asian journal of management research · 2017-12-12 · competitive industry consists of numerous...

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH Online Open Access publishing platform for Management Research

© Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing association

Research Article ISSN 2229 – 3795

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 564

Volume 2 Issue 1, 2011

The triangulation different perspective of Entrepreneurs, Investors and

regulators toward Sustainable entrepreneurship strategy transition to a

Low-Carbon Economy in Thailand Phuttachart Rattanawong

1, Pacapol Anurit

2, Chuvej Chansa-ngavej

3

Shinawatra University, Graduate Build. 197 Vibhavadi-Rangsit Rd., Bangkok, Thailand

10400. [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Sustainability-driven entrepreneurs design ventures with the primary intention of contributing

to improved environmental quality, social well-being and firm financial performance in ways

that are mutually supportive. It has been suggested that these entrepreneurs can function as

important catalysts to combination economic, social and environmental structural

transformations toward sustainability. However, the actual mechanisms underlying such a

role are empirically under-researched and theoretically underdeveloped. In this study we

investigate the possible catalytic role and commonly agreed framework for the effective of

sustainability entrepreneurship strategy implementation and influential factors toward among

Entrepreneurs, Investors and Regulators perspective in the successful entrepreneurship

strategy on transition to a low carbon economy.

The objective of the study is to enhance our knowledge in the field of sustainable

entrepreneurship strategy transition to a low carbon economy and to address this research gap

by developing a framework that conceptualizes sustainable entrepreneurship as a combination

of three different dimensions: the economic, the social and the environmental one. In

additional, this study will fulfill the gap and highlight the triangulation different perspective

on influential factors. This serves as a tool for unveiling the core of sustainable

entrepreneurship in order to guide future research pertaining to sustainable development and

for the formation of a strategy that addresses modern business issues.

Keywords: Sustainable entrepreneurship, Economy efficiency, Environment social

responsibility, Corporate social responsibility, Low carbon economy

1. Introduction

Global climate change has been brought about by emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) and is

considered one of the most complex that mankind must face in the twenty first century. The

difficult negotiations experienced since the singing of the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) in 1992 and sine the Kyoto Protocol came into

force in 2005, have highlighted to the international community that climate change will be

effected by the developmental paths of all countries, which relate to each nation’s particular

political and economic interests. The next 15-20 years will be an important period for all

country’s social and economic development. This will also be a key period in the effort to

control global GHG (Zhuang, 2008).

The triangulation different perspective of Entrepreneurs, Investors and regulators toward Sustainable

entrepreneurship strategy transition to a Low-Carbon Economy in Thailand

Phuttachart Rattanawong, Pacapol Anurit, Chuvej Chansa-ngavej

ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH


565

The concept of a low carbon economy was first put forward in the UK in 2003 in the Energy

White Paper titled “Our future energy-creating a low carbon economy” (DTI, 2003). The

overall goal of energy development in the UK is to become a low carbon economy country,

to cut the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions by 60 percent by 2050 from the 1990 level and to

achieve real progress by 2020. The UK is the birthplace of the industrial revolution and was

the first country to realize industrialization. As such, the content of the Energy White Paper

and its influence on future policy direction has attracted considerable public attention and

extensive discussion. In fact, more and more countries around the world are making the

transition towards becoming low carbon economies. France, Japan and Canada have

established appropriate policies and taken relevant measures to reduce carbon emissions.

In recently year, owning to the enormous amount of environmental pollution and global

warming which directly connects with industrial and manufacturing in the world, the society

has notice environmental issues increasing steadily. Because of the attention of the society,

more and more companies are willing to accept the environment social responsibility (Chen,

2008). Nowadays, environmental concern rapidly emerges as a mainstream issue because of

global warming, and many companies are seeking to catch the opportunity (Chen, 2010).

Support from the study of Zhuang (2008) has shown that China intends to adopt a low carbon

economy approach through the sustainable development projects that are use of many clean

technologies, such as renewable energy, carbon capture and hydrogen energy. Developing a

low carbon economy that is friendly to both climate and the environment will help China

change its economic growth. Foxon and Parrish (2009) argued that the low carbon economy

does not present good investment opportunities; but there is potential for new business as new

market emerges.

More popular environmentalism in the world, the sales of environment products have

dramatically increased nowadays. Therefore, more consumers are willing to encourage

companies that are environmental concern (Chen, 2010). Just as many consumers have a

preference for the value added to a product by an environment social responsible (ESR)

attribute. Thus, if a company wishes to increase market share it can use environment concern

to promote product differentiation and advertise these new environmentally friendly

characteristics or features (Siegel, 2009). Investments in environmental activities may also be

integrated as important dimensions of a company’s business strategy (Hillestad et al., 2010).

Companies may benefit by finding their own innovative approach to environmental

awareness that can be useful both for branding and differentiation purposes, and for the

development of unique and valuable business models, skills and operations. Such innovative

approaches towards environmental awareness can contribute to trustworthiness and a green

reputation, and may furthermore stimulate technology development. Foxon and Parrish

(2009) suggest that, if companies want to move towards becoming a low carbon economy

successful, then their sustainable entrepreneurship concepts and ideas should be integrated

into all aspects of strategies.

Therefore, this study aims to exploration that conceptual framework towards becoming a low

carbon economy for enterprises could raise their intangible firm equities and evidence the

determinant factors that are relationships and leading to successful of a low carbon economy

and triangulation difference perspective in there factors. Therefore, my propose study aims to

solve this research problem.






566

“How does Entrepreneurs success on Sustainable Entrepreneurship Strategy and

transition to a low carbon economy?”

2. Review of Literature

2.1 Environment Social Responsibility (ESR)

The topic of environmental social responsibility (ESR) is the theory of the firm perspective,

first outlined in the Academy of Management Review paper by McWilliams & Siegel (2001).

An economic analysis of ESR begins with the realization that such activities have emerged in

response to the perception or existence of a market failure that is, instances where there is a

divergence between the private and social costs of a firm’s actions. The societal cost is

defined as the private cost to the company plus an additional external cost. External costs are

those directly associated with producing or delivering goods or services that are not incurred

by the producer. Examples of such external costs include pollution and environmental

degradation, such as global warming, acid rain, and deforestation. To a typical lumber

producer or a farmer, the forest has only an economic value. However, from a societal

perspective, forests also have recreational, existence, and biodiversity value (e.g., witness the

ongoing controversy surrounding the preservation of the rainforest in South America). It is

important to note that the fundamental rationale for government intervention and regulation is

to alleviate market failure and address these social costs. However, many companies choose

to go beyond regulatory compliance to provide ESR. As we will see, analyzing the

relationship between regulation and ESR is a critical aspect of the strategic use of ESR. A

good recent example of a firm proactively adopting a strategy to engage in environmental

social responsibility is Wal-Mart. In October 2005, Wal-Mart’s CEO, Lee Scott, announced

an environmental initiative to improve energy efficiency, increase sales of organic food, and

reduce waste and greenhouse gas emissions. As part of the plan, Wal-Mart announced its

intention to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% as of 2012 (the Kyoto Protocol called

for a 7% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the United States by 2012), while setting a

corporate goal of 100% renewable energy and zero waste. Another example is British

Petroleum (BP), the first major industrial company to impose a cap on greenhouse gas

emissions (Lowe & Harris, 1998). BP also instituted a corporate emissions trading system

and joined global efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions, and made significant investments

in solar energy. In both instances, these companies were able to enhance their profitability

while simultaneously reducing pollution.

Another critical issue in the provision of ESR concerns its relationship to the market structure

of the firm’s industry. A key conclusion of the McWilliams and Siegel (2001) paper was that,

in equilibrium, firms that engage in ESR will earn the same rate of profit as firms that do not

engage in ESR. In a subsequent paper, McWilliams and Siegel (2002) demonstrated that ESR

can occur in monopolistically competitive and oligopolistic industries. A monopolistically

competitive industry consists of numerous firms, some product differentiation, and relatively

free entry. Examples of such sectors are restaurants and retail establishments. On the other

hand, oligopolies are characterized by a consolidated industry structure, high entry barriers,

and substantial product differentiation (e.g., autos and computers). I believe that the inability

of firms to generate abnormal returns from ESR, on average, holds under both oligopoly and

monopolistic competition. This is implied for monopolistic competition because industries

with such a structure are characterized by both horizontal and vertical differentiation, a

fragmented industry structure, and very low entry barriers. Under this scenario, it is






567

impossible for firms to use ESR to outperform rivals. Examples of firms in monopolistically

competitive industries that engage in ESR include restaurants, hotels, companies selling

organic produce, and different types of retail establishments. The neutrality result likely holds

for concentrated industries as well, where some firms produce a higher quality product that

may yield “abnormal” returns. These abnormal returns may constitute the cushion of profit

that enables the firm to engage in ESR. However, recent economic models of ESR (Baron,

2001; Feddersen & Gilligan, 2001) identify an important countervailing force on the ability

of companies to reap abnormal returns from strategic ESR in oligopolistic industries: activists

and NGOs who target leading firms. This countervailing force makes it difficult for

oligopolistic firms to achieve and sustain a competitive advantage through the strategic use of

ESR because their rivals are continually forced by activists and NGOs to employ a

comparable level of ESR. In a similar, Gilley et al., (2000) found that a company engaging in

an ESR-based strategy could generate an abnormal return only if it could prevent competitors

from imitating its strategy. In fact, the strategic necessity of communicating information

about ESR to consumers via reporting and advertising enhances transparency, thus eroding

competitive advantage.

Other theoretical studies (Dutta et al, 1995; Hoppe & Ehmann, 2001) have shown that any

early mover advantages that might be gained by offering higher quality products (recall that

ESR is modeled as a “quality improvement” in McWilliams and Siegel, 2001) are eroded

when competitive strategies are observable. However, various strategies can be deployed to

counteract this loss of first-mover advantage brought on by transparency. For example, Porter

and Kramer (2006) suggested that corporate the love of humanity can invite loyalty to the

company and other benefits that are uniquely valuable to the company.

It is important to note that most empirical studies of ESR have ignored the role of corporate

leaders in formulating and implementing such initiatives. Most research has been focused at

the firm level, typically examining the relationship between ESR and firm financial

performance. Unfortunately, there has been little research at the individual level or on how

such variables might relate to ESR. In particular, top-level managers are obviously in a

position to influence these policies. In recent years, researchers have explored the relationship

between ESR and CEOs. That is entirely appropriate as corporate leaders typically formulate

such policies and often are actively involved in promoting the ESR activities of their

companies. An example is William Clay (Bill) Ford, Jr., of Ford Motor Company, who

formulated a “hydrogen strategy” for his company that was designed to make Ford the

environmental leader in the industry (Muller & Fahey, 2004). The first study of the

relationship between CEO leadership and ESR was conducted by Waldman et al., (2006).

The authors linked data from psychometric studies of CEOs with information on the

environmental and social performance of companies. They reported that the “intellectual

stimulation” dimension of transformation leadership is strongly positively correlated with the

propensity of firms to engage in strategic ESR. A key implication of this finding is that

studies ignoring the role of leadership in ESR may yield imprecise conclusions regarding the

antecedents and consequences of such activities. A recent insightful paper by Sully et al.,

(2008) further explored the relationship between corporate social responsibility (including

ESR) and various dimensions of leadership. Interestingly, they also assessed the outcomes of

relationships between leaders and followers, as related to the CEO’s “stakeholder values.”

Specifically, they found that CEOs possessing values stressing the concerns of a wide range

of stakeholders (e.g., employees, customers, environmental groups, and the greater

community) are likely to be viewed as visionary leaders. In turn, as compared to CEOs with






568

weaker stakeholder values, these leaders are more likely to elicit extra effort on the part of

followers as well as stronger financial performance. In sum, their study suggests that

organizations with inspiring, transformational leaders possessing strong stakeholder values

tend to have superior social and financial performance.

2.2 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Recently, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has emerged as a global trend with both

practical and theoretical implications. CSR is defined as “management of stakeholder concern

for responsible and irresponsible acts related to environmental, ethical and social phenomena

in a way that creates corporate benefit” (Vaaland et al., 2008). CSR is a form of corporate

self-regulation integrated into a business model. Ideally, CSR policy should function as a

built-in, self-regulating mechanism whereby a business will monitor and ensure its adherence

to laws, ethical standards, and international norms. Essentially, CSR is the deliberate

inclusion of public interests into corporate decision making, and the honoring of a triple

bottom line; people, planet, and profit (Wood, 1991). CSR is considered an important

dimension in building a strong corporate brand (Porter & Kramer, 2006; Bansal & Roth,

2000). In crowded marketplaces, companies strive to gain a unique market position that can

differentiate them from competitors in the minds of the consumers. CSR can play a role in

building customer loyalty based on distinctive ethical values. This is especially important

because consumers and societies in general are increasingly influenced by their desire to

identify with the values of the companies they patronize (Ind, 1997). Consumers are

becoming more demanding, critical, sophisticated and value-driven in their choices. CSR

includes at least three aspects of the relationship between the company and society: 1) how

the conduct of business reflects ethical considerations; 2) the extent to which business

operations interfere with established social and human rights; and 3) how business operations

affect the environment (Vaaland & Heide, 2005). Environmental awareness is one of the

most common and heavily emphasized approaches to CSR (Egri & Ralston, 2008). A

company can be environmentally aware by engaging in various environmental activities and

corporate communication (Van Riel, 1995) that signal strong awareness of environmental

concerns in development, production, distribution, and marketing of products and services.

The focus on environmental awareness is a result of the global concern with pollution and the

greenhouse effect. This are the case in all industries, but especially in industries that exploit

scarce natural resources, are energy-intensive, and represent a risk to the global climate

through potential pollution and other accidents.

Porter and Kramer (2006) argue that CSR has become a priority for business leaders in every

country as governments, activists, and the media have focused on holding companies

accountable for the social consequences of their business actions. The problem as they see it

is that most CSR efforts are not productive because they pit business interests against societal

interests rather than looking for points of interdependence. External pressures on firms tend

to make them think of corporate social responsibility in generic ways, instead of in the way

most appropriate to their individual strategies. Four common reasons that companies

participate in CSR activities are: moral obligation (duty to be good citizens and ‘’do the right

thing’), sustainability continued ability to operate requires environmental and community

stewardship, license to operate stakeholder approval to conduct business in a community is

required, and reputation CSR initiatives can improve an organization’s reputation, leading to

improved business conditions. All four of these concepts focus on the tensions between






569

business and societal issues, and so fall more into public relations and less into using CSR to

improve organizational performance (Porter & Kramer, 2006).

Often the motivation to be more environmentally friendly has to do with building the firm’s

reputation with these very stakeholders, which is believed to lead to increased financial

performance. The relationship between reputation and shareholder value was studied by

Gilley et al., (2000) when they investigated the influence of environmental initiatives on

firms’ anticipated economic performance using an event study methodology. While they

believed that shareholders would react positively to announced environmental initiatives,

they found no overall effect of announced environmental initiatives on stock returns.

Shareholder value is only one measure of success though, and as such does not preclude

increased reputation from improving firm financial performance in other ways, such as

increased sales revenue. Bansal and Roth (2000) conducted a qualitative study of the

motivations and contextual factors that induce corporate ecological responsiveness. Using

data collected from 53 firms in the United Kingdom and Japan, they found three motivations

for companies to ‘go green’: competitiveness the potential for ecological responsiveness to

improve long-term profitability, and ecological responsibility the concern that a firm has for

its social obligations and values. These motivations were influenced by three contextual

conditions: field cohesion the intensity and density of formal and informal network ties

between constituents in an organizational field, issue salience the extent to which a specific

ecological issue has meaning for organizational constituents, and individual concern the

degree to which organizational members value the environment and the degree of discretion

they possess to act on their environmental values. The authors found that a mixture of these

motivations and contextual conditions caused variation in how ecologically responsive a

company tries to be but supports the notion that meeting a key community’s expectation is

good for business for many different reasons.

As addressed in the prior research, CSR seems to have a positive impact on a firm’s financial

performance, although there has been controversy regarding CSR’s effect. The basic

underlying assumptions are that CSR is positively related to a firm’s financial performance,

and that being socially responsible might create a favorable company image and brand image

(Aupperle, 1985; Cochran, 1984; McGuire, 1988). However, CSR is a long-term, rather than

short-term, investment, suggesting that CSR’s impact on financial performance should be

addressed within a wider time frame. One- or two-year lagged financial performance is not

sufficient to wholly grasp the long-time financial performance implications of CSR (Roman,

1999). The support study from Kim (2010), given economic model for assessing firm

financial performance given that, would take more than 1 year to transfer CSR to actual

financial outcome, at least 3-5 years cumulative effect of CSR should be investigated using

financial market dynamics.

However, within the economic and finance literatures there is a long history of commentators

who have argued that a focus on CSR will reduce financial performance. For example,

Friedman (1970) asserted that the only social responsibility of a company is to use its

resources to engage in activities designed to increase profits. Many others, including Bragdon

and Marlin (1972); Vance (1975); Bramer et al. (2006), support this view. It has been argued

that a negative relationship between CSR and firm finance performance arises due to the

additional costs incurred to improve social or environmental performance, which does not

contribute to enhancing shareholder value. Also, profitable business and investment strategies

that are rejected only because of CSR concerns must result in lowering economic






570

performance (Langbein & Posner, 1980; Aupperle et al., 1985; Knoll 2002). Another body of

research suggests a neutral relation between CSR and finance performance. For example,

Ullmann (1985), argues that given such a large number of variables intervene between the

social responsibility performance and the financial performance of companies, there is no

reason to assume that a direct relation should exist. A neutral relationship can also be

explained by the financial market’s inability to value and thus price CSR (Statman, 2000).

Several papers support a positive relation between CSR and firm financial performance

(Derwall et al. 2005; Herremans et al., 1993; Guerard, 1997) and argue that investments in

CSR will lead to positive firm financial performance over the medium to long term due to the

impact of CSR on reputation and brand and the attractiveness of such companies to high

quality managers and employees.

2.3 Sustainable Entrepreneurship (SE)

Entrepreneurship typically focuses on identifying new opportunities for creating value for

customers or users and commercially developing those opportunities to establish a profitable

business (Shane & Venkataraman 2000). The opportunities identified can be for new

products or services, new markets, new production processes, new raw materials, or new

ways of organizing existing technologies, as first pointed out by Schumpeter (1934). While

Schumpeter recognized that entrepreneurs can be driven by non-economic motives such as a

desire for creativity or power, economic theories of entrepreneurship generally emphasize the

role of profit as one of the major underlying goals of entrepreneurs and investors in

developing a new venture opportunity. Sustainability entrepreneurship (SE) takes a slightly

different perspective from the traditional focus of entrepreneurship by emphasizing additional

goals of promoting sustainable living and environmental improvement. An emphasis on

sustainability within entrepreneurship involves searching for opportunities for new products

or services or new technologies or production processes that alleviate social or environmental

conditions, make more efficient use of energy and natural resources, and harness new

resources that are more abundant, cheaper to produce, and less harmful to society.

Sustainability is defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987).

The Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development as the process in which the

exploitation of natural resources, the allocation of investments, and the process of

technological development and organizational change are in harmony with each other for

both current and future generations. SE can be defined as the continuing commitment of

business to behave in an ethical way and contribute toward economic development while

improving the quality of life of the workforce, their families, and the local and global

community, as well as future generations (World Business Council for Sustainable

Development). From a SE perspective, entrepreneurs have a responsibility to their investors

and shareholders but also to nature, society, and future generations. Moreover, Patzelt and

Shepherd, (2011) defined as “Sustainable entrepreneurship is focused on the preservation of

nature, life support, and community in the pursuit of perceived opportunities to bring into

existence futureproducts, processes, and services for gain, where gain is broadly construed to

include economic and non-economic gains to individuals, the economy, and society”.

SE can be regarded as involving the 3P’s: people, planet, and profit Crals & Vereeck. (n.d.).

The first aspect, people, refers to an enterprise’s treatment of its workforce, the protection of

human rights, guarding against child labor and imposing self-restraint in desisting from






571

following unethical labor practices. It might include creating jobs, which is a laudable goal

but cannot be undertaken without simultaneously considering its impact on the third P, profit.

The second aspect refers to the impact of the company on natural resources and the

environment. Protecting the ecosystem is integral to an SE perspective in terms of becoming

a major goal (alongside profit-making) for a company or a criterion for evaluating strategy.

Thus, SE may be regarded as a process that creates enterprises that “can be contributory and

restorative in their interactions with human and ecological systems” (Tilley 2007). The third

aspect, profit, is the essence of a business enterprise. When broadly defined, profit relates not

just to the financial returns of the enterprise, but to the allocation of the financial returns

between investment in machines, infrastructure, R&D and other uses, and the distribution of

the gains between those involved in the entrepreneurial process.

An important point of departure for a course on SE would be for students to understand what

SE is. Using the framework developed by Young and Tilley (2006), it is possible to argue

that SE can be distinguished from economic entrepreneurship as well as social and

environmental entrepreneurship in terms of its emphasis, even though these different

perspectives are interrelated (see Figure 2). For instance, SE emphasizes the economic

efficiency and effectiveness aspects of economic entrepreneurship but includes inter-

generational economic equity as an added consideration. Like social entrepreneurship, SE

considers issues of social responsibility and socio-effectiveness but also brings in

considerations for the future (Cohen & Winn 2007). While the concept of social

entrepreneurship is subject to definitional ambiguity in terms of whether or not it refers

exclusively or primarily to non-profit enterprises, it can be argued that SE is consistent with

entrepreneurs striving simultaneously for profit and for improving local and global

environmental and social conditions (Cohen et al., 2008). In addition to issues of

environmental stability and ecological equity considered by environmental entrepreneurship,

SE emphasizes environmental sustainability. Thus, SE takes into account both social aspects

and environmental effects while also considering the long-term economic and business

consequences of new venture opportunities, as indicated by Figure 1.

Figure 1: The framework developed, that SE can be distinguished from social, economic and

environmental entrepreneurship

Source: Adapted from Young and Tilley (2006)






572

Cohen and Winn (2007) suggest that four types of market imperfections, namely, inefficient

firms, externalities, flawed pricing mechanisms, and information asymmetries, play a part in

causing environmental degradation. However, these imperfections also offer opportunities for

the creation of radical technologies and innovative business models. Entrepreneurs tend to be

more adept than large, established companies at exploiting new technologies and adopting

new business models. There is a pressing need for entrepreneurs to search for

environmentally friendly technologies and products and identify the technologies that are

going to succeed in providing sustainable solutions to current problems. Fossil fuels currently

supply over 80% of the world’s energy demands and that proportion is expected to remain

constant until 2030 even as the total global energy consumption continues to escalate (Basu et

al., 2010). The sectors experiencing growth within the “green” or “clean tech” industry will

vary over time with technological advances. Currently, the sectors predicted to grow include

the solar, biomass fuel, and green building sectors as well as cleaner coal and nuclear power.

Many commentators have observed the emergence of alternative forms of entrepreneur and

entrepreneurship (Isaak, 1998; Schaper, 2002; Dixon & Clifford 2007). The growing

recognition of social and environmental issues has provided entrepreneurs with new

opportunities, resulting in the emergence of environmental entrepreneurs (Schaper, 2002) or

ecopreneurs (Isaak, 1998) and social entrepreneurs (Dixon & Clifford 2007).

As with all forms of entrepreneurship, financing considerations are important to SE. In the

Timmons Model of the entrepreneurial process (Timmons & Spinelli 2003), the key is to find

a balance between the entrepreneur/team, opportunity, and resources. Financial resources are

significant, because without financing the entrepreneur will not be able to commercialize the

innovation/opportunity. The financial plan presents forecasted financial statements (income

statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements), breakeven calculations, and cost

control. The offering section details the desired financing, the securities being offered, the

company’s capitalization table, and the use of funds. These issues must be considered if SE is

to lead to a viable business (Cochran & Wood, 1984; Cochran, & Winn, 2007 and Lee et al.,

2010).

2.4 Definition of Terms

From the literature review, there are thirteen potential determinant factors, which lie within in

the context of economy, environmental and social and are associated with factors examined

in previous studies. To simplify the discussion, the Summary a brief definition of each

independent variable is also provided as following.

Table 1: Definitions of independent variables

Independent variables Source

Firm Size

The extent of a firm measured by a number of

dimensions such as a number of employees, capital

investment.

DTI (2003), Grubb (2003) and

Muller & Fahey (2004)

Finance Resource

The availability of financial resources to invest in

environment and social businesses.

Carroll (1979), Pearson (2006) and

Timmons & Spinelli (2003)






573

Technological Expertise

The availability of technical staff or consultants in

dealing with a sustainable development.

Dixon & Clifford (2007), Dutta et

al., (1995), Isaak (1998) and

Schaper (2002)

Business Experience

The period of time a firm has been in the sustainable

development business.

Foxon & Parrish (2009), Waldman

et al., (2006) and Sully et al.,

(2008)

Government Encouragement The Policies, initiatives, agencies, and everything that is

organized by government to facilitate the rate of

sustainable development becoming to a low carbon

economy and relevant components.

Grubb (2003), Pearson (2005) and

Zhuang (2008)

Environment Commitment

The ability of a firm to keeps promises and

commitments for environment protection

Bagoli & Watts (2003), Chen

(2009) and Feddersen & Gilligan

(2001)

Environment Reputation

The ability of a firm to adopt a leading environment

social responsibility profile to proactively manage their

reputation and brand with regard to good governance,

environment performance.

Ambec & Lanoic (2008), Siegel

&Vitaliano (2007) and Chen

(2008)

Environment Performance

The ability of a firm initiative to improve

environmental product/service and reduce waste and

GHG.

Gilley et al., (2000), McWilliams

& Siegel (2001) and Orlitzky et

al., (2003)

Resource Management

The ability of a firm adoption the good business

management to turn a waste product into something

which has value. Environmental initiatives are seen as

both an environmental opportunity and a business

opportunity.

Babsal & Roth (2000) and Russo

& Fouts (1997)

Community Investment

The availability of a firm continuing commitment by

business ethically and contribute to economic while

improve the quality of life for workforce, their families,

the local and global community.

Patzelt & Shepherd (2011), Wood

(1991)

Corporate Governance

The availability of a firm continuing responsibility to

the public, ethical behavior, practices good citizenship,

transparency in operations and protection stakeholder.

Freeman & Reed (1983), Knoll

(2002) and Porter & Kramer

(2006)

Employee Relationship

The availability of a firm to adopt the ethical standards

in dealing with important stakeholders through

employment practices that attract employees to social

involvement in the form of employee volunteering.

Chit (1964), Donaldson &

Preston (1995), Freeman & Reed

(1983) and Preuss et al., (2009)

Human Rights

The availability of a firm protection of human rights,

guarding against child labour and imposing self-

restraint in desisting from unethical labour practices.

Porter and Kramer (2002), Tilley

(2007)

3. Research Objectives/Research Question






574

3.1 To provide a conceptual research framework to explore the relationships among

economic efficiency, environmental social responsibility, corporate social

responsibility, sustainable entrepreneurship, and firm financial performance.

3.2 To identify the degree of important of each determinant factor that is influenced on

sustainable entrepreneurship transition to a low carbon economy.

3.3 The finding of this paper could create a greater awareness on the perspective gap

among Entrepreneurs, Investors and Regulators, since successful on sustainable

entrepreneurship strategy.

Figure 2 show the three questions and three research objectives are established as a basis to

explore the condition of possibilities for transition to a low carbon economy. in Thai’s

sustainable entrepreneurships, to provide insights and solutions to the research problem.

Figure 2: Summary of research questions and Research Objectives

Sources: Developed for this study.

4. Research Methodology

Research Problem Research Questions

“How does

Entrepreneurs

success on

Sustainable

Entrepreneurship

Strategy and

transition to a

low carbon

economy?”

1. How does sustainability

entrepreneurship leading

to success on transition

to a low carbon economy

2. What is the under laying

factors associated and

influenced with

successful of

sustainability

entrepreneurship

transition to a low

carbon economy?

3. What is the different

perspective gap among

Entrepreneurs, Investors

and Regulators, since

successful on sustainable

entrepreneurship

strategy.

Research Objectives

1. To provide a conceptual research

framework to explore the

relationships among economic

efficiency, environmental social

responsibility, corporate social

responsibility, sustainable

entrepreneurship, and firm financial

performance.

2. To identify the degree of important of

each determinant factors that is

influenced on sustainable

entrepreneurship transition to a low

carbon economy.

3. The finding of this paper could create

a greater awareness on the

perspective gap among

Entrepreneurs, Investors and

Regulators, since successful on

sustainable entrepreneurship

strategy.






575

The conceptual framework for this study evolves from both theoretical and practical

literatures in three context; Economic efficiency, Environmental Social Responsibility and

Corporate Social Responsibility. A conceptual model for this study is drawn to clarify the

linkage between the three contexts and the relationship of transition to a low carbon economy.

This model adapted upon the specifics of the earlier sustainable entrepreneurship model

(Young & Tilley, 2006; Tilley, 2007) and also combined the earlier firm financial

performance model (Kim, 2010) Figure 3 presents a conceptual model developed from an

extensive literature review.

Figure 3: A conceptual model developed from an extensive literature review.

Source: Adapted from Young & Tilley (2006), Tilley (2007) and Kim (2010)

In order to find the perspective gap among entrepreneurs, investors and regulator toward the

Sustainable Entrepreneurship Strategy and transition to a low carbon economy in Thailand,

Therefore, qualitative analysis was selected as the most appropriate method for gathering the

data that had sufficient depth and richness and also answer the research question and fulfil the

research purpose (Neuman, 2006). In additional, a qualitative research method allows

flexibility, which permits emerging data to iteratively incorporate into the analysis.

Primary data were gathered from thirty semi-structured in-depth interviews. The

identification of entrepreneur informants to be included in the study was undertaken in the list

of request registered to developed Sustainable Projects with the Thailand Greenhouse Gas

Management Organization (TGO), investor informants to be included in the study was

undertaken in the list of the Stock Exchange of Thailand who are interesting to invest in

sustainable development sectors, and regulator informants to be included in the study was

undertaken in the environment and industrial government sector in Thailand. Interviewees

were key sustainable development business sector located in Thailand. These particular

individuals were chosen managerial level and depth of experience in the sustainable

Transition to a Low

Carbon Economy

Sustainable

Entrepreneurs

hip Strategy

Economic efficiency

• Firm size

• Financial Resources

• Technological Expertise

• Business Experience

Environment Social

Responsibility

• Environment

Commitment

• Environment Reputation

• Environment

Corporate Social

Responsibility

• Community

Investment

• Corporate

Governance

Firm Financial






576

development business sector because firm financial performance evaluate must be done at

least a year after their companies transition to low-carbon economy.

Non-probability; sampling procedure is adapted by the judgment sample which the researcher

actively select the most productive sample to answer the research questions. Convenience and

snowball technique was selected, the researchers contacted to the 35 samples who work in the

managerial level, while 30 persons or 85.71 percents give the permission to interview

individually. Initially, interviewees were asked a range of questions to rank1 (the least

important factor) to 7 (the most important factor) on influential factors toward their

perspective and opinions of the key dimension of the model. Afterward the result of ranking

will be calculated to find the average, thus the lowest average is the most important factor to

the low carbon economy success. Each interview lasted between 20-40 minutes, and most

were carried out face to face at the interviewee’s place of work. All interviewees were asked

the same questions and all interviews were recorded and transcribed for late analysis.

Highlights the demographic information characterizing the study sample is presented in Table

2.

Table 2 : Demographic information

Category n = 30 %

Gender

Male 18 58.06%

Female 12 38.71%

Age

Less than 40 years 7 22.58%

40-50 years 11 35.48%

Over 50 years 12 38.71%

Stakeholders

Entrepreneurs 10 32.26%

Investors 10 32.26%

Regulators 10 32.26%

Management Position

Middle Management 19 61.29%

Top Management 11 35.48%

Company size (number of employees)

Less than 100 persons 2 6.45%

100-300 persons 13 41.94%

More than 300 persons 15 48.39%

Company size (capital investment)

Less than 300 million Baht 11 35.48%

300-500 million Baht 7 22.58%

More than 500 million Baht 12 38.71%

Year of Sustainable development experiences

Less than 5 years 4 12.90%

5-10 years 17 54.84%

More than 10 years 9 29.03%

4. Analysis and Intrepretation






577

The result of this study is very interesting while three parties believe human rights, financial

resource, resource management and environment performance are the most important factors

to the success of the sustainable entrepreneurship. In contrast, firm size and community

investment seem to be less important factors. We were to verify that the three group were

different perspectives. The three groups were assessed by using ANOVA analysis against

thirteen determinant variables that were initially clustering these three groups. It cloud be said

that the perspective different of three groups were difference on business experience,

environment reputation, resource management and employee relationship as shown in the

table 3. However, the result from the three groups common understanding indicate that

almost variables are important influence factors to success sustainable entrepreneurship

strategy excepting firm size and community investment. Table 4 shown the results from

ANOVA. It appeared that the difference in the means of the clusters for variables that were

highly significant (p<.005).

Table 3 : The triangulation different perspective to determinant factors on sustainability

Entrepreneurs Investors Regulators Potential determinant factors

Sum Mean SD Sum Mean SD Sum Mean SD

Economy Factors:

Firm size 15 1.50 .707 17 1.70 .675 17 1.70 .675

Financial Resource 67 6.70 .483 63 6.30 .823 63 6.30 .823

Technological Expertise 61 6.10 .876 60 6.00 .667 60 6.00 .667

Business Experience 61 6.10 .568 56 5.60 .699 56 5.60 .699

Government Encouragement 64 6.40 .699 67 6.70 .483 67 6.70 .483

Environmental Factors:

Environment commitment 57 5.70 1.059 59 5.90 .738 59 5.90 .738

Environment Reputation 62 6.20 .422 50 5.00 1.247 50 5.00 1.247

Environment performance 68 6.80 .422 67 6.70 .483 67 6.70 .483

Resource management 70 7.00 .000 68 6.80 .422 68 6.80 .422

Social Factors:

Community investment 56 5.60 .699 46 4.60 1.506 46 4.60 1.506

Corporate Governance 65 6.50 .527 60 6.00 .943 60 6.00 .943

Employee Relationship 69 6.90 .316 56 5.60 .843 56 5.60 .843

Human Rights 70 7.00 .000 68 6.80 .422 68 6.80 .422

Table 4: The different perspective between groups

Potential determinant factors Sum of

squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig.

Firm size Between

Groups

.267 2 .133 .324 .726

Financial Resource Between

Groups

1.067 2 .533 1.171 .325

Technological Expertise Between

Groups

.467 2 .233 .420 .661

Business Experience Between

Groups

4.067 2 2.033 3.978 .031

Government Encouragement Between .467 2 .233 .700 .505






578

Groups

Environment commitment Between

Groups

.200 2 .100 .131 .878

Environment reputation Between

Groups

11.467 2 5.733 7.740 .002

Environment performance Between

Groups

.067 2 .033 .155 .857

Resource management Between

Groups

2.600 2 1.300 9.486 .001

Community investment Between

Groups

5.267 2 2.633 1.886 .171

Corporate Governance Between

Groups

2.600 2 1.300 2.786 .079

Employee Relationship Between

Groups

8.467 2 4.233 8.530 .001

Human Rights Between

Groups

.267 2 .133 1.125 .339

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level

4.1 Finding and Disscussion

Therefore, we have concluded that the important factors from perspective of three groups as

show in Figure 4. Firstly, the economic efficiency factors should be focused in financial

resource and government. Secondly, the environment factors should be focused in environment

performance and resource management. Thirdly, the social factors should be focused in corporate

governance and human rights.

Sustainable

Entrepreneurship

Strategy

Transition to a Low

Carbon Economy

Corporate Social

Responsibility

• Corporate

Governance

• Human Rights

Firm Financial

Performance

Economic efficiency

• Financial Resource

• Government

Encouragement

Environment Social

Responsibility

• Environment

Performance

• Resource

Management






579

Figure 4: The important factors should be focused for Sustainable Entrepreneurship Strategy

5. Limitations of this study

The main limitation of this study is the small sample size. Clearly, the results of this study

cannot be said to reflect the views and opinions of the all of sustainable entrepreneurship

sector. However, as the purpose of this exploratory research was a scoping study to examine

a conceptualization and determinant factors of economic efficiency, environmental social

responsibility and corporate social responsibility in the sustainable entrepreneurship sector,

the findings are of interest in themselves and provide a good foundation for future research.

Moreover, the data analyzed represent an Eastern perspective, and other perspectives might

have generated different results. Finally, the general conceptual framework proposed requires

both case study and empirical research for testing the theoretical in a large number of

sustainable entrepreneurship before any conclusions can be drawn as to its generalization.

6. Conclusion / Suggestions/ Findings

This study has devised a conceptual framework and triangulation different perspective for the

sustainable entrepreneurship strategy transition to a low carbon economy process. Following

the creation of the framework, the study focused on the sustainable entrepreneurship context.

Factors which emerged from the literature as being important dimensions in other contexts

have been considered in relation to sustainable entrepreneurship and a number of determinant

factors that leads to sustainable have been identified.

The process of attaining sustainable entrepreneurship strategy requires the adoption of

specific strategic mechanisms and under this view, sustainable entrepreneurship was defined

accordingly. Theoretically, this study contributes to literatures in four distinctive ways. First,

this study is one of the few efforts to combine two currently disparate fields, that of

organizations and sustainable development and that of entrepreneurship. Second, sustainable

entrepreneurship is only a recent phenomenon that has emerged in the management studies’

literature, both as a theoretical notion and as a practical approach; this study offers a

theoretical definition of this emerging field based on the approach to business

entrepreneurship and a holistic conceptual framework grounded on the sustainable

development literature. Third, the study provides an exploratory study by depth interview as

supporting evidence of the way in which each of the three dimensions were materialized

through the entrepreneurial activity aimed at sustainable development. Fourth, it explores the

relation of the institutional form and of new venture creation, as well as the application of

strategies and the management of the three dimensions of the SE model, the economic

efficiency, environmental social responsibility and corporate social responsibility.

The study presented offers some important qualitative contributions to the field of

entrepreneurial activities. First, it demonstrates how the three dimensions of sustainable

entrepreneurship are interconnected and closely linked, since each one leads to the other.

Second, it reveals the presence of large-scale entrepreneurial opportunities grounded in

problems that either appears as issues of local development or of organization. Third, the

result have shown a very strong support that each level has a significant different perspective.

This study help us understand the role that developmental, economic, social and

environmental problems play in creating opportunities and bring us closer to a theory of






580

sustainable entrepreneurship that addresses more broadly the role that entrepreneurs can play

in creating a more socially and environmentally sustainable economy that lead entrepreneurs

transition to a low carbon economy. At the same time, this study provides evidence for

moving towards a less deterministic and more proactive role of entrepreneurs in forming the

conditions that are necessary to overcome existing problems. While the focus on new venture

performance and survival constitutes is critical, the entrepreneurship field should go beyond

the traditional strategic management focus and include an examination of the implications

that new venture creation has on economic, social and environment wealth.

It can thus provide a bridge from the literature on social, environmental and sustainability

entrepreneurship to that on socio-technical transitions and innovation systems which has

identified the key role of sustainable entrepreneurship strategy on transition to a low carbon

economy. The general conceptual framework proposed fulfils the purpose of a model as

explained by Young and Tilley (2006) as a way to construct theory to guide research,

facilitate learning about to issues of environmental stability and ecological equity considered

by environmental entrepreneurship, SE emphasizes environmental sustainability. The model

can be used to underpin future research into a low carbon economy process in other sectors.

This model helps advance our knowledge of the sustainable entrepreneurship process, which

is becoming important in transition to a low carbon economy.

5.1 Future Work

It would be interesting to attempt to replicate the study on a larger scale in order to ascertain

how generalize the results are. In addition, future research should examine a number of the

individual drivers identified in this study, both in order to understand their roles more clearly

and perhaps to rank them in importance. In particular, the strong results regarding

environment and social performance values, the role of sustainable entrepreneurship and the

influence of the thirteen determinant factors on the uptake of sustainable practices and

facilities all appear to merit further study. Further research also should identify whether a

adoption sustainable entrepreneurship strategy transition to a low carbon economy has a more

potent impact on firm financial performance.

In conclusion, researchers could benefit from the insights that the firm and stakeholder theory

also integrated tree contexts; economic, environment and social into our model provide when

explicating the process of sustainable entrepreneurship transition to a low carbon economy.

In this sense, further research should case and empirically validate both the theory and

conceptualizations developed in this study.

6. References

1. Ambec, S., & Lanoie, P. (2008), Does it pay to be green? A systematic overview.

Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(4), pp 45–62.

2. Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., and Hatfield, J. D. (1985), An empirical examination

of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy

of Management Journal , 28(2), pp 446-463.






581

3. Bagnoli, M., & Watts, S. (2003), Selling to socially responsible consumers:

Competition and the private provision of public goods. Journal of Economics and

Management Strategy, 12, pp 419–445.

4. Barney, J.B., & Zajac, E.J. (1994), Competitive organizational behavior: Toward an

organizationally-based theory of competitive advantage. Strategic Management

Journal, 15(8), pp 5–9.

5. Baron, D. (2001), Private politics, corporate social responsibility and integrated

strategy. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 10, pp 7–45.

6. Basu, A., Osland, A. & Solt, M. (2010), A New Course on Sustainability

Entrepreneurship. Retrieved January, 6 2011, from http://nciia.org/conf08/assets

/pub/basu1.pdf

7. Bragdon, J. H., & Marlin, J. (1972), Is pollution profitable? Risk Management, 19, 9-

18.

8. Brmmer, S., Brooks, C., & Pavelin, S. (2006), Corporate social performance and

stock return: UK evidence from disaggregate measures. Financial Management, 35,

pp 97–116.

9. Brundtland, C. (1987), Our common future report of the World Commission on

Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

10. Carroll, A.B. (1979), A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate

performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), pp 497–505.

11. Chen, Y.S. (2008), The positive effect of green intellectual capital on competitive

advance. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(3), pp 271-286.

12. Chen, Y.S. (2010), The Drivers of Green Brand Equity: Green Brand Image, Green

Satisfaction, and Green Trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, pp 307-319.

13. Cheit, E.F. (1964), Why managers cultivate social responsibility. California

Management Review, 7(1), pp 3-22.

14. Cochran, P. L., & Wood, R. A. (1984), Corporate social responsibility and financial

performance . Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), pp 42-56.

15. Cochran, B., & Winn, M. (2007), Market imperfections, opportunity, and sustainable

entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), pp 29-49.

16. Cohen, B., Smith, B., & Mitchell, R. (2008), Toward a Sustainable Conceptualization

of Dependent Variables in Entrepreneurship Research. Business Strategy and the

Environment 17, pp 107-119.

17. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), (2003), UK Energy White Paper: Our

energy future creating a low carbon economy, London: TSO.






582

18. Derwell, J., Guenster, N., Bauer, R., and Koedijk, K.C.G. (2005), The eco-efficiency

premium puzzle. Financial Analysis Journal, 61, pp 51-63.

19. Dixon, S., & Clifford, A. (2007), Ecopreneurship: a new approach to managing the

triple bottom line. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(3), pp 326-

345.

20. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L.E. (1995), The stakeholder theory of the corporation:

Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), pp

65-91.

21. DTI, (2003), UK Energy White Paper: Our energy future creating a low carbon

economy, London: TSO.

22. Dutta, P. K., Lach, S., & Rustichini, A. (1995), Better late than early: Vertical

differentiation in the adoption of a new technology. Journal of Economics and

Management Strategy, 4, pp 563–589.

23. Egri, C.P., & Ralston, D.A. (2008), Corporate responsibility: a review of international

management research from 1998 to 2007. Journal of International Management,

14(4), pp 319-339.

24. Feddersen, T., & Gilligan, T. (2001), Saints and markets: Activists and the supply of

credence goods. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 10, pp 149–171.

25. Friedman, M. (1970), The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.

The New York Times Magazine, 173–178. Retrieved December 12, 2010, from

http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-

business.html

26. Freeman, R.E., & Reed, D.L. (1983), Stockholders and stakeholders: A new

perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25(3), pp 88–

106.

27. Foxon, T. J. & Parrish B.D. (2009), Sustainability Entrepreneurship and Equitable

Transition to a Low Carbon Economy. Greener Management International, 55, pp 47-

62.

28. Gilley, K.M., Worrell, D.L., Davidson, W.N., III, & El-Jelly, A. (2000), Corporate

environmental initiatives and anticipated firm performance: The differential effects of

process-driven versus product-driven greening initiatives. Journal of Management,

26(6), pp 1199-1216.

29. Grubb, M. (2003), The Economics of the Kyoto Protocol. World Economic, 4(3), pp

143–189.

30. Guerard, J.B. (1997), Is there a cost to being socially responsible in investing? Journal

of Forecasting, 16, pp 475-490.






583

31. Herremans, I.M., Akathaporn, P., & McInnes, M. (1993), Are there difference in

liquidity and solvency measures based on company size? Accounting, Organizations

and Society, 18, pp 587-604.

32. Hillestad, T., Xie, C., & Haugland, S. A. (2010). Innovative corporate social

responsibility: the founder’s role in creating a trustworthy corporate brand through

“green innovation”. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 19(6), pp 440-451.

33. Ind, N. (1997), The Corporate Brand. Macmillan, London.

34. Isaak, R. (2002), The Making of the Ecopreneur. Greener Management International,

38, pp 81-91.

35. Kim, J. W., (2010), Assessing the long-term financial performance of ethical

companies. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing. 18(3), pp

199-208.

36. Knoll, M.S., (2002), Ethical screening in modern financial markets: The conflicting

claim underlying socially responsible investment. The Business Lawyer, 57, pp 681-

726

37. Langbein, J.H., & Posner, R.A. (1980), Social investing and the law of trusts.

Michigan LawReview, 79, pp 72–112.

38. Lee, D. D., Faff, W.R. & Smith, L. K. (2010), Revisiting the Vexing Question: Does

Superior Copoerate Social Preformance Lead TO Improved Finalcial Performance?

Australian Journal of Management, 34(1), pp 21-49.

39. Lowe, E. A., & Harris, R. J. (1998), Taking climate change seriously: British

petroleum’s business strategy. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 5(2), pp 22–31.

40. McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988), Corporate social

responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal,

31(4), pp 854-872.

41. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001), Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the

firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), pp 117–127.

42. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2002), Additional reflections on the strategic

implications of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review,

27(1), pp 15–16.

43. Muller, J., & Fahey, J. (2004), Hydrogen man. Forbes. Retrieved December 12, 2010,

from http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/1227/046_print.html.

44. Neuman, W. (2006), Social Research Methods Qualitative and Quantitative

Approaches (6th ed.). MA: Pearson Education.






584

45. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F., & Rynes, S. (2003), Corporate social and financial

performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24, pp 403–441.

46. Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2011), The New Field of Sustainable

Entrepreneurship: Studying Entrepreneurial Action Linking “What is to be sustained”

with “What is to be developed”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Retrieved

January 10, 2011, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-

6520.2010.00426.x/pdf

47. Porter, M. and Kramer, M.R. (2006), Strategy and society: the link between

competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review,

84(12), pp 78-92.

48. Preuss, L., Haunschild, A., & Matten, D. (2009). The rise of CSR: implications for

HRM and employee representation. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 20(4), pp 953–973

49. Roman, R. M., Hayibor, S. and Agle, B. R. (1999), The relationship between social

and financial performance. Business & Society 38, pp 109-125.

50. Russo, M., & Fouts, P. (1997), A resource-based perspective on corporate

environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal,

40(3), pp 534–559.

51. Schaper, M. (2002), The Essence of Ecopreneurship. Green Management

International, 38, pp 26-30.

52. Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

53. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000), The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of

research. Academy of Management Review, 25, pp 217-226.

54. Siegel, D., & Vitaliano, D. (2007), An empirical analysis of the strategic use of

corporate social responsibility. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 17,

pp 773–792.

55. Siegel, D. (2009), Green Management Matters Only If It Yields More Green: An

Economic/Strategic Perspective. Academy of Management, pp 5-16.

56. Statman, M. (2000), Socially responsible mutual funds. Financial Analysis Journal,

67, pp 281-310.

57. Sully de Luque, M., Washburn, N. T., Waldman, D. A., & House, R. J. (2008),

Unrequited profit: How stakeholder and economic values relate to subordinates’

perceptions of leadership and firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly,

53, pp 626–654.






585

58. Tilley, F. (2007), Conceptualizing sustainability entrepreneurship. Summary of a talk

delivered at the First World Symposium on Sustainable Entrepreneurship. University

of Leeds, UK, 15-17 July.

59. Timmons, J., & Spinelli, S. (2003), New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the

21st century. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill/IrwinUNFCCC (2011). What is the

clean development mechanism? Retrieved January 6, 2011, from

http://cdm.unfccc.int/about/index.html

60. Vaaland, T.I. and Heide, M. (2005), Corporate social responsiveness: exploring the

dynamics of ‘bad episodes”. European Management Journal, 23(5), pp 495-506.

61. Vaaland, T.I., Heide, M. and Gronhaug, K. (2008), Corporate social responsibility:

investigating theory and research in the marketing context. European Journal of

Marketing, 42 (9), pp 927-953.

62. Vance, S.C. (1975), Are socially responsible corporations good investment risks?

Management Review, 64, pp 18–24.

63. Van Riel, C.B.M. (1995), Principles of Corporate Communication. London: Prentice-

Hall.

64. Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D., & Javidan, M. (2006), Components of CEO

transformational leadership and corporate social responsibility. Journal of

Management Studies, 43(8), pp 1703–1725.

65. Wood, D. (1991), Corporate social performance revisited. The Academy of

Management Review, 16(4), pp 691-718.

66. Young, W., & Tilley. F. (2006), Can business move beyond efficiency? The shift

toward efficiency and equity in the corporate sustainability debate. Business Strategy

and the Environment, 15(6), pp 402-415.

67. Zhuang, G. (2008), How will China move towards becoming a low-carbon economy?

China & World Economy, 16(3), pp 93-105.

Biographical Notes

1. Phuttachart Rattanawong had received M.Sc in Building Technology from King

Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi. He is working as Senior Manager at Solar

Power Co.,Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand. He has 22 years of project development experience.

His area interest includes Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Firm Performance. Email:

[email protected].

2. Pacapol Anurit had received Ph.D from Middlesex University. He is an Assistant Professor,

School of Management at Shinawatra University, Pathum Thani, Thailand. He has 20

years of academic experience. His area interest includes Organizational Behavior,

Business Intelligence and Political Marketing. Email: [email protected]






586

3. Chuvej Chansa-ngavej had received Ph.D from The Ohio State University. He is an

Associate Professor, School of Management at Shinawatra University, Pathum Thani,

Thailand. He has 30 years of academic experience. His area interest includes Performance

Measurement and Decision Making. Email: [email protected]

asian journal of management research · 2017-12-12 · competitive industry consists of numerous...

Documents