While social innovations that solve financial exclusion have gained increasing attention as a means of helping the poor in developing markets, little research has empirically investigated the types of organizations that drive these innovations to achieve scale. Hybrids, a type of organization that exist in between traditional organizational forms, are said to have rapidly gained prevalence, especially in bottom-of-the-pyramid markets. Some scholars claim that hybrids are largely responsible for the spread of established social innovations, yet hybrids do not constitute a homogenous group; instead each hybrid form exists on a spectrum between pure for-profit and not-for-profit organizational forms. It is important that empirical research investigates the role that various hybrid forms play in scaling established social innovations, especially under various bottom-of-the-pyramid market conditions. To this end, using two market-level outcome measures of scale achieved (prevalence and usage), the authors pursue two research objectives: to study (1) the extent to which, alternative hybrid forms (not-for-profit, quasi-profit, and for-profit hybrids) drive social innovation; and (2) the relative propensity of these hybrid forms to drive social innovation under varying bottom-of-the-pyramid market conditions, specifically varying levels of development and social diversity. By theorizing how different organizational forms act given their degree of hybridity, the authors develop and test six hypotheses using data sets on microfinance organizations in India. Accordingly, they find that (1) compared with not-for-profit and for-profit hybrids, quasi-profit hybrids have a propensity to become more prevalent and achieve greater usage in bottom-of-the-pyramid markets overall. Yet, within the spectrum of hybrid forms, (2) not-for-profit hybrids are more likely to become more prevalent and achieve greater usage in markets with lower development levels, whereas (3) for-profit hybrids are more likely to become more prevalent and achieve greater usage in markets with lower social diversity when compared with other hybrid forms.• Relative to the other hybrid organizational forms, for-profit hybrid forms are more prevalent and achieve greater usage in subnational bottom-of-the-pyramid markets with lower social diversity levels.

No abstract

Scientists, economists, and politicians increasingly recognize that Indigenous peoples possess invaluable knowledge and practices that have the potential to drive innovation to solve critical global challenges. Indeed, thousands of important drugs—including lifesaving cancer treatments—have their origins in centuries old Indigenous knowledge and practices. Similarly, Indigenous practices have fueled the fast‐growing regenerative agriculture industry that is able to yield windfall profits while sequestering carbon and enhancing biodiversity. Referred to in policy circles as biocultural innovation—a form of innovation that occurs at the intersection of the biosphere and ethnosphere—hundreds of diverse examples from a wide array of industries have been documented outside of the innovation literature. However, innovation scholars have yet to recognize or embrace biocultural innovation. We argue that this major oversight hinders practice and leaves untapped potential for solving issues such as slow or unsustainable economic growth, ecological decline, and inequality. To address this gap, we provide a clear definition of biocultural innovation, differentiate it from other innovation domains, and establish its conceptual foundations. Informed by economic theorizing that views the ethnosphere and biosphere as assets, we propose that these assets share four traits: functionality, potentiality, vulnerability, and inseparability (“FPVI shared traits”). Due to their immense biocultural diversity, we assert that these assets carry an “option value” representing enormous innovation potential that can be converted, conserved, or constructed to solve global challenges (the “3Cs”). We conclude by identifying promising avenues for future research on biocultural innovation and a call for action on how to unlock economic and social value while supporting biocultural assets and Indigenous rights.