Beyond the Counter: A Systemic Mapping of Nanostore Identities in Traditional, Informal Retail Through Multi-Dimensional Archetypes

Abstract

This study examines the identity of nanostores—micro, independent grocery retailers—through a systemic, stakeholder-informed lens to promote their survivability and competitiveness. Moving beyond traditional operational descriptions, it introduces a multidimensional framework that examines what nanostores do (X), how they do it (Y), and why they matter (Z), which is complemented by the use of the TASCOI tool to produce identity statements. Based on survey data collection and a thematic analysis of nanostore stakeholder responses in Mexico City, the research categorises identity statements into six 2 × 2 matrices across four dimensions: operational, functional, relational, and adaptive. This analysis yields twenty-four archetypes that capture the diversity, complexity, and adaptability of nanostores. The findings reveal that nanostores are not a homogeneous category. They simultaneously exhibit characteristics of multiple archetypes, blending retail function, social embeddedness, and entrepreneurial adaptation. This study contributes to the nanostore and micro-enterprise literature by operationalising identity description and offers practical insights for supporting diverse shop types through context-sensitive policy and business strategies. While this study ensures internal validity and reliability through systematic coding and stakeholder feedback, it acknowledges limitations in its generalisability. Future research may build on this work through comparative studies, longitudinal tracking, and direct engagement with nanostore owners and their communities to further understand the dynamics of their identity and their resilience in evolving retail landscapes.

1. Introduction

This study addresses one of the world’s most prominent types of microenterprises, sole-owner grocery neighbourhood shops, commonly referred to as nanostores in the literature. This independent neighbourhood-based shop exists globally, sharing common characteristics such as selling products in small quantities and offering a wide assortment of food, drinks, and other home essentials to their clientele, with most of them having a few hundred neighbours as their primary customers.

Nanostores represent a significant segment of the retail landscape, especially in the developing world [1]. Approximately fifty million nanostores exist in these countries, representing a significant branch of the traditional retail channel, with over fifty per cent of grocery sales in many developing countries [2]. Nanostores also represent an essential source of self-employment and family entrepreneurial efforts due to their low entry and cost barriers [3]. For instance, in the case of Mexico, the focus of this work, according to the 2019 national economic census, there were 929,452 nanostores throughout the country, holding a 31% market share in the food and beverages industry and employing around 1.1 million people. In 2024, nanostores represented a gross domestic product of MXN 3.21B (USD 160.5B) with a 10.4% annual growth [4,5]. Similar figures can be found in various Latin American countries, highlighting the importance and socioeconomic impact of nanostores [5].

Moreover, these nanostores, commonly characterised by cash-based transactions, relationship-based credit, and the limited use of technology, play a critical role in supplying basic necessities, including food, to communities, as demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic [6,7]. Despite the growth of modern retailers and organised chains, nanostores are still vital in supplying fast-moving consumer goods to a broad consumer base and contributing to community sustainability [8,9].

Nevertheless, nanostores face profitability challenges due to increased supply costs and inefficiencies. Nanostores are primarily located in densely populated and scattered urban areas, often in difficult-to-access zones or geographies with poor road infrastructure. This situation poses significant supply and logistical difficulties [1,10,11]. Other challenges include demand shifts, poor management practices, and increasing competition [3,9,12]. Additionally, these microenterprises compete with dozens of other nanostores and larger firms in their small neighbourhood territories, which form complex retail landscapes. Supermarkets and convenience stores can surpass nanostores by offering a more distinctive and extensive product assortment, as well as financial services and extended opening hours [13]. This condition undermines nanostore performance results and jeopardises their survival.

Therefore, due to their economic importance and the existing challenges in grocery retail and supply chain relevance, nanostores require research efforts to enhance their management and competitiveness against other retail channels. The existing literature in the field supports this direction by exploring aspects of retail operations, supply chain management, and logistics [1,2,6,11,14,15,16]. Other works have also explored the social and environmental impact of nanostores in their communities, highlighting their social interactions, survival capacity, citizenship, and waste generation [8,13,17,18,19]. Understanding these microenterprises involves examining the various roles and functions that make up their identity.

However, the nanostore literature weakly focuses on studying nanostores as neighbourhood-based businesses. Despite the increasing academic attention being paid to nanostores, there are gaps and limitations in their conceptualisation and descriptions of their identity. The literature uses various terms to refer to nanostores (e.g., small traditional retailers, mom-and-pop shops, kiranas, sari-sari outlets, dukas, tienditas, pulperías, or bodegas), reflecting their geographic and socioeconomic diversity, their informal nature, and the varied cultural contexts in which they operate [2,12,19,20,21,22,23]. While they share common characteristics, these regional particularities make it challenging to establish a single, universally accepted nanostore conceptualisation [18].

Most nanostore descriptions focus on tangible aspects, such as size, functions, and product assortments [11], without sufficiently looking into the intangible aspects of their identity, including social capital [19], community role [24], and customer relationships [20]. Nevertheless, the identity of nanostores is not static. They are evolving and adapting to changes in the retail environment, incorporating new practices, technologies, and strategies [25] under different circumstances depending on their infrastructure, human behaviour, competition, and poor policymaking. Existing nanostore descriptions often do not capture this dynamic and the potential hybridisation with elements of more modern retail formats.

Therefore, within the category of nanostores, there is considerable heterogeneity in terms of size, location, assortment, technology readiness, management, and services adopted or adapted depending on the area where they operate, the viewpoints and interests of their owners, and their resource availability [11,18,23,26]. General characterisations may not adequately capture this internal and external diversity. While some research provides a basic definition of nanostores, its partial or fragmented explanation does not fully integrate their operations, customer relationships, community role, context, and competitiveness [19].

Consequently, a deeper and more nuanced exploration of nanostores’ identity is needed, going beyond reductionist and purely operational, functional retail, logistic, and physical aspects [27]. Understanding the identity of nanostores, as the distinctive characteristics that differentiate them from other retail formats, is fundamental to addressing their resilience, challenges, and opportunities in competitive grocery retail markets. Nanostores’ identity as micro-independent grocery retailers recognises key elements that define them, as well as the limitations and gaps in their current conceptualisation.

As a research problem that limits understanding of nanostores’ resilience, competitive strategies, and socio-economic impact, this gap needs deeper investigation. Responding to this void, the research questions (RQs) addressing this work are as follows:

RQ1: How can nanostores’ identity be explored to recognise key elements and characteristics beyond transactional retail and physical aspects that allow for improving their management and operations across different contexts?

RQ2: How can we effectively address the variations arising from geographical, socioeconomic, cultural, behavioural, and operational contexts to enhance nanostore competitiveness?

Accordingly, from a management cybernetics view, “the science of effective organisation” [28], this study aims to develop an all-inclusive and dynamic framework and methodological approach to describe nanostore identity. This proposition adopts a systemic perspective on nanostore roles and functions, integrating the viewpoints of situated stakeholders, including owners, customers, suppliers, and competitors [27,29,30,31]. By examining stakeholders’ perspectives on nanostores, this research aims to understand how these elements interact within the broader retail environment, shaping the identity and organisation of nanostores. This approach addresses traditional retail heterogeneity, adaptability, and socioeconomic importance in dynamic markets, providing actionable insights for business strategies and policy development.

To advance in this direction, this work unfolds into five additional sections. Section 2 presents a literature review concerning the existing understanding of nanostore roles and functions. Additionally, it provides a framework for studying nanostores’ identity, consisting of six-dimensional combinations visualised in 2 × 2 matrices, resulting in twenty-four nanostore archetypes. Section 3, Methodology, offers systemic identity statements (X-Y-Z) and the TASCOI tool to describe the different nanostore archetypes. Specifically, the methodology outlines the exploration of nanostores’ identity in Mexico City, a relevant instance in emerging countries. Section 4 presents results regarding nanostore identity statements and TASCOI descriptions of the twenty-four nanostore archetypes. Section 5 discusses the results, focusing on the main findings, implications, limitations, and future work. Finally, Section 6 presents the conclusions, summarising the main takeaways of this work.

2. Literature Review

Recent literature on nanostores reveals these micro grocery retail establishments as complex hybrid entities that straddle commercial, familial, and social spheres. As predominantly family-run operations, nanostores typically employ 1–2 family members and serve dual residential and commercial purposes, with women often playing central roles as proprietors, supported by relatives [11,19,32]. Their physical constraints—frequently operating in spaces under 40 m², sometimes as small as 15 m²—need innovative space management, with most employing counter-service formats, although some evolve into compact self-service models [2,32]. These spatial limitations constrain the breadth of the inventory, typically focusing on fast-moving consumer goods, such as staple foods and household essentials. However, assortments vary significantly by neighbourhood socioeconomic profile and consumer needs, as well as depending on the budget constraints faced by nanostore owners [8,18,26].

The operational dynamics of nanostores exhibit remarkable contextual adaptability [18]. In high-income areas, businesses often utilise digital tools for payments and inventory management, whereas in medium-income zones, they provide additional services such as credit and home delivery [5,12]. In contrast, low-income neighbourhood variants prioritise affordability and basic assortments, though all share common supply chain vulnerabilities that lead to frequent stockouts [2,32]. Their geographic distribution patterns reveal market stratification—dense concentrations in mid-income zones, a sparse presence in low-income areas, and near absence in affluent neighbourhoods where modern retail dominates [10,13,18]. This spatial organisation underscores their role as hyperlocal provisioning nodes, with proximity constituting a primary competitive advantage [9].

Beyond economic functions, nanostores serve as community hubs, providing critical social infrastructure. Their practice of extending informal credit (i.e., “fiado” in Spanish) to trusted customers embeds them within local informal economies [32]. Community hubs facilitate information exchange, foster social cohesion, and often become de facto neighbourhood institutions [19,24]. This dual commercial-social identity manifests in owner-customer relationships characterised by personalisation and mutual understanding, with many shops adapting their offerings and curating assortments to meet specific community needs [9,12,18].

The identity of nanostores resists singular classification, instead comprising multiple intersecting dimensions. They are simultaneously constrained by grocery micro-retailers struggling with risk aversion, spatial and supply chain limitations, adaptive businesses that modify their operations across different economic contexts, family-based survival enterprises that blend domestic and commercial spheres, and social establishments that reinforce community resilience [12,17]. This complexity suggests that effective engagement with nanostores—whether through data-driven policymaking, supply chain partnerships, or community development initiatives—requires a nuanced understanding of their multifaceted nature. Therefore, various identity dimensions interact across behavioural, cultural and economic contexts. Moreover, formal management practices might better support (rather than disrupt) their hybrid socioeconomic value [12,14,17]. Such an approach moves beyond simplistic retail categorisations to properly acknowledge nanostores as dynamic, contextually embedded establishments at the intersection of commerce and community.

2.1. A Multidimensional Framework of Nanostores’ Identity

Figure 1 synthesises a framework with the key dimensions of nanostore identity derived from the literature review, categorising them as operational, functional, relational, and adaptive. Each dimension interacts dynamically to define the unique role of nanostores in retail landscapes and communities.

The operational dimension encompasses the physical and operational characteristics of nanostores. This dimension refers to their size and format, as well as their proximity or distance from a specific location (e.g., urban, suburban, or rural) [2,32]. It also considers the operational roles, activities, and decision-making processes of shopkeepers and staff involved in retail operations [9,12,26]. Supply chain constraints, inventory management, cash flow management, and supply chain efficiencies are also part of the operational identity [11]. From this perspective, examining the operational dimension of nanostores provides insight into logistics and supply strategies, in-store operations, product inventories, space optimisation, resource allocation, and supplier negotiations.

The functional dimension highlights the roles of business and retail nanostores in driving customer responsiveness. This dimension considers nanostores as micro family businesses and income sources, serving different socioeconomic levels (e.g., low, medium and high-income), degrees of accessibility (e.g., good vs. poor), customer niches (e.g., affordability, proximity and convenience), and hyperlocal responsiveness (e.g., product search and home delivery services) [9,13,18]. Moreover, the functional dimension covers product assortments of curated grocery products or additional services tailored to local demand and income levels [8,26]. The functional dimension informs about, for instance, differentiation and pricing strategies (e.g., leveraging proximity and product assortments), integrated services (as total customer solutions), and business support requirements (e.g., digital literacy enhancement, partnerships, infrastructure, and funding).

The relational dimension refers to nanostores’ social and community roles, including customer bonds (i.e., trust-based relationships), informal credit, and personalised services (e.g., personal shopping) [12], community hubs (i.e., a space for social interaction, information exchange, and local cohesion) [19,24], and informal economy pillars (i.e., providing a financial safety net for low-income customers) [32]. The relational dimension emphasises the potential of nanostores to foster loyalty ties and establish community partnerships, such as offering service payments. Additionally, they can engage in community development initiatives, like selling products from local smallholder farmers and promoting goods or services from local stakeholders to support employment. Nanostores can also play a role in health and sustainability initiatives, such as improving access to healthy food.

Finally, the adaptive dimension sheds light on the resilience and evolution capability of nanostores. This dimension involves their business model flexibility by location [2,32], hybridisation (e.g., blending traditional retail with digital tools [9], and survival strategies (e.g., leveraging social capital to counter modern retail competition) [23]. The adaptive dimension informs about innovation support capacity (e.g., e-commerce integration, novel service offerings, and other forms of business model development) and resilience-building capability (e.g., monitoring novel customer requirements and consumption preferences, and building supplier collaborations and cooperation strategies with other nanostores) to face existing market environment challenges and opportunities. This proposition refers to strengthening external collaboration relationships with different stakeholders, leveraging shared knowledge, and incorporating new technologies and resources. Additionally, nanostores may focus on enhancing internal aspects of their operations, organisation, and structure, which can support further developments and endeavours. From a management cybernetics perspective, nanostores engage in an ongoing process of adaptation, learning, and self-transformation to foster innovation and agility, ensuring their long-term survival and effectiveness [29,33,34].

The framework suggests that the identity of a nanostore is shaped by the interaction of four key dimensions, resulting in six two-dimensional combinations. Nanostores perform their operations, functions, relations and adaptations in each dimension at varying effectiveness, strength, depth, and intensity [18]. Each dimension characterisation includes two levels: high and low. Accordingly, the six two-dimensional combinations result in six 2 × 2 matrices, which can be used to plot interactions in particular contexts [35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43].

Moreover, each 2 × 2 matrix suggests diverse nanostore identity types representing particular patterns of organisation and structure [13,33]. Nanostores’ management and operational practices stem from interactions with various stakeholders as they fulfil their diverse roles. From a systemic perspective, these nanostore identity types are regarded here as nanostore archetypes representing forms of organisation [33]. This proposition outlines twenty-four nanostore archetypes visualised in six 2 × 2 matrices, each labelled using an analogous name that reflects their specific, directly recognisable characteristics.

Table 1. Nanostore archetypes per dimension interaction (authors’ elaboration).

Dimension Interaction	Matrix Name	Archetypes				References
Operational–Functional	Business Survivability	Thriving Hubs/Quick Wins	Stable but Limited/Overlooked Potential	Hustle Heroes	At-Risk Shops	[2,32,38,44]
Functional–Relational	Customer Responsiveness	Trust-Driven Functionals	Effective but Impersonal	Community Safeguards	Fragile Outposts	[15,18,20,32]
Relational–Adaptive	Community Embeddedness	Community Pillars	Traditional Bonds	Transaction-Focused	Isolated Outposts	[8,19,39,40]
Adaptive–Operational	Operational Responsiveness	Modernising Expanders	Resilient Improvisers	Static Underperformers	Vulnerable Traditionalists	[13,15,18]
Operational–Relational	Competitive Resilience	Unshakeable Nodes	Convenience Plays	Oasis Shops	Deserted Outlets	[12,18,23]
Functional–Adaptive	Innovation Adoption	Retail Pioneers	Nimble Basics	Struggling Functionals	Static Survivors	[20,25,42]

summarises the twenty-four archetypes.

Explanations and instances for each dimensional interplay and archetype can be found in the existing literature across different geographical regions and socioeconomic levels, highlighting diverse research problems and nanostore challenges. In all cases, Figure 1 and Table 1 point to the literature, which simultaneously links dimensions of operational efficiency, market survival, business model and practice adaptation, or innovation adoption for understanding and improving nanostores. Nevertheless, these have not yet been categorised or interpreted for nanostore identity exploration as micro grocery retail businesses. Additionally, each archetype evokes images of existing real-world nanostores, particularly within Mexico and Latin America, which the authors of this work have drawn upon from their personal experiences—as customers and researchers—to make sense of and conceptualise. The archetypes are later explored in Section 4 and Section 5 to build higher-quality descriptions and guide further actions. Therefore, each of the proposed archetypes, plotted in 2 × 2 matrices for the interplay per dimension, is presented and described in

Table 2. Business survivability matrix (authors’ elaboration).

	Advanced Functional Effectiveness	Basic Functional Effectiveness
Strong Structure	Thriving Hubs/Quick Wins	Stable but Limited/Overlooked Potential
Weak Structure	Hustle Heroes	At-Risk Shops

,

Table 3. Customer responsiveness matrix (authors’ elaboration).

	Deep Relational	Shallow Relational
Advanced Functional Effectiveness	Trust-Driven Functionals	Effective but Impersonal
Basic Functional Effectiveness	Community Safeguards	Fragile Outposts

,

Table 4. Community embeddedness matrix (authors’ elaboration).

	Dynamic Adaptive Capacity	Static Adaptive Capacity
Deep Relational	Community Pillars	Traditional Bonds
Shallow Relational	Transaction-Focused	Isolated Outposts

,

Table 5. Operational responsiveness matrix (authors’ elaboration).

	Strong Operational Constraints	Weak Operational Constraints
Dynamic Adaptive Capacity	Modernising Expanders	Resilient Improvisers
Static Adaptive Capacity	Static Underperformers	Vulnerable Traditionalists

,

Table 6. Competitive resilience matrix (authors’ elaboration).

	Deep Relational	Shallow Relational
Strong Structure	Unshakeable Nodes	Convenience Plays
Weak Structure	Oasis Shops	Deserted Outlets

and

Table 7. Innovation adoption matrix (authors’ elaboration).

	Advanced Functional Effectiveness	Basic Functional Effectiveness
Dynamic Adaptive	Retail Pioneers	Nimble Basics
Static Adaptive	Struggling Functionals	Static Survivors

in the following subsections.

2.1.1. Operational–Functional (Table 2): Structure and Functional Capabilities Drive Sales and Business Survivability

This interplay illustrates how the success of retail businesses depends on both structural advantages (such as location and space) and functional effectiveness (e.g., adapting the business model to meet customer needs).

Shops with strong structures and advanced functionality become Thriving Hubs—optimising space, stock, offerings and customer experience. Those with strong structure but basic functionality are Stable but Limited, missing growth opportunities due to undifferentiated offerings and a lack of tailored customer strategies. Businesses with weak structures but high adaptability become Hustle Heroes, overcoming limitations through customisation and agility, despite their constrained operations (e.g., reduced spaces and limited stocks). Meanwhile, At-Risk Shops, with weak structure and basic functionality, are cluttered, under-resourced shops that struggle with inefficiencies and are vulnerable to failure.

Functional adaptability can compensate for structural weaknesses, while strong structure alone is insufficient without functional effectiveness. This interplay helps identify which businesses need support and what interventions, such as improving functionality or optimising structure, could enhance their accessibility and long-term resilience capacity.

2.1.2. Functional–Relational (Table 3): Functional Capability and Relations Strengthen Customer Responsiveness and Competitiveness

The functional–relational intersection reveals four distinct archetypes that emerge from a combination of functional effectiveness and relational depth, demonstrating unique patterns of customer engagement, development, and business feasibility.

Trust-Driven Functionals represent the finest configuration, successfully blending strong functional performance with deep customer relationships through personalised service, trust-based practices like informal credit systems, and local sourcing initiatives. These shops foster strong customer loyalty by fulfilling both practical needs and social expectations while also cultivating community engagement upstream and collateral.

In contrast, Effective but Impersonal shops maintain competent functional performance with well-curated product selections but fail to develop meaningful customer relationships, resulting in transactional interactions that limit customer retention and negatively impact the customer experience, despite their functional strengths. Community Safeguards demonstrate an alternative survival strategy, compensating for fundamental functional limitations through strong community ties and social support roles, though this makes them vulnerable to broader market pressures. The most susceptible archetype, Fragile Outposts, struggles with deficiencies in both dimensions, lacking both distinctive product offerings and customer relationships, which leads to high closure risks in competitive markets.

This interplay underscores the importance of interventions aimed at strengthening nanostores and training their owners to enhance the strategic perspective of their business models. Integrated approaches that address business operations and community relationships may yield the most sustainable improvements. The framework also helps explain why some stores thrive despite functional limitations, while others fail despite competent execution of basic retail functions.

2.1.3. Relational–Adaptive (Table 4): Relational and Adaptive Capability Translate into Community Embeddedness and Socioeconomic Roles Driving Innovation

The relational–adaptive matrix identifies four nanostore archetypes with distinct community integration and resilience patterns. Community Pillars exemplify ideal interaction, blending deep social ties (e.g., credit systems and local gatherings) with proactive adaptation (e.g., tech adoption and model innovation) to serve as dual commercial and social hubs. In contrast, Traditional Bonds rely solely on historical trust, resisting change and innovation, which renders them increasingly obsolete despite their strong community roots.

Transaction-focused shops prioritise operational agility (e.g., cost leadership, digital tools) but neglect relational depth, which limits loyalty and social-bonding resilience. Given the low level of trust they develop through their patronage, these shops are reactive to market changes. The most vulnerable, Isolated Outposts, lack high dynamic adaptation and deep community ties, operating with outdated practices and anonymous clientele that heighten closure risks.

Sustained resilience requires striking a balance between social embeddedness and adaptability. The framework emphasises that interventions must address both relational and adaptive dimensions to strengthen nanostores, as neither operational competence nor community goodwill alone ensures longevity in fiercely competitive and rapidly evolving markets. This duality explains why some stores endure as neighbourhood members while others fail, despite being functionally adequate. The latter indicates that the existing literature on this topic has not adequately explored the importance of trust-based relationships and their social dimension.

2.1.4. Adaptive–Operational (Table 5): Adaptive and Operational Capabilities Provide Operational Adaptability

The interaction between adaptive capacity and operational constraints yields four distinct nanostore archetypes, each with varying survival strategies. Modernising Expanders combine strong adaptability with structural advantages, leveraging technology adoption and diffusion (e.g., digital payments and inventory apps) and prime locations to innovate and optimise resources. However, higher costs may challenge survivability. Resilient Improvisers thrive in constrained environments through hyperlocal responsiveness and technology adoption, yet face instability from constrained operations, stockouts and informal supply chains. These nanostores have great vision but fail to perform daily operations effectively.

Conversely, Static Underperformers waste their operational potential by resisting modernisation and clinging to outdated methods and traditional practices despite having adequate space, technology readiness, customer-centric behaviour, and location advantages. Meanwhile, Vulnerable Traditionalists, hindered by rigid cash-only models, poor assortments, weak service offerings, and other structural limitations, struggle with inefficiencies operationally and strategically and rely on dwindling loyalists, making them most prone to closure without intervention.

Adaptability offsets structural limitations, while resistance to change amplifies operational weaknesses. Nanostore’s survivability depends on inherent operational strengths and the capacity to evolve within dynamic retail landscapes.

2.1.5. Operational–Relational (Table 6): Operational and Relational Capabilities Develop Competitive Resilience

The operational–relational matrix identifies four nanostore archetypes with distinct competitive trajectories. Unshakeable Nodes emerge as the most resilient, synergising prime locations and ample inventories with deep community bonds to create loyal customer bases that prefer them over supermarkets. Their dual strengths enable them to offer value-added services and maintain an institutional neighbourhood status. They rely on developing strong relationships with customers and suppliers, promoting collaboration to achieve strategic and operational effectiveness.

Convenience Plays demonstrate how structural advantages alone provide only temporary protection. While accessible locations and stocked shelves ensure short-term survivability, their transactional relationships leave them vulnerable to chain competitors that can replicate their functional benefits at scale. Long-term survival requires cultivating deeper community ties and solid bases of customers and other stakeholders. Oasis Shops reveals how relational capital mitigates structural weaknesses. As essential providers in underserved areas, they maintain community dependence despite poor locations and limited stock, though growth remains constrained without operational improvements due to insufficient resources. The most vulnerable, Deserted Outposts, lack operational merits and customer relationships. Their isolation and generic offerings accelerate the decline in competitive markets, highlighting how neither dimension alone ensures survivability.

Successful nanostores transform structural assets into community value, while the vulnerable ones overlook this interaction. Strategic interventions should therefore address these dimensions in tandem, helping stores evolve toward the Unshakeable Node ideal where physical and social advantages reinforce one another. This approach will also enable nanostores to develop a strategic, socially driven roadmap while driving efficient daily activities, creating a proper combination of agility, adaptability, and alignment strategies.

2.1.6. Functional–Adaptive (Table 7): Adaptive and Functional Capabilities (e.g., Tailored Assortments and Accessibility) Allow for Innovation Adoption

The functional–adaptive matrix reveals four distinct approaches to innovation adoption in traditional retail. Retail Pioneers lead through comprehensive modernisation, combining updated technologies with niche business models, though their ambitious transformations risk overextension in resource-limited settings. Nimble Basics adopt a more selective strategy, focusing adaptive efforts on high-impact, context-specific innovations that maximise their limited operational capacity by prioritising the most promising strategy.

Conversely, Struggling Functionals possess adequate resources but lack adaptive agility, resulting in misaligned innovations that fail to meet market needs in the long term. The most vulnerable, Static Survivors, resist all changes with basic functional effectiveness, relying on inertia until market forces threaten their survival.

These four archetypes promote customised innovation strategies that consider each operational environment. Ultimately, retail innovation success is redefined as the capability for contextual implementation rather than simply adopting and diffusing technology or innovation.

3. Methodology

Nanostores, as purposeful systems, are regarded as social and economic entities formed through the synergistic integration of human intentions, resources, and recurring interactions [31,45,46]. Nanostores function as dynamic nodes within broader interaction networks, serving in operational, functional, relational, and adaptive capacities.

Drawing on management cybernetics and systems theory [28,29,30], nanostores can be described through an identity and organisation exploration using the X-Y-Z statements—i.e., what they do (X), how they function (Y), and why they matter (Z). In addition, the TASCOI tool can help examine the transformation of nanostores, including their actors, suppliers, customers, owners, and interveners. The use of identity statement X-Y-Z and the TASCOI is as follows:

• Identity Statements (X-Y-Z).
  • X (What they do): Operational/functional traits (e.g., family-operated grocery nano-retailers).
  • Y (How they function): Relational/adaptive roles (e.g., provide proximity-based access to essentials via personalised service).
  • Z (Why they matter): Socioeconomic and environmental impact (e.g., provide family livelihood, supply household essentials, and support social cohesion).
• TASCOI Framework: Maps stakeholder roles in their ecosystem.
  • Transformation (e.g., goods → sales);
  • Actors (e.g., shopkeepers, family members);
  • Suppliers (e.g., grocery supply vendors);
  • Customers (e.g., neighbours and households as grocery consumers);
  • Owners (e.g., families);
  • Interveners (e.g., other nanostores, convenience stores, supermarkets, or external constraints).

This dual lens captures nanostores’ duality—external behaviours (e.g., product offerings and sales) in retail markets and communities, and internal structures (e.g., retail operations) exhibiting patterns of organisation (i.e., archetypes) driving performance as organisational systems [34].

3.1. Research Design

In order to explore the identity of nanostores, this study employs a research design that examines various identity dimensions through identity statements X-Y-Z and the TASCOI tool. Accordingly, this study focuses on a specific urban context (i.e., Mexico City’s tienditas or miscelaneas) to capture localised nuances from a multi-stakeholder perspective. The methodology employs a qualitative mixed-methods approach, combining face-to-face surveys with stakeholders (owners, customers, and suppliers) and capturing their observational (verbal) reports on what they have seen or experienced regarding nanostores [47,48].

The research design considered a methodology consisting of five stages (see Figure 2): (i) RQs formulation, (ii) literature review, (iii) data collection, (iv) data organisation and analysis, (v) results reporting, and (vi) discussion. Section 1 presents the RQs, while Section 2 introduces the literature review on nanostore identity. The following subsections outline the data collection methods, data organisation, and analysis procedure, as well as the rationale for interpreting and reporting the results.

3.1.1. Data Collection

A survey questionnaire, utilising the X-Y-Z identity statements and the TASCOI tool, was translated into seventeen questions in three sections (see Appendix B). The first section referred to the stakeholder role. Second, questions covered stakeholders’ reports on their activities or tasks (concerning nanostores), needs and requirements, and performance expectations. Third, questions were asked regarding X-Y-Z and the TASCOI.

Twenty-five researchers (i.e., undergraduate industrial engineering and systems students acting as data collectors) collected data from relevant stakeholders in thirty-four nanostores. A non-probabilistic nanostore convenience sample was considered based on nanostore proximity to the data collector’s residence and respondents’ self-selection (i.e., willingness to participate in the study) [49,50].

Data collectors obtained 261 questionnaire responses across Mexico City. Invalid responses (16%, 12%, and 8% for X-Y-Z questions and 22% for the TASCOI transformation) were unclear, irrelevant, or non-informative answers (e.g., “No answer”, “I don’t know”, or “I’m not sure”). Among the usable entries, some responses (5%, 14%, and 5% for X-Y-Z questions and 5% for the TASCOI transformation) included valid but overly general statements like “it sells products” or “to earn money,” which, although true, lacked detail to be included in more specific categories. The frequency breakdown excluded these entries from the archetype analysis and discussion to maintain analytical quality and prevent skewing the results. Additionally, some responses containing combined descriptions (e.g., “sells products in-store and through home delivery service” or “generates income and provides family sustenance”) were split across multiple sub-dimensions but only counted once. Overall, 178 responses (68%) were complete.

Most of the surveys were collected across different income-level neighbourhoods and geographies in the Eastern, Southern, and Western boroughs of the Mexico City metropolitan area (i.e., Álvaro Obregón, Benito Juárez, Iztacalco, Iztapalapa, Magdalena Contreras, Coyoacán, Tlalpan, and Xochimilco) from February to June 2021. Respondents fell into the TASCOI category of actors (i.e., shopkeepers or staff members), suppliers, customers, owners, and interveners (i.e., competitors and community members). When visiting the premises, data collectors selected relevant stakeholders by opportunity (i.e., availability) and convenience (i.e., self-selection), approaching those within the nanostores. Later, nanostore owners obtained the data for feedback and validation. Respondents split in 69 actors (26%), 42 suppliers (16%), 73 clients (28%), 46 owners (18%), and 31 interveners (12%). Survey respondents did not provide demographic data, which was unnecessary for X-Y-Z identity statements and the TASCOI tool.

3.1.2. Data Organisation and Analysis

The second stage involved data organisation and analysis, familiarising with the collected data and preparing it for analysis by employing a deductive thematic analysis aligned with the RQ and this study’s theoretical approach to nanostores [51]. This research stage involved two distinct and widely used thematic analysis techniques: structural and content coding. Structural coding involves creating codes to signify various questions and topics outlined in the survey questions [52]. This deductive approach emphasises the identification of codes derived from theory. The critical structural codes [53] comprised the X-Y-Z and the TASCOI categories.

In contrast, content coding takes a more inductive approach, allowing for the discovery of codes not anticipated by the theoretical framework provided by Figure 1 and Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6 [54]. Techniques such as “repetition” and “silence/missing data” were utilised, where repetition involved recognising recurring concepts, and silence/missing data involved exploring omissions. These methods were complemented by examining content that represented something unusual or unexpected. The primary objective was to establish the connection between theory, data collection, evidence generation, and the interpretation of results [52].

Therefore, thematic analysis using X-Y-Z codes organised and summarised data to capture stakeholders’ perceptions into identity statements. The analysis results followed the output structure: a nanostore that achieves (X) through (Y) with the purpose of (Z), as indicated in

Table 8. X-Y-Z and TASCOI elements.

X-Y-Z and TASCOI Elements	Guiding Questions
X	What do they do?
Y	How do they function?
Z	Why do they matter?
Actor	Who operates the shop?
Supplier	Who supplies products or services?
Transformation	How do shops adapt products/services to neighbourhood needs?
Owner	Who is accountable?
Customer	Who benefits?
Interveners	Who sets the nanostore context?

. The analysis obtained, categorised, described and frequency-counted variations in X-Y-Z definitions. Second, a cross-analysis was conducted by mapping X-Y-Z identity statements and TASCOI elements to identify variations among nanostores’ archetypes.

3.1.3. Results Reporting and Discussion

Section 4 presents the results of data collection and organisation through summarised tables and descriptions of identity statements and TASCOI elements. This reporting illustrates variations and characterisations of stakeholders’ views on nanostores and their archetypes.

Section 5 discusses X-Y-Z identity statements, and TASCOI results in light of the RQs and this work’s research aim. The results’ interpretation helped to recognise contextualised findings of nanostores in Mexico City. In addition, results highlight variations in nanostore identity descriptions across archetypes and links to the existing literature. These findings, presented in Section 5.1, serve as a stepping stone for uncovering how to support and manage nanostores from a systemic perspective on their multi-dimensional identity in situated contexts.

Additionally, the results were compared with existing literature to assess validity, identifying coincidences and deviations [47,48,55]. Validity involved a comparison and cross-validation among stakeholders’ responses to identify authentic representations of nanostore identities. A step-by-step methodology for consistent data collection, organisation, analysis, and reporting ensured reliability. However, this study acknowledges limitations in transferability, recognising that stakeholders’ views may not generalise or apply to other contexts, situations, instances, or subjects, necessitating further data collection and validation in future nanostore investigations. Section 5 discusses additional limitations and future work.

In summary, this methodology’s expected outcomes offer a nuanced identity framework tailored to the study context alongside recommendations that align with the lived realities of nanostores. Moreover, this methodology has limitations, and there is a need for future research. This methodology connects theoretical identity descriptions with grounded, participatory research to capture the identity of nanostores.

4. Results

This study aimed to develop a systematic, inclusive, and dynamic description of nanostores’ identity by adopting a systemic perspective that integrates stakeholders’ viewpoints. The thematic analysis, using X-Y-Z and TASCOI codes, summarised the data collected from stakeholders (including owners, customers, suppliers, and competitors) to extract data and produce identity statements that capture their perceptions. Below are the statements extracted from the responses in the Section “Complete Mapping of the Nanostore Archetypes Using Identity Statements (X-Y-Z) and TASCOI”.

Complete Mapping of the Nanostore Archetypes Using Identity Statements (X-Y-Z) and TASCOI

Following the identity statements X-Y-Z and TASCOI elements, Section 2 presents descriptions of the twenty-four archetypes across the six matrices. Each archetype represents a particular configuration of what nanostores do (X), how they operate (Y), and why they matter (Z), complemented by a TASCOI characterisation of transformation processes, actors, suppliers, customers, owners, and interveners. The tables presented show the archetypes in the proposed framework. Each table lists the archetypes, the X-Y-Z statements, the response frequency (i.e., the number of responses that resemble the X-Y-Z description for the archetype), the nanostore frequency (i.e., the number of nanostores that belong to this archetype), and an endorsement from a nanostore owner stating the essence of their business model.

In the Operational–Functional matrix (see

Table 9. Operational–functional matrix → business survivability.

Archetype	X (What They Do)	Y (How They Do it)	Z (Why They Do it)	Response Freq.	Nanostore Freq.	Example
Thriving Hubs	Sell groceries, basic goods	Stock shelves well, maintain variety, and organise space	Maintain income, provide dependable service	18	5	“We always have the products people need, well organised and visible.”
Stable but Limited	Sell standard products	Use traditional methods, no innovation	Maintain a routine income	13	3	“We sell the basics; people come because it’s convenient.”
Hustle Heroes	Sell diverse products with limited space	Source from multiple suppliers, and adapt pricing	Survive economically, remain useful	12	3	“I offer what’s possible and adjust prices as needed.”
At-Risk Shops	Sell whatever is available	Minimal organisation, frequent stockouts	Try to stay open, low resources	7	2	“I just sell whatever I have; sometimes I run out of stock.”

), nanostores with strong structures and advanced functionality (Thriving Hubs) were described as

Selling groceries and essentials (X) by maintaining organised spaces and product variety (Y) to ensure dependable service and income (Z).

Those with strong structures but basic functionality (Stable but Limited) maintained standard sales routines without innovation. Weaker structures with adaptive behaviour (Hustle Heroes) reflected dynamic sourcing and pricing to survive. Shops with minimal structure and basic functionality (At-Risk Shops) were associated with sporadic sales and resource scarcity. TASCOI mappings (see

Table A1. Thriving Hubs TASCOI.

Archetype	Thriving Hubs
T	Transforms a wide range of goods into personalised service experiences (e.g., informal credit, home delivery, combo deals).
A	Owner and family-run operation with well-defined practices and division of labour.
S	Major suppliers with regular delivery schedules.
C	Loyal neighbourhood customers who trust and prefer the shop over chains.
O	The owner actively manages supply, inventory, pricing, and customer relationships to ensure optimal performance.
I	Influenced by competition from supermarkets and convenience chains, but differentiates through community embeddedness.

,

Table A2. Stable but Limited TASCOI.

Archetype	Stable but Limited
T	Sells a stable but narrow range of essential goods with minimal variation.
A	The owner operates alone, completing routine stockings and having limited customer interaction.
S	Small suppliers or wholesalers visit periodically.
C	Walk-in clients who value proximity over service or variety.
O	Owner with limited interest in growth, mainly sustaining household income.
I	Minimal external influence, occasionally shaped by local supply shortages.

,

Table A3. Hustle Heroes TASCOI.

Archetype	Hustle Heroes
T	Continuously adjusts the product mix in response to opportunities and short-term availability.
A	A highly proactive owner who negotiates, sources, sells, and adapts.
S	Multiple informal sources like markets, cash-and-carry, and local distributors.
C	Clients with tight budgets are seeking affordable and flexible offers.
O	The owner assumes full financial and operational risk, often improvising adjustments.
I	Strongly influenced by price fluctuations, supplier availability, and customer demand shifts.

and

Table A4. At-Risk Shops TASCOI.

Archetype	At-Risk Shops
T	Offers minimal transformation with frequent stockouts and irregular service.
A	Passive or overburdened owner with weak practices and declining engagement.
S	Irregular supply with dependency on credit or inconsistent deliveries.
C	There is a declining or irregular customer base, and they are often only familiar clients.
O	The owner is overwhelmed by external constraints or economic difficulties.
I	Threatened by nearby formal retail, lack of capital, or community change.

in Appendix A) indicate that thriving and hustling archetypes transformed product offers into reliable or flexible services. In contrast, passive and struggling archetypes exhibited stagnant or vulnerable transformation patterns.

In the functional–relational matrix (see

Table 10. Functional–relational matrix → customer responsiveness.

Archetype	X	Y	Z	Response Freq.	Nanostore Freq.	Example
Trust-Driven Functionals	Sell tailored goods	Serve with credit and personal attention	Build loyalty and ensure income	14	3	“Clients come because I let them pay later and I have what they like.”
Effective but Impersonal	Provide a good assortment	Efficient but distant service	Offer convenience	6	1	“We have variety, but I don’t talk to the customers.”
Community Safeguards	Sell essentials	Trust-based service, informal credit	Support community needs	10	2	“Some people buy on credit, I know them, they always come back.”
Fragile Outposts	Sell basic items sporadically	Poor relational ties, generic offers	Try to survive	5	1	“I just open in case someone needs something.”

), nanostores with advanced functionality and deep relational ties (Trust-Driven Functionals) refer to

Selling curated goods (X) with personal, trust-based service (Y) to build loyalty and sustain income (Z).

Shops with functional efficiency but shallow relational ties (Effective but Impersonal) offered convenience without fostering customer bonds. Basic functional shops relied on community trust (Community Safeguards), while fragile ones combined minimal offerings and weak relationships (Fragile Outposts). TASCOI archetypes (see

Table A5. Trust-Driven Functionals TASCOI.

Archetype	Trust-Driven Functionals
T	Delivers basic goods and credit services with strong interpersonal engagement (fiado, emotional support).
A	A caring, attentive shopkeeper who knows clients personally and adapts to their needs.
S	Branded and local suppliers who support regular delivery or flexible terms.
C	Loyal, known customers with whom trust is reciprocal and long-term.
O	The owner is deeply embedded in the community, striking a balance between profit and care.
I	Cultural norms and social obligations (e.g., helping during hardship, community reputation).

,

Table A6. Effective but Impersonal TASCOI.

Archetype	Effective but Impersonal
T	Moves a broad assortment efficiently, without social or emotional engagement.
A	Task-focused sellers may be employees or hands-off owners.
S	Established delivery network with corporate suppliers.
C	Anonymous, transaction-oriented buyers.
O	The owner focused on operational efficiency and cost control.
I	Influenced by chain competition, they emulate their structure to compete.

,

Table A7. Community Safeguards TASCOI.

Archetype	Community Safeguards
T	Provides essential products with extended support services (e.g., credit, delayed payment, donations).
A	Trusted elder or empathetic shopkeeper supporting vulnerable clients.
S	Small suppliers with flexible payment arrangements or trust-based delivery.
C	Elderly, unemployed, or financially constrained locals.
O	The owner assumes the role of protector/provider more than an entrepreneur.
I	Neighbourhood hardship and social crises (e.g., unemployment, illness).

and

Table A8. Fragile Outposts TASCOI.

Archetype	Fragile Outposts
T	Minimal transformation; the shop is open with little engagement or evolution.
A	Detached or burned-out owner, often passive.
S	Rare or failing suppliers, inconsistent replenishment.
C	Almost none; occasional passers-by or a loyal few.
O	The owner lacks motivation and is waiting for change or closure.
I	Isolation, economic decay, and disconnection from supply networks.

) show strong actor engagement and loyal customers in trust-driven types, contrasted by transactional interactions and declining client bases in fragile shops.

In the relational–adaptive matrix (see

Table 11. Relational–adaptive matrix → community embeddedness.

Archetype	X	Y	Z	Response Freq.	Nanostore Freq.	Example
Community Pillars	Sell multiple useful items	Evolve based on local demands, offer credit, and adapt hours	Support neighbours, grow business	11	2	“I added tortillas and cell phone recharges (top-ups) because that’s what people asked for.”
Traditional Bonds	Sell staple goods	Same routine for years, trusted by customers	Maintain social role	7	1	“I’ve always done it this way. People like it that way.”
Transaction-Focused	Offer tailored products	Use tech tools, fast service	Increase efficiency	6	1	“We take orders by WhatsApp, but I don’t talk much to clients.”
Isolated Outposts	Sell basics occasionally	Limited contact, no adaptation	Keep the business open, avoid closure	5	1	“No one comes. I open daily.”

), deep relational and adaptive capacity (Community Pillars) are manifested through:

Selling diversified products (X), through evolving services (Y), providing community anchoring and engagement (Z).

Shops maintaining traditional ties without adaptation (Traditional Bonds) operated based on historical trust. Transaction-focused shops adopted technological practices without relational depth, and isolated outposts exhibited minimal community links and low adaptation. TASCOI profiles (see

Table A9. Community Pillars TASCOI.

Archetype	Community Pillars
T	Blends products and local services (e.g., bill payments, recharges) in response to community needs.
A	An engaged and respected owner actively responds to neighbours’ demands.
S	Brand suppliers and local service providers (e.g., telecom, utilities).
C	The broad neighbourhood base relies on shops for essentials and extra services.
O	The owner steers the shop as a service hub and social reference point.
I	Influenced by community needs, social responsibility, and neighbourhood identity.

,

Table A10. Traditional Bonds TASCOI.

Archetype	Traditional Bonds
T	Stable sale of long-trusted goods and practices; resists change.
A	Elderly or legacy owners maintain traditional practices.
S	Long-term relationships with a few known suppliers.
C	Multi-generational loyal customers.
O	The owner sees the shop as a heritage or family tradition.
I	Cultural attachment to continuity and identity preservation.

,

Table A11. Transaction-Focused TASCOI.

Archetype	Transaction-Focused
T	Quick, impersonal sales through digital and efficient tools.
A	Tech-savvy operators or younger staff trained in speed and minimal talk.
S	Digital suppliers, logistics companies, and app-based orders.
C	Time-sensitive buyers seeking fast turnaround.
O	The owner invests in tools, not relationships.
I	Influenced by digitalisation and chain shop competition.

and

Table A12. Isolated Outposts TASCOI.

Archetype	Isolated Outposts
T	The basic provision of remote goods is logistically challenging.
A	Solo operator with logistical challenges.
S	Unreliable or distant wholesalers.
C	Remote households without alternatives.
O	The owner maintains presence despite hardship.
I	Isolation, lack of infrastructure, and low market density.

) demonstrate that strong community integration is related to active owner roles and service evolution, whereas isolation arises from rigid practices and limited external interaction.

In the adaptive–operational matrix (see

Table 12. Adaptive–operational matrix → operational responsiveness.

Archetype	X	Y	Z	Response Freq.	Nanostore Freq.	Example
Modernising Expanders	Sell a curated product mix	Use digital payments, tech support	Attract new clients, stay competitive	6	1	“We use an app and offer promos for regular clients.”
Resilient Improvisers	Sell small stock, adapt constantly	Mix supplier sources, improvise displays	Meet customer demands, survive	9	2	“We’re small but stock what people ask for—we improvise daily.”
Static Underperformers	Sell usual products	Rely on outdated practices	Maintain habits, avoid risk	6	1	“I sell the same things as always. It’s enough.”
Vulnerable Traditionalists	Sell minimal inventory	No tech, limited stock	Try to maintain a minimal income	7	1	“I don’t change because I don’t have suppliers.”

), dynamic adaptation combined with strong operational capacity (Modernising Expanders) involved

Selling curated products (X) with technological tools (Y) to attract clients and maintain competitiveness (Z).

Improvising resilience (Resilient Improvisers) counterbalanced operational constraints through agile practices. In contrast, Static Underperformers and Vulnerable Traditionalists reflected rigid operations and minimal change. TASCOI mappings (see

Table A13. Modernising Expanders TASCOI.

Archetype	Modernising Expanders
T	Combines standard assortment with digital tools and loyalty initiatives.
A	Owner as innovator and strategist.
S	Digitalised or app-based wholesale providers.
C	Early adopters or youth customers engaged by modern service.
O	Owner with a growth and formalisation mindset.
I	Technology trends, training programmes, and fintech inclusion.

,

Table A14. Resilient Improvisers TASCOI.

Archetype	Resilient Improvisers
T	Improvises mix and layout daily to meet local preferences.
A	Flexible, streetwise shopkeeper.
S	A mix of wholesalers, local farms, and informal resellers.
C	Clients who ask and suggest what to stock.
O	The owner is a creative entrepreneur with a focus on survival.
I	Local shocks, seasonality, price volatility.

,

Table A15. Static Underperformers TASCOI.

Archetype	Static Underperformers
T	Outdated and routine, with no innovation.
A	Passive or overconfident owner.
S	Conservative or reduced supplier list.
C	Declining foot traffic, old regulars.
O	The owner is resistant to change.
I	Ignorance of market changes or denial of the need to adapt.

and

Table A16. Vulnerable Traditionalists TASCOI.

Archetype	Vulnerable Traditionalists
T	Shrinking operation with limited restock and declining sales.
A	Tired, ageing owner.
S	Debt-constrained local suppliers.
C	Few loyal but ageing clients.
O	The owner is stuck between pride and a lack of resources.
I	A lack of intergenerational transfer leads to poverty traps.

) distinguish between entrepreneurial actors who leverage digital suppliers and passive owners who rely on traditional wholesalers.

In the operational–relational matrix (

Table 13. Operational–relational matrix → competitive resilience.

Archetype	X	Y	Z	Response Freq.	Nanostore Freq.	Example
Unshakeable Nodes	Offer a full assortment	Long hours, strong customer relationships	Provide a trusted alternative to supermarkets	10	2	“People prefer coming here. They know me.”
Convenience Plays	Provide daily items	Proximity, efficient service, and no social bonds	Compete with chains on access	7	1	“We’re close, but I don’t deal with fiado or chatting.”
Oasis Shops	Sell a few goods	Far location, only the nearby shop	Serve isolated communities	5	1	“Even if I don’t sell much, people rely on it.”
Deserted Outlets	Sell rarely	Remote, low interaction	Habitual operation, low motivation	5	1	“We open out of habit now. Business is slow.”

), nanostores integrating strong operational structures with deep community ties (Unshakeable Nodes) offered.

Selling comprehensive assortments (X), through relational services (Y), acting as neighbourhood anchors (Z).

Convenience-based shops and oasis-type shops capitalised on accessibility and necessity, respectively, whereas deserted outlets lacked both operational and relational strength. TASCOI descriptions (see

Table A17. Unshakeable Nodes TASCOI.

Archetype	Unshakeable Nodes
T	Combining relational trust and stable variety to retain loyalty.
A	Highly trusted and visible owner.
S	Established regional suppliers.
C	The core of long-term daily customers.
O	The owner plays a central role in both relational and economic aspects.
I	Peer shops, word of mouth, and informal networks.

,

Table A18. Convenience Plays TASCOI.

Archetype	Convenience Plays
T	Sells essentials based on location and extended hours.
A	Owner/operator offering long schedules and minimal interaction.
S	Convenience suppliers and pre-packaged brands.
C	Pass-through or last-minute shoppers.
O	The owner prioritises volume over relationships through convenience.
I	Competing convenience points and customer impatience.

,

Table A19. Oasis Shops TASCOI.

Archetype	Oasis Shops
T	Minimal but essential stock in the underserved territory.
A	Caretaker-like owner serving basic needs.
S	Infrequent deliveries from distant wholesalers.
C	The entire neighbourhood depends on shop access.
O	The owner feels a sense of obligation and presence.
I	No competition, rural distance, and unmet market needs.

and

Table A20. Deserted Outlets TASCOI.

Archetype	Deserted Outlets
T	Stock remains, but transformation is rare or passive.
A	The owner opens but does not promote or engage with the community.
S	Backlogged or stagnant inventory.
C	Almost no regulars.
O	The owner is waiting for a change or closure.
I	Abandonment due to urban changes or past crises.

) highlight the interplay of owner engagement and supplier relations in sustaining competitive resilience.

In the functional–adaptive matrix (

Table 14. Functional–adaptive matrix → innovation adoption.

Archetype	X	Y	Z	Response Freq.	Nanostore Freq.	Example
Retail Pioneers	Offer modern goods, promos	Use apps, social media	Innovate, differentiate, grow	5	1	“We have digital payments and offer promotions online.”
Nimble Basics	Offer basics based on demand	Minor adjustments, daily learning	Satisfy needs, stay relevant	9	2	“We bring in what people ask for.”
Struggling Functionals	Test new products	Poor fit with customers	Grow but miss the mark	6	1	“I tried to bring new items, but people didn’t buy them.”
Static Survivors	Sell standard items	No adaptation or feedback loop	Sustain simple operation	5	1	“We don’t change anything. It’s simple.”

), high functional and adaptive capacities (Retail Pioneers) led to

Selling modern goods (X), through dynamic operations based on innovation and digital tools (Y), to grow business aspirations (Z).

Nimble basics adapt their offerings rapidly, whereas struggling functionals and static survivors fail to align with community needs or resist innovation. TASCOI mappings (see

Table A21. Retail Pioneers TASCOI.

Archetype	Retail Pioneers
T	Innovative formats, bundling, and digital marketing.
A	Entrepreneurial owner seeking an edge.
S	Online wholesale, promo platforms.
C	Tech-literate customers and early adopters.
O	The owner reinvests in learning, visibility, and service.
I	Start-up culture, digital tools, and training programmes.

,

Table A22. Nimble Basics TASCOI.

Archetype	Nimble Basics
T	Quickly adapts basic assortment to daily needs.
A	An attentive shopkeeper tuned into daily patterns.
S	Flexible, small-scale providers.
C	Neighbours who give constant feedback.
O	The owner listens and reacts fast with no bureaucracy.
I	Seasonal demand, customer word-of-mouth.

,

Table A23. Struggling Functionals TASCOI.

Archetype	Struggling Functionals
T	Attempts to innovate but mismatch community demands.
A	The owner tries hard but lacks insight or tools.
S	Mid-size suppliers, trial partnerships.
C	The community is either not convinced or unwilling to change their habits.
O	The owner is attempting to transition, but their approach is misaligned with the market.
I	Poor training, low digital literacy, broken fit.

and

Table A24. Static Survivors TASCOI.

Archetype	Static Survivors
T	Basic, unchanging service sustained by habit.
A	Low-risk settled owner.
S	Long-term trusted supplier.
C	Routine customers are often elderly or low-income.
O	The owner avoids complexity or upgrades.
I	Low competition, long-standing presence.

) describe entrepreneurial or reactive owner behaviour and the influence of technology trends and customer feedback.

The frequency analysis (see

Table 15. Frequency summary by identity matrix.

Matrix (Dimension Pair)	Nanostore Freq.	Total Response Frequency
Operational–Functional	13	50
Functional–Relational	7	35
Relational–Adaptive	5	29
Adaptive–Operational	5	28
Operational–Relational	5	27
Functional–Adaptive	5	25
Total Cases	34	194

) revealed that archetypes connected to operational–functional combinations were the most common, followed by functional–relational and relational–adaptive matrices. These results make sense considering the focus on daily effectiveness and customer responsiveness that nanostores possess to survive, followed by growing loyalty under diverse circumstances. Each nanostore often reflected a hybrid identity, connecting different archetypical traits simultaneously across matrices. TASCOI analyses confirmed that identity variations are contingent upon actor engagement, supplier relationships, customer bonds, owner initiatives, and intervening forces like market competition or technological change.

Ultimately, nanostores can be associated with multiple archetypes. A single nanostore may have an activity X that aligns with one archetype, a modality Y that fits another, and a purpose Z that reflects yet a third. This approach allows for hybrid configurations, where shops simultaneously exhibit characteristics from multiple archetypes, such as combining strong relational ties with high adaptability. This rationale is why the results from Table 14 do not match the number of nanostores and respondents. Thus, applying these principles fosters a more nuanced and realistic understanding of how nanostores relate to the archetype framework, acknowledging that many operate at the intersection of various dimensions.

5. Discussion

5.1. Findings

This study’s comprehensive mapping of twenty-four nanostore archetypes through the X-Y-Z identity statements and TASCOI framework reveals the complex diversity of these micro-retailers across operational, functional, relational, and adaptive dimensions. Rather than representing a homogeneous group, nanostores exhibit varied identity configurations and forms of organisation that reflect distinct combinations of practices (what they do), operational methods (how they do it), and underlying purposes (why they exist).

The analyses identify clear patterns among archetypes. High-performing categories, such as Thriving Hubs and Community Pillars, demonstrate strong coherence across all dimensions, characterised by active owner engagement, stable supplier networks, and deep community ties. In contrast, vulnerable archetypes such as Fragile Outposts and Static Survivors show a limited capacity for transformation and weak external connections. The TASCOI framework proves valuable in uncovering how different stakeholders—from suppliers to customers—shape each shop’s identity and operations in ways traditional retail classifications often overlook.

Three key insights emerge from the findings. First, successful nanostores combine strong functionality, adaptability, and relational depth beyond basic retail operations. Nanostores that prioritise their operational, functional, and adaptive capabilities emphasise their retail nature. Additionally, nanostores that focus on operational, adaptive, and relational capabilities highlight their customer- and community-driven improvements and innovations. Alternatively, nanostores that focus on operational, functional, and relational capabilities emphasise their business resilience and competitiveness through close customer and community relationships. Nanostores, emphasising operational, functional, and adaptive capabilities, favour improvements and innovation to strengthen their retail operations and business model. Second, shops displaying multiple vulnerabilities may jeopardise their survival due to weak operational, functional, adaptive, and relational capabilities. This research highlights a concerning minority of this type of nanostore. Third, each archetype’s strength depends on its assortment of grocery products and the entire network of relationships with stakeholders and retail practices surrounding the business. This view focuses on product sourcing, supply, inventory management, stocking, display, and sales in specific venues and contexts, involving interactions with, for instance, consumer-packaged goods (CPG) manufacturers, wholesalers, distributors, and diverse clientele and community members.

This systems perspective moves beyond simplistic categorisation to reveal how contextual factors, such as technology adoption, supplier reliability, and community embeddedness, collectively determine a nanostore’s trajectory. Figure 3 presents the entire interaction of the identity dimensions, their six interplays, and the resulting twenty-four archetypes as a framework for conceptualising nanostore identity.

This research demonstrates that effective support strategies must take into account this complexity. While some shops thrive through innovation and strong community ties, others require fundamental operational improvements. The findings suggest that policymakers and business developers should tailor interventions to specific archetype needs, whether through technology integration for Modernising Expanders or basic training for Vulnerable Traditionalists. This nuanced understanding of nanostores as dynamic, context-dependent systems offers valuable guidance for fostering their continued relevance in evolving retail landscapes. More purposeful interventions may target the development of particular dimensions lacking in a community to improve socioeconomic conditions within the population and among stakeholders, thereby increasing the availability of healthy products, a wider assortment, and more affordable services.

In summary, the TASCOI-based exploration reveals that each shop type is not just defined by what it sells, but by a complex interplay of people, relationships, practices, and context. By understanding who transforms, how they interact with others, and what external forces shape their evolution, we can better support, differentiate, and empower nanostores. The TASCOI helps shift the focus from “What kind of shop is this?” to “What system sustains or undermines this shop?” This systemic lens is essential for policymakers, retail innovators, NGOs, and researchers aiming to design targeted interventions that resonate with the lived realities of nanostore landscapes.

5.2. Theoretical and Practical Implications

This study highlights theoretical contributions by expanding our understanding of nanostores’ (and other small and micro-enterprises) identity beyond purely operational and commercial aspects. The findings demonstrate that nanostores function as complex socio-economic establishments where relational networks and adaptive capacities are just as crucial as physical operations [12,56]. This view challenges traditional “brick and mortar” retail perspectives and aligns with place-based theories that emphasise social embeddedness [23,40,42]. The X-Y-Z/TASCOI framework offers a novel, systematic approach to analysing how nanostores negotiate their identity through dynamic interactions among operational logic, community relationships, and adaptive responses to contextual pressures. This framework supports process-oriented organisational theories that view business viability as socially constructed rather than purely market-driven [29,31,45].

High-performing nanostores may benefit from digital integration programmes, while vulnerable types, such as Fragile Outposts, require foundational support in inventory management and operational training. The framework enables targeted assistance by identifying critical leverage points—whether strengthening supplier networks for Resilient Improvisers or fostering community ties for Isolated Outposts. Urban planners could leverage nanostores’ community roles in neighbourhood development strategies, while consumer goods companies might partner with them to extend product distribution.

Notably, the findings argue against one-size-fits-all approaches, instead advocating for context-sensitive solutions that recognise nanostores’ dual economic–social functions. By considering the entire ecosystem of relationships and practices that support various archetypes, support programmes can enhance business viability and community value growth more effectively. This balanced perspective offers a roadmap for sustaining nanostores as adaptive, embedded institutions in evolving retail landscapes with long-term, adaptable, customised strategies.

Accordingly, the implications are important for various stakeholders. Policymakers and development practitioners should shift from generic policymaking, regulations, technology, and operational or financial support to customised interventions that address specific archetype needs.

For policymakers, policies should support nanostores’ requirements to face their existing challenges and opportunities tailored to particular profiles. Some alternatives are listed below:

• Policies should promote the adoption of digital technologies, such as mobile payments, information technology (IT) systems, and digital supply chain integration tools. These innovations can enhance nanostores’ responsiveness and operational efficiency, enabling them to compete with larger retailers and better serve their communities.
• Microbusinesses often face severe cash constraints and limited access to formal credit. Therefore, policymakers should encourage financial schemes, such as supplier credits and digital financial services, to ease liquidity challenges and support inventory management, which are critical for nanostore survival.
• Encouraging collaboration between nanostores and suppliers and supporting efficient supply chain integration can boost operational performance, sales, and customer satisfaction. Policies should incentivise partnerships and the use of technology to streamline deliveries and sourcing, inventory management, and demand forecasting.
• Public programmes should support nanostore development and adaptability, going beyond market responsiveness and operational efficiency to include community embeddedness and business adaptability. In their local contexts, government support, such as subsidies and training, is necessary to enhance nanostores’ multidimensional capabilities.
• Policymakers should encourage nanostores to experiment with new business models, such as community group buying, or leverage operations with new technologies, like generative AI, to enhance strategy ideation and competitiveness, ultimately promoting community sustainability.

Conversely, regarding development practitioners, nanostores should obtain support attuned to policymaking to ensure policy deployment and operationalisation as follows.

• Encourage the use of digital tools and IT systems to enhance nanostores’ agility, adaptability, and supply chain alignment.
• Provide tailored training and ongoing business development support, addressing the specific needs of nanostore archetypes.
• Support human-centric and accessible technology integration to improve logistics, operational efficiency, and customer satisfaction.
• Develop interventions sensitive to sociodemographic shifts, local infrastructure, and evolving business environments.
• Promote trust-building and technology-based relationships between nanostores and suppliers to enhance operational efficiency.

5.3. A Discussion on Validity, Reliability and Transferability

This research highlights the strengths and limitations of validity, reliability, and transferability, reflecting the inherent challenges of qualitative, interpretive work based on descriptive data from multiple observers. This study establishes strong content and construct validity through structured identity elements and the TASCOI framework. The latter provides clear conceptual lenses for organising and interpreting data while ensuring theoretical grounding for the nanostore archetypes. The multidimensional approach examining what nanostores do, how they operate, and why they exist adds internal coherence. Simultaneously, the systemic view offered by TASCOI roles enhances the credibility of the findings. However, the validity could be affected by relying on third-party observations rather than direct accounts from owners, potentially introducing interpretation bias.

In assessing reliability, the methodology’s use of multiple observations per nanostore helps ensure consistency and reduces individual observer bias, with recurring patterns across respondents reinforcing the stability of findings. However, like most qualitative research, reliability remains somewhat constrained by the subjective nature of coding and interpretation, where different research teams might produce alternative categorisations due to the open-ended data format and varying response quality. This work employed systematic coding methods, defined categories clearly, and held consensus discussions to address these limitations.

Likewise, this research provides valuable insights and detailed descriptions of nanostore identities and roles, making it particularly relevant for similar socio-economic contexts. The archetypes and TASCOI profiles offer adaptable tools for studying informal retail in other contexts. However, the specific findings’ generalisability has limitations concerning the original study’s unique geographical, cultural, and economic context. Readers must carefully consider contextual similarities before applying them directly.

Overall, this work provides conceptually valid and contextually rich findings with moderate reliability, serving best as a structured, multidimensional framework bridging theory and practice. While already valuable, additional direct face-to-face interviews with owners (and other stakeholders), application in diverse settings, and longitudinal follow-up studies can strengthen the validity, reliability, and transferability of this work. This research makes a meaningful contribution by systematically examining nanostore identities while transparently acknowledging the boundaries of its methodological approach.

5.4. Limitations and Future Work

This study acknowledges several limitations. The archetype classification relies on interpreted survey responses rather than direct observation or longitudinal tracking, which may affect the precision of boundary cases. While the TASCOI framework provides valuable systemic insights, its abstract nature might overlook some nuances of individual shop operations. Data collection through multiple observers introduced variability in interpretation due to differing writing styles and levels of detail. The reliance on reported perceptions rather than observed behaviours may create a disconnect between stated and actual practices.

These limitations point to valuable directions for future research. Longitudinal studies could track how nanostore identities evolve amid digital transformation and economic changes. More direct research methods, including owner interviews and ethnographic case studies, would strengthen the validation of the archetypes. Comparative studies across different regions and neighbourhood types could reveal which identity aspects are context-specific versus universal. Incorporating quantitative performance metrics would help establish clearer links between identity configurations and business outcomes, such as resilience and profitability. Finally, deeper integration of customer and supplier perspectives would enhance the understanding of how relational dynamics shape nanostore operations and community value. These extensions would validate the current framework and provide more nuanced insights for practical applications.

6. Conclusions

This research provides a comprehensive and structured understanding of nanostore identity by integrating two complementary analytical frameworks: the X–Y–Z identity model and the TASCOI stakeholder tool. Through analysing 178 valid responses describing 34 nanostores, this study identifies 24 archetypes across six identity matrices, capturing the diversity of nanostore practices, modalities, and purposes. This approach addresses the research questions by presenting nanostore descriptions that extend beyond operational characteristics, their systematic categorisation, and the simultaneous relationship of individual shops to multiple archetypes due to their embedded, adaptive, and relational nature.

This study’s main contributions include the operationalisation of nanostore identity through empirically grounded identity statements, a multidimensional archetype typology, and the TASCOI framework. These tools offer theoretical insights into nanostore identity and practical guidance for stakeholders designing context-sensitive interventions.

However, this study has several limitations. The data relies on indirect observation and interpretation by third-party surveyors, which may introduce subjectivity and limit direct owner perspectives. The research is also contextually bounded, which affects the generalisability of findings. Future work should aim to incorporate longitudinal and participatory methods, expand to other regions for comparative analysis, and explore the relationship between archetypes and performance indicators such as resilience, profitability, or community impact. These extensions would help further validate the archetypes and deepen the understanding of nanostore identity as a dynamic and context-dependent phenomenon.