In contrast to sustainability transitions, the typical framing of frugal innovation is as a concept for mass markets at the “bottom of the pyramid” (Gandenberger et al.). That is to say it is conceived as a concept for poorer societies. In a European Commission report from 2016, the varying terminology for frugal approaches are noted; the engineering approach, the Gandhian simplicity approach, the Grassroots and bottom-up innovation approach, and the South Asian ‘Jugaad’ approach. Even here the implication is made of the concept being separate from the typical audiences of sustainability. This is perhaps because the concept is not an offshoot of sustainability, but rather an exploration of creative approaches to provide better resource value for less affluent consumers, where increased social and ecological sustainability are implicit (EC, 2016). Nevertheless, there are many pieces of work that point to its vitality within  debates on sustainability, as a broader strategy to meet sustainable development goals (Rosca et al.) or as localised implementations for health and sustainability (Levänen et al., 2022).

At this point we could take this inquiry down a politicised rabbit hole. This article, however, does not seek to establish sustainability transitions as the Sherrif of Nottingham nor frugal innovations as Robin Hood. Instead, we simply question why these two concepts have been applied narratives at two ends of an economic scale. Why should sustainability be for the wealthy and frugality for the poor? And beyond this, is technological innovation only visible in wealthier societies while frugal innovation is only visible in poorer societies? There is much research that considers the presence of frugal innovations in wealthier societies (López-Sánchez & Santos-Vijande, 2022; Winkler et al., 2020), such as digital mobility sectors flooded with tech startups touting the car-sharing model (Prabhu, 2017). Similarly, innovations such as the Lion Light by Maasai born Richard Turere, solar powered lights that keep Lions away from livestock and protect their prides in the process (Sambira, 2013) are surely technological examples of inventive sustainability.

We can posit many reasons for the continued distinction of narrative between the two movements. It is perhaps a reflection of branding differences between the markets in which they operate, highlighting how approaches to similar issues may be very different between communities (Prabhu, 2017). However, we have already established that both concepts are visibly present in wealthy and poorer communities. Beyond this, it must also be questioned if the maintenance of a separated narrative between movements limits the breadth of sustainability strategies that can be implemented in each. If the separation of narratives is not a reflection of system, then maybe it is a reflection of appeal and impact, indicative of work that highlights how communities respond to different sustainability stories (e.g. Beasy, 2020; Frank, 2017). The application of this argument here, however, would suggest that the big picture framing of sustainability alludes to a “buy-in” attitude that appeals to the economic signalling of wealthier societies, while the bottom of the pyramid framing of frugal innovations evokes pride in simplicity that speaks to poorer communities. To do this would be to imply a prejudiced and binary generalisation of populations as occupying shared and shallow identities.

Whatever the reason for the different narratives applied to sustainability transitions and frugal innovations, one can argue that their separation hampers inclusivity within societal shifts towards sustainability. In many ways, the two narratives represent two sides of the same coin and while the association of each with a particular socio-economic class is problematic, it is no stretch to assert the essentialism of both within the same debate. Perhaps this will occur naturally, as frugal innovation gains a more specific definition within the context of sustainability. However, it is our opinion that collective action for the environment must make a conceited effort to adopt both the frugal and technological mindset, with the aim to maximise accessibility in the movement. Without such a mergence, we run the risk of alienating those who do not align with the selected narrative, and undermine any action towards large scale systems change.