Introduction:
A global movement towards the implementation of circular economy (CE) is gaining
momentum, with researchers, practitioners, and policymakers in China (Corvellec et al.,
2022; Winans et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2019), the USA (Corvellec et al., 2022), the European
Union (Volker et al., 2020), Africa (Forum, 2020), and various local governments and
corporations are actively exploring its potential (Foundation, 2017). There is a strong
consensus that implementing CE holds immense potential as a solution to address intertwined
challenges, particularly those related to economic and environmental growth (Dost &
Umrani, 2024; Hu et al., 2019; Khan et al., 2021) and to optimise resource utilisation
(Velenturf & Purnell, 2021). As (Ray & Ray, 2009) point out that businesses in developed and
emerging markets are increasingly considering implementing CE, even if they operate in a
resource- constrained environment. However, it is unclear what factors facilitate the
successful implementation of CE in these resource- constrained contexts. There might be
several factors, but we limit ourselves to entrepreneurial bricolage, frugal innovation (FI),
and the contingency role of technological turbulence in implementing CE.
Evidence suggests that the firms that operate in deprived and resource- scarce environments
may consider entrepreneurial bricolage and FI as a fit strategy to achieve innovative
performance (Baker & Nelson, 2005; Garud & Karnoe, 2003), and implement CE (Eneh &
Oluigbo, 2012). Frugal products are cost- effective, functional, and sustainable (Dost et al.,
2019; Dost & Umrani, 2024). Meanwhile, CE prioritises the most efficient use of resources,
significantly reducing the generation of waste (Eneh & Oluigbo, 2012). Much of the ongoing
literature covers the conceptualisation of CE implementation through bricolage and FI;
nevertheless, little empirical evidence is available in emerging markets.
Resource utilisation is a critical attribute of entrepreneurship (Ghalwash & Ismail, 2022).
Scholars consider entrepreneurship theories a useful lens for elucidating resourcefulness
behaviour (MacArthur, 2013). Entrepreneurial bricolage as a local source of lowcost
innovation (Busch & Barkema, 2021) is a crucial tool in low- tech and knowledge- intensive
markets (Karagouni et al., 2013). With such importance, scholars suggest further empirical
evidence on entrepreneurial bricolage and its outcomes (Tsilika et al., 2020), particularly
when implementing CE through FI. For instance, leveraging local knowledge, networks, and
readily available resources (bricolage) is essential for entrepreneurs across various stages of
their ventures such as venture creation (Kwong et al., 2019), innovating products and services
(Geissdoerfer et al., 2017; Witell et al., 2017), or scaling up (Busch & Barkema, 2021).
However, a gap exists in the literature regarding how bricolage (i.e., accessing and utilising
existing resources) facilitates the implementation of CE and FI.
Firms often achieve competitive performance through value creation. In particular, creating
value through profitable social and environmental performance is one of the current
competitive advantages, among other things (Zhu et al., 2023). In this vein, the successful
implementation of CE can offer advantages to firms in achieving social, environmental, and
financial performance (Ferasso et al., 2020). Implementing CE can be a fit strategy for firms
operating in resource constrained markets (Hu et al., 2019), through FI. Furthermore, FIs
which possess the attributes of being cost- effective, functional, and sustainable (Dost et al.,
2019; Hossain, 2020) have been critical solutions to combating the COVID- 19 pandemic
(Dabic et al., 2022) by creating more value with fewer resources (Dabic et al., 2022). Further
empirical evidence may be needed to investigate how FI's mediating role amplifies or
attenuates the relationship between entrepreneurial bricolage and the implementation of CE.
The global economy experienced significant turmoil as a result of the pandemic (Li et al.,
2022). Some industries witnessed unexpected growth, while others experienced substantial
financial and market losses. Technological initiatives faced significant disruption during the
pandemic, yet technological advancements continued to drive rapid change within industries
and scientific communities. Firms had a short time window and opportunity to benefit from
high accelerations. In such circumstances, the firms that operate in resource- scarce contexts
may rely more on entrepreneurial bricolage to facilitate FI and CE. However, this relationship
can be different in times of technological turmoil. Therefore, this research examines how
technological turbulence acts as a moderator and amplifies or attenuates the relationship
between entrepreneurial bricolage, FI, and the implementation of CE.
Subsequently, the study is organised as follows: Section 2 contains the theoretical background
and hypotheses. Section 3 deals with the methodology. Section 4 follows the analysis of data
and results. Section 5 discusses the results. Section 6 offers the theoretical and managerial
implications. Section 7 presents the limitations and directions for future research.
OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS AND LINE ITEMS
Frugal Innovation (FRIN)
An organizational approach to innovation that focuses on developing products and services of
satisfactory quality at affordable and competitive prices, achieved through resourcefulness in
research & development, waste minimization in production, and a systematic reduction of
operational expenses. FRIN emphasizes maximizing value for customers while minimizing
costs and resource consumption.
Line Items:
FRIN-1: Our organization focuses on crafting an innovation strategy that prioritizes
producing products of satisfactory quality which are affordably (and competitively) priced.
FRIN-2: The research and development department in our organization continuously
explores technologies and methods to enhance the durability of manufactured products.
FRIN-3: Our organization prioritizes contemporary techniques that facilitate effective
monitoring and control to minimize production waste.
FRIN-4: Our organization focuses upon developing ground breaking approaches that
systematically facilitate the reduction of operational expenses.
Circular Economy Performance
The degree to which an organization demonstrates commitment to circular economy
principles through effective management of remanufacturing processes, utilization of
recyclable materials, reduction of resource consumption, and improvement of waste recycling
rates. CEP reflects an organization's success in closing the loop and minimizing
environmental impact across its operations.
Line Items:
CEP-1 Our organization adeptly manages a substantial volume of bills of materials for
remanufacturing operations, which is increasing every single year.
CEP-2 Our organization efficiently manages a substantial volume of bill-of-materials that
demonstrates the use of recyclable waste and recycled components from end-of-life products,
which is increasing every single year.
CEP-3 Over the past three years, the energy and water consumption per unit of our
organization's core product has been substantially reduced.
CEP-4 Over the past three years, our organization has substantially improved the recycling
rate of industrial wastewater and solid waste.
BRICOLAGE CAPABILITY
Making do by applying combinations of available resources to new problems and
opportunities.
Line Items (Measurement Items)
A measure of entrepreneurial bricolage behaviour - the typical measurement items are as
follows:
EB1: We are confident in our ability to find workable solutions to new challenges by using
only our existing resources.
EB2: We gladly take on a broader range of challenges than others with our resources would
dare to.
EB3: We use any existing resource that seems useful to solve new problems.
EB4: We deal with new challenges by applying a combination of our existing resources and
other resources that are inexpensively available to us.
EB5: When we face new challenges, we put our energy into solving them using our existing
resources.
HOSPITALITY AND MANUFACTURING
The article does not focus on hospitality. It focuses exclusively on the manufacturing sector
in Malaysia.
Explicit mentions from the article;
The authors chose Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SME) in Malaysia for data
collection. Malaysia's West Coast is famous for manufacturing companies (Musa & Chinniah,
2016). For the selection of participating firms, this research adopted the following criteria:
first, a firm must be in the manufacturing industry; second, a firm must have a maximum of
200 employees and a minimum of five employees; third, the sales turnover of a firm range
minimum of RM300,000 and maximum RM50 million.
SME Corporation Malaysia (SME Corp. Malaysia) defines an SME in the manufacturing
sector as having either a sales turnover of less than RM 50 million or a workforce of fewer
than 200 employees (Kaliannan et al., 2016).
Problem Statement
Despite the growing global momentum toward circular economy implementation, there is
limited empirical understanding of how entrepreneurial bricolage and frugal innovation
facilitate CE in resource-constrained emerging markets, and how technological turbulence
moderates these relationships.
TARGET AUDIENCE
Target Audience Description
Scholars / Academics Researchers studying entrepreneurial bricolage, frugal
innovation, circular economy, and sustainability
Practitioners / Managers Business managers and operational leaders seeking innovation
and sustainability solutions
Policymakers Government officials and regulatory bodies promoting circular
economy and sustainable development
Firms in Emerging Businesses operating in resource-constrained environments in
Markets developing economies
SMEs (Manufacturing) Small and medium manufacturing enterprises (5-200 employees)
Methodology
Measures
The present study applied different steps to ensure the reliability and validity of the data.
First, the authors calculated Cronbach's Alpha and composite reliability for each construct.
Next, the questionnaire items were measured with a 5-point Likert scale ranging
from 5=5= strongly agree, 4=4= agree, 3=3= neutral, 2=2= disagree, and 1=1= strongly
disagree.
TABLE 1: Measurement Variables and Sources
Variable Type
Entrepreneurial Bricolage Independent
Circular Economy (CE) Dependent
Frugal Innovation (FI) Dependent & Mediating
Technological Turbulence Moderating
TABLE 3: Data Collection Summary
Parameter Details
Country Malaysia
Sector Manufacturing
Target Respondents Chief Officers / Managers
Sampling Technique Purposive + Simple random
Data Collection Period November 2021 – March 2022 (4 months)
Total Registered Members (FMM 2019) 2,800
Final Sample Frame 1,709
Questionnaires Distributed 2,000
Survey Methods Email (Google Form) + Physical questionnaires
TABLE 4: Firm Selection Criteria
Criterion Requirement
Industry Must be in manufacturing
Minimum Employees 5
Maximum Employees 200
Minimum Sales Turnover RM 300,000
Maximum Sales Turnover RM 50 million
References
1. Corvellec, H., Stowell, A. F., & Johansson, N. (2022). Critiques of the circular
economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 26(2), 421-432.
2. Winans, K., Kendall, A., & Deng, H. (2017). The history and current applications of
the circular economy concept. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 68, 825-
833.
3. Zhu, J., Fan, C., Shi, H., & Shi, L. (2019). Efforts for a circular economy in China: A
comprehensive review of policies. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 23(1), 110-118.
4. Volker, T., Kovacic, Z., & Strand, R. (2020). Indicator development as a site of
collective imagination? The case of European Commission policies on the circular
economy. Culture and Organization, 26(2), 103-120.
5. Forum, W. E. (2020). Transforming African economies to sustainable and circular
models. [Link]
impact-story
6. Foundation, E. M. (2017). Strategic partners.
7. Dost, M., & Umrani, W. A. (2024). Managerial Proactiveness, frugal innovation and
firm performance. The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 33(2), 393-
417. [Link]
8. Hu, M.-C., Ni, F.-C., & Wu, C.-Y. (2019). Starting from poor: How Taiwan's network-
based collaborative bricolage enables the development of a circular
economy. Academy of Management Global Proceedings, 2019, 86.
9. Khan, O., Daddi, T., & Iraldo, F. (2021). Sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring: Key
capabilities and organizational routines for circular economy implementation. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 287, 125565.
10. Velenturf, A. P., & Purnell, P. (2021). Principles for a sustainable circular
economy. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, 1437-1457.
11. Ray, P. K., & Ray, S. (2009). Resource-constrained innovation for emerging
economies: The case of the Indian telecommunications industry. IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management, 57(1), 144-156.
12. Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource
construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly,
50(3), 329-366.
13. Garud, R., & Karne, P. (2003). Bricolage versus breakthrough: Distributed and
embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32(2), 277-300.
14. Eneh, A. E., & Oluigbo, S. N. (2012). Mitigating the impact of climate change
through waste recycling. Research Journal of Environmental and Earth Sciences,
4(8), 776-781.
15. Dost, M., Pahi, M. H., Magsi, H. B., & Umrani, W. A. (2019). Effects of sources of
knowledge on frugal innovation: Moderating role of environmental
turbulence. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23, 1245-1259.
16. Ghalwash, S., & Ismail, A. (2022). Resource orchestration process in the limited-
resource environment: The social bricolage perspective. Journal of Social
Entrepreneurship, 1-28.
17. MacArthur, E. (2013). Towards the circular economy, economic and business
rationale for an accelerated transition (pp. 21-34). Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
18. Busch, C., & Barkema, H. (2021). From necessity to opportunity: Scaling bricolage
across resource-constrained environments. Strategic Management Journal, 42(4),
741-773.
19. Karagouni, G., Aimilia, P., & Caloghirou, Y. (2013). The impact of autotelic and
dynamic capabilities on the performance of knowledge-intensive, low-tech
ventures. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 5(2), 210-
225.
20. Tsilika, T., Kakouris, A., Apostolopoulos, N., & Dermatis, Z. (2020). Entrepreneurial
bricolage in the aftermath of a shock. Insights from Greek SMEs. Journal of Small
Business & Entrepreneurship, 32(6), 635-652.
21. Kwong, C. C., Cheung, C. W., Manzoor, H., & Rashid, M. U. (2019).
Entrepreneurship through bricolage: A study of displaced entrepreneurs at times of
war and conflict. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 31(5-6), 435-455.
22. Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N. M., & Hultink, E. J. (2017). The circular
economy- a new sustainability paradigm? Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 757-
768.
23. Witell, L., Gebauer, H., Jaakkola, E., Hammedi, W., Patricio, L., & Perks, H. (2017).
A bricolage perspective on service innovation. Journal of Business Research, 79, 290-
298.
24. Zhu, X., Yu, S., & Yang, S. (2023). Leveraging resources to achieve high competitive
advantage for digital new ventures: An empirical study in China. Asia Pacific
Business Review, 29(4), 1079-1104.
25. Ferasso, M., Beliaeva, T., Kraus, S., Clauss, T., & Ribeiro-Soriano, D. (2020).
Circular economy business models: The state of research and avenues
ahead. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(8), 3006-3024.
26. Hossain, M. (2020). Frugal innovation: Conception, development, diffusion, and
outcome. Journal of Cleaner Production, 262, 121456.
27. Dabic, M., Obradovic, T., Vlaicic, B., Sahasranamam, S., & Paul, J. (2022). Frugal
innovations: A multidisciplinary review & agenda for future research. Journal of
Business Research, 142, 914-929.
28. Li, X., Voorneveld, M., & de Koster, R. (2022). Business transformation in an age of
turbulence- lessons learned from COVID-19. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 176, 121452.
29. Musa, H., & Chinniah, M. (2016). Malaysian SMEs development: Future and
challenges on going green. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 224, 254-262.
30. Kaliannan, M., Abraham, M., & Ponnusamy, V. (2016). Effective talent management
in Malaysian SMEs: A proposed framework. The Journal of Developing Areas, 50(5),
393-401.
31. Davidsson, P., Baker, T., & Senyard, J. M. (2017). A measure of entrepreneurial
bricolage behavior. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,
23(1), 114-135.
32. Jakhar, S. K., Mangla, S. K., Luthra, S., & Kusi-Sarpong, S. (2019). When
stakeholder pressure drives the circular economy: Measuring the mediating role of
innovation capabilities. Management Decision, 57, 904-920.
33. Bhatti, Y. A., & Ventresca, M. (2013). How can 'frugal innovation' be conceptualized?
34. Dost, M., Pahi, M. H., Magsi, H. B., & Umrani, W. A. (2019). Effects of sources of
knowledge on frugal innovation: Moderating role of environmental
turbulence. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23, 1245-1259.
35. Calantone, R., Garcia, R., & Droge, C. (2003). The effects of environmental
turbulence on new product development strategy planning. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 20(2), 90-103.
36. Musa, H., & Chinniah, M. (2016). Malaysian SMEs development: Future and
challenges on going green. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 224, 254-262.
37. Kaliannan, M., Abraham, M., & Ponnusamy, V. (2016). Effective talent management
in Malaysian SMEs: A proposed framework. The Journal of Developing Areas, 50(5),
393-401.