially in rural and suburban regions, some become entrepreneurs to obtain social recognition as business people, keep themselves busy, and even pursue their own interests [51]. Additionally, some fortunate women have received empowerment from multinational companies (MNCs) that enable them to launch and run a business [50].

Capabilities. BoP entrepreneurs are described as “weak” by McCarthy and Muthuri [64]. This word accurately captures the challenging circumstances they face. They are faced with constrained resources [20,47,48,65] and therefore lack opportunities to acquire specialized knowledge [10] and gain access to auxiliary resources [31,49]. Ineffective communication channels, financial limitations [49], and lack of digital proficiency [84] also limit their ability to connect with customers and grow their business [66]. Hence, compared with entrepreneurs in other contexts, it is not unexpected that BoP entrepreneurs may lack vision, inventiveness, and passion for achievement [10,82].

Psychological factors. Compared with other characteristics, psychological characteristics have received relatively limited attention from scholars. One of the characteristics highlighted is alertness [75]. BoP entrepreneurs are constantly seeking to identify changes, since the industry is unstable and challenging. Some of these changes could even endanger the business. They frequently face intense pressures from personal and familial issues and from changes in the external environment [81]. Morris et al. [81] argued that they “lack a safety net.” As a result, instead of having a strategy for the future, they frequently exhibit myopia and simply consider the present day [75].

Belief. In this context, belief does not refer to a person’s religious convictions but rather to their worldview and sense of self. BoP entrepreneurs are initially survivalist [47,82]. Some BoP entrepreneurs succumb to fatalism [67] to rationalize their desperation, while others are extremely upbeat and actively participate in self-help groups to gain resources and assistance from outside networks [52,88]. Furthermore, collectivism is viewed as a crucial element of entrepreneurial decisions and actions. Collaborations and collaborative efforts are critical to survival.

4.1.2. Business Characteristics

Legitimacy. Studies have illuminated this aspect of business but have overlooked the fact that BoP entrepreneurs run their companies illegally [45]. Most BoP companies are not registered in terms of licensing. These BoP entrepreneurs do not perceive operating an unregistered business as risky [53]. In the subsistence market, unregistered businesses become the norm. They are not liable for taxes [45] if they are not registered. BoP entrepreneurs consider tax rates to be excessive [53]. Instead, they simply have a low moral standard toward taxation [53]. Most of them work for themselves and do not employ anyone [10]; therefore, the minimum-wage requirement [85] is unimportant since their living conditions actually fall well below what is considered acceptable. The public sector, including police, business administration bureaus, and other entities, frequently exhibit significant levels of corruption [82], which BoP entrepreneurs often manage. They therefore show a strong antagonism to the state [53].

Nature. BoP businesses in the subsistence market typically operate in rural areas [3] or as door-to-door or street-level businesses in urban areas [82]. BoP entrepreneurs work for themselves most of the time and do not have any employees [10]. Owing to their multiple employment, some BoP entrepreneurs run businesses on a part-time basis [82]. The businesses are commonly fairly small in size, with very few assets and little infrastructure [10,31]. As a result, productivity is low owing to a lack of investment in capital, low skill levels, and inadequate technological assistance [82]. BoP companies frequently lack brand capital and have low levels of public visibility [45]. With a solid grounding in interpersonal relationships [82], they are active in local communities. There is intense competition among businesses, since the subsistence market has low entry barriers and is simple to access [10].

Operations. BoP entrepreneurs normally operate their business as forms of consumer merchants [5]. They serve a dual purpose while surviving in the subsistence market. Their living expenditures are just covered by the meager earnings of the BoP business, making it difficult for them to escape from poverty [10]. Poverty alleviation is implied in the extant literature but is not explicitly addressed [4]. Nevertheless, BoP businesses’ operations in the subsistence market have not received adequate attention. Efforts are concentrated on the BoP businesses’ constraints and outcomes [11].

4.2. Research Question 2: Content of BoP Business

The extant literature on entrepreneurship in BoP markets includes several case studies based on the context of various specific business activities, such as the sale of homemade products, retailing of manufactured goods and services, and manufacturing. Most studies have explored how BoP entrepreneurs can benefit from these activities [67,84]. However, we still lack the big picture of the specific activities adopted by BoP entrepreneurs and which types of business activities can breed new entrepreneurial opportunities for BoP entrepreneurs.

4.2.1. Food-Related Business

A food-related business is one of the simplest types of business to start. There are two main kinds of food-related businesses: selling natural agricultural goods and running a small food stand. Fruits (coconut, mango, avocado, and lemon), vegetables, shrimp, fish, milk, butter, coffee, beans, rice, and flowers are examples of agricultural products [32,51,64,75,88]. Food stalls offer coffee, snacks, bread, prepared meals, homemade pickles, porridge, dawadawa cake, and chicken [14,31,67]. Food-related businesses typically lack a permanent location, are small scale, cannot guarantee hygiene standards, and lack a food license. Local communities regularly consume the food products. To sell food-related products, entrepreneurs do not have to possess external connections to suppliers or customers, which have low dependence to any stakeholders. Basically, entrepreneurs merely serve as producers to local communities by selling the food and agriculture products produced by them, and selling the self-produced food does not require high managerial skills and knowledge for the poor.

4.2.2. Manufactured Product Sales

Selling is the approach that BoP entrepreneurs find the easiest. Two main types of sales are frequently made: manufactured goods and handcrafted items. BoP entrepreneurs may purchase industrial products, such as Coca-Cola and Unilever’s consumer packaged goods [85], to resell to subsistence customers. Manufactured goods have several common elements: cheap value, small scale, rapid consumption, daily needs, and inferior quality. Frequent commodities found in the subsistence market include reading glasses, cleaning supplies, clothing, candies, umbrellas, gas, sanitation, pharmaceuticals, and children’s products [16,49,67,76,85]. The products mainly serve to provide the basic necessities of local residents. The primary task for entrepreneurs who sell manufactured products is to link external manufacturers with local customers (outside-in). However, entrepreneurs are not required to proactively research suppliers outside BoP communities. Some large manufacturers may consider them to be retailers to expand to BoP markets.

Because BoP communities have greater exposure to products from more developed areas, there is uplifting change for the greater well-being from the needs of local customers [76]. BoP entrepreneurs also consider selling other products to satisfy the higher-level needs of their customers. For example, adornments such as jewelry, wearable accessories, sunglasses, traditional clothing, World Cup memorabilia, and worship supplies are available for customers [16,76,84].

Overall, entrepreneurs who sell manufactured products can basically identify the needs of local communities and identify the channels to gain access to larger manufacturers outside BoP markets. Therefore, for entrepreneurs who sell manufactured products, they still have low dependence to other stakeholders, but they need to have basic skill to negotiate with large companies. Moreover, because BoP entrepreneurs are living in the same communities as their customers, they need to develop their ability that can identify local needs and flexibly adjust their selling strategies to local buyers to improve their sales.

4.2.3. Self-Made Product Sales

BoP entrepreneurs capable of making commodities can create handicrafts to sell, such as jute pouch bags, wooden crafts, clothing, beer mugs, and party decorations [16,33,84], as well as creative goods such as paintings and cushion covers with hand embroidery [33]. While some self-made products are sold to local customers within their communities (inside-in) [46,77], other entrepreneurs can identify the uniqueness of their products and employ digital platforms (e.g., Facebook) to reach customers far from them who perceive their products to be unique and meaningful (inside-out) [84]. Therefore, compared with selling manufactured goods, selling handmade products requires stronger entrepreneurial orientation and greater skills to employ technology to expand the market and create new demand. As the markets for self-made products are mainly targeted at the customers outside the BoP markets, the dependence on the information of external customers and the channels to access to external customers is higher than selling other products.

4.2.4. Services

The service industry is another preferred option for BoP entrepreneurs because it does not require much specialized knowledge or a large investment. BoP entrepreneurs primarily engage in two different types of services: labor service and professional service. The easiest labor services include milk delivery [16], tour guide services, or fishing guide services [78]. BoP entrepreneurs are familiar with the area, so they can offer knowledgeable advice and counsel to tourists or fishers, earning some money in return. Similar to food-related businesses, entrepreneurs do not require extra external resources: they merely serve local communities (inside-in). Therefore, the dependence to extra resources is low. BoP entrepreneurs are also active in other labor services to meet the local needs of businesses; for instance, as a handloom weaver, tailor, seamstress, porter, electrician, plumber, carpenter, contract gardener, locksmith, or hairdresser [14,31,34,66,89]. These businesses operate informally, frequently without registration or taxation, similarly to other BoP businesses. There is also limited requirement of any managerial skills of these entrepreneurs and they offer their labor as products.

Professional service. An increasing number of subsistence markets are devoted to professional services, such as driving, information technology (IT), financial, and healthcare services. MNCs or large domestic companies contribute to establishing infrastructure facilities, such as community information centers [54], computer centers [88], telephone booths [3], and other telecom-related services [34]. All these facilities require local human capital to build and operate (inside-out). For example, to build the facilities, driving skills are particularly in demand owing to the inadequate public transit system in underdeveloped regions. One of the primary modes of transportation is the little cab or tuk-tuk. There is no set itinerary, and riders can easily board and disembark at any time and any location for a minimal fee. Skilled workers now have the option of starting their own businesses as professional tuk-tuk drivers [78]. They also have the option of hauling fruits and vegetables [14].

In financial services, it is common to observe BoP entrepreneurs as financiers [52], chit fund operators [88], Diwali fund operators [14], and pawnbrokers [14]. Working with non-profit, governmental, and financial companies, BoP entrepreneurs become an integral part of the financial ecosystem, providing immensely valuable support to the poor [52].

Art-related businesses are another kind of specialized business available to entrepreneurs. This includes working as a skilled artist or craftsperson [49], painting for home décor [34], and working as a photographer, disc jockey, or music producer [77] at entertainment venues. The threshold for entering the art industry is greater than in other categories because not everyone has the talent and aptitude to enter this sector.

BoP entrepreneurs also offer healthcare services to the poor, including personal hygiene services [75], tiffin services or beauty parlor services [51], primary care [55], and health clinics [85]. Compared with labor services, professional services require a higher level of knowledge and skills, which creates barriers for new entrants. Usually, professional services appeal to migrant entrepreneurs who have been living in cities for a long time or who have been educated in cities. In other words, although these entrepreneurs were born in BoP communities, they acquired education, skills, and knowledge outside the community, and then returned to serve those communities. Therefore, for those entrepreneurs, they highly depend on the training received from large firms and other external organizations. Meanwhile, they have to develop a command of good operation skills and professional knowledge to provide professional services.

4.2.5. Manufacturing

The manufacturing industry requires a higher level of financial and human capital for establishment and operation. BoP entrepreneurs are strongly motivated to innovate in order to alter and escape their underprivileged circumstances, despite the severe social, economic, institutional, and financial constraints [90]. They are innovative entrepreneurs who “strive to generate new ideas, routines, products, and services with minimal resources” [91] (p. 297) rather than recipients of assistance from MNCs and NGOs. Through their daily observations and ongoing trials, BoP entrepreneurs actively engage in improving mechanics. It is notable that a variety of machines, such as a sanitary napkin maker, an affordable cooling device that requires no energy, and a reversible reduction gearbox [47], have been developed and put into use in the subsistence market. Additionally, BoP entrepreneurs produce clay pots, toys, local delicacies, shoes, and toys [14,51]. Some are able to sign contracts with the local government or local suppliers, facilitating the sustainability and growth of BoP businesses. Compared with other businesses in BoP markets, manufacturing businesses are usually established in a formal way, with formal cooperation with other economic and social stakeholders (e.g., NGOs, governments, banks, and big companies). They also have the greatest requirements in terms of the networking capabilities of entrepreneurs. The success of manufacturing businesses heavily depends on the network resources of suppliers and customers businesses, as well as other social stakeholders, such as the government. Manufacturing also requires entrepreneurs to be equipped with the skills of producing new products, such as designing, manufacturing, marketing, and iteration.

Overall, the findings of this study demonstrate that most BoP business owners still operate their businesses by using a basic selling approach. However, their daily operations have demonstrated entrepreneurial orientation [78]. For instance, to satisfy client demand, they attempt to modify and enhance their selling of goods. This demonstrates their entrepreneurial market awareness and their methodical decision-making processes. Meanwhile, the businesses at the BoP have gradually evolved as formal and legal organizations, requiring stronger entrepreneurial orientations, professional skills, and networking capabilities.

Table 3. Category and specific BoP businesses.

Category	Specific BoP Business	Entrepreneurial Initiative	Managerial Skill Requirement	Resource Dependence
Foods	Natural Agri-foods drinking water; shea nut butter; chicken; fruits; vegetables; flowers; fish; pooja items (e.g., coconuts); coffee; plants; avocados; milk; raw lemons; vegetable wholesaler; shrimp; shea butter; mango; dairy; cocoa; shea oil; maize; okra; rice; beans	BoP entrepreneurs identify the market needs for natural food products	None	Low
	Food Stand tea and tiffin (light meal); snack; bread snacks; sweet peanuts; readymade food; provision shop; small snack shop; small eatery; tea and food; homemade pickle; dawadawa cake; appalam (snack); idli (food); porridge; restaurateurs; forestry	BoP entrepreneurs provide food-related products made by themselves to make a living
Product sale	Manufactured goods wedding cards; pillow, table and sofa cover; jewelry; perfume; leather bags; reading glasses; wearable accessories; foam puppets; female clothes; decorative rugs; propane gas; purses; candies; umbrellas; small vessels; pajamas; sunglasses; utensils; Coca-Cola; eyeglasses; chess classes; world cup merchandise; cleaning powder; saree; costume; toys; fabric; sanitation; pharmaceutical products; second-hand clothes; children’s items; embroidered items; pottery; textiles; Unilever’s consumer packaged goods	BoP entrepreneurs accommodate their products to local demand and flexibly adjust their selling strategies to various buyers	Medium	Low
	Handcrafted items wood carving and metalwork; traditional outfits; Pattachitro painting on umbrella; beer mug; painting on jute bag; earrings made of fabric cloth; handmade jute pouch bags; hand embroidery on cushion cover; wood handicraft; display board; hand-sewn goods; handmade party decorations; worship items	BoP entrepreneurs may create or improve their self-made products to adapt to the market needs and explore new markets enabled by digital platforms	Relatively high	Medium
Service	Labor service helper in ration shop; small repair shops; tour operator; fishing guide; “kirana” (grocery) shop; neighborhood small store owner; balloon shooting on beach; SHG member; scrap dealer; tailor; seamstress; plumbers; carpenters; electricians; fishermen; porter; mining; goldsmith; construction; contract gardener; colored cotton co-op; cotton farmers in cooperative; tile laying masters; skilled construction workers; locksmith; maids; hairdresser; plumbing; laundry; handloom	BoP entrepreneurs provide services with the intention to operate the business with the minimum capital input and absorb the knowledge, information, and skills outside BoP	None	Low
	Professional services Art-related: arts and crafts producers and sale; painter; artisan; craft worker; music producer; DJ; photographer Healthcare: primary care; health clinics Finance: financier; petty shop; diwali fund operator; chit fund operator; pawn broker ICT: community information centers; telecom-related services (cybercafe; telephone cabins); telephone booths; computer center Transport: taxi(tuk-tuk) driver; daily flower delivery; vegetable transportation; milk delivery		High	Medium
Manufacturing	sanitary napkin machine; affordable and no electricity cooling machine; reversible reduction gearbox; manufacturing shoes, toys, and local savory items; clay pot manufacturer	BoP entrepreneurs leverage the capital they can access and cooperate with economic and social stakeholders to start a formal business	Very high	High

summarizes the content of businesses in the BoP market, and analyzes the products, formats of businesses, specific entrepreneurial initiatives, and required skills.

4.3. Research Question 3: Consequences of BoP Businesses

Concerning the consequences of the BoP businesses, prior review studies contend that BoP businesses have had significant economic, social, and environmental effects [21]. Kumar et al. [19] claimed that BoP business outcomes can either increase or decrease well-being at the micro, meso, and macro levels. This review analyzes the consequences of BoP businesses, particularly from the entrepreneurship perspective, demonstrating the personal growth of entrepreneurs, formalization of businesses, and poverty alleviation.

4.3.1. Personal Growth

There are four aspects of personal growth generating from entrepreneurial activities: enhanced well-being, entrepreneurial capabilities, gained social and human capital, and improved innovativeness.

Enhanced well-being. Empirical research has demonstrated the positive effects of the improved well-being of BoP entrepreneurs [54]. This enhanced well-being refers to psychological variances, including self-esteem, dignity, awareness, pervasive interdependence, and interactional empathy [7,16,68]. During the initiation of a business in the subsistence market, BoP entrepreneurs gradually change from pessimism, self-doubt, and hopelessness to optimism, self-efficacy, and self-assurance. Positive personality qualities such as optimism and self-efficacy help people overcome obstacles and embrace business opportunities [31,68,69]. Self-assured people are more likely to try something novel to achieve independence [75].

Entrepreneurial capabilities. A BoP entrepreneur is better prepared to run a business with the aid of entrepreneurial capabilities such as alertness, personality traits, and social competence [14,69]. When people realize that they can take action to improve their precarious circumstances, empowerment takes precedence over all other factors [70]. They observe an increase in their income and gain the skills of verbal communication, engagement, buyer–seller response, connections, daily control, and greater power and rights [14,16,33,68].

Gained social capital. In the subsistence market, the most important resource BoP entrepreneurs can possess is social capital [31,69]. The community they live in, the people they know, and the social ties to which they are bound are all elements of social capital that they can utilize. Scholars have identified a double-edged sword impact on social capital. High similarities in the subsistence market hamper the acquisition of resources and business development [16]. Conversely, owing to the nature of highly informal and fragmented markets, close-knit relationships [14] help BoP entrepreneurs sustain their market presence and keep them closely connected to their local communities. Every day, they interact with the same crowd of individuals, so BoP entrepreneurs try to promote stability and facilitate consumption rather than maximize profit; they try to gain community support while selling their goods [63,82,83].

Improved innovativeness. The extant literature also sheds light on the innovativeness of BoP entrepreneurs, reflecting their deeply rooted entrepreneurial spirits. For instance, BoP entrepreneurs struggle to contribute to intellectual property development and participate in the knowledge network because of their low level of education and lack of resources. However, through trust-based agreements with partner institutions, they are able to supply intellectual property [7]. Rather than implying large investments in research and development projects, innovativeness in the subsistence market refers to fulfilling market needs by unconsciously demonstrating innovative behavior [74]. This includes changing and improving the production of handicrafts to be competitive in the subsistence market. Business owners could be enabled by information and communication technologies [33,56,66]. “Innovative entrepreneurs” are posited as those who combine resources in novel ways and produce goods previously unheard of, as opposed to business owners who seek revenues only through conventional business growth [78].

4.3.2. Formalization of Businesses

The expansion of BoP businesses [79] provides access to the markets, powerful organizations, and whole business ecosystems [57]. Growing a business and scaling it up [56] has clear benefits for productivity [75], performance, and competence [74]. Additionally, positive consequences include improved community well-being [14], strengthened connections along the value chain [92], sustainability [86], and ultimately, the business’s success [54]. They eventually transition from being a non-stakeholder to a major stakeholder in the business [69]. Research efforts also are invested in exploring whether BoP entrepreneurs intend to formalize and grow with the support of policy programs [76], and it turns out that successful cases are rare. Exceptional studies have examined how entrepreneurship policies might result in growth of BoP businesses that are inclusive of all communities [78]. It has been noted that specific beneficial consequences have included winning creative honors, creating new machines, and launching new machines [47]. However, the existing evidence also shows that BoP enterprises have difficulty expanding owing to a lack of financial surplus, poor product quality, intense market rivalry, and lack of protection for innovation [67]. Eventually, most BoP enterprises continue to be quite small, unable to realize economies of scale, and doing very little to generate employment for others [3]. With familiar surroundings and established social networks, they feel at ease operating in the informal economy. They also express modest ambitions for business expansion in light of the constraints they face [93].

4.3.3. Poverty Alleviation

The primary goal of BoP entrepreneurs is to establish a business in the subsistence market and make money for survival. Studies have examined the fundamental premise of BoP businesses, which is to address the crucial issue of reducing poverty [7,11,46]. BoP business owners operate by the tenets of survival and meeting their most basic requirements [34,68]. For instance, idle youth start businesses with the intention of improving their future and reducing their poverty [88]. In addition, studies demonstrate that some businesses have moved beyond the basic survival stage and are now progressively increasing their income [66] and reaping greater economic benefits [7]. This is promising, since it shows that there is a greater chance of reducing poverty [85] and obtaining resources of local market insights, connections, and community interactions [48].

5. Discussion

5.1. Types of Entrepreneurs

By analyzing 56 studies on BoP entrepreneurs, we identified the heterogenous characteristics of BoP entrepreneurs (six characteristics of individuals and three characteristics of businesses), the content of their entrepreneurial activities (four types of businesses), and the consequences of entrepreneurship (impacts on three levels). Based on the reviewing findings, some entrepreneurs at the BoP markets and the businesses they operate have common characteristics. Therefore, the study further identified and conceptualized four major types of entrepreneurs in the subsistence market based on the characteristics of entrepreneurs, the content of their entrepreneurial activities, and the impacts on entrepreneurs themselves as well as on their communities. The four types of entrepreneurs are: survival entrepreneur, community entrepreneur, profession entrepreneur, and full entrepreneur (see Figure 2,

Table 4. BoP Entrepreneur type.

Type	Characteristics	Content (Business Sector)	Consequences	Emerging Topics
Survival entrepreneur	Survival mindset Self-sufficiency	Natural foods Manufactured goods Labor service	Remain as micro-business	Ethical issues Psychological drivers
Community entrepreneur	Business alertness and identity Local needs exploration Local resource exploitation	Food stand Manufactured goods Handcrafted items Profession service	Informal businesses within communities	Female entrepreneurs
Professional entrepreneur	External knowledge and skill dependent Knowledge and skill entrepreneurship	Art-related goods/service Professional service	Establish formal business	Migrant worker
Full entrepreneur	Risk-taking Resource integration and configuration Stakeholder seeking and management	Manufacturing.	Large-scale businesses Emerging industries	Stakeholder management Resource configuration

).

5.1.1. Survival Entrepreneurs

Survival entrepreneur refers to individuals who initiate and run their business to meet the basic needs in their daily lives [47,82]. Survival entrepreneurs primarily comprise small producers at BoP markets and they are normally driven by a survival mindset. Owing to the scarcity of resources, they are usually short-sighted and cannot identify business opportunities. Often, they are even forced to run a business because they cannot gain employment in waged jobs [51]. They do not express any entrepreneurial mindset, but focus only on self-sufficiency [10]. Selling natural foods and manufactured foods are the easiest approaches for starting the business [76]. Relying on local food production, they resell food products with a margin of profit because of the minimal cost difference. In addition, they may also provide some labor services to earn a living [34]. The common feature of these business is that no abundant resources and skills are needed: they are able to start the business anytime, anywhere. The format of the business is informal and unstable. Survival entrepreneurs either carry the products with them in the street or establish a temporary stall in the local market. The success rate of such businesses is low because competition in the market is fierce [10], with low entry barriers and a large amount of business units. Entrepreneurs may try different types of businesses because they quite often encounter failure. Thus, it is impossible for survival entrepreneurs to grow their businesses to a larger extent. They remain micro businesses and their businesses often create limited impacts on their communities.

5.1.2. Community Entrepreneurs

Community entrepreneurs refers to individuals who run their business in the local community [63] and establish a stable business presence. In comparison with survival entrepreneurs, community entrepreneurs take initiatives to explore resources and business opportunities in the local community. They are more proactive in running the business [74]. They establish their business with alertness to local market needs [75]. The businesses they are involved with include food stands, manufactured goods, handcrafted items, and basic professional services [16]. The common feature of these businesses is that certain resources and skills are required. For instance, to establish a food stand, fixed assets are necessary, which require financial resources to support the start-up. Community entrepreneurs attempt to maintain a positive relationship with locals, since they are all key stakeholders [71]. The businesses co-exist in a natural balance as a result of competition. For example, flour sellers and noodle sellers in the local market are dependent on one another. However, the number of sellers reaches a balance. Hence, the businesses of community entrepreneurs last longer, even for generations. The possibility of business growing exists [56], but it depends on the complex situation of the local community, resources, entrepreneur characteristics, and opportunities.

Community entrepreneurs have established social networks in the community and receive support from social ties. Hence, understanding the interaction between the entrepreneur and the community broadens our view. The characteristics of community entrepreneurs need to be explored as they begin to develop entrepreneurial sense such as alertness. The mechanism behind the development and how they utilize it in their daily business operation requires further empirical examination. Business contents have also progressed from street vendors to various types, including food stands, selling, and basic services. The process of the progression is interesting because it can be viewed as a fundamental change from “amateur” entrepreneurs to “alike” entrepreneurs. As they develop entrepreneurial skills and knowledge, the success rate of the business rises. Compared with survival entrepreneurs, community entrepreneurs pay attention to identify local needs and network resources from inside and outside of the community. Although their businesses also normally operate in informal ways, their businesses can create new needs in the communities and thus have positive influences on resolving the poverty issues at the BoP.

5.1.3. Professional Entrepreneurs

A professional entrepreneur refers to individuals who utilize acquired knowledge and skills [14] to initiate and run businesses in the subsistence market. They have received more education or professional training [54] than that of survival and community entrepreneurs. This leads to a more careful evaluation of the local market situation and a detailed assessment of their own capabilities. Hence, they demonstrate entrepreneurial orientation of situational awareness [94]. The main businesses they are involved in are art-related goods or services, as well as professional services. Art-related businesses such as musicians and painting require not only talent and skill but also business sense. A finance service is a typical example of a professional service. Professional entrepreneurs gain training from MNCs or NGOs [80] in terms of finance knowledge and relevant skills, and establish the business with this support. They tend to have a fixed and stable site for their business. The format of the professional business is in transition from the informal to the formal market [34,80]. The influence of the business expands beyond the local community and their goods and services may attract customers from other places. Therefore, professional entrepreneurs compete in both the local market and the mainstream market simultaneously [54].

Professional entrepreneurs have demonstrated entrepreneurship by being innovative and adaptive to changing environments. They utilize market knowledge and skills to identify business opportunities, assess market competition, and evaluate their own capabilities. This is the sign of being a “real” entrepreneur in a BoP business. They become involved in art-related businesses and professional service businesses, which face direct market competition in both the informal and the formal economy. Their products and services attract customers from places beyond the community. Hence, gaining a competitive advantage is the key to maintaining the business operation. In turn, professional entrepreneurs need to be alert to information, competition, and change. In comparison with normal entrepreneurs, BoP professional entrepreneurs face worse internal and external situations. However, equipped with professional knowledge and trained skills, professional entrepreneurs can perform as brokers or bridges between their communities and external stakeholders, which differentiate them with survival and community entrepreneurs.

5.1.4. Full Entrepreneurs

Full entrepreneurs refer to individuals who have demonstrated the entrepreneurial spirit to initiate and run a business in the BoP market [78,88]. It is necessary to note that although they are categorized as full entrepreneurs that seem to be the same as normal entrepreneurs in the formal market, they are actually not. In line with other types of entrepreneurs, BoP full entrepreneurs have similar characteristics in the subsistence market. For instance, they have less education, are extremely poor, and are from a lower social class [45,48]. However, they develop innovative ideas and products to gain a competitive advantage in the market [74]. The main business for full entrepreneurs is manufacturing [51,58]. Initially, like other BoP entrepreneurs, they establish their businesses for survival or small-scale influence. While they leverage their resources from various stakeholders, including governments, MNCs, NGOs, and large private organizations (LPOs) [54,69,80], BoP full entrepreneurs begin to expand their businesses into large-scale manufacturing businesses [56]. They now compete in the formal market with higher entry barriers, capital and technology requirements, and higher productivity [53,80]. Their manufactured goods are for the local market and beyond. Full entrepreneurs benefit from entrepreneurial activities, develop networks, and make entrepreneurial decisions [7,59,75]. Operating in the formal economy legalizes their business activities and they become an important stakeholder in poverty alleviation [11,46,85].

Full entrepreneurs are similar to the normal entrepreneurs we discuss in the formal economy. The only difference is that they come from and still live in the subsistence market. However, they are skilled at securing external support from various stakeholders by providing innovative ideas and products. They take risks in exploring business opportunities and expanding to a larger scale. They also take initiatives to configure and manage resources. Overall, they demonstrate entrepreneurial spirit under extremely unprivileged conditions. Moreover, as their businesses are normally in formal forms, the businesses can create long-term positive influences in wealth creation of their communities and may also contribute to the emergence of new industries in BoP communities.

5.2. Emerging Topics for Four Types of Entrepreneurs

The phenomenon of the BoP is complex, and the characteristics of the poor are transforming. In this literature review, we identified four types of entrepreneurs in BoP markets. They play heterogeneous roles in the operation of businesses and create different values for stakeholders and local communities. However, studies on the poor as producers/entrepreneurs lack maturity, which leaves the potential to further explore important unanswered questions.

5.2.1. Survival Entrepreneurs

Survival entrepreneurs have drawn the greatest attention in the BoP research because they are typical in the subsistence market. The characteristics of survival entrepreneurs have been articulated; however, further examination of the psychological influencing factors is lacking. For instance, facing extremely disadvantaged life situations, survival entrepreneurs face a much higher rate of failure in running their businesses owing to the scarcity of resources and support. Therefore, questions remain unanswered, such as what survival entrepreneurs can do to maintain their entrepreneurial mindset and regain energy from constant failure. The businesses they conduct are selling-oriented. We now have a rough understanding of what they do to survive. We are not yet clear on whether they have intentions to progress to other entrepreneur types and expand their businesses. The consequences of survival entrepreneurial businesses require policy attention regarding external support and micro-finance assistance from governments and beyond.

For survival entrepreneurs, another key research focus could be ethical issues because most of their businesses operate illegally without being formally registered with government. In addition, BoP business owners demonstrate poor standards in terms of paying taxes [45,53]. Studies have argued that, consequently, BoP entrepreneurs are not accountable for their behavior [95]. We may not necessarily concur with that argument. BoP business owners are closely connected by social ties and reside in their communities. This implies that individuals receive immediate feedback from those around them on whatever they do, which exerts an unseen pressure to maintain their business-related behavior and their overall morale as community members. In addition, survival entrepreneurs have changed from consumers to entrepreneurs. Their mindset has also changed to earning as much as possible. This raises concerns regarding whether BoP survival entrepreneurs honestly promote their products. Hence, further studies are needed to explore BoP entrepreneurs’ ethical entrepreneurial activities.

5.2.2. Community Entrepreneurs

Our review demonstrates that most community entrepreneurs in BoP markets are women. Women are thought to inherently carry the burden of household duties. However, studies assert that when men are unable to fulfil their responsibility of providing for the entire family, women are left with little alternative but to engage in business or part-time jobs [31]. Yet this view cannot capture the dynamic range of women’s lives. Studies on women entrepreneurship have shed light on women’s involvement in running businesses in the subsistence market and their entrepreneurial decisions [96]. Researchers have recognized the advantages of women entrepreneurs. Women are better able to manage a business because of their characteristics, such as their greater emotional intelligence and empathy [97]. However, the reality is that, inevitably, women’s family responsibilities and social conventions in certain communities make it impossible for them to pursue formal education and training. Therefore, several questions deserve further exploration regarding women entrepreneurs: What businesses suit women entrepreneurs in BoP markets? How does entrepreneurship influence the well-being of women entrepreneurs? Are female entrepreneurs more likely to be successful than male entrepreneurs, and if so why?

5.2.3. Profession Entrepreneurs

Migrant workers are a key topic regarding professional entrepreneurs. Professional entrepreneurs gain training in terms of knowledge and skills. Some are born and raised in the local community and access professional training from institutions operating in the subsistence market. Others may move to big cities to seek jobs. They are called “migrant workers.” They may choose to do delivery, factory-based jobs, or construction. Owing to personal life choices, some choose to return to where they were born. They bring back not only skills, knowledge, and certain resources but also trendy market information. This helps them to initiate their business in a way of “dimensionality reduction,” which means the business tactics and format may be too advanced for BoP competitors to match. Business concepts may be new to the BoP market and thereby create higher entry barriers. The competitive advantage and success rates of BoP professional entrepreneurs increase accordingly. Attention is lacking regarding what drives them to return and what motivates them to begin a business. In addition, whether or not their skills add value to business operations and success remains unclear.

5.2.4. Full Entrepreneurs

Being a full entrepreneur is not as easy for BoP entrepreneurs as it is for other types of BoP entrepreneurs. Full entrepreneurs have access to resources, human and social capital, and are empowered by institutions. Institutional empowerment involving government bureaus, MNCs, large private organizations (LPOs), and NGOs at large provides strong support for BoP entrepreneurs. Institutions have been found to offer technical, informational, and training support to develop entrepreneurial ventures in the subsistence market through their substantial resources, skills, and capabilities [54]. The extant research has shed light on BoP business development [56]. However, we have little knowledge of who and under what conditions BoP entrepreneurs become full entrepreneurs. In addition, research has discovered that manufacturing is the main industry for BoP full entrepreneurs. Is this the best choice to scale up? Once they have scaled up, they become powerful in terms of entrepreneurial decision-making, negotiation, and doing good in the community. The advantages and disadvantages of being in power require exploration in the context of BoP entrepreneurship.

We have little knowledge of business scale-up in the BoP context and the changes entrepreneurs undergo themselves. The entrepreneurship, individual psychological factors, and external environment all contribute to the question of whether full BoP entrepreneurs can run the business in the subsistence market, despite the difficulties, while still demonstrating entrepreneurship.

5.3. Implications and Limits of Findings

We conducted a systematic literature review to demonstrate the characteristics of entrepreneurs, the content of entrepreneurial activities, and the consequences of entrepreneurship, which provide us a full picture of the entrepreneurship at the BoP. This study makes contributions to the existing literature of the BoP twofold.

First, it is one of the first review studies to synthesize the role of the poor at the BoP as entrepreneurs and to provide a detailed analysis on the entrepreneurs and their entrepreneurial businesses. The existing literature reviews demonstrate how large firms can benefit from expanding to BoP markets by treating the poor at the BoP as customers [21]. As entrepreneurship has gradually become a significant phenomenon at the BoP worldwide, a great number of scholars have paid attention to how to engage the poor at the BoP to create wealth and alleviate poverty of local communities. A recent review study synthesizes the drivers of entrepreneurship at BoP markets [19]. However, we still lack comprehensive knowledge of entrepreneurs and their businesses. This study fills this gap by reviewing three key themes: characteristics, content, and consequences.

Second, this study contributes to the mixed findings on the impacts of BoP entrepreneurship. Scholars find that BoP entrepreneurship may have both positive and negative influences in poverty alleviation, but our categorization of four types of entrepreneurs may help unpack this puzzle. Specifically, by identifying different types of entrepreneurs, it suggests that different entrepreneurs with different entrepreneurial activities may have heterogenous impacts on local community because different types of entrepreneurs and businesses are faced with different challenges, requests, and constraints. The future directions proposed in this study may inspire scholars to further consider the specific factors that can improve the positive impacts of different types of entrepreneurs.

Practically, this study is meaningful for entrepreneurs and policy makers. For entrepreneurs, the findings of this review may suggest them to think about which categories they fall in and how to transform from survival entrepreneurs to full entrepreneurs. For policy makers, they may consider making policies to attract more skill-equipped workers back to their BoP communities or provide training to the poor at BoP markets, as professional and full entrepreneurs can create greater positive impacts on poverty alleviation than survival and community entrepreneurs. This is also an effective solution to achieve the first goal of the SDG 17 set by the United Nations.

This study unavoidably has limitations. For example, the analysis incorporates 56 papers because of the selection of specific keywords. Although the sample size is adequate to conduct systematic analysis and identify interesting findings, it does not allow us to further code the potential interrelated mechanisms between characteristics of entrepreneurs and contents of entrepreneurial activities. With the growth of the number of studies on topic, it is also interesting to further discuss the specific mechanisms of whether and how different types of entrepreneurial activities may re-shape the characteristics of entrepreneurs and what the evolving consequences may be. Moreover, we searched for the articles in this review using the Web of Science database, which was widely adopted in previous review studies [4]. This database, however, only includes published articles with high impact. Unpublished work and books are not incorporated in this review.

6. Conclusions

To understand the progress of research on entrepreneurship in the subsistence market, scholars must confront multiple challenges. There is a hazy notion of what BoP entrepreneurship and activities truly are as a result of the inconsistent and disparate perspectives in which theory and terminology have been used thus far. Therefore, the main goal of this systematic review was to answer the question: What are the underlying mechanisms through which BoP entrepreneurs’ characteristics, content, and consequences can be articulated? On the basis of the findings of the review, we further conceptualized four types of entrepreneurs (i.e., survival entrepreneur, community entrepreneur, profession entrepreneur, and full entrepreneur) in BoP markets and proposed related future directions for each type of entrepreneur. Our analysis indicates that the focus of BoP research has transformed from customers, business partners, and producers to entrepreneurs. However, the motivations for starting businesses in the subsistence market range from the need for survival, need for poverty reduction, and need for profit. In our opinion, there is much more work to be done to develop the field and fulfil the fundamental tenet that businesses may act as agents for social benefit. This review encourages BoP academics to notice the viability of entrepreneurship in the subsistence market as an intriguing area to explore further.