See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/359480183

Sustainable Agribusiness Entrepreneurship During the Covid-19 crisis: The

Role of Social Capital

Article in Management Decision · March 2022

DOI: 10.1108/MD-09-2021-1259

CITATIONS READS

17 714

5 authors, including:

Le Dang Lang Nguyen Trung Dong

Ho Chi Minh City Open University College of Management for Agriculture and Rural Development II
26 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS 4 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

João J. M. Ferreira Abhishek Behl

Universidade da Beira Interior Management Development Institute Gurgaon
496 PUBLICATIONS 13,282 CITATIONS 195 PUBLICATIONS 0 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Le Dang Lang on 13 April 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0025-1747.htm

Sustainable agribusiness Social capital in

sustainable
entrepreneurship during agribusiness

the Covid-19 crisis: the role

of social capital
Le Dang Lang Received 25 September 2021
Revised 21 December 2021
Thu Dau Mot University, Thu Dau Mot, Vietnam 24 February 2022
Nguyen Trung Dong Accepted 25 March 2022

College of Management for Agriculture and Rural Development II,

Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Jo~ao J.M. Ferreira
Department of Management and Economics,
Universidade da Beira Interior and NECE - Research Unit in Business Sciences,
Covilha, Portugal
Abhishek Behl
Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, India, and
Le Trung Dao
University of Finance - Marketing, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Abstract
Purpose – The crucial action program of United Nations is sustainable development. In the context of
lockdown and food supply chain disruptions in many developing countries due to COVID-19, sustainable
agribusiness entrepreneurship (SAE) must be investigated to contribute to the global safe-food supply chain
resilience. Furthermore, this pandemic might have changed cognitive social capital (i.e. perceived shared
norms, civicness and community cohesiveness) and relational social capital (i.e. social trust). Therefore, this
study aims to examine their role in forming agribusiness entrepreneurs’ SAE intentions under the lens of
sustainable development in the pandemic context.
Design/methodology/approach – This study uses a mixed-methods approach with resources for structural
equation modeling. A sample of 499 Vietnamese agribusiness entrepreneurs to reconcile scales and test
hypothesized relationships.
Findings – The study reconciles the existing constructs’ scales and develops a new scale measuring SAE
intention. The findings show that the extended theory of planned behavior (ETPB) model is an ideal theoretical
framework for predicting behavioral intentions in sustainability. The study also discovers the role of cognitive
social capital and relational social capital in motivating SAE intentions. Also, some managerial implications are
suggested for agribusinessmen to survive and succeed during the COVID-19 crisis.
Originality/value – To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is considered the first to investigate
the role of cognitive social capital and relational social capital in motivating SAE in an emerging market
using the ETPB. The findings will help emerging economies, where most farmers are family-business owners
or micro-scaled entrepreneurs who have been facing the increasing trend of sustainable production and
consumer.
Keywords Cognitive social capital, Relational social capital, Sustainable agribusiness, Sustainable
entrepreneurship, Theory of planned behavior
Paper type Research paper

The authors wish to convey their sincere appreciation to the editor and anonymous reviewers for the
generous effort and time that they have kindly invested to provide highly constructive reviews that Management Decision
greatly helped to substantially improve the quality of the manuscript. © Emerald Publishing Limited
0025-1747
Conflict of interest: No conflict of interest declared. DOI 10.1108/MD-09-2021-1259
MD 1. Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has negatively influenced the global economy (Singh et al., 2020;
Sodhi et al., 2021), leading to supply chain disruptions seriously (Ivanov, 2021; Ketchen and
Craighead, 2021). This scenario has significantly caused difficulties for a wide range of
industrial sectors (Queiroz et al., 2021). Besides, many current global issues (e.g. loss of
biodiversity, climate change and poverty) are interconnected and make sustainable
development necessary (Enders and Remig, 2016), especially for agribusiness (Kumar
et al., 2021; Lang et al., 2021b). Sustainability and climate change are also strongly tied
together (Gonzalez et al., 2018). While conventional agricultural production models have
increasingly negatively impacted ecosystems (D’Adamo et al., 2020), they also cause global
warming, negatively affecting human health (Sazvar et al., 2018). Therefore, organic farming
is an appropriate operation orientation to solve this issue (Squalli and Adamkiewicz, 2018),
helping to improve food quality and health (Nicolopoulou-Stamati et al., 2016). This approach
also aims at the sustainable agriculture and food processing of the European Union (EU,
2007) and sustainable development goals of the United Nations.
Agriculture and agribusiness are significant economic and business activities in Vietnam,
the context of our study. Although the agricultural sector only accounts for 14.05% of the
total GDP, 65.57% of the overall population is heavily dependent on agriculture (GSOV, 2020).
Furthermore, the rapidly changing business environment and the ongoing negative impacts
of COVID-19 have disrupted the global supply chain, leading to lost customers for many
agricultural businesses (Lang et al., 2021b). This context creates an instant need to develop
sustainable-oriented agribusinesses (Kumar et al., 2021). Besides, bio-, circular- and green-
economy are the three most mainstream sustainable development approaches (Murray et al.,
2017) and interlocked to implicate global sustainable development (D’Amato et al., 2017).
However, motivations for sustainable agribusiness development based on intangible capital
resources, to date, have not yet been extensively discussed in the literature, particularly in the
private sector, while they have a significant role in the development of a country (Azam,
2015). Moreover, it is necessary to have reliable quantitative approaches to help policymakers
select and implement sustainable strategies (Gonzalez et al., 2018). This context, therefore, is
the primary motivation for this study investigating the role of social capital in achieving
sustainable agribusiness entrepreneurship (SAE) through organic farming practices (Squalli
and Adamkiewicz, 2018).
Previous studies have also shown that organizations and individuals must exploit
strategic capital resources to remain competitive (Dubey et al., 2020). In the “new normal”
situation, it is necessary to utilize intangible resources to succeed (Teece, 2007), such as
components of intellectual capital, e.g. social capital (Bhatti et al., 2020). Specifically, social
capital can help entrepreneurs improve their entrepreneurship and human capital (Byun et al.,
2018; Kallmuenzer et al., 2021) and enhance networks facilitating resources exchange and
innovation (Glover, 2013). Social capital also increases micro-enterprise innovativeness,
entrepreneurial competencies and competitive advantage (Mamun et al., 2018) and
contributes to sustainability (Neto et al., 2018). In addition, it also impacts transaction
value, reputation-building and the decision to enter into entrepreneurship (Gubler and
Cooper, 2019), which also helps foster business growth and competitive advantages (Sallah
and Caesar, 2020). Thus, social capital has been paid attention by both policymakers and
scholars across various disciplines, particularly agriculture (e.g. Xu et al., 2018).
Besides, social capital has three dimensions: cognitive, relational and structural (Lang
et al., 2021a), wherein the structural dimension is the antecedent of two other dimensions (Lan
and Luc, 2020; Lang et al., 2021b). However, the COVID-19 crisis has caused many places to
drop into lockdown. This situation might have changed agricultural entrepreneurs’ perceived
shared norms, i.e. cognitive social capital (CSC) and social trust, i.e. relational social capital
(RSC), in the context of the increasing safe-food needs. Nevertheless, so far, no studies have
thoroughly tested the role of these two social capital types in driving SAE based on the Social capital in
resource-based view (RBV) lens. Therefore, this study examines their effect on the SAE sustainable
intention, with respondents as organic or organic-oriented agricultural entrepreneurs.
Otherwise, the theory of planned behavior (TPB) is considered the ideal theoretical
agribusiness
framework for investigating entrepreneurial intentions (Li~ nan and Chen, 2009; Zhang and
Cain, 2017) because its determinants are employed to predict the behavioral intentions of an
individual accurately (Fietze and Boyd, 2017), such as agribusiness entrepreneurship (Lapple
and Kelley, 2013) and sustainable development (Elhoushy and Lanzini, 2021). At the same
time, intentions toward SAE require careful planning (Krueger et al., 2000). Therefore, we
employed TPB (Ajzen, 1991) for the current research to discover whether attitudes, subjective
norms (i.e. social pressures) and perceived behavioral control (PBC), as determinants of the
TPB model, form SAE intentions. Furthermore, some scholars have also added variables to
improve the TPB’s predictive power (e.g. Smith et al., 2007). We argue that the agricultural
entrepreneurs’ motivation in forming SAE intentions comes from their goals, leading their
behaviors (Barba-Sanchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo, 2018). Thus, this study used the
behavioral goal as an added latent variable to the TPB, called the extended TPB (i.e.
ETPB). Our study contributes to understanding agricultural entrepreneurs’ SAE intention by
highlighting the role of CSC and RSC and psychological factors as intrinsic elements that
should be noted in the study of behavioral intention (Rodrigues and Ferreira, 2019).
In brief, in the context of COVID-19 and global issues, our study aims to examine the role
of CSC and RSC in forming agricultural entrepreneurs’ SAE intention through the lens of
RBV and the perspectives of sustainable development and supply chain. However, this
approach involves many social-scientific and humanistic disciplines (Enders and Remig,
2016). Furthermore, “sustainability” is not a genuinely scientific term but rather a social and
political concept, but the most important thing is that the relation between theory and
practice is inherent in the very notion of sustainability (Grunwald, 2016). Thus, our study
focuses on exploiting aspects of the findings’ applications from the perspective of sustainable
supply chain management (SSCM). Besides, this study also responds to recent calls regarding
the further study of supply chain responsiveness in disruptions (e.g. Singh et al., 2020; Sodhi
et al., 2021), sustainable agribusiness development (e.g. Kumar et al., 2021; Lang et al., 2021b)
and reaction and operation approach in the COVID-19 context (Gholami-Zanjani et al., 2021).
The study aims to provide a deeper understanding of the current knowledge in the literature
and the practice of social capital, TPB, the viability of a supply chain network, and SSCM. The
two main questions will be addressed in the current research, which are:
RQ1. What is the impact of the ETPB (i.e. goal, attitude, subjective norms and perceived
behavioral control) on SAE intention?
RQ2. What is the impact of cognitive social capital and relational social capital on SAE
intention through the mediating role of the ETPB?
The current study applies established theoretical frameworks and a mixed-methods
approach to reconcile the existing constructs’ measurements and discover the role of CSC and
RSC in driving SAE intention through the mediating role of determinants of the TPB. Our
results highlight some important contributions. First, we contribute to the understanding of
including psychological elements to directly predict the SAE intention of agricultural
entrepreneurs, including attitude, subjective norms, PBC and its extended aspect – i.e.
behavioral goals.
Second, our approach to sustainability differs from previous studies on social
entrepreneurial intention, which focus on more social characteristics while still considering
business-type with economic activities. As such, we add important knowledge to the
literature regarding the intersection of behavioral goals in explaining the role of social capital
MD in forming agricultural entrepreneurs’ SAE intentions under the lens of sustainable
development.
Third, the study also contributes significantly to the existing literature on TPB by
suggesting an ETPB model to enhance the predictive power of individuals’ behavioral
intention, as this behavioral dimension has been shown to have significant effects on
subjective norms. Our theory-based arguments provide empirical evidence or improve the
generalizability of previous studies and contribute expressively to the existing literature on
social capital theory. This paper’s rest is structured as follows. First, the following section
presents the theoretical background and hypotheses development, followed by the
methodology, results and discussions, including theoretical contributions and managerial
implications. Finally, key contributions, limitations and future research directions are
concluded.

2. Theoretical frameworks and hypotheses development

2.1 Sustainability and sustainable agribusiness entrepreneurship
The term “sustainability” is an elusive concept, which implies a process, not a final objective,
to be achieved (Grunwald, 2016), while “sustainable development” refers to “development
that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987, p. 43). Specifically, a sustainable-oriented development
aims to avoid waste generation and create environmentally friendly products (Gonzalez et al.,
2018). There are two different scientific approaches to sustainability. First, the theory is
developed based on the achieved “political beginning,” though provisionally, the
operationalization discourse aims to draw practical consequences. Second, the nature of
the provisional beginning as a reached status is continually called to explore weaknesses and
develop it further theoretically, convincing the practical sphere. Thus, it engenders the
development and definition of the “beginning” of the selection discourse. Both approaches are
not mutually independent. The knowledge gained from each approach can affect the further
formulation and direction of the justification discourse. Therefore, the theory–practice
relationship and its theoretical reflection are crucial. In brief, the primary task of theoretical
work on sustainability is “the reflection of the associated theory-practice relationship, to
achieve a maximum of learning” (Grunwald, 2016, p. 27). We contend that this perspective on
sustainability is suitable for the current study, and thus, it is used as a sustainable
development framework for this study.
The sustainability literature shows the three most mainstream sustainable development
approaches at the global level, i.e. green economy, circular economy and bio-economy
(Murray et al., 2017; D’Amato et al., 2017). Wherein, the bio-economy implies that industrial
inputs from renewable biological resources combine research and innovation to facilitate
transformational processes that help improve competitiveness (D’Adamo et al., 2019).
Significantly, one of the main topics of bio-economy relates to biosecurity which reduces risks
in environmental issues in agriculture (D’Amato et al., 2017). Therefore, our research focuses
on the bio-economy approach through organic agriculture practices that aim to drive SAE to
improve food quality and health humanity (Nicolopoulou-Stamati et al., 2016) and help solve
current global issues (Squalli and Adamkiewicz, 2018).
On the other hand, SAE refers to an entity consisting of “sustainable”, “agribusiness” and
“entrepreneurship”. It is an economic activity with innovative approaches to address issues
related to the environment, human health and fair trade in agribusiness toward the
sustainable development of society. Although SAE is an elusive concept, the essential thing is
that the SAE is conceptualized and operationalized to forward behaviors aiming to improve
environmental and social performances and consumer well-being (Belz and Peattie, 2009).
Besides, behavioral intentions are the mind’s states that push individuals toward particular
desired objectives (Bird, 1988). So they are necessary conditions, as antecedents, for Social capital in
behaviors and are considered key factors in predicting specific behaviors, including sustainable
sustainable agribusiness behaviors (Ajzen, 1991; Krueger et al., 2000; Li~ nan and Chen, 2009).
Therefore, we contend that the agricultural entrepreneurs’ SAE intention refers to behavioral
agribusiness
intentions toward sustainable-oriented agribusiness. In addition, scholars have also shown
that psychological elements can influence behavioral intentions (e.g. Fietze and Boyd, 2017;
Dias et al., 2019; Tan et al., 2021). Thus, this study emphasizes using psychological elements
(i.e. the ETPB model’s determinants) to predict agricultural entrepreneurs’ SAE intention
directly. Then an analysis of the effect of perceived intangible capital resources (i.e. SSC and
CSC) as essential strategic resources under the lens of RBV on these psychological factors is
conducted to identify their role in driving SAE intentions. The approach of this study is
different from some prior studies exploring or investigating entrepreneurship behaviors, e.g.
entrepreneurial intensity (Heilbrunn, 2008). Thus, the current study does not aim to address
questions of “how often” and “how much” in entrepreneurial behaviors; instead, it emphasizes
“approach” based on investigating psychological factors considered antecedents of specific
behaviors (Ajzen, 1991; Krueger et al., 2000; Li~ nan and Chen, 2009). In addition, this research
approach to sustainability also differs from previous studies of sustainable development, e.g.
social entrepreneurial intention (Lan and Luc, 2020), which focuses on more “social”
characteristics, although still considered entrepreneurship type with economic activities.

2.2 Extended theory of planned behavior and SAE intention

Scholars have indicated that TPB is the most widely accepted and ideal behavioral intentions-
predicted model (Li~ nan and Chen, 2009; Zhang and Cain, 2017), specifically for agribusiness
(Lapple and Kelley, 2013; Lang et al., 2021a) and sustainable development (Elhoushy and
Lanzini, 2021). The TPB model with its determinants (i.e. subjective norms, attitude and PBC)
contends that behavioral intention is a key factor in predicting a specific behavior (Ajzen,
1991). Specifically, some scholars have recently found that these TPB determinants have
positive effects on sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial behavioral intentions (Vuorio et al.,
2018), social entrepreneurship intentions (Tan et al., 2021) and agribusiness diversification
intentions (Lang et al., 2021a). Thus, we argue that if agricultural entrepreneurs’ attitude
toward sustainable development through organic farming practices is positive, they can also
have SAE intention. Subjective norms toward sustainable development as social pressures
derived from current global issues (Enders and Remig, 2016; Sazvar et al., 2018; D’Adamo
et al., 2020) and the need for developing sustainable agriculture (EU, 2007; Kumar et al., 2021;
Lang et al., 2021b), with adverse effects of COVID-19 on the global supply chains (Ivanov,
2021; Ketchen and Craighead, 2021) that agricultural entrepreneurs perceive when
performing organic agriculture can also impact their SAE intention. They tend to perform
behaviors under surrounding people’s positive pressure. In addition, PBC toward SAE, seen
as agricultural entrepreneurs’ perception of the ability to perform SAE, can positively
influence their SAE intention due to technological advances and particularly their social
capital aspects investigated in this study. Based on these argumentations and gaps in the
current literature, we propose the following hypotheses:
H1a. Attitude toward SAE positively affects SAE intention.
H1b. Subjective norms toward SAE positively affect SAE intention.
H1c. Perceived behavioral control toward SAE positively affects SAE intention.
Otherwise, some scholars have tried to add variables to the TPB model to improve its
predictive power, e.g. Smith et al. (2007). Thus, this study also employs this approach with an
extended TPB model. Specifically, we contend that the agricultural entrepreneurs’ key
MD motivation in performing SAE comes from their goals, which is an internal drive guiding and
leading their behaviors (Barba-Sanchez and Atienza-Sahuquillo, 2018). Furthermore,
behavioral goals vary across available resources or capabilities and with different
contexts. Thus, we added the variable of the behavioral goal toward SAE to the TPB
model (i.e. ETPB). Also, we contend that agricultural entrepreneurs are often micro- or small-
scaled entrepreneurs in developing countries, and they may mostly have low incomes.
Therefore, the purpose of their SAE intentions can aim to economic goals and income
stability. Besides, Lang et al. (2021b) also found that behavioral goals positively affect their
attitude toward agribusiness diversification. We argue that this relationship also exists in the
SAE context.
Furthermore, we also contend that goals can also be antecedents of subjective norms in
our study context. Specifically, agricultural entrepreneurs’ subjective norms toward
sustainable agriculture may be more positive if they have solid and clear goals of SAE.
Especially when they cognize social pressures, as well as the market, need in the context of
the negative impacts of conventional agricultural production models (Sazvar et al., 2018;
D’Adamo et al., 2020) and the need for organic farming to solve issues of climate change
(Squalli and Adamkiewicz, 2018) as well as improve food quality and health humanity
(Nicolopoulou-Stamati et al., 2016). Based on these argumentations and also to fill the gap of
the literature, we propose the following hypothesis:
H2. The goal toward SAE positively affects (a) attitude toward SAE and (b) subjective
norms toward SAE.

2.3 Social capital theory and the extended theory of planned behavior
Social capital is one of the essential resources under the lens of RBV (Shibin et al., 2020) that
individuals can use to obtain desired objectives (Barrutia and Echebarria, 2021). Networks,
values and trust are its three key determinants (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998) which
operationalize as connections from social networks, linkages and relationships (Upadhyay
and Kumar, 2020). Thus, social capital helps enrich knowledge and strengthen capacities
impacting agricultural entrepreneurs’ attitudes, intentions and behaviors. Besides, social
capital is measured through its three dimensions, seen as three social capital types (Lang
et al., 2021b). Structural social capital refers to networks’ interaction and structural features
(Sanchez-Famoso et al., 2020) and defined as “the patterns and strength of ties between the
members of a group” (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998, p. 244). CSC refers to perceived shared
norms (Liao and Welsch, 2005) as resources providing “shared representations,
interpretations, and systems of meaning among parties, which reflects the members’
collective of the organization’s culture, shared vision and purpose, common language and
codes” (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998, p. 244). RSC is defined as “those assets created and
leveraged through relationships, including trust and trustworthiness, norms and sanctions,
obligations and expectations, and identity and identification” (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998,
p. 244). These definitions show that the “norms” can be either the attribute of CSC or RSC,
which causes a high interrelation among CSC and RSC (Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998). However, in
entrepreneurship, perceived shared norms should be considered as an attribute of CSC (Liao
and Welsch, 2005; Lan and Luc, 2020), strengthening stronger relationships to facilitate
exchange and information acquisition.
Furthermore, structural social capital is the antecedent of CSC and RSC (Lan and Luc,
2020; Lang et al., 2021b). It means that perceived shared norms, community cohesiveness and
civicness (i.e. CSC) and trust, obligations and expectations, norms and sanctions (i.e. RSC) are
outcomes of networks, structures and interactions. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has
caused the lockdown situation in many places. Thus, these attributes might be changed,
leading to a change in their role. Therefore, this research aims to investigate the influence of
these two social capital types (i.e. CSC and RSC) on agricultural entrepreneurs’ SAE Social capital in
intentions in the context of the negative impacts of COVID-19 (Singh et al., 2020; Sodhi et al., sustainable
2021), global issues (Enders and Remig, 2016; Sazvar et al., 2018) and the needs for sustainable
agribusiness development (Squalli and Adamkiewicz, 2018; Kumar et al., 2021; Lang
agribusiness
et al., 2021b).
On the other hand, Lang et al. (2021b) found that CSC positively affects motives and
subjective norms toward agribusiness diversification. We contend that these relationships
can also exist in the SAE context. Specifically, attributes of CSC such as perceived shared
norms (Liao and Welsch, 2005), shared vision and purpose and common language and codes
(Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998) not only can have significant associations with agricultural
entrepreneurs’ subjective norms but also can positively affect their goals toward SAE.
Besides, perceived social trust (i.e. RSC) may also positively affects attitude and PBC toward
social entrepreneurship (Lan and Luc, 2020). Lang et al. (2021b) also found the significant
impact of RSC on agricultural entrepreneurs’ PBC in the agribusiness diversification context.
We argue that RSC, with its attributes such as trust and trustworthiness, norms and
sanctions and obligations and expectations (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998), can facilitate
knowledge and information exchange processes that enrich knowledge and capabilities of
agricultural entrepreneurs to perform SAE. Thus, RSC can positively affect their PBC toward
SAE. Furthermore, RSC can also make them more confident toward SAE due to improving
their knowledge, skills and abilities, and thus, it can also strengthen their attitude toward
SAE. Based on these argumentations and the gaps in the literature, we propose the following
hypotheses:
H3. Cognitive social capital positively affects (a) goal and (b) subjective norms
toward SAE.
H4. Relational social capital positively affects (a) attitude and (b) perceived behavioral
control toward SAE.
In addition, the dimensions of social capital are closely interrelated (Tsai and Ghoshal, 1998;
Inkpen and Tsang, 2005; Lang et al., 2021b). The differences are only relative and not fixed
(Xu et al., 2018). Even CSC has seldomly been paid attention to in many prior studies (Lee and
Jones, 2015). We contend that there is a relative separation between CSC and RSC.
Furthermore, these two social capital types have a positive association together. In particular,
we argue that agricultural entrepreneurs’ perceived shared norms, civicness and community
characteristics (i.e. CSC) increase, leading to strengthening their trust, trustworthiness,
obligations and expectations (i.e. RSC) in the SAE context. Based on these argumentations,
we propose the following hypothesis:
H5. There is a positive association between cognitive social capital and relational social
capital of agricultural entrepreneurs in the SAE context.
In brief, the conceptual model is developed based on all hypotheses presented in Figure 1.

3. Methodology
3.1 Mixed-methods approach
The literature shows the existence of most measurements of the constructs, except for the
measure of SAE intentions. Nevertheless, the measurements will benefit from a mixed-
methods research design due to different contexts (Lang et al., 2021a), in which the qualitative
method provides a richer understanding (Creswell, 2002), while the quantitative approach
brings rigorous tests of measurements and hypotheses (Srnka and Koeszegi, 2007). So, a deep
understanding will come from a mixed-methods approach (Arora and Stoner, 2009;
 Social Capital Theory
MD Extended Theory of Planned Behavior
H3b
Cognitive Subjective norms
social capital toward SAE

H3a H1a
H2a
Goal toward
SAE

Sustainable agribusiness
H5 H2b entrepreneurship
H1b intention
Attitude toward
SAE
H1c
H4a
Figure 1. Relational Perceived behavioral
Conceptual model social capital control toward SAE
H4b

Lang et al., 2022). Therefore, the current study used this approach to refresh the existing
constructs’ measurements and develop a new measure of SAE intentions and then check
hypothesized relationships.
Specifically, two in-depth interviews helped to clarify the conceptualization and
operationalization of SAE intentions and CSC, RSC, goals and TPB’s determinants toward
SAE. We used the purposive sampling technique to select the participants as suggested by
Bryman (2016) that enables us to select participants who can provide rich and detailed
responses because of their specialist knowledge and experience (Zikmund et al., 2012). This
sampling technique can help us refine the existing measurements and develop a new measure
based on the initial scale that captures participants’ abundant responses. It can also partially
help avoid many interviews that aim to gain the point of saturation, while there are no fixed
rules relating to sample size in a qualitative study (Sallah and Caesar, 2020). Then a
quantitative study using the detail-designed questionnaire based on the in-depth interviews.
The dataset was collected at six provinces of Vietnam (i.e. Kien Giang, Binh Thuan, Quang
Nam, Lam Dong, Dak Nong, and Kon Tum). Next, exploratory factor analysis (EFA),
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient analysis, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and the Variance
test were applied to purify and validate measurements of the constructs using the SPSS and
SPSS Amos software program version 24. Finally, structural equation modeling (SEM) was
employed to verify the hypotheses. We used the covariance-based SEM technique to focus on
established hypotheses testing instead of other variants prioritizing other objectives, such as
exploratory from PLS-SEM.

3.2 Measurements
This study adopted the existing measurements of previous studies and then employed a
mixed-methods approach to reconcile them and develop a new measure of SAE intentions
that lacks appropriate indicators in the current literature. Specifically, the measurements of
behavioral goals and attitudes toward SAE were developed based on the initial 11-indicator
and 16-indicator scales measuring behavioral goals and attitudes toward organic agricultural
practices adapted from Nandi et al. (2015) which have three and five dimensions, respectively.
The scales of PBC and subjective norms toward SAE were adapted from Hansson et al. (2012)
with seven and five indicators, in turn. The scale of SAE intention was newly developed
based on the initial measure of agricultural diversification intention from the work of Senger
et al. (2017) with three indicators. The scales of CSC and RSC were adapted from Lang et al.
(2021a) with 7 and 10 indicators, in which CSC has 2 dimensions, while RSC has 3 dimensions.
3.3 Sampling procedure Social capital in
The respondents are organic-oriented agricultural entrepreneurs in Vietnam and are also sustainable
seen as family-business owners (Glover, 2013). They have increasingly obtained value-added
operations in their businesses and are thus seen as micro-sized entrepreneurs (Lang et al.,
agribusiness
2021a). The respondents are directly interviewed (i.e. face-to-face interview) to determine the
level to which they agree or disagree with measurement indicators based on a five-point
Likert scale (1 5 “strongly disagree” and 5 5 “strongly agree”). Four questions were used to
filter the valuable respondents (i.e. over 18 years old; do not work for any television,
magazine, newspaper, government organization, market research or advertising agency;
agriculture or agribusiness as the main job; and have already had experience in or have
intentions to organic farming). Besides, according to Kline (2011) and Hair et al. (2010), the
sample size in the EFA needs at least 5 times compared to the number of estimated
parameters, 10 times larger than those in CFA and SEM requires at least 200 samples. The
current study employs these principles to reach a rigorous validation and examination.
Specifically, we collected 499 complete questionnaires with the sample profile (Table 1),
showing that the dataset is adequate and abundant to conduct EFA, CFA and SEM analyses.

4. Results
4.1 Findings from the exploratory studies
Our explorative studies helped improve the existing measurements and develop a new scale.
Specifically, an organic agribusiness entrepreneur and entrepreneurial professor were
invited for in-depth interviews. These participants were above 45 years and were senior
experienced experts. They were invited to discuss and share their thoughts or views on each
measurement of the constructs in the SAE context, global issues and the COVID-19 pandemic.
First, the participants were invited to discuss questions about their goals and attitudes
toward SAE. The result showed that they agreed with the statements as indicators to
measure goals and attitudes toward SAE. They also suggested four new ideas forming
additional indicators, e.g. “Organic farming adoption prevents the community from the harm
of chemicals” (for the variable of the goal toward SAE) and “Organic farming gives more stable
profit than conventional farming” (for the variable of the attitude toward SAE).

Characteristics Details (n 5 499)

Gender Male: 57.6% female: 42.4%

Age ≤25: 0.6% [26–35]: 15.7% [36–45]: 34.6% [46–55]: 32.3% > 55: 16.8%
Marital status Not yet married: 5.0% married: 92.8% divorced/widowed: 2.2%
% of time for agribusiness ≤25%: 1.7% 26–50%: 11.0% 51–75%: 31.7% > 75%: 55.6%
Experience (years) <10: 24.5% [11–20]: 37.3% [21–30]: 18.9% > 30: 19.3%
Education Primary high school or below: 3.8% junior high school: 31.6% senior high
school: 48.8%
Higher school/College: 9.0% university: 6.8%
Agribusiness training Yes: 73.0% no: 27.0%
course
Work beyond agribusiness Yes: 20.4% no: 79.6%
Farm size (hectares) 0 ha (business): 0.4% < 1 ha: 62.2% 1–2 ha: 28.7% 3–4 ha: 5.3% > 4 ha: 3.4%
Farm characteristics Owned: 83.3% rented: 9.3% mixed: 7.4%
Number of workers None: 8.4% [1–3]: 80.7% [4–6]: 8.2% > 6: 2.7%
Number of plant/animal [1–3]: 65.9% [4–6]: 19.4% [7–9]: 11.0% > 9: 3.7%
types Table 1.
Type of operation Cultivation: 84.7% breeding: 0.6% aquaculture: 3.0% mixed: 11.7% Sample profile
MD The next, based on the initial scales, two participants were invited to discuss questions that
describe their subjective norms and PBC toward SAE through the context of organic farming
practices. The finding showed that statements need to be added to the words “organic
farming” to fit the study context. For example, the statement, “I feel that my friends and family
think that I run my business in a good way” was changed by “I feel that my friends and family
think that my organic farming adoption is a good development direction.” Three new
statements were also added, i.e. “I have enough knowledge to adopt organic farming,” “I have
enough resources to adopt the organic farming” and “Most people I hear opinions for approval
that I should adopt the organic farming.”
Besides, the participants were also invited to discuss developing a new measurement for
the SAE intention. The questions were developed based on the initial measure adapted from
Senger et al. (2017) and the literature on sustainability and bio-economy. The findings
indicated that three existing statements must be re-write. Specifically, the words “diversify
business” were replaced by “adopt the organic farming.” Furthermore, three new ideas were
also added, i.e. “I intend to adopt the organic farming on my farm by enhancing to use of
organic fertilizer,” “I intend to adopt the organic farming on my farm by enhancing to use of
biofertilizers” and “I intend to adopt the organic farming on my farm by enhancing to use
biopesticides.” The result of scale development showed that the new scale of the SAE intention
comprised indicators describing organic agricultural practices. Finally, to refine the existing
scales of CSC and RSC, the participants were invited to discuss questions to find their
agreement and additional suggestions. The result showed that both participants mostly
agreed with the initial CSC and RSC measurements. Furthermore, they also suggested five
new ideas, including ideas describing perceived shared norms, e.g. “I think that there is the
sharing of agricultural experience among farmers.” Otherwise, the qualitative studies also
corrected the wording of indicators to fit the research context.

4.2 Findings from the quantitative study

4.2.1 Common method bias. We limited common method bias (CMB) through a mixed-
methods approach to target respondents and brought the results across multiple data points.
Furthermore, adopting Harman’s single-factor test (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986), principal
axis factoring analysis was performed. The result showed that a single factor’s variance’s
cumulative percentage is 24.062%, well under the 50% threshold. Thus, CMB is not an issue
for this study.
4.2.2 Scale validation. Scale validation aims to gain reliable and valid scales. The final EFA
(PAF/Promax) result pointed out 12 factors extracted. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients analysis
was then conducted to identify internal consistency reliability equivalence. The result
indicated that all alpha coefficients are more than 0.7, at least 0.74. Some indicators were
deleted as they did not meet statistical requirements. Finally, CFA for the critical model was
conducted. The result showed that all goodness of fit indices are valid, with only one adjusted
solution (χ 2 5 1429.999, df 5 493, p 5 0.000, comparative fit index 5 0.904, Tucker–Lewis
index 5 0.884, χ 2/df 5 2.901 and root-mean-square error of approximation 5 0.062). The
result of scale validation is shown in Table 2 which shows the scales’ reliability (CR > 0.6,
AVE > 0.5 and α ≥ 0.7), convergent validity (λ > 0.5) and discriminant validity (correlations
significantly different than one) (Hair et al., 2010). Moreover, the variance test pointed out that
the values of the average variance extracted are more than 0.5, with a minimum of 0.518 (i.e.
the SAE intention). Thus, scales’ convergent validity is established (Fornell and Larcker,
1981). Also, the values of maximum shared variance are less than the values of each
corresponding construct’s average variance extracted, with the maximum of the maximum
shared variance at 0.408 (i.e. subjective norms or goal). Hence, the discriminant validity of all
scales is supported (Hu and Bentler, 1999).
 Results (CFA)
Social capital in
Constructs Indicators Loading Indexes sustainable
agribusiness
Cognitive social I think I am informed about the extent to the 0.761 Civicness
capital development of my region CR 5 0.860;
I think I am informed about issues related to my 0.874 AVE 5 0.672
“regional district” Alpha 5 0.857
I think I am informed about issues related to Vietnam 0.821
I think there are different opinions in my village in 0.734 Community
disputing governmental policies cohesiveness
I think there are significant differences in my village 0.877 CR 5 0.842;
due to “religious” reasons AVE 5 0.642
I think there are significant differences in my village 0.786 Alpha 5 0.835
because of “ethnic” problems
I think that there is the sharing of agricultural 0.863 Perceived shared
experience among farmers norms
I think that there is a close connection among farmers 0.715 CR 5 0.770;
in the village AVE 5 0.628
Alpha 5 0.763

Relational social I trust the friends of my friends 0.720 Generalized social

capital I trust my acquaintances 0.853 trust
CR 5 0.766;
AVE 5 0.623
Alpha 5 0.761
I trust the agricultural quality management officials 0.858 Trust in public
I trust the agricultural credit funds 0.692 services
CR 5 0.754;
AVE 5 0.608
Alpha 5 0.744
I trust the local Agricultural and Rural Development 0.825 Trust in political
Department (as the local government representative institutions
in agricultural and rural management) CR 5 0.823;
I trust political leaders-government in general when 0.863 AVE 5 0.612
they talk about agriculture policies Alpha 5 0.811
I trust the local Planning and Investment Department 0.641
(as the local government representative in
investment and trading management)
Goal toward SAE To reduce the chemical fertilizers and pesticides on 0.740 CR 5 0.782
the farm AVE 5 0.546
To help in conserving the environment 0.786 Alpha 5 0.781
Organic farming adoption prevents the community 0.687
from the harm of chemicals
Attitude toward Supermarkets/retailers are willing to pay more for 0.752 Market factor
SAE organic agricultural produce than conventional CR 5 0.851;
Supermarkets/retailers want more organic 0.870 AVE 5 0.656
agricultural produces Alpha 5 0.846
Organic farming will gain a lot of importance in the 0.804
near future
Organic farming improves crop productivity 0.714 Benefit and cost
Organic farming gives more profit than conventional 0.871 CR 5 0.829;
farming AVE 5 0.619
Organic farming gives more stable profit than 0.767 Alpha 5 0.822
conventional farming Table 2.
Scale reliability and
(continued ) validity
MD Results (CFA)
Constructs Indicators Loading Indexes

Subjective norms I feel that others think that I will succeed in organic 0.863 CR 5 0.950
toward SAE farming AVE 5 0.790
I feel that my friends and family think that my 0.904 Alpha 5 0.951
organic farming adoption is a good development
direction
I want my organic farming adoption to make a good 0.882
impression on others
I think others see me as a role model of organic 0.886
farming production
Most people I hear opinions for approval that I should 0.909
adopt organic farming
PBC toward SAE I often have new ideas about how to decrease costs 0.875 CR 5 0.765
I often think about how things can be better managed 0.708 AVE 5 0.528
in my business Alpha 5 0.745
I have a lot of business contacts 0.564
SAE intention My intention adopts organic farming on my farm in 0.809 CR 5 0.759
the next five years AVE 5 0.518
My intention will adopt organic farming on my farm 0.756 Alpha 5 0.741
in the next five years
I intend to adopt organic farming on my farm by 0.571
enhancing to use of bio-fertilizers
Table 2. Note(s): CR 5 composite reliability. AVE 5 average variance extracted. Alpha 5 Cronbach’s alpha

4.2.3 Hypotheses testing. The structural analysis shows the result of the hypotheses testing.
Specifically, the overall fit indices (χ 2 5 1812.026, df 5 541, p 5 0.000, comparative fit
index 5 0.869, Tucker–Lewis index 5 0.856, χ 2/df 5 3.349 and root-mean-square error of
approximation 5 0.069) show an acceptable model (Figure 2) (Hu and Bentler, 1999; Hair et al.,
2010). The findings support H1a (p 5 0.000), H1b (p 5 0.000) and H1c (p 5 0.002), showing the
direct positive effects of attitude, subjective norms and PBC on agricultural entrepreneurs’
SAE intention. Also, the direct positive effects of the goal on attitude and subjective norms
are statistically significantly confirmed. Thus, there are acceptances to the H2a (p 5 0.000)
and H2b (p 5 0.000) hypotheses. In brief, the findings provided empirical evidence that the
determinants of the TPB model have good predictive power to agricultural entrepreneurs’
intention in the context of sustainable agricultural development through organic farming
practices. Furthermore, behavioral goals also have an essential role in achieving their SAE
intention through mediators, i.e. attitude and subjective norms. Thus, the ETPB model
suggested should be used to predict behavioral intentions in the sustainability area.
Besides, the study also showed that CSC positively affects agricultural entrepreneurs’
subjective norms and then drives their SAE intention, whereas the effect of CSC on the goal of
SAE has not yet been confirmed. Therefore, while the H3b (p 5 0.000) hypothesis is accepted,
the H3a (p 5 0.106) is rejected. Furthermore, RSC also positively affects attitudes and PBC
toward SAE. Thus, the H4a (p 5 0.000) and H4b (p 5 0.000) hypotheses are also statistically
confirmed. Finally, the result of the structural test showed that the interrelation of these two
social capital types is also confirmed, supporting the H5 hypothesis (p 5 0.000). This finding
implies that although CSC and RSC are separated social capital types, the differences are only
relative, as indicated by other scholars, e.g. Xu et al. (2018). In brief, the hypotheses test results
are shown in Table 3, showing the critical role of CSC and RSC in driving SAE intention in the
context of COVID-19 and current global issues.
 Social capital in
sustainable
agribusiness

Figure 2.
Structural model
analysis result

5. Discussion and contributions

5.1 Result discussion
This study provides several noteworthy results for discussion. First, the study
significantly improved the existing measurements and provided a new measure. All
scales are reliable, convergent and discriminant. Specifically, the measure of goals toward
SAE has only one dimension with three indicators (Table 2) describing environmental and
socio-cultural goals when performing SAE. This scale significantly differs from the initial
scale proposed by Nandi et al. (2015) with three dimensions (i.e. economic, environmental
and socio-cultural). The measure of attitudes toward SAE also has many changes. It has
two dimensions with three indicators for each dimension. This new scale also has a
significant difference compared to the initial scale adopted by Nandi et al. (2015) with five
dimensions (i.e. market, environmental, support, benefit and cost and community). The
scales of PBC and subjective norms toward SAE have three and five indicators,
respectively. They differ from the corresponding initial scales proposed by Hansson et al.
(2012) regarding indicators’ number and content. The SAE intention scale is newly
developed with three indicators describing SAE intentions through organic farming
practices, which are mostly different from the indicators of the initial scale from Senger et al.
(2017). Finally, the measurements of CSC and RSC were significantly improved compared to
the initial scales adopted from Lang et al. (2021a). A new dimension (i.e. perceived shared
MD Hypotheses Structural modeling results
Independent Dependent Std. Unstd. Hypotheses
variables variables β β S.E. P testing

H1a Attitude toward → SAE intention 0.303 0.360 0.096 *** Supported
SAE
H1b Subjective norms → SAE intention 0.257 0.129 0.033 *** Supported
toward SAE
H1c PBC toward SAE → SAE intention 0.171 0.163 0.052 ** Supported
H2a Goal toward SAE → Attitude toward 0.464 0.366 0.052 *** Supported
SAE
H2b Goal toward SAE → Subjective norms 0.641 1.193 0.097 *** Supported
toward SAE
H3a Cognitive social → Goal toward SAE 0.089 0.216 0.134 ns Not supported
capital
H3b Cognitive social → Subjective norms 0.258 1.172 0.235 *** Supported
capital toward SAE
H4a Relational social → Attitude toward 0.749 0.732 0.082 *** Supported
capital SAE
H4b Relational social → PBC toward SAE 0.435 0.527 0.079 *** Supported
capital
Table 3. H5 Cognitive social <–> Relational social 1.250 0.111 0.018 *** Supported
Structural model capital capital
results Note(s): ** and ***significant at levels of 5% and 1%; ns 5 non-significant

norms) was added to the CSC scale. These changes are evidence that measurements vary
across different research contexts.
Second, the study found that the TPB’s determinants positively affect agricultural
entrepreneurs’ SAE intentions. Wherein the impact of the attitude is highest, the next is
subjective norms, while the influence of PBC is lowest. These findings consolidate our
argumentations that environmental context, i.e. present global issues (Sazvar et al., 2018;
D’Adamo et al., 2020), the need for developing sustainable agriculture (Kumar et al., 2021;
Lang et al., 2021b) and adverse effects of COVID-19 (Singh et al., 2020; Sodhi et al., 2021) on
global supply chains (Ivanov, 2021; Ketchen and Craighead, 2021), create market
opportunities and social pressures that positively affect attitude and subjective norms
toward SAE. Furthermore, technological advancement with facilitating by social capital
resources also helps agricultural entrepreneurs be more confident in pursuing SAE. This
result empirically consolidates the statement of Li~nan and Chen (2009) and Zhang and Cain
(2017) regarding the excellent predict power of the TPB model. Furthermore, our findings also
increase the generalizability of previous empirical studies on the predicted power of the TPB
model, e.g. sustainability-oriented entrepreneurial intentions (Vuorio et al., 2018) and
agribusiness diversification intentions (Lang et al., 2021a) from the SAE context in an
emerging market with severe impacts of COVID-19.
Moreover, the study also points out the positive impacts of the behavioral goal on attitude
and subjective norms. The effect level on subjective norms is higher than the effect on the
behavioral attitude. This finding makes an increasement in the generalizability of the work of
Lang et al. (2021a) regarding the significant relationship between the behavioral goal and
behavioral attitude. Furthermore, the result also consolidates our argumentation that more
strong and clear behavioral goals formed from the social context and market needs, e.g.
climate change and organic farming (Sazvar et al., 2018; Squalli and Adamkiewicz, 2018;
D’Adamo et al., 2020), positively affect agricultural entrepreneurs’ subjective norms toward
SAE. In brief, the findings provide a deeper understanding of the extent and influence of the
determinants of the ETPB model in predicting SAE intentions in an emerging market with Social capital in
adverse impacts of COVID-19 (Singh et al., 2020; Sodhi et al., 2021). sustainable
Third, the study also indicated that CSC positively affects subjective norms toward SAE.
This finding implies a significant relationship between perceived shared norms, shared
agribusiness
vision and purpose and common language and codes of agricultural entrepreneurs and their
subjective norms in the context of global issues, negative impacts of COVID-19 and the need
for sustainable agriculture. This result consolidates the generalizability of the work of Lang
et al. (2021b) regarding the positive effect of CSC on subjective norms in the agribusiness
diversification context. However, the result did not find a significant relationship between
CSC and the goal toward SAE, and this finding may be an important note for scholars and
practitioners.
Besides, the study found significant relationships between RSC and the attitude and PBC
toward SAE. The effect on attitude is higher than the effect on PBC. This result shows the
critical role of RSC in driving SAE intentions. These findings provide empirical evidence to
support the work of Lan and Luc (2020) regarding the effect of perceived social trust (i.e. RSC)
on attitude and PBC toward social entrepreneurship that these scholars suggested.
Furthermore, the finding also consolidates the work of Lang et al. (2021b) related to the
significant effect of RSC on PBC. In addition, the result also supports our argumentation
related to the positive effect of RSC on agricultural entrepreneurs’ attitude toward SAE which
has not yet been clarified extensively.
Finally, the study also showed that the interaction between CSC and RSC is significant and
positive. This result provides empirical evidence for the implication of Lang et al. (2021b)
regarding the interplay between aspects of social capital in the agribusiness context in an
emerging market. The finding also supports and increases the generalizability of the previous
works of some scholars in this area (e.g. Inkpen and Tsang, 2005; Lee and Jones, 2015; Xu
et al., 2018) as investigated in a different context with adverse impacts of COVID-19. This
finding implies significant associations between agricultural entrepreneurs’ perceived shared
norms, civicness and community characteristics (i.e. CSC) and their trust, trustworthiness,
obligations and expectations (i.e. RSC). Thus, it is necessary to take note of these relationships
during relevant social policies development.

5.2 Theoretical contributions

This study has a significant contribution to theory by providing a deeper understanding of
the meaningful role of social capital in SAE intention creation through the mediating role of
the determinants of the ETPB model in the context of current global issues, negative impacts
of COVID-19 and the need for sustainable agribusiness development. The study was
conducted in an emerging market, with the respondents as agricultural entrepreneurs.
Specifically, the study highlights five theoretical implications.
First, this study strengthens and enhances the generalizability of previous research on the
behavioral intentions-predicted power of the TPB model by examining its determinants’ role
in SAE intention creation. The significant effects of the TPB’s three determinants are
consistent with past findings of Vuorio et al. (2018) and Lang et al. (2021b), with the most
prominent impact of the attitude. This result also consolidates the argumentation of Li~ nan
and Chen (2009) and Zhang and Cain (2017) that the TPB model is the ideal theoretical
framework to predict an individual’s behavioral intention.
Second, the study also improves the predicted power of the TPB model by adding the
behavioral goal variable. This additional variable was found to have significant effects on
subjective norms and behavioral attitude, with a higher effect on subjective norms. These
findings make an increasement in the generalizability of the work of Lang et al. (2021a)
regarding the ETPB model with the behavioral goal as an extension of the TPB. Therefore,
MD the result significantly contributes to the existing literature on TPB by suggesting an ETPB
model improve the predicted power of individuals’ behavioral intention.
Third, this study explains the role of CSC in driving SAE intention. Specifically, the direct
positive effect of CSC on subjective norms is established, whereas its effect on the goal toward
SAE is insignificant. The findings imply that CSC, with its attributes (i.e. perceived shared
norms, civicness and community cohesiveness), indirectly positively affects the intention
toward SAE through the mediating role of subjective norms.
Fourth, the study also highlights the critical role of RSC in fostering SAE intention. In
particular, the direct positive effects of RSC on the attitude and PBC toward SAE were found,
with the more significant effect on the attitude. These findings imply that through its
attributes (i.e. generalized social trust, trust in political institutions and trust in public
services), RSC indirectly strongly affects SAE intentions with the attitude and PBC as
mediators.
Five, the study reveals the positive interplay between SCS and RSC. This finding implies
that CSC can also foster SAE intentions through RSC and then the attitude and PBC toward
SAE, while RSC can also indirectly positively affect intentions toward SAE through CSC and
then subjective norms. These findings provide empirical evidence or improve the
generalizability of previous studies (e.g. Lan and Luc, 2020; Lang et al., 2021b) and
significantly contribute to the existing literature on the social capital theory.
In short, among abundant studies that have researched the social capital theory and TPB,
this study, to the best of our knowledge, is the most effectively accentuates agricultural
entrepreneur evaluations in the SAE context, with current global issues and negative impacts
of COVID-19. This study provides a deeper understanding of the social capital theory as well
as extends the operational scope of TPB (i.e. ETPB). The findings and a newly developed
measure of SAE intention could also be effectively employed to assess the impact of social
capital and other intellectual capital resources on it.

5.3 Managerial implications

This study also provides several implications for practice. Generically, agricultural
entrepreneurs should consider adopting sustainable development strategies (Neto et al.,
2018; Kumar et al., 2021; Lang et al., 2021b) through organic farming practices (Nicolopoulou-
Stamati et al., 2016; Squalli and Adamkiewicz, 2018) that aims to meet behaviors of
sustainable consumption as a current mainstream trend (Ali et al., 2020). Notably, social
capital should be prioritized to strengthen and utilize for SAE.
More specifically, agricultural entrepreneurs should note the current world, society and
market contexts, particularly global issues, impacts of COVID-19 and sustainable agriculture,
to identify opportunities and threats. These carings, searchings and clarifications will help
identify, build and strengthen appropriate shared norms, civicness and community
cohesiveness as well as related activities (e.g. community activities) that help improve
their CSC and then increase overall social capital (Cesar and Jhony, 2020). When the higher
CSC, the agricultural entrepreneurs have subjective norms toward SAE more positive that
fosters their SAE intention. When they implement SAE intentions (e.g. replacing toxic inputs
with organic ones), their social capital will also be enhanced (Neto et al., 2018).
Besides, agricultural entrepreneurs also need to note relationships and interactions with
surrounding people and norms and sanctions, obligations and expectations of groups joined
to strengthen social trust as an aspect of RSC. Furthermore, connections and keeping in touch
with relevant political institutions and public service organizations and capturing
regulations and norms of these organizations are necessary that help improve aspects of
trust in public services and trust in political institutions of RSC. Consequently, when their
RSC increases, it will foster attitude and PBC toward SAE, strengthening their SAE intention.
An increasement in RSC also positively affects CSC which facilitates resources exchange and Social capital in
innovation, leading to SAE and enhancing business performance (Boohene et al., 2019). In sustainable
contrast, improved sustainable agriculture through safe agricultural products also helps
enhance social capital (Neto et al., 2018; Sazvar et al., 2018). As a consequence, an
agribusiness
improvement of CSC and RSC will also strengthen their entrepreneurship and human capital
(Byun et al., 2018) and reputation (Gubler and Cooper, 2019), leading to sales growth (Sallah
and Caesar, 2020).
On the other hand, social policymakers need to develop ecology-economy-social justice-
oriented holistic policies to contribute to sustainable agricultural development (Enders and
Remig, 2016). The results of our study may also imply that the government departments
should develop and publicly inform work regulations, rules, requirements and guidelines to
create more convenience for agricultural entrepreneurs to communicate and work. More
clarifications will help improve the quality of solving jobs from these departments and trust
in them that help enhance agricultural entrepreneurs’ RSC, leading to fostering their SAE
intention. In addition, education and training of SAE in universities and/or relevant
professional organizations are essential to developing the SAE ecosystem that contributes to
countering climate change and global warming and improving safe food supply chains.

6. Conclusion, limitations and research future directions

Our study examines the effect of CSC and RSC on agricultural entrepreneurs’ SAE
intention through the mediating role of the determinants of the ETPB model. The findings
indicate their essential role in forming behavioral intentions in an emerging market’s SAE
context. The result also provides a new measure of SAE intention and reconciles the
existing measurements with more suitable indicators in the SAE context. The findings
significantly contribute to the existing literature on the social capital theory, TPB,
sustainable development and SSCM. In addition, the study also provides managerial
implications that benefit the authorities and organizations by fostering agricultural
entrepreneurs to develop their businesses in sustainable orientation in the “new normal”
context. The findings are expected to trigger a change in agribusiness entrepreneurship
education by building CSC and RSC toward sustainable development. The findings also
suggest a “beginning” of the selection discourse that calls for exploring the relationship
between CSC and RSC and behavioral intentions toward SAE to contribute to the
theoretical advancement of SSCM.
On the other hand, the measurements have only been validated by agricultural
entrepreneurs in an emerging market. Future studies should test these measurements with
other groups of respondents or in developed markets and add aspects through more rigorous
or deeper exploratory studies. Two social capital types in the current study are second-order
constructs and highly interrelate with each other. Thus, examining their effect on other
psychological factors is complex due to uncontrol impacts. At the same time, the ETPB model
suggested predicting behavioral intentions in the sustainability area showed its predictive
power. However, as indicated by the result, the overall fit indices of the CFA model have not
yet been well. Thus, further study to test more rigorous its predictive power is needed. In
addition, studies exploring antecedents of CSC and RSC and their role in SSCM are needed. A
deeper understanding of the role of social capital in forming sustainable development
strategies is also a considerable future research topic.

References
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behaviour”, Organization Behaviour and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
MD Ali, F., Ashfaq, M., Begumb, S. and Ali, A. (2020), “How ‘Green’ thinking and altruism translate into
purchasing intentions for electronics products: the intrinsic-extrinsic motivation mechanism”,
Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 24, pp. 281-291.
Arora, R. and Stoner, C. (2009), “A mixed method approach to understanding brand personality”,
Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 272-283.
Azam, M.S. (2015), “Diffusion of ICT and SME Performance”, E-Services Adoption: Processes by Firms
in Developing Nations, Advances in Business Marketing and Purchasing, Vol. 23A, Emerald
Group Publishing, Bingley, pp. 7-290, doi: 10.1108/S1069-096420150000023005.
Barba-Sanchez, V. and Atienza-Sahuquillo, C. (2018), “Entrepreneurial intention among engineering
students: the role of entrepreneurship education”, European Research on Management and
Business Economics, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 53-61.
Barrutia, J.M. and Echebarria, C. (2021), “Harnessing social interaction and intellectual capital in
intergovernmental networks”, Journal of Intellectual Capital, No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/JIC-
09-2019-0226.
Belz, F.M. and Peattie, K. (2009), Sustainability Marketing: A Global Perspective, Wiley, Chichester.
Bhatti, S.H., Vorobyev, D., Zakariya, R. and Christofi, M. (2020), “Social capital, knowledge sharing,
work meaningfulness and creativity: evidence from the Pakistani pharmaceutical industry”,
Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 25-42.
Bird, B. (1988), “Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 442-453.
Boohene, R., Gyimah, R.A. and Osei, M.B. (2019), “Social capital and SME performance: the
moderating role of emotional intelligence”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 79-99.
Bryman, A. (2016), Social Research Methods, 5th ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Byun, H., Frake, J. and Agarwal, R. (2018), “Leveraging who you know by what you know:
specialization and returns to relational capital”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 7,
pp. 1803-1833.
Cesar, S. and Jhony, O. (2020), “Corporate Social Responsibility supports the construction of a strong
social capital in the mining context: evidence from Peru”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 267 No. 10, p. 122162, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122162.
Creswell, J. (2002), Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and
Qualitative Research, Merrill Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
D’Adamo, I., Falcone, P.M. and Morone, P. (2020), “A new socio-economic indicator to measure the
performance of bioeconomy sectors in europe”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 176, p. 106724.
Dias, C.S.L., Rodrigues, R.G. and Ferreira, J.J. (2019), “What’s new in the research on agricultural
entrepreneurship?”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 65, pp. 99-115.
Dubey, R., Bryde, D.J., Foropon, C., Tiwari, M., Dwivedi, Y. and Schiffling, S. (2020), “An investigation
of information alignment and collaboration as complements to supply chain agility in
humanitarian supply chain”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 59 No. 5,
pp. 1586-1605.
D’Adamo, I., Falcone, P.M. and Ferella, F. (2019), “A socio-economic analysis of biomethane in the
transport sector: the case of Italy”, Waste Management, Vol. 95, pp. 102-115.
D’Amato, D., Droste, N., Allen, B., Kettunen, M., L€ahtinen, K., Korhonen, J., Leskinen, P., Matthies, B.D.
and Toppinen, A. (2017), “Green, circular, bio economy: a comparative analysis of sustainability
avenues”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 168, pp. 716-734.
Elhoushy, S. and Lanzini, P. (2021), “Factors affecting sustainable consumer behavior in the MENA
region: a systematic review”, Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 256-279.
Enders, J. and Remig, M. (2016), Theories of Sustainable Development, 1st ed., Routledge, NY.
EU (European Union) (2007), “Council regulation (EC) No 834/2007 of 28 june 2007 on Social capital in
organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing”, Regulation (EEC) No
2092/91 L 189, 20 July 2007, Official Journal of the European Union, Vol. 50, EU, Brussels, sustainable
available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri¼CELEX% 3A32007R0834. agribusiness
Fietze, S. and Boyd, B. (2017), “Entrepreneurial intention of Danish students: a correspondence
analysis”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 656-672.
Fornell, C. and Larker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gholami-Zanjani, S.M., Jabalameli, M.S., Klibi, W. and Pishvaee, M.S. (2021), “A robust location-
inventory model for food supply chains operating under disruptions with ripple effects”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 301-324.
Glover, J.L. (2013), “Capital usage in family farm businesses”, Journal of Family Business Management,
Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 136-162.
Gonzalez, E.D.R.S., Zhu, J., Zanoni, S. and Maculan, N. (2018), “Trends in operational research
approaches for sustainability”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 269
No. 1, pp. 1-4.
Grunwald, A. (2016), “What kind of theory do we need for sustainable development and how much
of it? Some thoughts”, in Enders, J. and Remig, M. (Eds), Theories of Sustainable Development,
1st ed., Routledge, New York, pp. 16-29.
GSOV (General Statistics Office of Vietnam) (2020), “Results of the 2016 rural, agricultural, and fishery
census”, available at: https://www.gso.gov.vn/en/data-and-statistics/2019/03/results-of-the-2006-
rural-agricultural-and-fishery-census/.
Gubler, T. and Cooper, R. (2019), “Socially advantaged? How social affiliations influence access to
valuable service professional transactions”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 13,
pp. 2287-2314.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Babin, B.J. and Black, W.C. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective, Vol. 7, Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hansson, H., Ferguson, R. and Olofsson, C. (2012), “Psychological constructs underlying farmers’
decisions to diversify or specialize their businesses: an application of theory of planned
behaviour”, Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 465-482.
Heilbrunn, S. (2008), “Factors influencing entrepreneurial intensity in communities”, Journal of
Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 37-51.
Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Inkpen, A.C. and Tsang, E.W. (2005), “Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 146-165.
Ivanov, D. (2021), “Supply chain viability and the COVID-19 pandemic: a conceptual and formal
generalisation of four major adaptation strategies”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 59 No. 12, pp. 1-18, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2021.1890852.
Kallmuenzer, A., Baptista, R., Kraus, S., Ribeiro, A.S., Cheng, C.F. and Westhead, P. (2021),
“Entrepreneurs’ human capital resources and tourism firm sales growth: a fuzzy-set qualitative
comparative analysis”, Tourism Management Perspectives, Vol. 38, p. 100801.
Ketchen, D.J., Jr and Craighead, C.W. (2021), “Toward a theory of supply chain entrepreneurial
embeddedness in disrupted and normal states”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 57
No. 1, pp. 50-57, doi: 10.1111/jscm.12251.
Kline, R.B. (2011), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd ed., Guilford
Press, NY.
MD Krueger, N.K., Reilly, M.D. and Carsrud, A.L. (2000), “Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions”,
Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 411-432.
Kumar, S., Raut, R.D., Nayal, K., Kraus, S., Yadav, V.S. and Narkhede, B.E. (2021), “To identify
industry 4.0 and circular economy adoption barriers in the agriculture supply chain by using
ISM-ANP”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 293, p. 126023.
Lan, P.X. and Luc, P.T. (2020), “A conceptual model of social entrepreneurial intention based on three
dimensions of social capital”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business,
Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 115-128.
Lang, L.D., Behl, A., Dong, N.T., Temouri, Y. and Thu, N.H. (2021a), “Effect of social capital on
agribusiness diversification intention in the emerging market”, Journal of Intellectual Capital,
No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/JIC-01-2021-0039.
Lang, L.D., Behl, A., Dong, N.T., Thu, N.H. and Dewani, P. (2021b), “Social capital in agribusiness: an
exploratory investigation from a supply chain perspective during the COVID-19 crisis”,
International Journal of Logistics Management, No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/IJLM-01-
2021-0039.
Lang, L.D., Lim, W.M. and Guzman, F. (2022), “How does promotion mix affect brand equity? Insights
from a mixed-methods study of low involvement products”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 141, pp. 175-190.
Lapple, D. and Kelley, H. (2013), “Understanding the uptake of organic farming: accounting for
heterogeneities among Irish farmers”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 88 No. 7, pp. 11-19.
Lee, R. and Jones, O. (2015), “Entrepreneurial social capital research: resolving the structure and
agency dualism”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 21
No. 3, pp. 338-363.
Liao, J. and Welsch, H. (2005), “Roles of social capital in venture creation: key dimensions and research
implications”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 345-362.
nan, F. and Chen, Y.W. (2009), “Development and cross-cultural application of a specific instrument
Li~
to measure entrepreneurial intentions”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. pp593-617.
Mamun, A.A., Nawi, N.B.C., Permarupan, P.Y. and Muniady, R. (2018), “Sources of competitive
advantage for Malaysian micro-enterprises”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging
Economies, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 191-216.
Murray, A., Skene, K. and Haynes, K. (2017), “The circular economy: an interdisciplinary exploration
of the concept and application in a global context”, Journal of Business Ethic, Vol. 140,
pp. 369-380.
Nahapiet, J. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 242-266.
Nandi, R., Bokelmanna, W., Nithya, V.G. and Dias, G. (2015), “Smallholder organic farmer’s attitudes,
objectives and barriers towards production of organic fruits and vegetables in India: a
multivariate analysis”, Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 396-406.
Neto, G.C.O., Pinto, L.F.R., Amorim, M.P.C., Giannetti, B.F. and Almeida, C.M.V.B. (2018), “A
framework of actions for strong sustainability”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 196 No. 2,
pp. 1629-1643.
Nicolopoulou-Stamati, P., Maipas, S., Kotampas, C., Stamatis, P. and Hens, L. (2016), “Chemical
pesticides and human health: the urgent need for a new concept in agriculture”, Frontiers in
Public Health, Vol. 4, p. 148, doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2016.00148.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Queiroz, M.M., Fosso Wamba, S. and Branski, R.M. (2021), “Supply chain resilience during the
COVID-19: empirical evidence from an emerging economy”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-08-2021-0454.
Rodrigues, S.R.G. and Ferreira, J.J. (2019), “What’s new in the research on agricultural Social capital in
entrepreneurship?”, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 65, pp. 99-115.
sustainable
Sallah, C.A. and Caesar, L.D. (2020), “Intangible resources and the growth of women businesses:
empirical evidence from an emerging market economy”, Journal of Entrepreneurship in
agribusiness
Emerging Economies, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 329-355.
Sanchez-Famoso, V., Maseda, A., Iturralde, T., Danes, S.M. and Aparicio, G. (2020), “The potential of
internal social capital in organizations: an aGssessment of past research and suggestions for
the future”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 32-72.
Sazvar, Z., Rahmani, M. and Govindan, K. (2018), “A sustainable supply chain for organic,
conventional agro-food products: the role of demand substitution, climate change and public
health”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 194 No. 1, pp. 564-583.
Senger, I., Borges, J.A.R. and Machado, J.A.D. (2017), “Using the theory of planned behavior to
understand the intention of small farmers in diversifying their agricultural production”, Journal
of Rural Studies, Vol. 49, pp. 32-40.
Shibin, K.T., Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Hazen, B., Roubaud, D., Gupta, S. and Foropon, C. (2020),
“Examining sustainable supply chain management of SMEs using resource based view and
institutional theory”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 290 No. 1, pp. 301-326.
Singh, S., Kumar, R., Panchal, R. and Tiwari, M.K. (2020), “Impact of COVID-19 on logistics systems
and disruptions in food supply chain”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 59
No. 7, pp. 1993-2008.
Smith, J.R., Terry, D.J., Manstead, A.S., Louis, W.R., Kotterman, D. and Wolfs, J. (2007), “Interaction
effects in the theory of planned behaviour: the interplay of self-identity and past behaviour”,
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 11, pp. 2726-2750.
Sodhi, M.S., Tang, C.S. and Willenson, E.T. (2021), “Research opportunities in preparing supply chains
of essential goods for future pandemics”, International Journal of Production Research, pp. 1-16,
doi: 10.1080/00207543.2021.1884310.
Squalli, J. and Adamkiewicz, G. (2018), “Organic farming and greenhouse gas emissions: a
longitudinal U.S. state-level study”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 192, pp. 30-42.
Srnka, K.J. and Koeszegi, S.T. (2007), “From words to numbers: how to transform qualitative data
into meaningful quantitative results”, Schmalenbach Business Review, Vol. 59 No. 1,
pp. 29-57.
Tan, L.P., Pham, L.X. and Bui, T.T. (2021), “Personality traits and social entrepreneurial intention: the
mediating effect of perceived desirability and perceived feasibility”, The Journal of
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 56-80.
Teece, D.J. (2007), “Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and micro foundations of (sustainable)
enterprise performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 13, pp. 1319-1350.
Tsai, W. and Ghoshal, S. (1998), “Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks”,
Academy Management Journal, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 464-476.
Upadhyay, P. and Kumar, A. (2020), “The intermediating role of organizational culture and internal
analytical knowledge between the capability of big data analytics and a firm’s performance”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 52 No. C, p. 102100.
Vuorio, A.M., Puumalainen, K. and Fellnhofer, K. (2018), “Drivers of entrepreneurial intentions in
sustainable entrepreneurship”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and
Research, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 359-381.
WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development) (1987), Our Common Future
(Brundtland-Report), Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Xu, Y., Liang, Q. and Huang, Z. (2018), “Benefits and pitfalls of social capital for farmer cooperatives:
evidence from China”, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 8,
pp. 1137-1152.
MD Zhang, P. and Cain, K.W. (2017), “Reassessing the link between risk aversion and entrepreneurial
intention: the mediating role of the determinants of planned behavior”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 793-811.
Zikmund, W.G., Babin, B.J., Carr, J.C. and Griffin, M. (2012), Business Research Methods, 9th ed., South-
Western Publishers, Mason, OH.

About the authors

Dr. Le Dang Lang is a lecturer at Thu Dau Mot University, Vietnam. His research interests include
marketing communication, branding and entrepreneurship. His research has been published in the
Journal of Business Research, International Journal of Logistics Management, Journal of Intellectual
Capital, Management Decision, Journal of Global Information Management, South Asian Journal of
Business Studies, TQM Journal and Journal of Food Products Marketing, among others. He has extensive
industry experience as a senior marketing practitioner, having led the marketing of Khong Do green tea,
which is the leading brand of bottled green tea in the soft drinks industry in Vietnam.
Dr Nguyen Trung Dong is Lecturer and the Rector at the College of Management for Agriculture and
Rural Development II, Vietnam. His current research interests include agribusiness, business strategy
and social policies. His research has been published in some peer-reviewed journals, books and
conference proceedings, such as the International Journal of Logistics Management, Journal of
Intellectual Capital, among others.
Dr Jo~ao J.M. Ferreira is Associate Professor at the University of Beira Interior (UBI), Portugal. He
holds a PhD in Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management from the Autonomous University of
Barcelona (UAB), Spain. Currently, he is the scientific coordinator of the UBI Research Unit for Business
Sciences (NECE), Portugal. He has edited or co-edited several books on innovation and entrepreneurship
and published over 200 papers in premier international journals, including IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Journal of Business Research,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Management Decision, and Service Business. He is Associate Editor of
Management Decision, and his research interests include strategy, competitiveness and
entrepreneurship. Jo~ao J.M. Ferreira is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: jjmf@ubi.pt
Dr Abhishek Behl is Faculty in the area of Information Technology and Analytics at Jindal Global
Business School, O.P. Jindal Global University, India. His research is in the area of business analytics and
decision sciences with a focus on gamification, stakeholder engagement, sustainability and e-commerce
start-ups. His scholarly works are published in journals like Annals of Operations Research, Journal of
Business Research, International Journal of Information Management, Management Decision,
Australasian Journal of Information Systems, Information Systems and e-Business Management,
Benchmarking, etc. Abhishek features on the editorial board of many journals like the Journal of Global
Information Management; Journal of Global Marketing; and Journal of Electronic Commerce in
Organization.
Dr Le Trung Dao is a Vice President at the University of Finance Marketing (UFM), Vietnam. His
current research interests include Consumer Behavior and Social Responsibility. His research has been
published in peer-reviewed journals, books and conference proceedings.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

View publication stats