Page 125 - UKZN Proceedings of the Conference Report

Mortazavi et al. (2021) framed their inclusive innovation research along the lens of emerging economies. They emphasise the role of innovation in responding to social concerns and conditions of underserved populations, and ensuring inclusion and equity. Bryden et al. (2017) define inclusive innovation as innovation that improves the lives of the most needy in society.
This brings about the evolution of inclusive innovation. According to Mortazavi et al. (2021) inclusive innovation has evolved around five clusters. These include innovation as a tool for resolving affordability and inclusion, innovation as an approach to developing capabilities and resolving constraints towards social empowerment, and innovation as an inclusive system. Using rural transformation as a lens for inclusive innovation, Habiyaremye et al. (2020) highlight the role of the state in progressing agriculture innovation in Algeria and Vietnam, capacity building in Peru and South Africa, and pro-poor innovations in India and Argentina.
The lack of local innovation capability resulting in the high cost of technology adaptation is a hindrance to inclusive innovation in rural areas (Athreye and Sengupta 2023). Access to technology contributes to inclusive innovation. Inclusive innovation targets the excluded groups, ensuring their participation in the innovation process (Castañeda 2019). The excluded groups have capabilities missing within the system of innnovation and are essential in driving inclusive innovation. At the end, the aspirations of inclusive innovation include usability, accessibility and relevance (Ndege et al. 2024). Sanner and Nielsen (2019) found the importance of software platforms in capability building and knowledge sharing for inclusive innovation. Again, the role of technology is essential in the inclusive innovation discourse.
Innovation for inclusive development
Although at times used interchangably with inclusive innovation, innovation for inclusive development balances developing innovation for the bottom of the pyramind and empowering them to grow their innovation capacity (Botha et al. 2016). It is not sufficient to succesfully deliver frugal, grassroots innovation while there is no equity and participation in the innovation process (Papaioannou 2014). As argued by Silva (2021), it remains unclear how the structural inequality in the politics of innovation is being addressed – especially power dynamics and existing knowledge generation inequalities.
Innovation for inclusive development must target a growth path that includes the marginalised in society (Grobbelaar 2022). While this is being hailed as an approach, Daniels et al. (2017) found that innovation for inclusive development is far from reality in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia India, China
and South Africa) countries. Part of the challenge is that the literature still has significant gaps, making it difficult for policymakers. Ng et al. (2016) found poor implementantin of innovation for inclusive development in south-east Asia. At the same time, inclusive development fundamentally departs from traditional development, requiring the involvement of non-traditional development disciplines to improve the chances of success (Baud 2016).
Using 17 countries in sub-Saharan Africa between 1998 and 2014 as a case study, Oyinlola et al. (2021) found that human capital is too low to drive innovation at meaningful scale for development. In India, Hossain (2018) shows that open innovation could be used as an approach to better support small firms in developing frugal innovation for inclusive development. To close the gap in the infancy of the body of knowledge, Botha et al. (2019) developed a framework to evaluate technology-based projects emerging out of universities on the lens of innovation for inclusive development. Although inclusive development and sustainable development appear to be aligned at first glance, Gupta and Vegelin (2016) found that they depart from each other when using the Sustainable Development Goals as a lens for comparison. There is an alignment on social inclusiveness but not on ecological and relational inclusiveness.
Social innovation
Patiño-Valencia et al. (2022) found that the among similarities between inclusive innovation and social innovation is that they both originate from innovation. They are innovation variants targeting different challenges in society. Inclusive innovation targets reducing exclusion of a certain group of people in the innovation process, while social innovation targets resolving social challeges (Patiño-Valencia et al. 2022). Social innovation targets resolving neglected human needs, which is similar to reducing exclusion (Galego et al. 2022).
In social innovation, social enterprises are essential. Sheik et al. (2022) found that social interprises are constrained in South Africa due to a lack of policy and legal framework for social purpose-driven enterprises. In a study in the United Kingdom, Duarte Alonso et al. (2020) show that social enterprises are capable of operationalising both inclusive and grassroots innovation. In this study, the terms grassroots and inclusive were almost used interchangeably, not grassroots as a subset of inclusive innovation. Similar to inclusive innovation, social innovation is still in its infancy. Pel et al. (2020) propose social innovation policy to help advance the body of knowledge.
Innovation governance
Because innovation happens within a system of innovation, governing the system for inclusive innovation outcomes is
Proceedings of the conference on Public innovation, develoPment and sustainability | 123