Entrepreneurial Framework Conditions and Impact Scores of Small-Size Certified Benefit Corporations (CBCs). A Configurational Analysis of 17 Countries

  1. Ruozzi, Alberto
  2. Vicente, Jose Antonio
Revista:
Sustainability

ISSN: 2071-1050

Año de publicación: 2021

Volumen: 13

Número: 13

Páginas: 7297

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.3390/SU13137297 GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Sustainability

Resumen

The urgent need that the private sector generate positive social and environmental impacts in order to cope with the grand challenges faced by humanity and contribute to sustainable development, has ignited the need to understand the country conditions that could promote such an endeavor, especially for small firms who may have more difficulties and, among them, those that try to generate positive impacts for multiple stakeholders, such as Certified B Corporations (CBCs). To contribute to such understanding, we use fsQCA to identify the combinations of presence/absence of four entrepreneurial framework conditions (EFCs)—financing for entrepreneurs, taxes and bureaucracy, R&D transfer, and commercial and legal infrastructure—that are sufficient for the presence/absence of a high average impact score of small-size CBCs in the country. The analysis reveals that two combinations of the presence/absence of the considered EFCs are sufficient for the presence and another two are sufficient for the absence of that outcome. General patterns, specific combinations and the implications for policymakers, CBCs managers and future research are discussed.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • George, G.; Howard-Grenville, J.; Joshi, A.; Tihanyi, L. Understanding and Tackling Societal Grand Challenges through Management Research. Acad. Manag. J. 2016, 59, 1880–1895. [CrossRef]
  • Howard-Grenville, J.; Davis, G.F.; Dyllick, T.; Miller, C.C.; Thau, S.; Tsui, A.S. Sustainable Development for a Better World: Contributions of Leadership, Management, and Organizations. Acad. Manag. Discov. 2019, 5, 355–366.
  • Saiz-Alvarez, J.M.; Vega-Muñoz, A.; Acevedo-Duque, Á.; Castillo, D. B Corps: A Socioeconomic Approach for the COVID-19 Post-crisis. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1867.
  • ILO (International Labour Organization). COVID-19 and the World of Work: Impact and Policy Responses; ILO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
  • Moroz, P.W.; Branzei, O.; Parker, S.C.; Gamble, E.N. Imprinting with purpose: Prosocial opportunities and B Corp certification. J. Bus. Ventur. 2018, 33, 117–129.
  • Sarango-Lalangui, P.; Santos, J.L.S.; Hormiga, E. The Development of Sustainable Entrepreneurship Research Field. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2005.
  • Stubbs, W. Sustainable Entrepreneurship and B Corps. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2017, 26, 331–344.
  • Markman, G.D.; Waldron, T.L.; Gianiodis, P.T.; Espina, M.I. E Pluribus Unum: Impact Entrepreneurship as a Solution to Grand Challenges. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2019, 33, 371–382.
  • Urbano, D.; Alvarez, C. Institutional dimensions and entrepreneurial activity: An international study. Small Bus. Econ. 2014, 42, 703–716.
  • Beynon, M.; Battisti, M.; Jones, P.; Pickernell, D. How Institutions Matter in the Context of Business Exit: A Country Comparison Using GEM Data and fsQCA. Br. J. Manag. 2020, 1–20.
  • Arabiyat, T.S.; Mdanat, M.; Haffar, M.; Ghoneim, A.; Arabiyat, O. The influence of institutional and conductive aspects on entrepreneurial innovation: Evidence from GEM data. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2019, 32, 366–389.
  • Alonso-Martínez, D.; De Marchi, V.; Di Maria, E. Which country characteristics support corporate social performance? Sustain. Dev. 2019, 28, 670–684.
  • Shepherd, D.A.; Wiklund, J. Simple Rules, Templates, and Heuristics! An Attempt to Deconstruct the Craft of Writing an Entrepreneurship Paper. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2019, 44, 371–390.
  • Deng, W.; Liang, Q.Z.; Fan, P.H. Complements or substitutes? Configurational effects of entrepreneurial activities and institutional frameworks on social well-being. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 96, 194–205.
  • Ioannou, I.; Serafeim, G. What drives corporate social performance? The role of nation-level institutions. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2012, 43, 834–864.
  • Ragin, C.C. Fuzzy-Set Social Science; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2000.
  • Lopez, B.; Torres, A.; Ruozzi, A.; Vicente, J.A. Main Factors for Understanding High Impacts on CSR Dimensions in the Finance Industry. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2395.
  • Pascual, J.A.V.; Lopez, A.R.; Marín, A.J.T.; Vázquez, B.L. Multiple paths for being recognized as a high impact firm in the banking sector. Econ. Res. (Ekon. Istraživanja) 2021, 34, 2790–2811.
  • Cao, K.; Gehman, J.; Grimes, M.G. Standing out and fitting in: Charting the emergence of Certified B Corporations by industry and region. In Hybrid Ventures; Emerald Publishing Limited: Somerville, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 1–38.
  • Sharma, G.; Beveridge, A.J.; Haigh, N. A configural framework of practice change for B corporations. J. Bus. Ventur. 2018, 33, 207–224.
  • Moroz, P.W.; Gamble, E.N. Business model innovation as a window into adaptive tensions: Five paths on the B Corp journey. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 125, 672–683.
  • Markman, G.D.; Russo, M.; Lumpkin, G.T.; Jennings, P.D.; Mair, J. Entrepreneurship as a Platform for Pursuing Multiple Goals: A Special Issue on Sustainability, Ethics, and Entrepreneurship. J. Manag. Stud. 2016, 53, 673–694.
  • Belz, F.M.; Binder, J.K. Sustainable Entrepreneurship: A Convergent Process Model. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2017, 26, 1–17.
  • Diez-Busto, E.; Sanchez-Ruiz, L.; Fernandez-Laviada, A. The B Corp Movement: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2508.
  • DiMaggio, P.J.; Powell, W.W. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1983, 48, 147.
  • Scott, W.R. Institutions and Organizations; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1995.
  • North, D.C. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990.
  • El Ghoul, S.; Guedhami, O.; Kim, Y. Country-level institutions, firm value, and the role of corporate social responsibility initiatives. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2017, 48, 360–385.
  • Hall, P.A.; Soskice, D. (Eds.) Varieties of Capitalism: The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage; OUP Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2001.
  • Jackson, G.; Apostolakou, A. Corporate Social Responsibility in Western Europe: An Institutional Mirror or Substitute? J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 94, 371–394.
  • Witt, M.A.; de Castro, L.R.K.; Amaeshi, K.; Mahroum, S.; Bohle, D.; Saez, L. Mapping the business systems of 61 major economies: A taxonomy and implications for varieties of capitalism and business systems research. Socio-Econ. Rev. 2017, 16, 5–38.
  • Dilli, S.; Elert, N.; Herrmann, A.M. Varieties of entrepreneurship: Exploring the institutional foundations of different entrepreneurship types through ‘Varieties-of-Capitalism’ arguments. Small Bus. Econ. 2018, 51, 293–320.
  • Levie, J.; Autio, E. A theoretical grounding and test of the GEM model. Small Bus. Econ. 2008, 31, 235–263.
  • Begley, T.M.; Tan, W.-L.; Schoch, H. Politico–Economic Factors Associated with Interest in Starting a Business: A Multi–Country Study. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2005, 29, 35–55.
  • Van Stel, A.; Storey, D.J.; Thurik, A.R. The Effect of Business Regulations on Nascent and Young Business Entrepreneurship. Small Bus. Econ. 2007, 28, 171–186.
  • Van De Ven, H. The development of an infrastructure for entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 1993, 8, 211–230.
  • Ragin, C.C. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1987.
  • Ragin, C.C. Measurement versus calibration: A set-theoretic approach. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology; Oxford University Press (OUP): Oxford, UK, 2008.
  • Fainshmidt, S.; Witt, M.A.; Aguilera, R.V.; Verbeke, A. The contributions of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to international business research. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2020, 51, 455–466.
  • Legewie, N. An introduction to applied data analysis with qualitative comparative analysis. Forum Qual. Soz./Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 2013, 14.
  • Schaltegger, S.; Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Hansen, E.G. Business Models for Sustainability: A co-evolutionary analysis of sustainable entrepreneurship, innovation, and transformation. Organ. Environ. 2016, 29, 264–289.
  • Cao, Z.; Shi, X. A systematic literature review of entrepreneurial ecosystems in advanced and emerging economies. Small Bus. Econ. 2021, 57, 75–110.
  • Khanna, T.; Palepu, K.G. Emerging Giants: Building World-Class Companies in Developing Countries. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2006, 10. Available online: https://hbr.org/2006/10/emerging-giants-building-world-class-companies-in-developing-countries (accessed on 4 April 2021).
  • Busenitz, L.W.; Gómez, C.; Spencer, J.W. Country Institutional Profiles: Unlocking Entrepreneurial Phenomena. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 994–1003.
  • Orlitzky, M.; Louche, C.; Gond, J.-P.; Chapple, W. Unpacking the Drivers of Corporate Social Performance: A Multilevel, Multistakeholder, and Multimethod Analysis. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 144, 21–40.