Defining Nanostores: Cybernetic Insights on Independent Grocery Micro-Retailers’ Identity and Transformations

Abstract

Nanostores—micro, independent grocery retailers—are often defined overlooking their socioeconomic roles and relational significance in favour of their primary functional aspects. To close this gap, this study adopts a systemic perspective to examine how multiple stakeholders (owners, customers, and suppliers) shape nanostore identity. Accordingly, this study proposes a framework of X-Y-Z identity statements, along with the use of the TASCOI tool, to examine nanostore descriptions and map their roles, expectations, and transformation processes. This systemic framework, rooted in management cybernetics, enabled the collection and analysis of 168 survey responses from 34 stores in Mexico City. The results show that nanostore identities are varied and context-dependent, operating as grocery stores, family projects, community anchors, economic lifelines, and competitors. This diversity influences stakeholder engagement, resource utilisation, and operational decisions. Overall, this study provides a transferable framework for analysing micro-business identity and transformation, with implications for problem-solving, decision-making, and policy development. Future research should address the current limitations of this study, including its geographical cross-sectional design, limited sampling method, reliance on self-reported perceptions, and lack of generalisability to other populations. Future work will involve exploring other urban contexts, utilising longitudinal data, expanding the sample, and adopting a participatory research approach to gain a deeper understanding of identity dynamics and their implications for nanostore resilience and survivability.

1. Introduction

Nanostores are micro, independent, and often family-operated grocery retailers that play a central role in the daily lives and economies of urban neighbourhoods in emerging market economies [1,2]. In low- and middle-income urban areas of many countries in the Global South, their proximity and reliability sustain high consumer reliance on fast-moving consumer goods [1,3,4]. Unlike transactional nodes in supply chains, such as convenience stores, nanostores are embedded establishments that facilitate livelihoods, neighbourhood cohesion, and community trust. However, they also face significant challenges, including competitive pressures from formal, larger retailing formats, and inefficiencies stemming from their small-scale operations and limited management expertise, which jeopardise their survivability [5]. We argue that because of their socioeconomic importance for communities and families (as entrepreneurial efforts and sources of self-employment [1,2]), it is worth supporting them to enhance their viability rather than looking at the entire retail spectrum.

Recent academic studies have conceptualised nanostores in limited ways, with a focus on narrow operational and functional definitions (see, for instance, [1,2,4,6]). Typical definitions focus mainly on primary features, such as the sizes of retail units, product ranges provided, working patterns in unorganised settings, and diverse selling modes; however, they pay little attention to the larger social and economic roles played by these units. This limitation has previously been identified in the literature; however, further work is required to illuminate the multifaceted nanostore identity and enhancement (see [7,8,9]). In addition, the varied local terminology assigned to these stores (e.g., corner shops, sara-sari, kiranas, bodegas, or tienditas) testifies to their locally distinct roles [9,10,11]. While the literature acknowledges heterogeneity, current characterisations still fail to capture the full complexity of nanostore identity—“what they are” [12].

Therefore, this study addresses the fragmented and limited conceptualisations of nanostore identity as a research problem. Nanostores are characterised as static, rigid entities, defined by what they sell and how they primarily operate as grocery retailers, without recognising other features of their identity [13,14,15]. Omitting this aspect significantly undermines the comprehension of the nanostores’ diverse roles and their constant adaptation (and change) to varied stakeholder demands and shifting retail contexts [9]. Additionally, it diminishes our capacity to create practical business support and policies, as well as initiatives that could enhance these enterprises’ competitiveness, resilience, or even their broader societal contributions [8].

This study considers that nanostores do not fully align with the conventional logistic or operational definitions of retailers or micro-enterprises in the literature. Their operations go well beyond basic commercial transactions and instead reflect more complex social dynamics. These businesses frequently merge household and commercial activities [10], depend on family and kinship-based labour relations [2], provide informal financial services within their communities [5], and foster neighbourhood cohesion and trust [16]. These features collectively indicate that the identity of nanostores is fluid rather than fixed, and emerges from ongoing interactions among shopkeepers, customers, suppliers, competitors, regulators, and even manufacturers [17]. However, few studies have offered tools or frameworks to systemically examine these multifaceted identities among stakeholders.

To address this void in the literature, the present study adopts a systemic approach rooted in the theory of management cybernetics, “the science of effective organisation” [18,19,20]. From this perspective, organisations are regarded as purposeful systems comprising closed networks of relationships among people with their own identities [12,17,21]. As stakeholders in organisations ground their purposes and intentions on their internal and external interactions, they form relationships that people recognise in terms of particular meanings and understandings in their moment-to-moment interactions. This condition involves a systemic perspective in which organisational identity and structure continuously signify (and re-signify) “what they are”, opening the door for studying their cohesion, citizenship, and performance. Thus, this work approaches nanostores as organisations for their study. This position implies that to explore their identity, the multiple lenses (and descriptions) that stakeholders take on them must be identified and contrasted to unveil their significance. As various meanings and understandings can be recognised, diverse roles and functions can be distinguished.

Using this approach, the identity of organisations can be described using identity statements through what they do (X), how they function (Y), and why they matter (Z), alongside mapping stakeholder relationships within retail environments employing the TASCOI tool (i.e., Transformation, Actors, Suppliers, Customers, Owners, and Interveners) [19]. This perspective adopts a systemic integrated framework that emphasises the internal and external connections, structure, and significance of nanostores. Therefore, the following research questions (RQ) guide this study:

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

RQ2: How can we effectively address variations in identity recognition arising from multiple stakeholder perspectives and relationships to enhance nanostore competitiveness and survivability?

Accordingly, this work aims to provide a framework and methodological approach for the systematic and contextual understanding of nanostore identity informed by stakeholders in their retail contexts. This proposition examines how identity is experienced and articulated across diverse stakeholder roles and functions (in contrast to prior functionalist approaches that focus on physical and operational traits) and integrates the perspectives of multiple stakeholders. Rather than seeking a universal definition, it offers a structured yet flexible framework for recognising identity patterns in specific retail contexts. In this sense, nanostores are regarded as flexible, deeply integrated micro-businesses within their unique and changing retail contexts. Any effective intervention, policy, or strategy must consider the nuanced and particular realities these retailers navigate daily. Recognising this complexity is essential to support their continued competitiveness and resilience.

This paper is organised into five sections. Section 2 presents a literature review of the roles and functions of nanostores. In addition, it provides a framework for studying nanostores as purposeful systems, rooted in works on human activity and interaction systems [19,22]. Section 3 presents a methodology that integrates systemic X-Y-Z identity statements and the TASCOI tool to describe nanostore identity. This methodology examines the identity of nanostores in Mexico City, highlighting it as a relevant case in developing countries. Section 4 presents the results of stakeholder variations in the nanostore identity statements and TASCOI descriptions. Section 5 presents the main findings, implications, limitations, and future work. Finally, Section 6 concludes the study by providing the main takeaways.

2. Literature Review

Nanostores are typically described as self-sufficient, community-oriented stores that can be found globally. They exhibit shared traits such as selling items in limited amounts and providing a diverse range of food, beverages, and various household necessities to their customers [7]. Nanostores are key players in the retail landscape, particularly in the developing world and globally for customers with access limitations or specific local retailing concerns (physical mobility, digital connection, or cultural affinity) [4]. There are approximately 50 million nanostores in these countries, which are part of the traditional retail channel, accounting for over 50% of the market share in grocery sales [1]. However, beyond their large number, nanostores also offer self-employment and family entrepreneurial opportunities because of their low entry and cost barriers [23,24,25]. In the case of Mexico, the focus of this work, there were 929,452 nanostores throughout the country in 2024, representing a 31% market share in the food and beverages industry and employing around 1.1 million people. In the same year, nanostores represented a gross domestic product of MXN 3.21B (USD 160.5B) with 10.4% annual growth [26,27]. Similar figures exist in various Latin American and Asian countries, highlighting the importance and socioeconomic impact of nanostores [27,28].

The existing literature on nanostores primarily focuses on their retail operations, supply chain roles, and consumer interactions, reflecting efficiency-oriented perspectives on supply chain management. Nevertheless, to understand “what nanostores are”, we must explore “what they do” and how they shape stakeholder relationships [12]. This approach examines what defines nanostores and how they operate as micro-retail businesses in challenging market conditions and evolving socioeconomic environments.

Nanostores are often run by shopkeepers seeking to maintain their livelihoods, frequently from within their own homes, utilising domestic spaces for commercial purposes [6]. This integration of living and working environments minimises costs, with initial investments usually sourced from personal savings or informal lending. Labour generally involves no more than two participants, who are regularly family members [2]. Physically constrained (15–40 m²), nanostores typically offer counter services and a limited stock of fast-moving consumer goods [1,2], adapting their product selections according to customer preferences, cash flow, distributor influence, and retail environments [9]. These decisions are often made on the spot without formal logistics systems [2,6].

Nanostores are commonly located in residential areas and serve approximately 120 people. Their significance varies with local socioeconomic conditions [9,14]. In wealthier areas, they may provide delivery, digital payments, and bill services, while in poorer areas, they prioritise small, affordable quantities, albeit often at higher unit prices. In middle-income neighbourhoods, they cluster along busy roads, whereas high-income areas are dominated by modern retail, and low-income zones retain dispersed traditional formats. Accessibility and proximity remain central to their attractiveness [5].

From a food security perspective, nanostores shape diets by supplying mainly processed, calorie-dense goods rather than fresh produce, given the longer shelf life, lower cost, and faster turnover of packaged foods. This condition can reinforce food deserts and malnutrition [29,30,31,32]. Environmentally, they generate significant packaging waste, often poorly managed in developing countries, highlighting their potential role in community waste reduction [33,34].

Nanostores also foster social capital [8]. With owners maintaining close, trust-based ties with customers [5,15], nanostores often act as gathering spaces, sources of local news, informal security, and even emotional or financial support [3,10]. Therefore, nanostores strengthen socioeconomic community bonds [16].

Accordingly, the identities of nanostores are shaped by their context, which affects their competitiveness and community role. Viewing them as embedded units within broader systems, rather than isolated businesses, allows for a richer understanding of their functions. By incorporating the perspectives of owners, consumers, suppliers, and competitors, we can better support their resilience, integration, and capacity to adapt within evolving retail environments.

2.1. Nanostores as Purposeful Systems

Various terms describe collectives when referring to groups of people in human society. Companies, firms, enterprises, businesses, and institutions are labels or designations commonly used to characterise them [18]. However, when defining a research object, it is common to find limited clarification of these terms in the management and business literature. These types of collectives or organisations originate from the synergetic integration of people, intentions, and resources, which evolve from recurrent human interactions that achieve stability over time [17,20]. This systemic view can be applied to the study of nanostores.

In existing research, micro and small businesses have been studied using systems thinking to uncover their adaptive strategies and embeddedness in local contexts [35,36]. This approach aligns with the ongoing conclusions in the literature, which advocate for more comprehensive and purpose-driven analyses of small enterprises [37].

From a systemic perspective, nanostores may function as purposeful systems, integrating stakeholder interactions to fulfil societal roles [20]. Accordingly, nanostores might serve as retail channels, supply points, socialisation spaces, businesses for family income, and community catalysts for development. This type of purposeful system can be depicted as dynamic units, circumscribed externally by their environments, and appearing therein. Accordingly, nanostores can be understood to operate in the interplay between stakeholders’ meanings, norms, and rules, and their created relationships to satisfy their needs and sanction their achievements [12,38].

This proposition suggests that nanostores exist within the relationships of shopkeepers and staff, as well as external networks of customers, suppliers, CPG manufacturers, competing retailers, and other relevant entities in the government or community. This approach is paramount for understanding the multi-perspective (and systemic) nature of nanostores and the roles that different stakeholders might play in their interactions. Therefore, nanostores must build and undertake the necessary functions to ensure their purposes and survival in their environments [39].

Specifically, building the capacity for survival in nanostores may involve collecting the meanings and expectations that relevant stakeholders attach to their interactions with the nanostore and providing sufficient support for them [40]. This idea is about knowing consumers’ preferences, requirements and needs (e.g., walking distance, opening hours, variety of products, home delivery service or personal treatment) concerning the societal functions or purposes they have (e.g., traditional retailing and community support) and their translation into the necessary processes (e.g., inventory management and selling), resources (e.g., product assortment, facilities and technology), and relationships (e.g., loyalty or discount programmes).

In summary, studying nanostores as purposeful systems focuses on the interactions between people and the structure of the processes and resources operating within nanostores [21]. These ideas have powerful implications for defining (what and) how to observe, assess, design, and implement actions to improve nanostores [41].

Figure 1 presents a systemic stakeholder interaction map that visually represents the nanostore as a relational business. The map focuses on the people, roles, resources, and interactions sustaining nanostores. At the heart of this map is a nanostore, seen as a focused and organised system comprising internal roles, such as the shopkeeper and family members, and essential resources, including physical space, technology, and inventory. Various external players surround them: customers, suppliers, competitors, local officials, and community members.

The map depicts (i) bidirectional relationships between stakeholders; (ii) structural dependencies (such as supply networks and regulatory influences); (iii) transactional exchanges (such as product purchases); (iv) informal practices (such as customer credits); and (v) small labels representing each stakeholder’s various meanings, purposes, and expectations.

The contextual layer, which surrounds the diagram, represents the broader social, economic, and cultural environment in which the nanostore and its stakeholders operate and interact. This concept emphasises that the identity and operation of the nanostore are not isolated but rather result from shared goals, cultural backgrounds, resource integration, and embedded social relationships throughout the network of interactions. Thus, Figure 1 supports a systemic inquiry into the social construction of identity within and outside the nanostores.

The following section presents the methodology used to study nanostores as purposeful systems. It introduces the integration of X-Y-Z identity statements and the TASCOI tool into a framework to examine nanostore identity from diverse stakeholder perspectives.

2.2. Describing Nanostores as Purposeful Systems

This study adopts a perspective that highlights the social structures and human dynamics within and around the nanostore. It helps visualise nanostores built through recurring human interactions—i.e., relationships—that stabilise into socioeconomic business entities. From this perspective, nanostores (as organisations and purposeful systems) are also referred to as human interacting systems (HIS) [19]. This observational lens includes the following [19,21,42]:

• Actors and roles: shopkeepers, family workers, end consumers, suppliers, local authorities, community members.
• Purposes and expectations: income and revenue generation, convenient access to goods, social interaction, community contribution, and business continuity.
• Social processes: rule formation, informal practices (e.g., offering informal credit), relational trust, conflict negotiation, and identity construction.
• Resource configurations: physical assets (e.g., space and shelves), technological elements (e.g., point-of-sale systems, mobile payments, and other devices), and intangible assets (e.g., reputation and loyalty).
• Structural patterns: authority relationships, habitual routines, customer relationship dynamics, and roles in shop management and operations.

This methodological perspective deepens our understanding of nanostore operations by highlighting the changing and interconnected relationships among stakeholders.

Grounded in management cybernetics and systems theory [18,22,39], nanostores can be explored through an integrated identity-based framework using X-Y-Z identity statements and the TASCOI tool [19]. Identity statements aim to describe organisations in terms of “what they are” in line with the cybernetic underscoring that systems are “what they do” [18]. This proposition contrasts significantly with other systemic perspectives, such as human activity systems (HAS), which employ root definitions to describe purposeful activities rather than people’s interactions (see, for example, the Soft System Methodology [22]).

The X-Y-Z identity statements provide a structured way to express the systemic nature of nanostores as follows:

• “What systems do (X)” describes the business identity of nanostores, such as family-run grocery micro-retailers.
• “How they function (Y)” refers to nanostores’ operational dynamics, for example, delivering essential goods through personalised, proximity-based service.
• “Why they matter (Z)” captures the broader impact of nanostores on family livelihood, the provision of daily essentials, and social cohesion in communities.

In parallel, the TASCOI tool facilitates a structured examination of key transformation processes, stakeholder roles, and relationships within and outside the system:

• Transformation—the core process of converting goods into sales and services.
• Actors—those performing the transformation, such as shopkeepers, employees, and family members.
• Suppliers—entities providing goods, such as CPG manufacturers, grocery wholesalers, or distributors.
• Customers—community members and households who purchase from the nanostore.
• Owners—often, the families who operate and depend on the nanostore.
• Interveners—external influencers, such as competing retailers, regulatory bodies, and contextual constraints.

This approach allows the exploration of nanostores as organisations by combining what happens on the outside (such as the products they sell and how they serve customers) with what goes on inside (such as daily operations and the role of family members) [40]. Additionally, different stakeholders interpret the identity of a nanostore in distinct ways, shaped by their expectations, experiences, and interactions. These diverse stakeholder perspectives influence how nanostores are understood, managed, and supported, and in turn, shape their relationships within the retail and community context [17]. Thus, the identity of nanostores emerges as a product of ongoing, situated interactions and varies across environments.

The X-Y-Z identity and TASCOI tool, as a study framework, align with other established theories that examine small-scale retail systems through multidimensional lenses. First, stakeholder theory justifies the inclusion of diverse perspectives to capture the co-constructed identities that emerge from interdependent relationships [43]. Second, social embeddedness [44] foregrounds the influence of social relations and networks on economic actions. Finally, resource-based theory examines dependence on strategic resources to achieve and sustain competitive advantage [45].

Therefore, the X-Y-Z and TASCOI framework provides a comprehensive approach to understanding nanostore identity, connecting nanostore activities (X) and everyday functions (Y) with their broader social contexts (Z), and mapping stakeholder interactions as human interacting systems (HIS).

3. Methodology

Using the combined X-Y-Z and TASCOI framework, this study analysed nanostore identity through qualitative surveys with stakeholders (e.g., owners, employees, and end consumers) across Mexico City boroughs [19]. The methodology employs a qualitative mixed-methods strategy, combining structured face-to-face surveys with observational (verbal) reports on what participants have seen or experienced regarding nanostores [46,47]. This approach enables the collection of both direct stakeholder feedback and contextual observations, thereby enriching our understanding of how nanostores operate and are perceived.

The research process, as shown in Figure 2, unfolded into several stages: (i) formulation of research questions, (ii) review of the relevant literature, (iii) methodology design, (iv) data collection, (v) data organisation and analysis, (vi) results reporting, and (vii) discussion. The earlier sections presented the research questions and reviewed the literature. This section outlines the data collection and analysis procedure, along with the rationale for interpreting and presenting the findings.

3.1. Data Collection

A structured survey, containing 17 questions in three sections, helped map stakeholder roles and perceptions through the X-Y-Z/TASCOI framework (see Appendix A). A team of 25 field researchers (undergraduate industrial engineering and systems students acting as data collectors) collected data from 34 nanostores across different Eastern, Southern, and Western boroughs of Mexico City during the first semester of 2021. Survey results can be accessed at Supplementary Materials (https://doi.org/10.17632/sszwrtmt4g.1, accessed on 20 July 2025).

A (non-probabilistic) convenience sample of nanostores was chosen based on their proximity to the data collector’s home and whether the owners were willing to participate in the study [48,49]. Since this study is exploratory and faced logistical challenges, a non-random sampling method was used. This approach allowed for a variety of nanostores from different socioeconomic backgrounds to be included, but it also means that the results cannot be generalised statistically. Therefore, this study prioritised depth and variation over representativeness.

Respondents fell into the TASCOI stakeholder categories. The researchers approached stakeholders face-to-face onsite to enlist those who were present, available, and willing to complete the survey. By these means, the researchers managed to capture a diversity of perspectives across neighbourhoods and income levels. The X-Y-Z identity statements and the TASCOI tool did not require the collection of demographic data from the survey respondents.

A total of 261 surveys were collected during the first semester of 2021. 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 fall into more specific categories meaningfully. 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, 168 responses (68%) were received. Additionally, nanostore owners reviewed the collected data and provided on-site feedback to enhance the reliability of the findings.

The study adhered to ethical protocols: participants voluntarily participated, verbal consent was obtained, responses were anonymised, and no identifying data were collected. The research process utilised securely stored data exclusively for research purposes.

Several measures were taken to mitigate potential biases resulting from convenience sampling, the exploratory nature of this study, and the challenges of accessing nanostore stakeholders in densely populated urban areas [50].

First, trained data collectors (industrial engineering and systems students) helped to minimise interviewer bias by following a standardised survey protocol. Second, nanostores were sampled across diverse boroughs of Mexico City (in high-, middle-, and low-income neighbourhoods) to capture socioeconomic variability, a strategy aligned with prior nanostore studies [51]. Validation of preliminary findings through member checking with a subset of nanostore owners, a technique recommended for qualitative rigour, allows for enhanced reliability [50]. Although the sample is not statistically generalisable, its purposive diversity aligns with the study’s goal of identifying identity patterns across contexts [1]. Limitations are acknowledged regarding the sample and data collection process, particularly in terms of generalisability and reliability of the results, which are further discussed in Section 5.3 and Section 5.4.

3.2. Data Organisation and Analysis

The data underwent thematic analysis using deductive (X-Y-Z/TASCOI mapping) and inductive coding. Deductive structural coding was applied to map the responses to the X-Y-Z and TASCOI categories [52,53]. Inductive content coding facilitates the identification of additional themes and unexpected insights by employing techniques such as recognising repeated concepts and noting missing data [54]. The coding process is as follows:

i.

Familiarisation with the data: The survey database was reviewed to ensure consistency and to identify incomplete or incoherent responses.

ii.

Generating initial codes: The database was systematically searched to identify coding coincidences between responses and the deductive theory-driven codes defined by each element of the X-Y-Z and the TASCOI framework. Additionally, other relevant descriptions were coded inductively (and extracted) regarding the roles and functions of nanostores, or their challenges and opportunities.

iii.

Searching for themes: As the main themes were defined deductively, stakeholders’ descriptions were collated and accommodated according to the X-Y-Z and TASCOI code categories. Inductively identified themes were collated and flagged to further enrich the descriptions of identity.

iv.

Reviewing themes: Each X-Y-Z and TASCOI coding category (as themes) was checked for consistency with each stakeholder type because of their diverse perspectives.

v.

Defining and naming themes: Descriptions were articulated for each code category, and themes were named accordingly. Descriptive statistical analysis and excerpts were extracted to describe their diversity and highlight stakeholders’ perspectives. Relevant inductively identified descriptions were integrated and combined into the identity statements. Therefore, multiple iterations were conducted by returning to steps 2, 3, and 4.

vi.

Producing the report: Descriptions were summarised in tables, exemplifying each case with excerpts, linked to the research questions, and further discussed in light of the literature.

Therefore, the X-Y-Z categories and TASCOI roles guided response coding. Frequency analysis revealed variations in identity, while stakeholder commentary provided additional contextual depth and insight. Appendix A.3 presents the specific guiding questions and codes for the X-Y-Z and TASCOI studies.

3.3. Results Reporting and Discussion

Section 4 presents the results through summary tables and narrative descriptions, highlighting the diversity of identity statements and TASCOI roles across stakeholder groups. Section 5 discusses these findings on the research questions and broader literature, emphasising the contextualised nature of nanostore identities and their implications for management and support. The results of this study require validation and possible reformulation of statements and claims as part of a falsification research process [46,55,56]. By further contrasting observations and reports, the results may necessitate adjustments to the current formulations to enhance their quality.

As this study explores stakeholders’ perspectives in a social context, the evaluation of these research findings must adhere to the criteria of transferability, reliability, and validity [47,57,58]. Transferability, in contrast to generalisability, indicates that the findings of this study might not apply to other social contexts, situations, times, or populations, as the collected data may differ from other subjects’ opinions (for example, they might not answer in the same way), as well as in their contextual conditions or circumstances. This can lead to other results and interpretations. Reliability was addressed by providing a step-by-step methodology that consistently allowed for the subsequent collection, analysis, and reporting of data from different nanostore interactions. Regarding validity, this was addressed by discussing result accuracy in light of nanostore theory and management cybernetics to identify coincidences or deviations. These criteria can serve as a guide for other discussions on learning experiences, identifying suggestions, implications, and possible further steps.

This research design provides a clear and organised approach for understanding the identity of nanostores in practice. In the next section, we present the results of the investigation of a group of nanostores in Mexico City, a significant case study within this megacity retail environment.

4. Results

This study developed a systematic, inclusive, and enriched description of nanostores’ identity based on a thematic analysis of identity statements using X-Y-Z and TASCOI codes. In Section 4.1, Section 4.2 and Section 4.3, the statement results were extracted from the responses.

4.1. Identity Statement Descriptions by Stakeholders

4.1.1. Categorisation of “X”—What the Nanostore Does

The present-day activities and perceived significance of nanostores are not uniform but are shaped by the roles and interests of different stakeholders. The systematic analysis of responses to the question “What the nanostore does” across actors, owners, customers, and competitors uncovers consensus and divergence in how nanostores are understood and valued in their communities. Such insights are crucial in designing interventions and policies that address the realities of local commerce.

A review of all 168 responses reveals that the core activity of the nanostore—selling consumer goods—remains central across all stakeholder groups. However, the meaning and emphasis of this activity differ according to the stakeholder’s relationship to the nanostore (see the descriptive statistics of responses in

Table A1. Key “X” themes by stakeholder type (own elaboration).

Stakeholder Type	N	Sale of Goods	Source of Income/Employment	Convenience/Essential Goods	Supply Chain Point	Market Rival/Barrier	Personal Investment/Sustenance	Community Service
Actors	124	110 (89%)	102 (82%)	18 (15%)	0%	0 (0%)	3 (2%)	18 (15%)
Suppliers	41	20 (49%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	21 (51%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Customers	15	13 (87%)	2 (13%)	10 (67%)	0%	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (13%)
Owner	7	7 (100%)	7 (100%)	2 (29%)	0%	0 (0%)	7 (100%)	1 (14%)
Interveners	22	19 (86%)	0 (0%)	3 (14%)	0%	14 (64%)	0 (0%)	1 (5%)

Note: Some responses mentioned more than one theme, so percentages may not sum to 100%.

, Appendix B).

Actors emphasised income/employment generation as well as roles such as product sales, convenience, and customer service. In addition, the actors mentioned the nanostore’s community function.

For suppliers, nanostores are predominantly seen in terms of sales of goods and supply chain points. This perspective stresses their economic and commercial roles and functions in product distribution. Therefore, most suppliers’ efforts point to product delivery, sales records, and inventory control. In this sense, it is worth mentioning that suppliers are the only stakeholders who explicitly recognise nanostores’ supply chain roles.

While customers prioritised convenience, they primarily viewed the nanostore as a provider of essential goods and services. Customers also described the nanostore’s role as a “sale of basic necessities” or emphasised its proximity and reliability for last-minute purchases. The nanostore represents the accessibility and satisfaction of immediate needs rather than employment or investment. However, they also recognised nanostores as sources of income and acknowledged the role of community support.

All owners linked nanostores to family sustenance. Although fewer in number, they offered a more strategic and personal view. They considered the nanostore as a means of financial sustenance and personal investment, often referring to the store as “a large part of their sustenance” or “a project made possible by their savings”. Owners also emphasised the importance of customer loyalty and profitability, demonstrating a dual focus on both personal entrepreneurship and business survivability. However, they acknowledged their community role and oversaw their convenience function.

Interveners predominantly viewed the stores as competitors. Competitors and community stakeholders tend to define nanostores in terms of market presence and competition. Interveners referred to the nanostore as a “competitor” or “barrier,” and described its activities as “purchase and sale of products”. Due to these stakeholder barriers, the nanostore was primarily seen as a rival or as a business that shapes the local commercial landscape.

The variations in responses can be explained by stakeholders’ direct or indirect relationship with the nanostore. Table A1 summarises the leading identity roles (X) reported by each stakeholder group. While sales and employment dominate across groups, actors and owners also cite the personal and community dimensions. Notably, customers associate nanostores primarily with convenience, whereas interveners view them more often through a competitive or economic lens.

4.1.2. Categorisation of “Y”—How the Nanostore Functions

By examining responses to “how the nanostore functions” across stakeholders, this research uncovers consensus and divergence in how nanostore operations are understood.

A review of all 168 responses reveals that the core resources and means by which nanostores operate are consistently identified as the physical establishment, human resources, and supplier networks (see

Table A2. Main operational “Y” means cited by stakeholder type (own elaboration).

Stakeholder Type	N	Physical Store	Human Resources	Supplies	Admin/Tech Systems	Specific Tools/Processes	Market Transactions
Actors	124	92 (74%)	81 (65%)	39 (31%)	7 (6%)	18 (15%)	0 (0%)
Suppliers	42	2 (5%)	0 (0%)	32 (76%)	0 (0%)	3 (7%)	0 (0%)
Owner	7	6 (86%)	5 (71%)	7 (100%)	3 (43%)	2 (29%)	0 (0%)
Customers	15	11 (73%)	9 (60%)	2 (13%)	0 (0%)	1 (7%)	0 (0%)
Interveners	22	7 (32%)	5 (23%)	7 (32%)	1 (5%)	0 (0%)	14 (64%)

Note: Some responses mentioned multiple resources or processes, so percentages may not add up to 100%.

in Appendix B). However, the emphasis and level of detail in describing these resources vary across stakeholder groups.

Actors predominantly described nanostore operations as relying on physical stores, staff, and inventory management. Actors’ responses also mentioned using the physical premises, while highlighting the importance of personnel, such as cashiers, attendants, or delivery staff. Actors also mentioned supplier relationships, with employees often emphasising the importance of regular deliveries and inventory restocking. Additionally, a minority of customers mentioned specific operational tools or processes, such as cash registers, refrigerators, and delivery bicycles, reflecting a practical focus on tangible assets that enable daily work.

For suppliers, nanostores focus on managing and selling supply goods with the help of the resources they provide. This viewpoint indicates the assortments of products, racks, refrigerators, coolers, banners, and other store equipment that facilitate product sales.

Customers have focused on the visible, customer-facing aspects of nanostore operations. Most customer responses mentioned the store’s physical location and presence of attentive staff as key operational features. Customers rarely mentioned back-end processes or supplier relationships; instead, they emphasised the accessibility and organisation of products.

Regarding owners, although being few, these mentioned supplier management and procurement as critical, while also referencing administrative activities such as accounting, inventory tracking, and financial oversight. Owners were also more likely to mention the integration of technology or systems, including point-of-sale software or credit systems, reflecting their broader oversight of business processes.

Interveners, competitors, and community stakeholders often described nanostore operations in terms of market interaction and competition. They referenced the process of buying and selling goods, while also mentioning specific resources, such as staff or suppliers. This group’s perspective is shaped by its business interests, often viewing the nanostore as a competitor or part of the local retail landscape.

Despite the physical store, staff, and supplier networks being generally the backbone of nanostore operations, the operational details and focus differ by stakeholder type. The most comprehensive information came from employees and owners directly involved in daily operations, who had firsthand experience with resource allocation and operational logistics. Customers prioritise the aspects that shape their shopping experience, while competitors and community members focus on transactional and market-facing dimensions.

Therefore, nanostores function as both logistical systems and service providers managed by their staff and owners while serving clients and competing entities in the local market. The relatively low frequency of references to technology and administrative systems indicates that these elements are less visible or relevant to stakeholders who are not owners.

4.1.3. Categorisation of “Z”—Purpose of Nanostores (Why It Matters)

The purpose of a nanostore is shaped by the perspectives and interests of those who interact with it. This study uncovered the shared and divergent meanings attributed to nanostores by multiple stakeholders (see

Table A3. Primary purposes “Z” cited by stakeholder type (own elaboration).

Stakeholder Type	N	Generate Income/Sustenance	Serve Community/Clients	Business Growth/Loyalty	Provide Essential Goods	Market Competition
Actors	124	106 (85%)	18 (15%)	6 (5%)	14 (11%)	0 (0%)
Suppliers	42	19 (45%)	4 (10%)	1 (2%)	8 (19%)	0 (0%)
Owner	7	7 (100%)	2 (29%)	4 (57%)	2 (29%)	0 (0%)
Customers	15	4 (27%)	3 (20%)	0 (0%)	11 (73%)	0 (0%)
Interveners	22	15 (68%)	1 (5%)	0 (0%)	5 (23%)	7 (32%)

Note: Some responses mentioned multiple resources or processes, so percentages may not add up to 100%.

, Appendix B).

Actors, representing the largest group in the dataset, overwhelmingly described nanostores as a means of generating personal or family income. They explicitly mentioned “generate revenue,” “have a livelihood,” or similar phrases. Many actors also highlighted the purpose of “serving the community” or “attending to clients’ needs”, indicating that service orientation is a secondary but present-day motivation.

Suppliers recognise nanostores’ need to obtain sustenance and income, supply essential goods, and serve customers. However, they barely acknowledged their role in the community.

Customers mostly perceived nanostore as a convenient source of essential goods. In their view, the purpose of nanostores is to “meet basic needs” or “provide basic necessities,” while mentioning the economic benefits for the owner and employees. For customers, a store’s raison d’être is its social function as a neighbourhood resource.

Regarding owners, despite a small response rate, there was unanimous agreement that the nanostore’s primary goal is to ensure their personal and family economic well-being, as indicated by their use of terms such as “earnings,” “sustenance,” and “revenue.” Owners were also more likely than other groups to mention “business growth,” “customer loyalty,” and “personal investment”, reflecting their dual role as both managers and beneficiaries.

Interveners (such as competitors and community stakeholders) often described nanostore operations in terms of market interactions and competition. However, they also referenced the process of buying and selling goods, while mentioning specific resources, such as staff or suppliers. This group’s perspective is shaped by their business interests, competition pressure, or the configuration of the local retail landscape.

Broadly, the primary reason for operating a nanostore is to provide economic support to the owner, employees, or the business itself. While employees and owners emphasise a store’s financial success, they also highlight customer value and the store as a service provider. Competitors and community members emphasise their economic position and the overall market context.

4.2. A Systemic View of the Nanostore: Integrating TASCOI with X, Y, Z, and Transformation Variations

Understanding nanostores as purposeful systems requires a precise mapping of stakeholder roles and a nuanced appreciation of how activities, resources, and purposes (the X, Y, Z framework) are enacted and experienced. The TASCOI tool provides a structured approach for analysing these systems by identifying the transformation process, actors, suppliers, customers, owners, and interveners. When the X, Y, and Z framework maps these roles, especially when the transformation process sheds light on different X identities, a rich, actionable picture emerges.

Table 1. Mapping the TASCOI roles to the X, Y, and Z dimensions (own elaboration).

TASCOI Role	X: What/Who (Identity and Activity)	Y: How (Means and Resources)	Z: Why (Purpose)	Example from the Dataset	Variations/Notes
Actors	Carry out retail, service, and logistics.	Staff, owners, and family members.	Seek employment, business growth, and community value.	“Staff who attend all day”	These actors may include delivery staff, cashiers, and family members.
Suppliers	Enable product variety and availability.	Deliver goods, maintain supply chains.	Support the store’s commercial viability.	“Suppliers of each sold product”	Local vs. national suppliers, reliability varies.
Customers	Sale/receive goods/services, define demand.	Interact at the store, purchase, and give feedback.	Satisfy needs, seek convenience, and community ties.	“Close customers”, “People who are passing by”	Frequency, loyalty, and needs differ by segment.
Owners	Generate income/sustenance and provide employment; oversee, invest, and manage.	Make strategic, financial, and operational choices.	Ensure family sustenance and long-term viability.	“The owner… is responsible for the operation.”	Sometimes, actors and owners play dual roles.
Interveners	Sale of goods, influence context, and competition.	Compete, manage, or enable operations.	Shape the market, set competition norms, and provide retail infrastructure.	“Direct competition”, “The government and the arrangements”	It can be positive (support) or negative (barriers).

illustrates how the TASCOI elements align with the core X-Y-Z descriptions based on the results presented in Section 4.1 and Table A1, Table A2 and Table A3. Examples from the dataset show the diversity of the roles and relationships that define the nanostore retail landscape.

The transformation, which involves how inputs are converted into outputs, varies significantly depending on the dominant X identity of the nanostore.

Table 2. Variations in transformations according to X identities (own elaboration).

X Identity (What/Who)	Transformation: Inputs → Outputs and Key Processes	Example from the Dataset	Variation/Significance
Retail Sales of Everyday Goods	Inventory, staff time, supplier goods → Sold products, customer satisfaction. Key processes include stocking, merchandising, sales, and checkout.	“Sale of consumer products such as soft drinks, ham, etc.” “Arrange material and sell.”	Transformation is transactional and product-focused.
Source of Employment/Income	Employee labour, store infrastructure, inventory → wages, financial stability, job satisfaction. Key processes include shift management, payroll, and customer service.	“It’s a source of employment.”, “Your source of income.”	Transformation centres on converting labour into livelihoods and security.
Community Service/Convenience	Access to location, product variety, staff attention → neighbourhood convenience, social capital, trust. Key processes: extended hours, personalised service, local engagement.	“Serve nearby customers.” “Meet neighbourhood needs.”	Transformation emphasises the social value and accessibility over pure sales.
Family/Personal Investment	Family labour, personal capital, shared responsibilities → family income, business experience, generational skills. Key processes include joint decision-making, intergenerational training, and flexible roles.	“Family project.”, “Own business.”	Transformation integrates economic and family/social outcomes.
Market Rival/Barrier	Competitive pricing, product selection, marketing efforts → market share, customer retention, barriers to entry for others. Key processes include monitoring competitors, conducting promotional activities, and adjusting the product mix.	“Direct competition.”, “It represents a barrier because it is direct competition.”	External market dynamics and the level of competition shape the transformation.

illustrates how each X identity frames the logic of transformation differently, influencing its production, perception, and delivery of value.

The TASCOI analysis revealed that transformation processes varied by stakeholder lens: inventory-to-sales (retail), labour-to-wages (employment), or trust-building (community). Thus, the transformation is closely connected, for instance, to family dynamics, skills transfer, product availability, and the economic benefits associated with family or personal investment. Suppliers recognise their role in effectively supplying goods, which is paramount for the retail functions of nanostores. For customers, nanostore retail and service/convenience transformations are crucial for delivering value. Market competitors may view this transformation as shaped by rivalry that focuses on differentiation, customer retention, and defensive/aggressive strategies

4.3. X-Y-Z Identity Descriptions of the Nanostore: Patterns, Alternatives, and Significance

Looking at the overall descriptions summarised in Section 4.1 and Section 4.2, the most prevalent “what they do” (X) is the nanostore description as a retail outlet for daily goods; however, this closely intertwines with its role as a source of employment and income, especially among employees and owners. Some customers and community members emphasised its convenience and service role, while a minority view the nanostore as a family venture or a competitor in the local market.

For “how they do it” (Y), the operational backbone is the physical store and its infrastructure, complemented by the essential role of human resources. Supplier networks are vital for effective inventory management, and operational tools or processes (such as delivery, refrigeration, or point-of-sale systems) are crucial where efficiency or service differentiation is essential. Customer service and community engagement are more frequently noted by those who interact directly with customers or see the store as a neighbourhood hub.

The primary purpose of the nanostore, as stated in “why it matters” (Z), is to generate income and provide personal/family sustenance. However, a significant subset of responses highlighted the importance of supplying essential goods, supporting family projects, or serving a broader community. These alternative purposes are more prominent among customers, family members, and owners who see the nanostore as a vehicle for social or familial advancement.

Stakeholder perspectives reflect relational roles, encompassing both economic and operational aspects (owners/employees), service and accessibility (customers and community members), and market presence (competitors). These perspectives signify a nanostore’s simultaneous identity as a business, a livelihood, a social resource, or a community anchor. These results are strongly linked to the research questions as they shed light on the diversity of nanostore identity recognition and open the door for addressing these variations.

Table 3. Common and alternative descriptions of X-Y-Z (own elaboration).

Dimension	Category (Theme)	Description	Example Responses
X	Retail Sales of Everyday Goods	The nanostore sells groceries, snacks, pharmacy items, stationery, and other essential products.	“Sale of consumer products such as soft drinks, ham, etc.”, “Sale of stationery products.”
	Source of Employment/Income	The nanostore is a workplace and the primary source of income for staff and owners.	“It’s a source of employment.” “My source of income.”
	Community Service/Convenience	The nanostore is valued for its accessibility, convenience, and service to the neighbourhood.	“Serve nearby customers.”, “Meet neighbourhood needs.”
	Family/Personal Investment	The nanostore is seen as a family project or personal investment.	“Family project.”, “Own business.”
	Market Rival/Barrier	The nanostore is seen as a competitor or obstacle in the local market.	“Direct competition.”, “It represents a barrier because it is direct competition.”
	Supply Chain Delivery Point	The nanostore is seen as a link or destination in product supply chains.	“It represents a delivery point”, “it is another client to make deliveries”
Y	Physical Store/Infrastructure	Operations depend on the physical location, premises, and tangible infrastructure.	“Through its establishment.”, “At your premises.”
	Human Resources/Personnel	Staff, owners, or family members carry out activities.	“Staff who attend.”, “A person who attends all day.”
	Supplier Networks	The nanostore sources goods from external suppliers and brands.	“Buys products from suppliers.”, “Receives merchandise from Bimbo, Sabritas, and others.”
	Operational Tools/Processes	Use of specific tools, equipment, or routines (e.g., delivery bikes, refrigerators).	“Use bicycles for delivery.”, “Cash register.”
	Customer Service/Community Engagement	Focus on serving clients and engaging with the community.	“Serve customers.”, “It offers home delivery service.”
Z	Generating Income/Sustenance	The primary purpose is to provide economic benefit or financial security.	“Generate income for the family.”, “To have a livelihood.”
	Providing Essential Goods/Services	The purpose is to provide essential products and services to the community.	“Meet customer needs.”, “Offer basic necessities.”
	Supporting Family/Personal Project	The nanostore is a family business or personal investment.	“Family project.”, “Help the family.”
	Serving the Community	The purpose is to contribute to or support the local community.	“Helping the community.” “To be useful to the neighbourhood.”

lists the variations in identity within the X-Y-Z descriptions.

5. Discussion

5.1. Findings

5.1.1. Findings on Identity Statements and the TASCOI Tool

Regarding RQ1, nanostores emerge as purposeful systems in which stakeholder roles (TASCOI) and identity dynamics (X-Y-Z) converge, revealing new insights into their contextual operations and opening possibilities for their improvement.

Nanostores, studied as purposeful systems, exemplify the systemic nature of organisations [12,17,19]. The identity of organisations is not monolithic, but rather emerges from the articulation of multiple perspectives that shape their internal and external relationships simultaneously. Nanostores as independent retailers, family businesses, supply chain points, community hubs, or market rivals establish a complex scenario in which their management must succeed in effectively handling stakeholder requirements in specific contexts. Previous work in management cybernetics on studying organisations has illuminated the study of organisational identity by exploring internal stakeholder views [12,19,40]. In this case, notions such as identity fragmentation or misalignment with existing structures have been identified.

However, in this work, the study of identity brings a fresh perspective regarding identity articulation by recognising and accommodating internal and external views. The need for identity articulation does not point to identity contradictions, internal fragmentation, or misalignment of perspectives. Still, it recognises the diverse and simultaneous expectations that stakeholders experience, which trigger (new) meanings and are further grounded in their interactions. This condition involves building the necessary organisational structures to support people’s undertakings in nanostores environments. In management cybernetics, this idea can be understood as a mutual process of structural coupling between stakeholders [59].

On the other hand, this idea also highlights that nanostores must develop requisite responses to match stakeholders’ expectations or understandings. That is, internally, nanostores must ensure sales, income, convenience, job creation, or survivability, not as a plan, but embedded in the structure of moment-to-moment relations that support their stakeholder interactions [8]. This idea might be referred to as an internal process of complexity regulation and adaptation, also known as organisational fitness [60]. Response capacity is linked to the requisite organisation and structures in which nanostores must self-organise their meaning creation, regulation, and production to achieve their purposes and thrive in their environments [18,39].

Signifying identity articulation in terms of structural coupling, organisational fitness, and requisite organisation and structures opens the possibility for improving nanostore management, problem-solving, decision-making, and policymaking. The X-Y-Z and TASCOI coding frames demonstrated their usefulness in this direction.

Figure 3 shows the articulation of the nanostore identity definition, integrating stakeholders’ broad perspectives and interactions by revisiting Figure 2. Each stakeholder category provides diverse identity descriptions with coincidences and variations, both within and outside their respective types, as presented in Table A1, Table A2 and Table A3 in Appendix B. Most prevalent identity definitions align with those provided in the literature (see Section 2) concerning grocery retail, family businesses, community hubs, or supply chain links. This finding supports the exploration and validity of this study. However, divergence exists in the systemic integration of identity descriptions, acknowledgement of identity diversity, and the need for their articulation. This study demonstrates advances in this direction.

Table 4. Framework application: management, problem-solving, decision making, policy (own elaboration).

Dimension	For Management and Problem Solving	For Decision and Policymaking	Response Themes
X	Identify core and alternative roles; diversify offerings; strengthen identity as an employer, service provider, competitor, supply chain link, or family asset.	Design and deploy support programmes that reflect nanostores’ social and economic functions and impact on their communities.	Retail Sales of Everyday Goods Source of Employment/Income Community Service/Convenience Family/Personal Investment Market Rival/Barrier Supply Chain Delivery Point
Y	Improve resource utilisation and processes; invest in infrastructure, staff development, and supplier relations; adopt relevant technology.	Set standards for fair, efficient, reliable supply chains, labour, and infrastructure support.	Physical Store/Infrastructure Human Resources/Personnel Supplier Networks Operational Tools/Processes Customer Service/Community Engagement
Z	Align goals with stakeholder needs (income, service, convenience, family, community); measure performance beyond sales.	Develop policies for microenterprise income stability, social impact, and local access. Ensure product availability, accessibility, and affordability.	Generating Income/Sustenance Providing Essential Goods/Services Supporting Family/Personal Project Serving the Community

proposes a set of possible X-Y-Z identity interventions to enhance nanostores accordingly. These statements capture the multidimensional identity of nanostores and translate these insights into actionable levers for management, problem-solving, decision-making, and policymaking.

Therefore, nanostores can be primarily understood in the X dimension as hybrid units that combine economic, social, and family-oriented functions. Practically speaking, any intervention or management strategy must recognise these overlapping functions. Failing to do so could weaken the social or familial value deeply embedded in the store’s daily operations.

The Y dimension underscores the embeddedness of nanostores in the tangible, often informal, operations systems (including processes and resources) of labour and logistics. Investing in facilities, staff training, supplier reliability and efficiency, effective operational methods, and technology adoption are essential to improve nanostore performance and ensure its prevalence in and connection to the community.

When examining the Z dimension, nanostores blend financial aims with social responsibility. This understanding encourages more nuanced approaches to nanostore business support and policy making, and is in contrast to narrow economic considerations.

5.1.2. Findings on Nanostore Identity and Transformation

Concerning RQ2, a central finding is that the transformation processes within nanostores are highly contingent upon their perceived identity, as viewed through diverse stakeholder lenses. This view aligns with previous work on organisational structures in management cybernetics [12,18,40]. Retail-focused transformations converted inventory into sales through effective merchandising. Employment-focused transformations translated labour into wages and household stability. Community-oriented stores prioritise transformations that strengthen social capital through trust-building. This shift is not merely semantic; it fundamentally alters the critical processes, elevating human resource management and employee satisfaction to the same level as sales and inventory turnover.

The research also highlights that community service, public engagement, and convenience identities create a transformation logic centred on social capital. In these cases, nanostore processes are less about maximising transactions and more about cultivating trust, reliability, socioeconomic development, capacity building, and local embeddedness. Extended hours, personalised services, and responsiveness to neighbourhood needs have become the primary means of converting store resources into outputs valued by the community. This transformation is subtle but powerful, as it positions nanostores as social anchors rather than just businesses.

When perceiving a nanostore as a family or a personal investment, the transformation process becomes a hybrid of economic and social outcomes. Family labour and pooled resources are not only transformed into income but also into a shared experience, intergenerational skill transfer, and a sense of collective achievement. Decision-making is more collaborative, and the boundaries between owners, actors, and even customers can blur, as family members cycle through these roles over time.

Competition and market defence in highly competitive markets influence the transformation of nanostores. There is a transformation of inputs, such as pricing strategies, product selection, place/location tactics, and marketing, into customer loyalty and market share through constant adaptation and vigilance. The nanostore’s outputs are not just sales, but also the maintenance of competitive advantage, survival, and (re) shaping of the retail landscape.

The TASCOI analysis further revealed that these transformation logics were not static. Inventory, staff time, and supplier goods lead to product sales and customer satisfaction. The key processes include stocking, merchandising, sales, and checkouts. For instance, a decline in supply deliveries or service levels can force a nanostore to transition from a transactional approach to survival-oriented transformation. Alternatively, increasing community support can enhance a store’s role in building social capital, thereby improving customer loyalty and retention. Overall, these ideas allow for understanding the multisystemic nature of identity and its transformation definition in nanostores viewed as organisations [12]. However, there is no existing literature addressing this nanostore aspect, which presents opportunities for future work.

Moreover, this study offers an integrative perspective on the roles and functions of nanostores, providing a more comprehensive view beyond the fragmented descriptions reported in the literature. Fragmented views are linked to particular approaches and research questions to improve nanostores. For example, choosing nanostores as a supply chain link, retail point, family business, or community hub brings forth specific conceptualisations and study methods. This proposition might seem obvious, but it is not acknowledged in the nanostore literature, leaving aside other functions, roles, or aspects of their operations. This type of issue has been identified in the systems literature as corresponding to reductionist observational lenses that create particular epistemologies, leading to limited understandings and interventions [61,62,63].

Accordingly, a remarkably fresh insight is that the same nanostore may simultaneously enact multiple transformation logics, depending on its product and service assortments, the stakeholders involved, or the external pressures it faces. Morning operations might prioritise family collaboration and community service, while the afternoon shift focuses on retail efficiency and competitive tactics. Alternatively, nanostores may strive to provide customer convenience while ensuring family sustenance and supply chain efficiency. This flexibility challenges simplistic views because of the nanostores’ ability to adapt and redefine their identities and processes in response to changing stakeholder expectations and environmental conditions. However, previous studies have not offered alternatives to address these variations. Therefore, the work of management cybernetics has helped advance in this direction [18,19].

In summary, the main findings of this research demonstrate an understanding of nanostores in which identity and transformation processes are co-constructed and dynamically negotiated among stakeholders. The application of the TASCOI tool, in conjunction with identity statements, revealed the complexity and adaptability of nanostores. This idea introduces a novel approach for both academic research and the real-world applications of nanostores.

5.2. Implications

5.2.1. Theoretical Implications

From the perspective of management cybernetics, the findings of this work can be interpreted to support the existing literature in the field. As nanostores are contingent on their perceived identity, this proposition aligns with purposeful systems that are (re-)created and self-constructed through moment-to-moment interactions within their internal and external networks of relationships [12,17]. Moreover, the multi-stakeholder purposes in nanostores underscore their systemic nature, triggering (potential) response efforts to produce desirable outcomes [17,21]. Additionally, the coexistence of diverse transformations and activity configurations associated with different overlapping functions demands that nanostores effectively self-organise and develop cohesion and adaptation capabilities [40,60]. Moreover, possible misalignments among activities, resources, and purposes necessitate interventions to establish the requisite structures that support desirability [64].

Additionally, managing relationships is crucial for balancing the needs of both internal and external stakeholders, thereby addressing their complexity and ensuring their survivability [65]. Finally, the operation of nanostores, which centres on relational capital with hybrid economic and social outcomes, supports the idea of addressing aspects of business performance and organisational citizenship [12]. Hence, these notions are linked to the study of nanostores as organisational systems and their structural mechanisms, which enable the production of their identity and organisational fitness [60]. In this sense, the use of the Viable System Model (namely, the VSM) and the Viplan Method can help in this direction as a framework for guiding improvement interventions [18,19]. This work opens the possibility of enriching the management cybernetics conversation regarding nanostores and their roles in emerging markets.

5.2.2. Practical Implications

X-Y-Z statements can support managers in aligning daily activities (X) and functions (Y) with stakeholder expectations (Z), thereby determining their priorities and allocating resources accordingly. This application may uncover misalignments between perceptions and actual nanostore performance (X vs. Y vs. Z) [17,19]. For instance, the nanostore’s revenue targets, internal workflows, product/service offerings, technology use, and relationships with the local community may not align with the family business role or the convenient supply of essential goods. Problem solvers must identify and bridge the gap between X, Y, and Z. The existing nanostore literature identifies different nanostore roles [3,5,10] and possible adaptations to product assortments, adjustments to business models, and the improvement of retail operations, particularly concerning supply chain management [4,6,9]. However, there is no integrative perspective that connects and aligns X, Y, and Z. Therefore, identity statements and the TASCOI framework can help address this matter. Further examples of how to support management and problem solvers to conduct these types of improvements have been provided in the literature based on the Viplan method and the VSM [18,19,40].

For decision makers, trade-offs may affect progress in one area, thereby compromising other essential priorities. For instance, increasing operational efficiency may lead to a decrease in trust or customer loyalty. In operational terms, it is clear which specific activities (X), functions (Y), and purposes (Z) are most relevant in any given context, so that adjustments are practical and in line with the store’s broader purpose [19,40]. This issue is critical in the nanostore literature, as the focus is mostly on optimising the product supply to nanostores. However, other aspects of nanostore management, such as effective procurement, high service levels, and efficient cash flow management, are frequently overseen and have serious consequences for product availability, customer service, and nanostore survivability [7,66]. To overcome this issue, the use of system dynamics can help identify basic actions, side effects, and countermeasures using causal loop models to anticipate potential undesirable consequences [67].

For policymakers, X-Y-Z statements and the TASCOI tool provide a platform to adapt existing programmes to multifunctional identities of nanostores, with four key applications emerging. First, waste programmes such as Recicla CDMX in Mexico City could boost participation by leveraging nanostores’ community functions to serve as neighbourhood recycling hubs [34]. Second, financial initiatives could offer identity-aligned microloans, providing flexible terms for family-focused stores and technology-inventory bundles for those focused on market competition [29]. Third, nutrition interventions could partner with suppliers to promote healthier stock, such as CPG brands, to co-design healthier product bundles and implement shelf-space incentives for nutritious options [31,37]. Fourth, nanostores may develop business partnerships by leveraging their geographical distribution and proximity to end consumers. This is the case with the recent uses of small retailers as collection points for online deliveries [68]. Such targeted adaptations would advance, for instance, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [69] by formalising the sustainability-related roles of nanostores. This perspective respects their self-identified purposes, with the TASCOI mapping serving as a diagnostic toolkit for policymakers to identify key leverage points for specific goals. Overall, nanostores are essential as socioeconomic units, but they can also play other community roles to enhance broader social, economic, and ecological aspects. An additional essential tool to help in this direction can be found in the notion of leverage points, which guides policymaking to identify the best intervention points with high leverage power to produce a desirable change in a situation [67].

In summary, this section discusses the perceptions of various stakeholders regarding the role of nanostores, which extend beyond simply being a source of income to encompass their social and community contributions. This idea can help develop interventions grounded in the current realities and challenges of these micro-businesses.

5.3. A Discussion on Validity, Reliability, Transferability, and Generalisability

The validity, reliability, and transferability criteria are addressed by this work’s methodology regarding data collection, organisation, and analysis [46,47,55]. Validity is reinforced by comparing different points of view and the use of established models, specifically the X-Y-Z identity statements and the TASCOI tool, which closely align with the research questions and capture the lived realities of nanostores across stakeholder groups. The congruence between established theoretical concepts in small business, organisational studies, and stakeholder theory, and the emergent categories from the data (such as retail, employment, community service, family investment, and market rivalry) further supports validity.

Reliability is supported by a systematic and transparent coding process, with recurring patterns and convergence in themes demonstrating strong internal consistency. Although a single coder conducted the analysis, member checking with store owners adds credibility to the results. The X-Y-Z statements with TASCOI structures were utilised repeatedly throughout the dataset, with responses organised using consistent procedures. High internal consistency was revealed through repeated patterns and convergence among stakeholders in crucial issues, such as the emphasis on retail sales, the importance of revenue generation, and the role of suppliers.

In terms of transferability, the findings of this study can serve as a starting point for use in other situations or contexts, particularly regarding the proposed framework, while remaining attentive to local variations and emergent themes. The descriptive account of stakeholder roles, transformation processes, and nanostore dynamics provides a helpful guideline for applying the approach in other geographic, cultural, or economic settings similar to those considered in this study. Therefore, the framework proposed in this work can be transferred and tested in different scenarios to study stakeholders’ views and identify the multi-systemic nature of nanostores.

However, as this research is rooted in a single local city, the findings may not be generalisable because of the cultural, economic, operational, and regulatory differences that may exist in other urban or rural contexts. Therefore, this study cannot claim generalisability as an automatic, probability-based, universal, or truthful application to other similar circumstances [58]. This limitation suggests the need for further explanations of the contrasting differences (or variations) among stakeholders’ descriptions. This idea also highlights that, as this work does not claim generalisability, it proposes the transferability of the proposed framework to reproduce and test in other scenarios [47]. Therefore, additional work is necessary to determine whether the findings have broader applicability or coincidence.

5.4. Limitations and Future Work

5.4.1. Limitations

Despite its nuanced analysis of nanostore identity and stakeholder dynamics, this research acknowledges several limitations. First, the (statistical) representativeness of the results is limited by the non-probabilistic convenience sample drawn from specific boroughs of Mexico City. Data were collected exclusively through surveys, rather than using complementary methods such as interviews, which may have limited the richness of descriptions. Proximity, availability, and willingness shaped participant selection, potentially excluding certain types of stores, neighbourhoods, or perspectives. This means that the study may not reflect the full range of nanostore experiences in Mexico City or other contexts with different social, cultural, and economic characteristics.

Second, there is an inherent subjectivity of participant accounts and their interpretation. Although applying consistent coding and an established framework (X-Y-Z and TASCOI), the lack of a second coder left scope for unaddressed interpretive bias. Responses may also have been shaped by participants’ immediate circumstances, understanding, or lack of knowledge. Although other research members carried out cross-checking, the study leaned towards economic aspects, reflecting participants’ emphasis, while environmental or regulatory concerns appeared less salient [34].

Third, as a cross-sectional study, the study does not capture the temporal dynamics of stakeholder relationships. Thus, it omits essential elements of the evolutionary trajectory of such businesses, such as scaling operations, shifts in consumer behaviour, regulatory change, market pressures, and technology adoption.

Fourth, while the data included valuable perspectives from customers, owners, suppliers, and other actors, it offered far less on interveners such as regulators, NGOs, or infrastructure providers, limiting the depth of the TASCOI analysis and the mapping of wider system interactions.

Fifth, although the study combined deductive (X-Y-Z/TASCOI) and inductive strategies, all coding was undertaken by a single researcher. Without inter-coder reliability testing, such as Cohen’s kappa or percentage agreement, interpretive bias in theme identification and classification cannot be ruled out. Future studies should involve multiple coders and report ICR metrics in accordance with qualitative research standards [70].

Finally, this study focuses on Mexico City’s nanostore markets, which are shaped by factors such as urban density, informality, and supply chain constraints, complicating generalisation. In Southeast Asia, nanostores often depend on mobile payment systems [15], whereas in parts of Africa, they operate under stricter regulatory regimes [11]. These variations highlight that, even if X-Y-Z identities are theoretically applicable across contexts, their operational (Y) and purpose (Z) dimensions are always mediated by local institutions, markets, cultures, and conditions.

5.4.2. Future Research

For future research aimed at refining the understanding of diverse practices and identities related to nanostores, this study could be applied in various settings, such as businesses facing differing economic structures, bureaucratic environments, and diverse contextual details. By gathering additional observations, interviews, and quantitative indicators, such as inventory levels, demand trends, and consumer traffic levels, a more detailed and enriched description could be formulated.

Furthermore, future studies should employ longitudinal designs to document changes in stakeholder relationships, transformation processes, and nanostore identity over time. To gain a deeper understanding of nanostore resilience and survivability, new studies could examine how nanostores respond to market changes, new regulations, and local demands. Additionally, random sampling may help to represent a broader range of stakeholder perspectives. These sampling limitations also suggest future work regarding the generalisability and transferability of this study. Because it focuses on a single city, future research may expand to include additional complementary local descriptions and other urban and rural locations to identify and contrast differences and variations among stakeholders’ perspectives.

Nevertheless, regarding research criteria, achieving generalisability will become challenging due to the particular contextual conditions of each study or situation, which impede the achievement of stability in stakeholders’ descriptions. This idea then makes it more critical to test the transferability of the framework proposed in this study and explore its further replicability. However, any claims about nanostore identity must follow a falsification research process in which descriptions are subsequently tested, discarded, or enriched as necessary [46,55,56,71].

There is also a need to conduct further detailed stakeholder analysis, particularly regarding individuals with external influence or potential for interference. Subsequent studies could, for example, systematically map the roles and contributions of suppliers, rivals, local government bodies, and community leaders. This alternative could be achieved using network analysis or participatory mapping approaches to visualise such associations further and gain additional insight into the subject matter.

Additional research could be substantially improved by adopting methodologies that utilise several data coders. An investigation of several interpretations could yield more accurate and less biased descriptions. The use of ethnographic procedures, combined with interviews, might produce a more refined understanding with greater completeness. In addition, establishing primary communication channels with stakeholders—by reporting findings in workshop presentations or discussion groups—would enhance both the relevance and potential validity of the research.

Finally, there is a need for research that applies management cybernetics concepts and tools, such as X-Y-Z identity statements and TASCOI tools, to field-based interventions in nanostores. Testing these concepts and frameworks in practical nanostore scenarios and pilot projects aimed at enhancing nanostores might provide valuable insights into their effectiveness in real-world settings and enrich management cybernetics discussions.

6. Conclusions

This study examined how nanostores can be understood as purposeful systems by utilising a combined framework of X-Y-Z identity statements and the TASCOI tool to capture the diversity of roles, functions, and meanings attributed to them by various stakeholders in response to RQ1. The findings reveal that nanostores serve not only as retail outlets but also as sources of family income, community support, and local competition, depending on the perspective taken. These roles influence how nanostores operate, from informal credit and personalised services to inventory decisions and supplier relationships. Therefore, this framework can aid in potential interventions that improve or address nanostore management problems for a more effective organisation. Answering RQ2 shows that each group of stakeholders—owners, customers, suppliers, competitors, and others—has a view of the nanostore’s identity. These different viewpoints affect not only daily choices, but also how the business operates and what it prioritises, (re-)shaping the nanostore’s identity. This recognition lays the groundwork for more flexible management practices, community-based policies, and support strategies that enhance nanostores’ capacity to respond to the needs of those involved. Accordingly, a management cybernetics perspective allows the observation and description of nanostores beyond their basic functions and roles, recognising the need for complex interventions in stakeholder interactions to better address their multisystemic nature in retail environments.

This study offers a conceptual advancement in understanding small-scale grocery retailing and provides practical insights for developing context-sensitive support conceptualisations and strategies by utilising the X-Y-Z identity TASCOI coding frame. No previous studies in the literature have explored nanostores in these terms, making this proposition the work’s main contribution. The connection between stakeholder perspectives and nanostore functionality emphasises the importance of inclusive, systemic approaches in research and policy interventions targeting traditional retail in emerging markets. This work offers a foundation for future investigations into how adaptive micro-enterprises contribute to urban resilience and local retail landscapes.

Moreover, this study identifies theoretical, practical, and policymaking implications for nanostore enhancement. Theoretically, this study contributes to advancing the study of organisational identity by recognising and articulating variations in stakeholders’ perspectives to develop response capacity, structural coupling, adaptation, and organisational fitness. For nanostore management practices and problem solving, this work can help align daily activities (X) and functions (Y) with stakeholder expectations (Z), thereby determining priorities and allocating resources accordingly. This work also contributes to identifying the consequences of inappropriately articulating nanostore identity in decision-making and the necessary support that can be developed for the diverse nanostore roles they play, as family businesses, small independent retailers, community hubs, or supply chain links.

Finally, this study recognises its limitations, particularly regarding the research process. This study employed survey data collected using convenience sampling from a single city, Mexico City. Therefore, limitations exist concerning the generalisability of the results. Future work might explore further instances of nanostores in different contexts using the proposed (X-Y-Z and TASCOI) framework to replicate and test the transferability of this work and to contrast the results.