A MULTIPLE FRAMEWORK

APPROACH TO SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT GOALS (SDGs) AND
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
Carol Pomare

ABSTRACT
This chapter aims at discussing sustainable development goals (SDGs) and
entrepreneurship from an economic and social perceptive. More specifically,
this chapter aims at discussing the challenges facing small & medium enter-
prises (SMEs) applying the goal of ensuring sustainable consumption and
production patterns to their day-to-day operations. In this chapter, a synthe-
sis of a field of research related to sustainable developmental goals SDGs and
SMEs is provided, with a focus on entrepreneurs who believe their SME
needs to act as a “good corporate citizen” with the responsibility to (1) sus-
tain the environment for future generations and (2) care about the well-being
of society at large. This field of research is presented to identify important
opportunities and challenges for entrepreneurs with SDGs within a Multiple
Framework Approach.
Keywords: Sustainable development goals (SDGs); entrepreneurship;
small & medium enterprises (SMEs); multiple framework approach;
multinational approach; national approach
JEL Classifications: G30, L26; O10

Extant literature focuses on how firms are guided by sustainable development

goals (SDGs), with a focus on multinational & national enterprises (MNEs)

Entrepreneurship and the Sustainable Development Goals

Contemporary Issues in Entrepreneurship Research, Volume 8, 11
31
Copyright r 2018 by Emerald Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 2040-7246/doi:10.1108/S2040-724620180000008006
11
12 CAROL POMARE

rather than small & medium enterprises (SMEs) driven by entrepreneurship

(George, Howard-Grenville, Joshi, & Tihanyi, 2016; Holt, 2011). However, it is
estimated that (1) 99.9% of all enterprises in the United Kingdom (UK) and the
United States of America (USA) are SMEs (BERR, 2008; Holt, 2011; SBA,
2007); (2) SMEs in the UK comprise 96% of the total number of enterprises,
33% of employment, and 23% of turnover (BERR, 2008; Holt, 2011); and (3)
when considering the 9.2 million enterprises with up to nine employees in both
economies, the opportunity for SMEs to deliver sustainable goods and services
is remarkable (Holt, 2011).
Within the context of SMEs driven by entrepreneurship and SDGs, this chap-
ter aims at presenting both an economic and social perceptive using a multiple
framework approach (George et al., 2016). First, entrepreneurship is believed to
be at the core of SMEs and to be an economic and a social phenomenon
(Steyaert & Katz, 2004) with manifestations that vary according to a broader
context (Al-Dajani, Carter, Shaw, & Marlow, 2015; Zahra, Wright, &
Abdelgawad, 2014). Second, SDGs are believed to involve different stakeholders
such as business, consumers, policy makers, researchers, scientists, retailers,
media, and development cooperation agencies, among many other stakeholders
(George et al., 2016).
According to Holt (2011), in 1991, Steven Bennett published one of the most
influential books related to entrepreneurship resulting from the emerging envi-
ronmental agenda of the late 1980s and early 1990s. Broadening and contextual-
izing the research agenda to environmental issues enabled researchers to have a
more nuanced view of the potential for SMEs and entrepreneurship to act as a
development tool within the emancipatory scope of SDGs (Al-Dajani et al.,
2015). This is a significant theoretical aspect to address given the importance of
SMEs and the understanding that SMEs face resource restrictions (i.e., including
financial, human, and physical) which limit what they can explore in terms of
sustainable goods and services (Holt, 2011).
Therefore, this chapter aims at providing a theoretical synthesis of the field of
research related to SMEs and SDGs, with the objective of developing a multiple
framework approach for entrepreneurs who believe their SMEs need to act as a
“good corporate citizen” with the responsibility to: (1) sustain the environment
for future generations; and (2) care about the well-being of society at large (i.e.,
SDG 12; George et al., 2016; United Nations, 2017a, 2017b).
The structure of the chapter is as follows: (1) in the Section 1, SDGs are pre-
sented; (2) in Section 2, the multiple framework approach is presented with a
focus on synthetizing research on external, internal, and organizational
resource’s factors that affect SMEs’ focus on SDGs; and (3) in Section 3, a dis-
cussion of the chapter is provided with inferences in respect to SMEs and SDGs,
as well as a call for action with directions for future research.
The next section provides a literature review of the existent knowledge with a
focus on SDG 12 from the United Nations (UN) which is related to the goal to
“ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns.”
Sustainable Development Goals and Entrepreneurship 13

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS (SDGs) AND

SMALL & MEDIUM ENTERPRISES (SMEs)
The first step in understanding sustainability and entrepreneurship consists in
defining SDGs from an economic and social perceptive, as well as, in describing
the role of the UN to set worldwide priorities up to 2030 (George et al., 2016;
United Nations, 2017a, 2017b).

Multi-national and National Perspective: United Nations (UN) for SDGs

According to the UN, and more specifically their SDG section,1 sustainable con-
sumption and production is about promoting resource and energy efficiency, as
well as providing access to basic services for a better quality of life around the
world (United Nations, 2017a, 2017b; SDG 12). The SDGs provided by the UN
are believed to be pivotal for addressing the current global economic and social
challenges facing entrepreneurs internationally and nationally (United Nations,
2017a, 2017b).
Historically, the millennium development goals (MDGs) preceded the SDGs
(Griggs, 2013; Griggs et al., 2014; Kumar, 2016). First, in September 2000, the
UN General Assembly adopted the Millennium Declaration, establishing a
global partnership of countries committed to eight voluntary development goals
to be achieved by 2015 (Kumar, 2016). The MDGs called for action to (1) eradi-
cate extreme poverty and hunger; (2) achieve universal primary education;
(3) promote gender equality and empower women; (4) reduce child mortality;
(5) improve maternal health; (6) combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other dis-
eases; (7) ensure environmental sustainability; and (8) develop a global partner-
ship for development (Kumar, 2016). Despite the absence of a legally binding
framework, the MDGs generated considerable public and policy support inter-
nationally and nationally (Griggs, 2013; Griggs et al., 2014; Vandemoortele,
2011). Although economic development in countries such as China has been a
major factor, success was also explained by the use of measurable targets
(Griggs et al., 2014; United Nations, 2012a). However, research showed that
this functioning was at risk (Rockström et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2011) and
that further human pressures may lead to irreversible backlashes (e.g., diminish-
ing food production, water shortages, extreme weather, ocean acidification, dete-
riorating ecosystems, and sea-level rise) (Barnosky et al., 2012; Lenton, 2011).
As a consequence, Griggs et al. (2014) reports that, in 2012, at the UN’s
Rio þ 20 conference, nations agreed to establish the SDG (United Nations,
2012b). Second, in July 2014, an open group was set up to work on the SDGs
(i.e., with a focus on economic, social, and environmental issues) and proposed
17 goals with 169 targets (Kumar, 2016). The SDGs expanded on the MDGs
and were endorsed by resolution at the UN Sustainable Development Summit in
September 2015 (Kumar, 2016). Reaching beyond the MDGs, it was agreed
that these SDGs should be universal with an anticipated 2030 target date
(Griggs et al., 2014). George et al. (2016) aspired to encourage scholars to
engage in tackling broader societal challenges through their collaborative
14 CAROL POMARE

research and collective insight. Interestingly, George and Bock (2011), when
focusing on innovation that benefits the disenfranchised, outlined opportunities
for the development of theory and empirical research around this construct in
the field of SMEs and entrepreneurship.
As a summary, multi-national and national stakeholders contribute to SDGs
in supporting different countries globally to strengthen their capacity to move
toward more sustainable patterns of consumption and production by 2030
(George et al., 2016; Griggs et al., 2014; United Nations, 2017a, 2017b). Also,
SDGs are promoted by a wide range of stakeholders in the public and private
sector, in order to foster economic growth through innovative ways at the multi-
national and national level (George et al., 2016; Griggs et al., 2014; United
Nations, 2017a, 2017b). This leads to the next section with a focus on a regional
level.

Regional Perspective: Urban and Rural Communities for SDGs

According to Holt (2011), the Brundtland Report, in 1987, marked the emer-
gence of the concept of “sustainable development” into public consciousness
(WCED, 1987), alongside the idea that economic growth and environmental
protection were not mutually exclusive. This period of the early 1990s saw an
increasing focus on business opportunities with a green agenda (Holt, 2011).
Traditional businesses were encouraged to transform their operations to reflect
their concerns for environmental and social issues (Dyllick & Hockerts, 2002;
Elkington, 1997; George et al., 2016; Hillary, 2000; Holt, 2000; Revell &
Blackburn, 2004; Saunders, 1993). One expansion of this trend was that there
were calls for the creation of more green SMEs (Bennett, 1991; Berle, 1991;
Cohen, 2006; Larson, 2000). Another expansion of this trend was that there
were calls for targets on socially and/or environmentally practices to be, not
only determined at a multi-national or national level, but also at a regional level
(Apostolopoulos & Liargovas, 2018; Apostolopoulos, Newbery, & Gkartzios,
2018). Indeed, despite the fact that climate change was discussed at a multi-
national and national level, its impact was regional with specific differentiated
consequences in urban and rural communities. As such, regional governance
was perceived as essential to building support for the wider project due to the
threat of climate change in different urban or regional communities (Liargovas,
Apostolopoulos, Pappas, & Kakouris, 2017).
As described previously, it was estimated that 99.9% of all enterprises in the
UK and the USA were SMEs (BERR, 2008; Holt, 2011; SBA, 2007). Some
authors may argue that environmentally oriented entrepreneurship had a key
role to play in sustainable development, as SMEs were typically smaller, more
flexible, and faster moving. Alternative lifestyle choices offered opportunities for
SMEs to both: (1) generate a healthy profit through a competitive advantage
within a small niche market (i.e., ecopreneurship) and (2) meet goals associated
with socially and/or environmentally responsible practices (Bennett, 1991; de
Bruin & Lewis, 2005; Freimann, Marxen, & Schick, 2005; Holt, 2011; Ivanko,
2008; Linnanen, 2005; Walley & Taylor, 2002). Similarly, Tilley and Young
Sustainable Development Goals and Entrepreneurship 15

(2006) suggested that entrepreneurs were the true regional wealth generators of
the future. Thanks to their flexibility (i.e., little pressures from tax payers and/or
electors, as well as, little pressures for maximization of profit from shareholders),
SMEs could focus on being a “good corporate citizen” in itself for the benefit of
their urban or rural community (Tilley & Young, 2006). Thanks to wealth crea-
tion understood in a broader more radical way (i.e., wealth that goes beyond the
narrow financial scope to incorporate environmental and social impact on the
local community), SMEs could focus on “local sustainability” in itself (Tilley &
Young, 2006).
As a summary, some argue that entrepreneurship may be considered as the
most powerful transformational driver for the future, by offering a flexible and
widespread structures for attaining and delivering the SDGs whilst fueling eco-
nomic growth at a regional level. This leads to the next section with a focus on a
multiple framework approach of SMEs and SDGs.

A MULTIPLE FRAMEWORK APPROACH

The second step in understanding sustainability and entrepreneurship consists in
presenting a multiple framework approach of entrepreneurship and SDGs from
an economic and social perceptive (George et al., 2016).
According to Kuratko, Morris, and Schindehutte (2015), it is important to
understand the dynamics of entrepreneurship through a multiple framework
approach. Indeed, although entrepreneurship is not a new phenomenon, attempts
to study it in a systematic manner are only recent (Kuratko et al., 2015). The
field of entrepreneurship developed as a business discipline by adapting concep-
tual frameworks from other fields such as sociology, psychology, anthropology,
marketing, management, finance, organizational behavior, and even engineering
(Kuratko et al., 2015).
First, a multiple framework approach to sustainability and entrepreneurship
is related to the notion that economic systems are interconnected and interde-
pendent (George et al., 2016). Indeed, the phenomenon known as interconnec-
tivity of economic systems reinforces the idea that there is a need for SMEs with
a sustainability agenda (Bair & Palpacuer, 2015; Banai & Sama, 2000; Kolk &
Van Tulder, 2004; Rasche, de Bakker, & Moon, 2013) that manifest themselves
through corporate codes of conducts and certification standards, as well as, col-
laborative and multi-stakeholders initiatives (Bartley, 2007; Levy & Kaplan,
2008; Nadvi & Wältring, 2004; Rasche, 2010; Rasche et al., 2013).
Second, a multiple framework approach to sustainability and entrepreneur-
ship is related to the notion that economic systems are set up as networks
(George et al., 2016). Indeed, the phenomenon known as networks of economic
systems plays a role in the entrepreneurial process (Birley, 1986; Greve & Salaff,
2003). Research shows the importance of networks for entrepreneurs (Austin,
Stevenson, & Wei-Skillern, 2006), SMEs (Lyon & Fernandez, 2012), and in
wider processes of entrepreneurship and innovation. Participation of entrepre-
neurs in networks is linked to various positive outcomes for SMEs, as networks
16 CAROL POMARE

play a role in the start-up stage or in the upscale stage of SMEs (Dacin,
Dacin, & Tracey, 2011; Lyon & Fernandez, 2012).
Third, a multiple framework approach to sustainability and entrepreneurship
is related to the social contexts of economic systems. Research shows that
entrepreneurial antecedents and outcomes differ within different social contexts
(George et al., 2016; Lumpkin, Moss, Gras, Kato, & Amezcua, 2013). For
example, using an inputs
outputs framework, Lumpkin et al. (2013) demon-
strated the relationships existing between four antecedents (e.g., social mission/
motivation, opportunity identification, access to resources/funding, and multiple
stakeholders) and three outcomes (i.e., social value creation, sustainable solu-
tions, and satisfying multiple stakeholders) to five dimensions of entrepreneurial
orientation (e.g., innovativeness, pro-activeness, risk-taking, competitive aggres-
siveness, and autonomy) (Lumpkin & Dess, 2015).
As a consequence, a multiple framework approach of sustainability and
entrepreneurship is provided in the next sections, with a focus on entrepreneurs
who believe their SMEs needs to act as a “good corporate citizen” with the
responsibility to (1) sustain the environment for future generations and (2) care
about the well-being of society at large. This field of research is explored with
(1) a set of external factors that stimulate SMEs’ sensitivity to environmental
issues; (2) a set of internal factors that link SDGs with performance; and (3)
the role of organizational resources in enhancing the impact of SDGs on
performance.

External Factors that Stimulate SMEs’ Sensitivity to SDGs

SMEs belong to an economic system, which means that SMEs are interconnected
and interdependent within a multiple framework approach as discussed previ-
ously. Approaching entrepreneurship from a multiple framework perspective, this
section aims at discussing external stakeholders (e.g., governments, regulatory
bodies, and other nongovernmental organizations) and the role they play in har-
nessing the sustainable orientation of SMEs.
First, one may explore external factors related to sustainable businesses in
smart cities as well as rural communities. According to United Nations (2017a,
2017b), projections show that urbanization combined with the overall growth of
the world’s population will add another 2.5 billion people to urban population
by 2050, with close to 90% of the increase concentrated in Asia and Africa. As
such, stakeholders are largely urban stakeholders (Abdoullaev, 2011; Colldahl,
2013; Couzineau-Zegwaard, Barabel, & Meier, 2013; Merli & Bonollo, 2014;
Nijman, 2011; Vaquero & Saiz-Alvarez, 2016). Newbery, Siwale, and Henley
(2017) explain that rural areas in the developed world are often regarded as in
need of development or pre-industrial leftovers in a linear process of progress
(Rostow, 1990). However, Apostolopoulos (2017) insists that the potential for
rural areas to catch up with urban areas is increasing as technology continues to
generate opportunities (Blusi, Asplund, & Jong, 2013; Prieger, 2013; Velaga,
Beecroft, & Nelson, 2012) and rural areas attract investments in renewable
energy production. As an example of urban importance, Hassan and Lee (2015)
Sustainable Development Goals and Entrepreneurship 17

refer to the paradox of the sustainable city. More specifically, Hassan and Lee
(2015) believe that sustainability has become a much-needed target, especially
considering the recent rapid urban sprawl and the subsequent exacerbation of
social, environmental, and economic problems (United Nations, 2017a, 2017b).
However, Hassan and Lee (2015) also believe that the problem lies in smart-
cities setting unreasonable definitions of sustainability and making sustainability
seemingly unattainable for SMEs. As an example of rural importance, Iagăru,
Florescu, and Iagăru (2016) discuss how sustainable development of rural areas
in Romania is related to the close interdependence of rural residents and entre-
preneurs. Iagăru et al. (2016) identify external stakeholders that support the inte-
gration of sustainable business activities in rural areas with a focus on family
business in agriculture, aquaculture, fishing, forestry, and even manufacturing.
Iagăru et al. (2016) show how entrepreneurship ensure the diversification of the
rural economy, while maintaining a balance between (1) the need to preserve
and promote rural tradition and (2) the need for the modernization of the rural
life. As another example of rural importance, Mshenga and Richardson (2013)
explore small tourism enterprises in Kenya, with the idea that SMEs participa-
tion in tourism helps diversify income and contributes to poverty reduction.
More specifically, Mshenga and Richardson (2013) highlighted how SMEs par-
ticipation in eco-tourism in rural Kenya was related to a sustainable tourism
development network, a regional economic development network, and an
enhancement of rural livelihoods network.
Second, one may explore external factors related to pressures for internation-
alization. As an example, Acs and Terjesen (2013) focus on how “born local”
sustainable SMEs make the choice of internationalization. The term “born
local” as opposed to “born global” describes how new ventures are created from
knowledge spillovers and other resources in a geographically bounded environ-
ment. Acs and Terjesen (2013) discuss two typical paths for internationalization:
(1) a direct path (i.e., new ventures expand internationally) and (2) an interme-
diated path (i.e., new ventures and multinational firms create relationships in
order to expand internationally). Acs and Terjesen (2013) find that the lesser the
perceived costs of protecting intellectual property, transaction costs, and/or
extraction costs for sustainable business developments, the more likely the new
venture pursues a direct mode of internationalization. As another example,
Pickernell, Jones, Thompson, and Packham (2016) offer insights into determi-
nants of SME exporting. Pickernell et al. (2016) showed that determinants of
SMEs exporting included (1) industry sectors; (2) age of SMEs; (3) characteris-
tics of the owners-managers; and (4) SMEs’ resources (e.g., human capital, tech-
nology, and intellectual property). Interestingly, while an innovation focus was
consistently found to be positively linked to exporting propensity, a growth
focus was not (Pickernell et al., 2016).
Third, one may explore external factors related to the impact of private and
public sector entrepreneurship. As an example, Leyden (2016) starts with the
assumptions that (1) economic growth, most of all for sustainability, requires
innovation and (2) innovation, most of all for sustainability, occurs through
entrepreneurial action. Leyden (2016) then develops a national systems of
18 CAROL POMARE

entrepreneurship (NSE) model. This model explores the role that NSE-guided
public policy plays in improving the entrepreneurial environment for both
private-sector and public-sector entrepreneurs. In the private sector, public poli-
cies focus on enhancing the creative development of entrepreneurship (Leyden,
2016). In the public sector, central direction and explicit planning are limiting,
because of their inability to anticipate future actions and consequences (Leyden,
2016).
Finally, one may explore external factors related to university networks and
education. As an example, Heblich and Slavtchev (2014) analyze the importance
of social ties between academic entrepreneurs and universities (e.g., the founders
of Google), for enabling and facilitating the access to academic knowledge and
resources. Heblich and Slavtchev (2014) believe that being in the vicinity of a
university provides cost-reducing advantages in accessing academic resources for
startups that may become sustainable. Heblich and Slavtchev (2014) employ
data on academic startups from regions with more than one university and find
that the presence of the parent university influences academic entrepreneurs’
decisions to stay in a region (i.e., while other universities in the same region play
no role in that decision). As another example, Swaim, Maloni, Napshin, and
Henley (2014) explore different influences on students’ intentions and behaviors
toward environmental sustainability with the idea that business educators need
to produce the next generation of leaders for environmental entrepreneurship
(Swaim et al., 2014). Environmental sustainability represents a polarizing topic
with some students dismissing its importance and legitimacy (Swaim et al.,
2014). Educators have the ability to teach environmental sustainability in order
to reach diverse students mindsets (Swaim et al., 2014). Thus, to understand stu-
dents’ behavioral influences, sustainability education may be explored, especially
as it translates into environmental sustainability behaviors in the community
through SMEs.
As a summary, according to Kuratko et al. (2015), it is important to under-
stand the external dynamics of entrepreneurship through a multiple framework
approach. The next section will focus on internal factors that may interact with
these external factors.

Internal Factors that Stimulate SMEs’ Sensitivity to SDGs

Approaching entrepreneurship from a multiple framework perspective, this sec-
tion aims at discussing the opportunities and challenges facing SMEs applying
the goal of ensuring sustainable consumption and sustainable production pat-
terns to their day-to-day operations. In this context, it is crucial to take into con-
sideration the heterogeneity that exists among SMEs with regard to their
internal environment, like information sources, barriers/stimuli, and attitude/
behavior in relation to environmental issues.
Integrative views of SMEs capture the hybrid nature of SMEs when dealing
with SDGs. First, research shows that SMEs tend to compartmentalize social
and commercial logics at the core of their functioning. For example, Acs,
Boardman, and McNeely (2013) explore Microsoft Corporation and Grameen
Sustainable Development Goals and Entrepreneurship 19

Bank, as even if their successes have been derived from social motivations, these
highly innovative ventures have created significant economic value as well (Acs,
Audretsch, Lehmann, & Licht, 2016). Second, this research shows that entrepre-
neurs integrate social and commercial logics and are selective about which ele-
ments of each logic to follow with a focus on strategies (Hockerts, 2015),
governance practices, leadership styles (Maak & Stoetter, 2012), and internal pro-
cesses (Acs et al., 2016). Third, an ethical perspective sheds light on (1) the ethical
foundations and nature of SMEs and (2) the ethical considerations which in both
theory and practice foster the tension between commercial/financial outcomes and
social/environmental outcomes.
First, one may explore internal factors of social value related to entrepre-
neurs’ personality. As an example, Wagner and Maximilians (2012) address the
link existing between pursuing sustainable entrepreneurial opportunities and
social/environmental concerns for individuals behaving entrepreneurially. Using
large-scale survey data to analyze how sustainability orientations relate to
entrepreneurial intentions, Wagner and Maximilians (2012) observe that sustain-
ability orientation has a positive impact on the pursuance of sustainability-
oriented entrepreneurial opportunities, but not on entrepreneurial intentions. As
another example, unlike much of the entrepreneurial literature that focuses on
how to “grow” a business (Jackson, 2009), Holt (2011) has been focusing on
how SMEs with environmental aspirations flourish in their local communities.
Second, one may explore internal factors associated to core values that
denote respect for (1) the environment, as well as the recognition that the SME
has to reduce any harmful effects on the environment; (2) standards of ethical
behaviors and long-lasting commitment to protecting the environment; (3) the
needs of external stakeholders (e.g., regulators, communities, buyers) with
regards to the environment; and (4) the notion of being a “good corporate citi-
zen” for future generations and society at large. As an example, Waldron,
Fisher, and Pfarrer (2016) explore how entrepreneurs facilitate the adoption of
new industry practices, including sustainable ones, through their core values.
According to Waldron et al. (2016), entrepreneurs use rhetoric to facilitate the
pervasive adoption of socially focused industry practices aligned with these
values (Waldron et al., 2016). The nature of entrepreneurs’ rhetoric hinges on
relationships with industries they seek to influence (Waldron et al., 2016). More
specifically, entrepreneurs use rhetoric of sustainable identity to persuade indus-
try members to adopt sustainable practices. As another example, according to
Perkins, Lean, and Newbery (2017), aside from constructing a vision, communi-
cating that vision to employees is arguably the most important part of the entire
process. Indeed, research suggests that many SMEs fail to share “a common
vision with all stakeholders” (Bruce & Picard, 2006) and visions are meaningless
unless all stakeholders are connected to them in a profound way. According to
Perkins et al. (2017), given the importance of shared vision in the articulation of
strategic goals and the subsequent benchmarking and measuring of performance
(Chell & Tracey, 2005), leadership roles in SMEs in terms of communicating
and cascading the organizational vision is of crucial importance (McAdam,
Moffett, Hazlett, & Shevlin, 2010).
20 CAROL POMARE

Third, one may explore internal factors related to formal and informal con-
trol mechanisms. According to Perkins et al. (2017), a key contributor to success
is the ideation process and the extent to which SMEs provide effective control
mechanisms. On the one hand, quantitative literature shows that attempting to
impose strict financial controls is the least innovative strategy (Hitt, Hoskisson,
Johnson, & Moesel, 1996; Perkins et al., 2017) and practitioner literature shows
that ideation can be hampered if tasks or projects are tightly framed (Perkins
et al., 2017). On the other hand, some claim that an element of control is a vital
driver of idea production (Leonard & Swap, 2005; Perkins et al., 2017). As an
example, Perkins et al. (2017) argue that the right balance of control is neces-
sary, as too much or too little monitoring leads to poor levels of innovation,
since good ideas are not pushed through the decision-making chain (Perkins
et al., 2017). As such, flexible control management systems typify the early
stages of radical innovation projects by providing the structure for idea genera-
tion (Perkins et al., 2017). SMEs face specific additional pressures as compared
to MNEs, including scarce resources, lack of skills, and need for flexibility
(Hessels & Parker, 2013; Perkins et al., 2017). Entrepreneurs typically use
reporting practices within internal control structures (e.g., Management
accounting control systems or MACS) to improve the efficiency and effective-
ness of their sustainable practices (Nicholls, 2009; Nicholls & Cho, 2006). As
another example, research on SMEs recognizes the importance of manageriali-
zation and professionalization in the smoothing of sustainable succession struc-
tures (Marlow, Taylor, & Thompson, 2010; Rue & Ibrahim, 1996; Songini,
Gnan, & Malmi, 2013). Entrepreneurs typically recognize sub-optimal practices
that perpetuate social and environmental failure. Entrepreneurship acts as a
social movement that (1) transforms societal frames by innovation at the macro-
political level and (2) change organizational practices at the micro-internal level
(Nicholls, 2009). As another example, Arroyo (2016) explores the process of
institutionalization of sustainable university campuses in Quebec (Canada).
More specifically, Arroyo (2016) examines how formal MACS change to sup-
port sustainable practices on campuses. Interestingly, Arroyo (2016) focuses on
change of formal MACS through informal institutional entrepreneurship (i.e.,
institutional entrepreneurs seek to precipitate the deinstitutionalization of tradi-
tional business campus mindsets) and through new structural arrangements (i.e.,
sustainable campuses and eco MACS systems). Arroyo (2016) found that
beyond the traditional forms of MACS (i.e., belief, boundary, diagnostic, and
interactive roles), flexible eco-control systems could be utilized with the aim of
altering the behavior of all stakeholders.
Finally, one may explore internal factors in terms of financial value. For
example, Leonidou, Christodoulides, and Des Thwaites (2016) explore financial
outcomes of an eco-friendly orientation in smaller manufacturing firms.
Leonidou et al. (2016) report the results of their study conducted on 153 small-
sized manufacturing units in Cyprus. Their findings confirmed the critical role of
an eco-friendly orientation in enhancing the firm’s financial results, although
this link was found to be stronger when the firm possessed adequate internal
Sustainable Development Goals and Entrepreneurship 21

resources and capabilities committed to environmental activities (Leonidou

et al., 2016).
As a summary, according to Kuratko et al. (2015), it is important to under-
stand the internal dynamics of entrepreneurship through a multiple framework
approach. The next section will focus on organizational resources and capabili-
ties that may interact with the internal and external factors explored previously.

Organizational Resources and Capabilities that Stimulate SMEs’

Sensitivity to SDGs
Approaching entrepreneurship from a multiple framework perspective, this section
aims at discussing the opportunities and challenges facing SMEs applying the
goal of ensuring sustainable consumption and sustainable production patterns to
their day-to-day operations, by building on a resource-based view (RBV) to
underscore the critical role of organizational resources and capabilities.
First, one may explore organizational resources related to an RBV. For
example, Kellermanns, Walter, Crook, Kemmerer, and Narayanan (2014)
describe RBV as one of the most influential perspective in strategic manage-
ment. Entrepreneurship researchers are increasingly leveraging the RBV despite
some important differences between entrepreneurship and strategic manage-
ment, raising questions as to whether and to what extent the RBV needs to be
adapted for the entrepreneurship field. As a first step toward answering this
question, Kellermanns et al. (2014) focus on organizational resources, since
these are fundamental building blocks for the RBV in SMEs. As a second step
toward answering this question, Kellermanns et al. (2014) present a comparison
of researchers’ conceptualizations with similarities and differences existing
between managerial and entrepreneurial practices. Kellermanns et al. (2014) find
that although the two conceptualizations overlap, there are important differ-
ences in ownership requirements, as well as, in how these resources shape
sustainability-related outcomes. These observations suggest important contex-
tual limitations, when applying the RBVs within the field of entrepreneurship.
Second, one may explore organizational resources related to Human
Resources. As an example, Ganotakis (2012) explores human capital and the sus-
tainable performance in the UK new technology based firms (NTBFs). More spe-
cifically, Ganotakis (2012) investigates the role of entrepreneurs’ human capital
on the sustainable performance of SMEs using an RBV approach. In line with the
RBV, Ganotakis (2012) finds that human capital is more important for the sus-
tainable performance of NTBFs than any other factor (Ganotakis, 2012). More
specifically, entrepreneurs with high levels of formal business education, commer-
cial or managerial experience are found to have better performing NTBFs.
Ganotakis (2012) also finds that the performance of an NTBF improves through
the combination of heterogeneous complementary skills, including, technical edu-
cation and commercial or managerial experience (Ganotakis, 2012).
Third, one may explore organizational resources related to high performance
work practices (HPWPs). HPWPs are human resource management practices
aimed at stimulating employees and organizational performance within the green
22 CAROL POMARE

industry. The application of HPWPs is not widespread in SMEs because of its

costs. However, Kroon, Van De Voorde, and Timmers (2013) explore HPWPs in
small sustainable firms with a resource-poverty and strategic decision-making per-
spective. More specifically, Kroon et al. (2013) examine whether the implementa-
tion of coherent bundles of HPWPs (e.g., employee ability, employee motivation,
and opportunity to perform) depends on an SME: (1) scarcity of resources and
(2) strategic decision-making. Their findings supported the idea that smaller but
coherent bundles of HPWPs could be found in SMEs and that the implementation
of these bundles depended on (1) available resources; (2) strategic decision-mak-
ing; and (3) the combination of the two (Kroon et al., 2013).
Fourth, one may explore organizational resources related to partnership
diversity. As an example, Meyskens and Carsrud (2013) explore green-
technology ventures and assess the role of partnership diversity in the success of
SMEs. Partnership diversity relates to the variety of partnerships an SME has
and the way a green-technology venture engages to mobilize partnership
resources (Meyskens & Carsrud, 2013). Meyskens and Carsrud’s (2013) study
suggests that accumulation through partnership diversity leads to success.
However, their data (i.e., from 50 green-technology venture business plans) also
suggest that resources mobilized do not mediate the relationship between part-
nership diversity and success as measured by venture development, value crea-
tion, and venture innovation.
Fifth, one may explore organizational resources related to crowdfunding.
With the development of social media, crowdfunding has emerged as a new
funding method for entrepreneurial projects where investors, mainly constituted
by ordinary citizens, support an idea and contribute to its realization. First, aca-
demic research on the role of crowdfunding in sustainable entrepreneurship is
mostly focused on conceptual approaches (Manning & Bejarano, 2016) or corre-
lational approaches (i.e., research where it is difficult to detangle cause and
effect relationships) (Nielsen & Reisch, 2016). Second, sustainability-oriented
ventures are constrained in early “seed funding” stages, as their social and envi-
ronmental goals cause them to be perceived as less attractive investments com-
pared to traditional entrepreneurial ventures (Choi & Gray, 2008). However,
crowd investors’ motivations are different from those of traditional investors
(Aitamurto, 2011), as crowdfunding is more driven by altruistic needs
(Bonzanini, Giudici, & Patrucco, 2016). Crowd investors often participate
because of non-material rewards such as the desire to support specific causes in
relation to their core values (Belleflamme, Lambert, & Schwienbacher, 2014;
Gerber & Hui, 2013; Lehner & Nicholls, 2014). Crowdfunding represents a rev-
olutionary application of social networking with direct consequences for sustain-
ability and entrepreneurship (Arcese, Flammini, Azevedo, & Papetti, 2015;
Gerber & Hui, 2013; Goodman & Polycarpou, 2013).
Finally, one may explore resources related to knowledge management and
information systems. The sharing economy is a class of economic arrangements
in which asset owners and users mutualize access to the products or services
associated with these assets (Lamberton & Rose, 2012). One may wonder under
what conditions an emerging form of collaborative consumption, known as the
Sustainable Development Goals and Entrepreneurship 23

sharing economy, affects the creation of sustainable ventures. Fueled by

advances in information technology and excess resources, the sharing economy
offers easy and broad connection with customers and suppliers worldwide. The
emergence of the sharing economy leads to dramatic changes in the nature of
competition between entrants and incumbents on worldwide markets. As an
example, Link and Ruhm (2011) explore innovative actions of entrepreneurs,
and their tendency to create intellectual capital that results in public knowledge
(e.g., publications) or private knowledge (e.g., patents). Using data collected by
the National Research Council within the USA (i.e., survey of firms that
received National Institutes of Health “SME Innovation Research Awards”
between 1992 and 2001), Link and Ruhm (2011) find that entrepreneurs with
academic backgrounds are more likely to publish intellectual capital compared
to entrepreneurs with business backgrounds who are more likely to patent intel-
lectual capital. As another example, the sharing economy has fostered the
growth of well-known startups, including accommodation companies (e.g.,
Airbnb), social media firms (e.g., Facebook), and financial firms (e.g., Lending
Club) (Belk, 2014; Matzler, Veider, & Kathan, 2015). As another example,
Pickernell et al. (2016) demonstrate the potential of business analytics, using a
nascent soft computing-based methodology in a multi-direction investigation of
SMEs in the UK. Some authors may argue that SMEs have their own strategies
for their survival and contribution to the associated economy, including in
respect to innovation. Innovation (i.e., finding a more effective way of doing
something) can therefore play a critical role in enabling SMEs business growth
and performance. As another example, Afolayan, Plant, White, Jones, and
Beynon-Davies (2015) explore what the adoption of information technology
offers in terms of benefits across a wide range of intra- and inter-firm processes
and transactions. Information technology is shown to provide SMEs with a
competitive advantage along with improved integration among supply chain
trading partners (Afolayan et al., 2015).
As a summary, according to Kuratko et al. (2015), it is important to under-
stand the resource dynamics of entrepreneurship through a multiple framework
approach. The next section will introduce a discussion and call for action.

DISCUSSION
As discussed in the previous sections of this chapter, private sector sustainability
initiatives manifest themselves through multi-stakeholder initiatives (Bartley,
2007; George et al., 2016; Levy & Kaplan, 2008; Nadvi & Wältring, 2004;
Rasche, 2010; Rasche et al., 2013). Driven by diverse operations, implementa-
tions, and marketing methodologies, sustainable multi-stakeholder initiatives
have been extensively studied within the context of MNEs. However, multi-
stakeholder initiatives have been less extensively studied in the context of SMEs
(Holt, 2011).
Through entrepreneurship, as opposed to policy making or MNEs, the impact
of the SDGs may be maximized, creating long-term gains for society and the envi-
ronment (United Nations, 2017a, 2017b). Therefore, research on environmental
24 CAROL POMARE

issues and SMEs has taken a number of different directions. The field of research
was presented to identify important opportunities and challenges for SMEs and
SDGs. More specifically, this field of research was presented to identify (1) a set of
external factors that stimulate SMEs’ sensitivity to environmental issues; (2) a set
of internal factors that link SDGs with performance; and (3) the role of organiza-
tional resources and capabilities in enhancing SMEs performance.
In terms of practical implications, this field of research pointed to the need
for SMEs to adopt SDGs as a way to enhance their social and financial perfor-
mance. As discussed in the previous sections, integrative views of SMEs capture
their hybrid nature in terms of social and economic value (Acs et al., 2016). In
terms of financial outcomes, it was observed that a sustainable orientation plays
a critical role in enhancing the SME financial results (Leonidou et al., 2016).
In terms of social implications, governments, regulatory bodies, and other
non-governmental organizations have a role to play in harnessing SDGs and
SMEs performance. Indeed, as discussed in previous sections, to enhance SMEs’
sensitivity to SDGs, one needs to monitor changes in the social stakeholder’s
environment.
In terms of theoretical implications, the review of literature shows that entre-
preneurship is a powerful driver of sustainability (George et al., 2016). First, one
needs to identify a set of key external factors that stimulate an SME sensitivity
to environmental issues. Second, one needs to focus on the dynamics of internal
sustainable orientations within SMEs, an issue that has been tangentially tackled
in the environmental business literature. Third, one needs to associate resources
with performance, a link that, although studied within the context of MNEs,
has been partially neglected for SMEs.
A critical outcome of the literature review on sustainability and entrepreneur-
ship is that future research needs to better reflect the factors that may stimulate
SMEs’ sensitivity to SDGs. As discussed in previous sections of this chapter, the
field of entrepreneurship developed as a business discipline by adapting concep-
tual frameworks from other disciplines (George et al., 2016; Kuratko et al.,
2015). A first stream of research may expand on environmental awareness,
which was found to be relatively high among SMEs owners, but rarely trans-
lated into real commitment for environmental issues (Williamson & Lynch-
Wood, 2001). A second stream of research may expand on the environmental
attitudes of SME owners. On the one hand, the issue of eco-orientation was
extensively studied within the context of MNEs (Menon & Menon, 1997), but it
was only peripherally explored within the context of SMEs, probably because of
the misconception that SMEs are less aware of the negative environmental
effects of their operations (Patton & Worthington, 2003). On the other hand,
there are indications that the adoption of an eco-friendly orientation yield signif-
icant gains for SMEs, like cost savings, improved reputation, and customers’
attraction or retention (Gadenne, Kennedy, & McKeiver, 2008; George et al.,
2016). A third stream of research may expand on factors that stimulated
environmentally friendly behaviors in SMEs. At this level, Revell, Stokes, and
Chen (2009) distinguished between “push” motives (e.g., environmental legisla-
tion, technical standards, and local community rules) and “pull” motives (e.g.,
Sustainable Development Goals and Entrepreneurship 25

cost savings, new customers, and good publicity) to show that both had an
impact on SMEs core values. A fourth stream of research may focus on the fac-
tors obstructing the adoption of environmental initiatives by SMEs, such as
increased costs (Revell et al., 2009), loss of market competitiveness (Revell
et al., 2009), and lack of staff time (Revell et al., 2009). A fifth stream of
research may expand on external and internal drivers influencing a green orien-
tation in SMEs. With regard to these drivers, some researchers stressed the role
of legislation, suppliers, customers, and institutions in (1) adjusting organiza-
tional procedures; (2) developing environmental policies; (3) using environmen-
tal audits; and (4) seeking accreditation from external environmental standards
(Gadenne et al., 2008; Williamson & Lynch-Wood, 2001). A sixth stream of
research may expand on environmental management systems, which in the
majority of cases were not in place in SME (McKeiver & Gadenne, 2005).
When these environmental systems existed, these systems were of an informal
(e.g., changing processes to reduce waste) rather than a formal (e.g., ensuring
compliance with all environmental laws and regulations) nature (McKeiver &
Gadenne, 2005). A seventh stream of research may expand on the formal envi-
ronmental certification program of ISO 14000 and particularly the ISO 14001
variant. Empirical studies revealed that an overwhelming majority of SMEs had
low awareness levels (Revell et al., 2009) and limited adoption levels (Cordano,
Marshall, & Silverman, 2010; Lefebvre, Lefebvre & Talbot, 2003; McKeiver &
Gadenne, 2005; Revell, Stokes, & Chen, 2009) of this environmental manage-
ment systems. The eighth stream of research may expand on the environmental
behavior and performance of SMEs. For instance, Williamson and Lynch-
Wood (2001) found that very few of these firms had an environmental manager
in place, most did not have environmental policies, and they did not produce
environmental reports.
In terms of limitations, this field of research may face a greater level of het-
erogeneity than many others, because of the heterogeneity that exists among
SMEs. Indeed, according to Afolayan et al. (2015), SMEs are not a uniform or
standardized set of businesses. They are in fact a highly heterogeneous collection
of enterprises and vary substantially by size, sector, age, structure, and location.

NOTE
1. http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Dr. Pomare is thankful for the Financial Accounting Research Grant she received from the
Chartered Professional Accountant (CPA) and the Canadian Academic Accounting
Association (CAAA). She is also thankful to be a Marjorie Young Bell Faculty Fellow and
to have received travel grants from the Marjorie Young Bell Faculty Fund.
26 CAROL POMARE

REFERENCES
Abdoullaev, A. (2011). Keynote: “A smart world: A development model for intelligent cities”. In The
11th IEEE international conference on computer and information technology (CIT). Retrieved
from http://scconf.ir/files/site1/files/A_Smart_World_Development_Model_for_Intelligent_
Cities_2011.pdf
Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., Lehmann, E. E., & Licht, G. (2016). National systems of entrepreneur-
ship. SME Economics, 46(4), 527
535.
Acs, Z. J., Boardman, M. C., & McNeely, C. L. (2013). The social value of productive entrepreneur-
ship. SME Economics, 40(3), 785
796.
Acs, Z. J., & Terjesen, S. (2013). Born local: Toward a theory of new venture’s choice of internation-
alization. SME Economics, 41(3), 521
535.
Afolayan, A., Plant, E., White, G. R. T., Jones, P., & Beynon-Davies, P. (2015). Information technol-
ogy usage in SMEs in a developing economy. Strategic Change, 24, 483
498.
Aitamurto, T. (2011). The new role of nonprofit organizations: From middleman to a platform orga-
nization. National Civic Review, 100(1), 40
41.
Al-Dajani, H., Carter, S., Shaw, E., & Marlow, S. (2015). Entrepreneurship among the displaced and
dispossessed: Exploring the limits of emancipatory entrepreneuring. British Journal
Management, 26, 713
730.
Apostolopoulos, N. (2017). Review
Academic influences on rural entrepreneurship: An auto-
biographical review of Hodge, Gladwin, North and Smallbone. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 18(1), 73
74.
Apostolopoulos, N., & Liargovas, P. (2018). Unlock local forces and improve legitimacy: A decision
making scheme in the European Union towards environmental change. European Policy
Analysis. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1036
Apostolopoulos, N., Newbery, R., & Gkartzios, M. (2018). Social enterprise and community resil-
ience: Examining a Greek response to turbulent times. Journal of Rural Studies. Doi: https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.03.017
Arcese, G., Flammini, S., Azevedo, J. M., & Papetti, P. (2015). Open innovation in the food and bev-
erage industry: Green supply chain and green innovation. International Journal of
Environment and Health, 7(4), 371.
Arroyo, P. (2016). Eco-control and the process of institutionalization of sustainable business cam-
puses in Quebec. These en Science Comptables. HEC Montreal, Canada.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: Same,
different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1
22.
Bair, J., & Palpacuer, F. (2015). CSR beyond the corporation: Contested governance in global value
chains. Global Networks, 15(1), S1
S19.
Banai, M., & Sama, L. M. (2000). Ethical dilemmas in MNCs’ international staffing policies a con-
ceptual framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 25(3), 221
235.
Barnosky, A. D., Hadly, E. A., Bascompte, J., Berlow, E. L., Brown, J. H., Fortelius, M., … Smith,
A. B. (2012). Approaching a state shift in Earth’s biosphere. Nature, 486(7401), 52
58.
Bartley, T. (2007). Institutional emergence in an era of globalization: The rise of transnational private
regulation of labor and environmental condition. American Journal of Sociology, 113(2),
297
351.
Belk, R. (2014). You are what you can access: Sharing and collaborative consumption online. Journal
of Business Research, 67(8), 1595
1600.
Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T., & Schwienbacher, A. (2014). Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd.
Journal of Business Venturing, 29(5), 585
609.
Bennett, S. J. (1991). Ecopreneuring - The complete guide to small business opportunities from the envi-
ronmental revolution. New York, NY: Wiley.
Berle, G. (1991). The green entrepreneur: Business opportunities that can save the earth and make you
money. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Liberty Hall Press.
BERR. (2008). Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Statistical Press Release
URN 08/92. Retrieved from http://stats.berr.gov.uk/ed/sme/smestats2007-ukspr.pdf. Accessed
on July 30, 2018.
Sustainable Development Goals and Entrepreneurship 27

Birley, S. (1986). The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing,
1(1), 107
117.
Blusi, M., Asplund, K., & Jong, M. (2013). Older family careers in rural areas: Experiences from
using caregiver support services based on information and communication technology (ICT).
European Journal of Ageing, 10(3), 191
199.
Bonzanini, D., Giudici, G., & Patrucco, A. (2016). The crowdfunding of renewable energy projects.
Handbook of environmental and sustainable finance (pp. 429
444).
Bruce, D., & Picard, D. (2006). Making succession a success: Perspectives from Canadian small and
medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Small Business Management, 44, 306
309.
Chell, E., & Tracey, P. (2005). Relationship building in small firms: The development of a model.
Human Relations, 58, 577
616.
Choi, D. Y., & Gray, E. R. (2008). Socially responsible entrepreneurs: What do they do to create and
build their companies? Business Horizons, 51(4), 341
352.
Cohen, B. (2006). Sustainable valley entrepreneurial ecosystems. Business Strategy and the
Environment, 15(1), 1
14.
Colldahl, C. (2013). Smart cities: Strategic sustainable development for an urban world. Karlskrona,
Sweden: Blekinge Institute of Technology.
Cordano, M., Marshall, R. S., & Silverman, M. (2010). Environmental management survey.
PsycTESTS Dataset.
Couzineau-Zegwaard, E., Barabel, M., & Meier, O. (2013). From smart grid to smart city business
ecosystem: Strategy to define the proper legitimacy for an energy utility firm. In Electric vehi-
cle symposium and exhibition (EVS27), pp. 1
11, IEEE. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.
org/abstract/document/6914871/
Dacin, T. M., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future direc-
tions. Organization Science, 22(5), 1203
1213.
de Bruin, A., & Lewis, K. (2005). Green entrepreneurship in New Zealand: A micro-enterprise focus.
In M. Schaper (Ed.), Making ecopreneurs: Developing sustainable entrepreneurship
(pp. 61
70). Farnham: Ashgate.
Dyllick, T., & Hockerts, K. (2002). Beyond the business case for corporate sustainability. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 11(2), 130
141.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford:
Capstone.
Freimann, J., Marxen, S., & Schick, H. (2005). Sustainability in the startup process. In M. Schaper
(Ed.), Making ecopreneurs: Developing sustainable entrepreneurship (pp. 108
121). Farnham:
Ashgate.
Gadenne, D. L., Kennedy, J., & McKeiver, C. (2008). An empirical study of environmental aware-
ness and practices in SMEs. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 45
63.
Ganotakis, P. (2012). Founders’ human capital and the performance of UK new technology based
firms. SME Economics, 39(2), 495
515.
George, G., & Bock, A. J. (2011). The business model in practice and its implications for entre-
preneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, 83
111.
George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. (2016). Understanding and tackling socie-
tal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6),
1880
1895.
Gerber, E. M., & Hui, J. (2013). Crowdfunding. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction,
20(6), 1
32.
Goodman, A., & Polycarpou, L. (2013). The sustainability-social networking nexus. Sustainability:
The Journal of Record, 6(1), 26
32.
Greve, A., & Salaff, J. W. (2003). Social networks and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 28(1), 1
22.
Griggs, D. (2013). Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature, 495(7441), 305
307.
Griggs, D., Stafford Smith, M., Rockström, J., Öhman, M., Gaffney, O., Glaser, G., …
Shyamsundar, P. (2014). An integrated framework for sustainable development goals.
Ecology and Society, 19(4), 49.
28 CAROL POMARE

Hassan, A. M., & Lee, H. (2015). The paradox of the sustainable city: Definitions and examples.
Environment, Development and Sustainability, 17(6), 1267
1285.
Heblich, S., & Slavtchev, V. (2014). Parent universities and the location of academic startups. SME
Economics, 42(1), 1
15.
Hessels, J., & Parker, S. C. (2013). Constraints, internationalization and growth: A cross-country
analysis of European SMEs. Journal of World Business, 48, 137
148.
Hillary, R. (2000). Small and medium-sized enterprises and the environment. Sheffield: Greenleaf
Publishing Ltd.
Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., Johnson, R. A., & Moesel, D. D. (1996). The market for corporate
control and firm innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1084
1196.
Hockerts, K. (2015). Determinants of social entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 41(1), 105
130.
Holt, D. (2000). Supporting environmental improvements in small and medium-sized enterprises in
the UK. Greener Management International, 30, 29
49.
Holt, D. (2011). Where are they now? Tracking the longitudinal evolution of environmental busi-
nesses from the 1990s. Business Strategy and the Environment, 20(4), 238
250.
Iagăru, R., Florescu, N., & Iagăru, P. (2016). Strategic management of sustainable development in
the countryside. Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 15(6), 1337
1347.
Ivanko, J. D. (2008). ECOpreneuring putting purpose and the planet before profits. Gabriola Island:
New Society Publishers.
Jackson, T. (2009). Prosperity without growth economics for a finite planet. London: Earthscan.
Kellermanns, F., Walter, G., Crook, R. T., Kemmerer, B., & Narayanan, V. (2014). The resource-
based view in entrepreneurship: A content-analytical comparison of researchers’ and entrepre-
neurs’ views. Journal of SME Management, 54(1), 26
48.
Kolk, A., & Van Tulder, R. (2004). Ethics in international business: Multinational approaches to
child labor. Journal of World Business, 39(1), 49
60.
Kroon, B., Voorde, V. D., & Timmers, J. (2013). High performance work practices in small firms:
A resource-poverty and strategic decision-making perspective. SME Economics, 41(1), 71
91.
Kumar, G. R. (2016). The sustainable development goals
The road ahead. JK Science, 18(4),
190
192.
Kuratko, D. F., Morris, M. H., & Schindehutte, M. (2015). Understanding the dynamics of entre-
preneurship through framework approaches. SME Economics, 45(1), 1
13.
Lamberton, C. P., & Rose, R. L. (2012). When is ours better than mine? A framework for under-
standing and altering participation in commercial sharing systems. Journal of Marketing,
76(4), 109
125.
Larson, A. (2000). Sustainable innovation through and entrepreneurship lens. Business Strategy and
the Environment, 9(5), 304
317.
Lefebvre, E., Lefebvre, L. A., & Talbot, S. (2003). Determinants and impacts of environmental per-
formance in SMEs. R and D Management, 33(3), 263
283.
Lehner, O. M., & Nicholls, A. (2014). Social finance and crowdfunding for SMEs: A public
private
case study providing legitimacy and leverage. Venture Capital, 16(3), 271
286.
Lenton, T. M. (2011). Beyond 2°C: Redefining dangerous climate change for physical systems. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews, Climate Change, 2(3), 451
461.
Leonard, D., & Swap, W. (2005). When sparks fly: Harnessing the power of group creativity.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Publishers.
Leonidou, L. C., Christodoulides, P., & Thwaites, D. (2016). External determinants and financial out-
comes of an eco-friendly orientation in smaller manufacturing firms. Journal of SME
Management, 54(1), 5
25.
Levy, D. L., & Kaplan, R. (2008). Corporate social responsibility and theories of global governance:
Strategic contestation in global issue arenas. In A. Crane, A. McWilliams, D. Matten,
J. Moon, & D. S. Siegel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leyden, D. P. (2016). Public-sector entrepreneurship and the creation of a sustainable innovative
economy. SME Economics, 46(4), 553
564.
Sustainable Development Goals and Entrepreneurship 29

Liargovas, P., Apostolopoulos, N., Pappas, I., & Kakouris, A. (2017). SMEs and green growth: The
effectiveness of support mechanisms and initiatives matters. In Green economy in the Western
Balkans (pp. 79
108). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.
Link, A. N., & Ruhm, C. J. (2011). Public knowledge, private knowledge: The intellectual capital of
entrepreneurs. SME Economics, 36(1), 1
14.
Linnanen, L. (2005). An insider’s experiences with environmental entrepreneurship. In M. Schaper
(Ed.), Making ecopreneurs: Developing sustainable entrepreneurship (pp. 72
88). Farnham:
Ashgate.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (2015). Entrepreneurial orientation. In Wiley encyclopedia of manage-
ment (pp. 1
4).
Lumpkin, G. T., Moss, T. W., Gras, D. M., Kato, S., & Amezcua, A. S. (2013). Entrepreneurial pro-
cesses in social contexts: How are they different, if at all? SME Economics, 40(3), 761
783.
Lyon, F., & Fernandez, H. (2012). Strategies for scaling up social enterprise: Lessons from early years
providers. Social Enterprise Journal, 8(1), 63
77.
Maak, T., & Stoetter, N. (2012). Social entrepreneurs as responsible leaders: “Fundación Paraguaya”
and the Case of Martin Burt. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 413
430.
Manning, S., & Bejarano, T. A. (2016). Convincing the crowd: Entrepreneurial storytelling in crowd-
funding campaigns. Strategic Organisation, 15(2), 194
219.
Marlow, S., Taylor, S., & Thompson, A. (2010). Informality and formality in medium sized compa-
nies: Contestation and synchronization. British Journal of Management, 21(4), 954
966.
Matzler, K., Veider, V., & Kathan, W. (2015). Adapting to the sharing economy. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 56(2), 71
77.
McAdam, R., Moffett, S., Hazlett, S. A., & Shevlin, M. (2010). Developing a model of innovation
implementation for UK SMEs: A path analysis and explanatory case analysis. International
Small Business Journal, 28, 195
214.
McKeiver, C., & Gadenne, D. (2005). Environmental management systems in small and medium
businesses. International SME Journal, 23(5), 513
537.
Menon, A., & Menon, A. (1997). Enviro-preneurial marketing strategy: The emergence of corporate
environmentalism as market strategy. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 51.
Merli, M. Z., & Bonollo, E. (2014). Performance measurement in the smart cities. In Smart city (pp.
139
155). Cham: Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-
319
06160-3_7
Meyskens, M., & Carsrud, A. L. (2013). Nascent green-technology ventures: A study assessing the
role of partnership diversity in firm success. SME Economics, 40(3), 739
759.
Mshenga, P. M., & Richardson, R. B. (2013). Micro and small enterprise participation in tourism in
coastal Kenya. SME Economics, 41(3), 667
681.
Nadvi, K., & Wältring, F. (2004). Making sense of global standards. In H. Schmitz (Ed.), Local enter-
prises in the global economy: Issues of governance and upgrading. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Newbery, R., Siwale, J., & Henley, A. (2017). Rural entrepreneurship theory in the developing and
developed world. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 18(1), 3
4.
Nicholls, A. (2009). ‘We do good things, don’t we?’: ‘Blended Value Accounting’ in social entre-
preneurship. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34, 755
769.
Nicholls, A., & Cho, A. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: The structuration of a field. In A. Nicholls
(Ed.), Social entrepreneurship: New paradigms of sustainable social change (pp. 99
118).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nielsen, K. R., Reisch, L. A., & Thøgersen, J. (2016). Sustainable user innovation from a policy per-
spective: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 133, 65
77.
Nijman, H. (2011). Urban communication pavilion: the design of a multifunctional interactive object to
introduce the smart city paradigm in public space. B.S. thesis. University of Twente. Retrieved
from http://essay.utwente.nl/65146/
Patton, D., & Worthington, I. (2003). SMEs and environmental regulations: A study of the UK
screen-printing sector. Environment and Planning, Government and Policy, 21(4), 549
566.
Perkins, G., Lean, J., & Newbery, R. (2017). The role of organizational vision in guiding idea genera-
tion within SME contexts. Creativity and Innovation Management, 26, 75
90.
30 CAROL POMARE

Pickernell, D., Jones, P., Thompson, P., & Packham, G. (2016). Determinants of SME exporting:
Insights and implications. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 17(1),
31
42.
Prieger, J. E. (2013). The broadband digital divide and the economic benefits of mobile broadband
for rural areas. Telecommunications Policy, 37(6), 483
502.
Rasche, A. (2010). The limits of corporate responsibility standards. Business Ethics: A European
Review, 19(3), 280
291.
Rasche, A., de Bakker, F. G. A., & Moon, J. (2013). Complete and partial organizing for corporate
social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 115(4), 651
663.
Revell, A., & Blackburn, R. (2004). SMEs and their response to environmental issues in the UK.
Kingston University: Small Business Research Centre.
Revell, A., Stokes, D., & Chen, H. (2009). SMEs and the environment: Turning over a new leaf?
Business Strategy and the Environment, n/a
n/a.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, III, F. S., Lambin, E. F., … J. A. Foley.
(2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472
475.
Rostow, W. (1990). The stages of economic growth: A non-communist manifesto (3rd ed.). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rue, L. W., & Ibrahim, N. A. (1996). The status of planning in smaller family-owned business.
Family Business Review, 9(1), 29
43.
Saunders, T. (1993). The bottom line of green is black: Strategies for creating profitable and environ-
mentally sound businesses. San Francisco, CA: Harper.
SBA. (2007). The small business economy for data year 2006
A report to the president. Washington,
DC: US Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy United States, Government
Printing Office.
Songini, L., Gnan, L., & Malmi, T. (2013). The role and impact of accounting in family business.
Journal of Family Business Strategy, 4(2), 71
83.
Steffen, W., Persson, Å., Deutsch, L., Zalasiewicz, J., Williams, M., Richardson, K., … Svedin, U. (2011).
The anthropocene: From global change to planetary stewardship. AMBIO, 40(7), 739
761.
Steyaert, C., & Katz, J. (2004). Reclaiming the space of entrepreneurship in society: Geographical,
discursive and social dimensions. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 16, 179
196.
Swaim, J. A., Maloni, M. J., Napshin, S. A., & Henley, A. B. (2014). Influences on student intention
and behavior toward environmental sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(3),
465
484.
Tilley, F., & Young, W. (2006). Sustainability Entrepreneurs. Greener Management International, 55,
79
93.
United Nations. (2017a). Sustainable development goals. United Nations Department of Economic
and Social Affairs (UN DESA). Retrieved from http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/
sustainable-development-goals/
United Nations. (2017b). World’s population increasingly urban with more than half living in urban
areas. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA). Retrieved
from http://www.world-urbanization-prospects-2014.html
United Nations (UN). (2012a). The millennium development goals report 2012. New York, NY:
United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/MDG%20Report%
202012.pdf
United Nations (UN). (2012b). The future we want: outcome document adopted at Rio þ 20. New
York, NY: United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/futurewewant
Vandemoortele, J. (2011). If not the millennium development goals, then what? Third World
Quarterly, 32(1), 9
25.
Vaquero, M. G., & Saiz-Alvarez, J. M. (2016). Smart cities in Spain
Policy, sustainability, and the
national plan: New political measures, agents. In A. Goswami & A. Mishra (Eds.), Economic
modeling, analysis, and policy for sustainability (pp. 266
283). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Velaga, N. R., Beecroft, M., & Nelson, J. D. (2012). Transport poverty meets the digital divide:
Accessibility and connectivity in rural communities. Journal of Transport Geography, 21,
102
112.
Sustainable Development Goals and Entrepreneurship 31

Wagner, M., & Maximilians, J. (2012). Ventures for the public good and entrepreneurial intentions:
An empirical analysis of sustainability orientation as a determining factor. Journal of SME
and Entrepreneurship, 25(4), 519
531.
Waldron, T. L., Fisher, G., & Pfarrer, M. (2016). How social entrepreneurs facilitate the adoption of
new industry practices. Journal of Management Studies, 53(5), 821
845.
Walley, E. E., & Taylor, D. W. (2002). Opportunists, champions, mavericks …? Greener
Management International, 38, 31
43.
WCED. (1987). Our common future: The world commission on environment and development. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Williamson, D., & Lynch-Wood, G. (2001). A new paradigm for SME environmental practice. The
TQM Magazine, 13(6), 424
433.
Zahra, S., Wright, M., & Abdelgawad, S. (2014). Contextualization and the advancement of entre-
preneurship research. International Small Business Journal, 32, 479
501.