As ecological issues gain increasing attention, sustainability and affordability are becoming important drivers of economic innovation and social development. In this context, a new model of frugal innovation has been developed. In general, frugal innovation indicates improving the entire production mode by reducing the economic and environmental costs of production. Initially, the definition of frugal innovation mainly revolves around enterprise production and business management. For example, Prahalad and Mashelkar [1] stated that frugal innovation refers to providing more and better products or services to more consumers with fewer resource costs, while Tiwari and Herstatt [2] demonstrated that the core characteristic of frugal innovation is cost effectiveness, reflecting the idea to create significantly more value by minimizing the use of resources. Such an understanding actually narrowly construes “frugal innovation” as “low-cost innovation” that tends to take ecological sustainability for granted as an inevitable result of frugal innovation and makes ecological sustainability subordinate to economic sustainability [3] From this perspective, Rosca et al. [4] argued that frugal innovation—while it may have a positive impact on economic sustainability—is not necessarily sustainable for the environment, since most frugal actions only focus on slowing unsustainable development, not creating sustainability. More than that, if frugal innovation is designed to profit from low-income customers with affordable products, it can have adverse impacts on sustainability [5].

Accordingly, frugal eco-innovation [6] or ecological [7] as a tool to promote sustainable development has recently aroused widespread concern in the study of sustainability. At the level of innovation concepts, Carrillo-Hermosilla et al [8] proposed that eco-innovation is a form of innovation that improves environmental performance, including different types of resource utilization and corresponding impacts. Therefore, eco-innovation is a complex process of technological and social system transformation that involves four dimensions: design optimization, user participation, product service extension, and governance improvement, in which the design dimension is decisive to determining the environmental impacts of innovation and labelling it eco-innovation. Baud [9] proposed compatible conditions between frugal innovation and sustainable development: (1) firms should commercialize frugal products and services; (2) low-income people should participate in value chain activities; and (3) natural resources should be used in a frugal manner. By analyzing European companies and publicly reported environmental cases, Vilchez and de la Hiz [6] proposed the concept of “frugal eco-innovation” based on the concepts of “eco-innovation”, “eco-efficiency”, and “frugal innovation”, which refers to an ecologically sustainable and economically profitable business management approach. In their view, frugal eco-innovation requires not only redesigning products to make them less expensive and easier to use, but also reforming processes and business models to enable dematerialized patterns of production and resource consumption. Le Bas [10] discussed the differences between the concepts of “frugal innovation” and “sustainable innovation” despite their similarity. Frugal innovation matches the emergence of a new technological paradigm, whereas sustainable innovation denotes the direction taken by innovation efforts towards social needs and environmental concerns. In other words, frugal innovation and sustainable innovation are strategies dedicated to cost cutting and environmental benefits, respectively. Albert [11] further analyzed the relationship between frugal innovation and sustainability, arguing that frugal innovation is not only inherently socially and economically sustainable, but also has great potential to address ecological sustainability. To highlight the dimension of ecological sustainability, he used a concept of “ecologically sustainable frugal innovation” to denote frugal innovation that has a positive correlation with ecological sustainability.

At the level of innovative practices, Rajagopal [12] analyzed the complexity of eco-frugal innovation. Chen and Huo [13] took the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area as an example to study the relationship between green innovation practices and carbon emission reduction. Ismail et al. [14] examined the role of low-carbon technologies in eco-frugal innovation through an analysis of clean energy development cases in Indonesia, arguing that eco-frugal innovation contributes to the diffusion of low-carbon technologies with changes in products and services and engagement with the lower governance, thus providing the conditions for an effective response to the climate change challenge. Abbas [15] investigated eco-frugal innovation and the sustainability performance of lean startups in emerging economies, which stated that organizational cohesion, business ecosystems, government support, and market management all have a significant impact on enterprises’ eco-frugal innovation. Nassani et al. [16] investigated the impact of the internet of things and digital platforms on frugal innovation.

Although it has obtained explorative results, the current research mainly focuses on the innovative practices of enterprises or regional policy innovations. For the former, the primary concern is that how to turn frugal eco-innovation into an eco-efficient way of shifting firms’ existing business model into a new one, to cut costs and reduce negative environmental impacts simultaneously; and for the latter, the focal point is to examine the role of ecology-oriented innovative efforts in improving the region’s sustainable development. In this sense, contemporary China’s ecological poverty alleviation policy in the Chinese discursive context of “building an ecological civilization” has provided an interesting example of eco-innovation occurring at the national level. On the one hand, it is an “ecologically sustainable frugal innovation” which assumes that there is a strong positive correlation between the policy goals and measures of ecological poverty alleviation and ecological sustainability; on the other hand, it is certain kind of “policy(governance) eco-innovation”, though the local governments and people play an important part within it, which is formulated and carried out by the governing political party in a top-down manner. It means that its performance, successful and/or frugal or not, should be evaluated from the perspective of national public policy.

Eco-civilization Progress, which means literally advancing civilizational progress in ecological environment protection and governance or to build a progressive society of ecological civilization, is a conceptualization of contemporary China’s popular green political consensus and national strategy for the governance of ecological environment issues in a broad sense [17,18,19,20]. In other words, it is the Chinese version of green theoretical and policy discourses in today’s world, a typical Chinese-style form of expression in the Chinese context. Among others, a major feature of Eco-civilization Progress discourse is its political orientation of “red–green”, namely, “socialist eco-civilization” [21,22,23].

As a discourse of public policy, eco-civilization progress has been a long process of formation and evolution, benefiting from all institutional innovations and practical experience in the field of ecological environment protection and governance over the past decades, especially after implementing the reform and opening-up policy in 1978 [24]. The term eco-civilization progress or “building an ecological civilization” appeared for the first time in the working report to the 17th National Congress of CPC in 2007 [25] (p. 20). Five years later, the 18th National Congress of CPC established the strategic status of eco-civilization progress as one of the five policy pillars of “building socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era”, stressing that eco-civilization progress should be integrated into all aspects and the whole process of socialist modernization [26] (p. 39). In 2017, eco-civilization progress was interpreted as one of the major constituents of newly established political ideology, namely, Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, in the working report for the 19th National Congress of CPC, targeted at forming a new pattern of socialist modernization in which man and nature can co-exist in harmony [27] (pp. 23–24, 50–52). Taking these documents as a basis, the Fourth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of CPC in 2019 put forward four basic tasks for establishing a sound system of eco-civilization institution in order to achieve the modernization of China’s environmental governance system and capacity (the four tasks include “implementing the strictest eco-environmental protection policy”, “establishing a comprehensive system for efficient utilization of resources”, “establishing a sound system for eco-environmental conservation and restoration” and “strictly implementing an accountability system for eco-environmental protection” [28] (pp. 52–55), while the Fifth Plenary Session in 2020 presented four general requirements for advancing the progress of eco-civilization with a view to realize the objectives of “the 14th Five-year Plan” and the long-term objectives of socialist modernization by 2035 (The four requirements are “advancing green and low-carbon development”, “constantly improving environmental quality”, “enhancing the quality and stability of ecosystem” and “increasing the efficiency of resource utilization” [29] (pp. 27–29).

It is quite clear that eco-civilization progress as a green innovative discourse of contemporary China has already been an integral part of the political ideology and governance strategy of the CPC and the government. In other words, advancing eco-civilization progress is now to a large extent regarded as the routine work of management for government departments and officials at different levels, and is under the control and supervision of various kinds of laws and administrative regulations. However, like other green discourses or theories such as environmental protection, sustainable development or eco-modernization, eco-civilization progress is not just about policy, but has a wealth of consistent theoretical implications in such dimensions as philosophical values, sociopolitical orientation and mode of production and life, constituting a Chinese-style red–green environmental political philosophy, ecological political economy and social-ecological transformation theory [21,30].

On the level of philosophical values, eco-civilization progress implies the (re)building of harmonious coexistence between man (society) and nature, which necessitates different value cognitions, ethical attitudes and visions of civilization from those of today. Among others, a primary feature in a society of eco-civilization is that dealing well with relations between man and nature from an ecological perspective is regarded as the very basis of any progress in civilization and conscious pursuit for the whole society [31]. In this aspect, Marx and Engels’ argument that man and nature are a dialectic unity “working together” is still instructive [32] p. 599. According to them, on the one hand, the ecological environment constitutes a fundamental constraint, even absolute “planetary boundaries” [33], for human and social existence or development, but in reality it often inheres in human civilizations as “human works and reality” with complex forms. On the other hand, human beings distinguish themselves from nature through conscious activities and improve their social life by understanding and transforming nature in material production activities, whereas their living foundation still lies in the adaptation and utilization of natural conditions and their inexorable laws. Thus, the essence of the relationship between human society and nature is indeed an interdependent community of life [34]. Arguably, the discourse of eco-civilization progress makes its own contribution to the thinking of community of life from the following two points. First, the protection and optimization of the ecological environment is primarily justified and should thus be guided by the increase in people’s general well-being [27] (pp. 44–45). Second, the pursuit of material wealth by any individual or society is not allowed to be at the expense of damaging the balance of ecosystems: “We must protect boundaries and baselines of ecosystems to ensure harmony between humans and nature” [35].

On the level of sociopolitical orientation, eco-civilization progress points to the overall framework of socialist civilization to (re)build a harmonious relationship between man and nature, of which a core target is the conscious combination and mutual promotion of social justice and ecological sustainability [21,36]. As Marx and Engels have pointed out, the production of human life involves a dual relationship, that is, “on the one hand as a natural, on the other as a social relation” [37] (p. 43). Accordingly, changes in the relationship between man and nature are always reflected in the adjustment of social interests among subjects of human society, and vice versa. In other words, the human–nature relationship in any civilization is essentially the societal relationship with nature during a certain historical period. Understandably, eco-civilization progress in a complete sense requires not only addressing serious ecological and environmental problems that are accumulating, but also about satisfying people’s living needs and safeguarding their rights to development, which are based on natural conditions. Therefore, the principle of reciprocal sharing and equitable distribution in socialism and its institutional framework should play an important regulating and leading role in the process of eco-civilization progress [38] (p. 234). Meanwhile, as common people are the real subject of socialist society, “Advancing Eco-civilization progress is a cause in which the general public participates and has a stake” [39]. In other words, as important as giving full play to the role of a socialist system as a guarantor of equity and justice, it is necessary to strengthen the people’s awareness of participation and responsibility in building a society of ecological civilization, to usher a new era for socialist civilization through innovative practices based on participation, joint governance and common interests of the general public.

On the level of modes of production and life, eco-civilization progress means a comprehensive transformation of modern society by constructing a new pattern of institutional framework and popular mindset, within which socio-economic development and ecological environment protection and governance are a win–win process of harmonious coexistence, or “an economy of eco-civilization” [40], instead of inevitable opposites. Such a new society will be the real embodiment of what Marx and Engels call “free society”, which manifests itself as “an existence in harmony with the laws of nature that have become known” [41] (p. 106). That is, the progress of human civilization means humane (social) and ecological regulation of the ways of production and living. Accordingly, a basic requirement for eco-civilization progress is to gain scientific knowledge of and keep a dynamic balance between socio-economic development and ecological environment protection and governance. As far as China’s eco-civilization progress is concerned, on the one hand, ever increasing scientific knowledge and ethical consciousness are needed in order to follow the laws of nature and respect nature, gradually establishing a sound modern system of ecological environment protection and governance. On the other hand, great efforts and various measures need to be taken to adapt to the changes in the main social conflicts, producing more material and cultural wealth to meet the growing needs of the people for a better life and providing more high-quality eco-products for a beautiful ecological environment [27] (p. 50). Obviously, eco-civilization progress in the Chinese context does not deny economic and social modernization itself. Instead, it is committed to advancing the ecologicalization of the current model of modernization, which has gradually formed since reform and opening-up in 1978, or a comprehensive green transformation of modernizing society, moving towards a new stage of high-quality development that is characterized by prioritizing ecological conservation, fostering green development and benefiting the general public [21,30,36].

To sum up, eco-civilization progress is becoming the most influential green theoretical and policy discourse in today’s China that goes through multiple aspects and issues of “building socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era”. Of course, it also covers the policy area of ecological poverty alleviation, which is committed to combining the protection and restoration of ecosystems with poverty alleviation.

Poverty relief or anti-poverty has been a long-term policy target of the CPC and government over the past decades [42,43]. After its reform and opening-up in 1978, China successfully organized and implemented a large-scale strategic action of development-oriented poverty alleviation, and the implementation of “the Seven-Year Program for Lifting 80 Million People out of Poverty (1994–2000)” marked the beginning of a crucial stage of China’s poverty alleviation efforts. Notably, this seven-year program described overcoming ecological imbalance as one of the main tasks in the process of poverty alleviation and proposed to “speed up re-vegetation, combat wind and desertification, reduce forest resource consumption and improve ecological environment” [44] (p. 783).

Since the beginning of the 21st century, combining poverty alleviation and sustainable development gradually evolved as the guiding principle for China’s poverty alleviation and development. For example, “the Outline for China’s Rural Poverty Alleviation and Development (2001–2010)” issued by the State Council clearly expounded the policy measures of sustainable development in poverty alleviation and development. This program emphasizes that “all solutions to the poverty problem should be based on the principle that it is conducive to improving and protecting ecological environment and achieving sustainable development” [45] (p. 1880). Ten years later, the Central Committee of CPC and the State Council jointly released “the Outline for China’s Rural Poverty Alleviation and Development (2011–2020)”. This new program explicitly describes the improvement of the ecological environment as one of the main tasks in the new stage of poverty alleviation and development, requiring “to combine poverty alleviation and development with ecological restoration and environmental protection, give full play to the advantages of resources in poverty-stricken areas, develop environmentally friendly industries, enhance disaster prevention and reduction capabilities, promote a healthy and scientific lifestyle, and boost the coordination between economic development and population, resources and environment” [46] (pp. 357–358).

Another milestone in the evolution of China’s poverty alleviation strategy is the 18th National Congress of the CPC in 2012. The ambitious national goal of “building a moderately prosperous society in all aspects” was approved at this congress, which includes several index requirements such as substantially reducing the impoverished population, achieving an overall improvement in the people’s living standards and enhancing the stability of ecosystems [26]. In 2013, Xi Jinping, the Secretary-General of the CPC, proposed his idea of “targeted poverty alleviation” for the first time, which emphasizes the importance of combining poverty alleviation, development and ecological environment protection. In 2015, he further elaborated a package plan of five-key-measures for poverty alleviation and development; “relocation” and “ecological compensation” are included, stressing that “We can explore a new path of ecological poverty alleviation by integrating environmental protection and governance with poverty alleviation” [47] (p. 65). Shortly after that, the Central Committee of the CPC and the State Council jointly issued “the Decision on Winning the Tough Battle against Poverty”, which prioritizes ecological protection in poverty alleviation and development and systematically expounds the policy requirements for realizing poverty alleviation through improving ecological environment protection [48].

In the working report to the 19th National Congress of CPC in 2017, “targeted poverty alleviation” was defined as one of “the three tough battles” to secure a decisive victory in finishing the building of a moderately prosperous society in all aspects [27] (pp.27–28). On this basis, at the beginning of 2018, the National Development and Reform Commission [49] together with five other ministries jointly formulated “the Work Plan for Ecological Poverty Alleviation”. This document highlights the notion of eco-civilization progress that “lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets”, and enumerates manifold policy tasks and initiatives to increase farmers’ income and ecological progress such as implementing ecological conservation projects, ecological public-welfare compensation and ecological industries development, strengthening the coordination between poverty alleviation, ecological environment protection and the mutual promotion between poverty alleviation and sustainable development. Later that year, “the National Strategy for Revitalizing the Rural Areas (2018–2022)” was jointly issued by the Central Committee of the CPC and the State Council, calling for “fully implementing the national strategy of targeted poverty alleviation and building a new pattern of rural development in which man and nature coexist in harmony” [50] (p. 4).

In short, after more than two decades, “ecological poverty alleviation” as a policy tool has gradually developed into an integral part of China’s national strategy of “targeted poverty alleviation” as well as a practical approach full of political imagination for advancing eco-civilization progress in the New Era.