Abstract
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are critical to achieving net-zero targets but remain under-engaged in sustainability support programmes. Barriers such as information overload, misaligned offers, and low trust in formal providers limit uptake, while informal, peer-based exchanges are often overlooked. Drawing on a comprehensive set of 47 interviews and two focus groups with UK SMEs and support actors, this study examines how SMEs navigate sustainability-oriented (government-funded) business support. Integrating Social Exchange Theory (SET) with the notion of Sustainable Entrepreneurial Ecosystems (SEE), we show that engagement is shaped by trust, reciprocity, perceived benefits, and power dynamics across ecosystem actors, rather than simply by the availability of resources. Consequently, we propose an exchange-based ecosystem model to explain how knowledge flows within multi-actor sustainability ecosystems, contributing to the SME business support literature by: (1) unpacking the micro-processes inherent in relational engagement; (2) fusing SET and SEE to offer a multi-level lens on SME engagement; and (3) reframing support as a relational exchange problem rather than simply an offer problem. Policy implications include investing in trusted intermediaries, designing flexible and context-sensitive support, and leveraging informal networks to enhance SME sustainability uptake.
Keywords
Introduction
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) play a pivotal role in addressing global environmental challenges and advancing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Smith et al., 2022; Williams and Schaefer, 2013), owing to their ubiquity, innovative capacity, and embeddedness in local economies (Johnson and Schaltegger, 2016; Revell and Blackburn, 2007). Across advanced and emerging economies, SMEs are increasingly recognised as central actors in sustainability transitions, yet their engagement with formal sustainability support mechanisms remains uneven due to persistent constraints in resources, capabilities, and access to support mechanisms (Ferrazzi and Tueske, 2022; Koirala, 2019; Zaman et al., 2025). Despite growing policy attention and the expansion of sustainability-oriented initiatives, many SMEs continue to face challenges in accessing, interpreting, and implementing sustainability-related knowledge in practice.
In the United Kingdom (UK), which serves as the empirical context of this study, SMEs represent over 99% of businesses and approximately 60% of private sector employment (BEIS, 2022), while also accounting for a significant share of business-related carbon emissions. For instance, the British Business Bank (2021) estimates that collectively they account for around half (43–53%) of UK business greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Thus, their active engagement in sustainability initiatives is central to achieving national government climate targets (Sage, 2022; UK Finance, 2024). To support SMEs in reducing emissions, a range of policies and initiatives have emerged, often through government funding, offering a rather confusing array of financial grants, mentoring schemes, and more. However, despite this proliferation of support, engagement remains limited, reflecting a broader pattern observed beyond the UK context, where even among SMEs aware of sustainability support, uptake remains relatively low, with evidence suggesting that only a minority of SMEs engage with available support in some contexts (ElTarabishy and Baldegger, 2025; Koirala, 2019). In the UK, Mole and Belt (2023) identified 282 programmes providing 719 types of support, with some early initiatives dating back to 2014. Despite this, SME engagement remains very limited, with less than 1% participating in such initiatives (Hampton et al., 2023; Phipps et al., 2023). Even nationally, the Climate Hub saw only 9082 SMEs sign up to using its tools, representing 0.16% of the UK’s 5.5 million SMEs (SME Climate Hub, 2025). These figures indicate a persistent engagement gap: although sustainability support is abundant, it rarely translates into widespread SME participation in such initiatives or the subsequent implementation of sustainability practices. Throughout this article, “engagement” refers to SME participation in sustainability-support programmes and initiatives and the ensuing implementation of sustainability practices within the firm, while “sustainability support” is used broadly to capture both formal and informal forms of assistance aimed at helping SMEs improve environmental or social performance, including consultancy, training, mentoring, and digital tools.
Entrepreneurial ecosystems are recognised as critical for enabling sustainable entrepreneurship (Bull and Willard, 1993; Hanlon and Saunders, 2007). Sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems (SEEs) consist of networks of actors, institutions, and resources that collectively foster environmentally and socially aligned entrepreneurship (Pankov et al., 2021; Volkmann et al., 2021). While these ecosystem dynamics are increasingly relevant across different national and regional contexts, the sustainability dimensions of these ecosystems, particularly what makes support both accessible and relevant to SMEs, remain underexplored (Pankov et al., 2021; Volkmann et al., 2021). While ecosystem interactions between universities, entrepreneurs, and support organisations can generate valuable knowledge spillovers (Chaudhary et al., 2023), far less is known about the micro-level processes underpinning these relationships (Raposo et al., 2020), specifically, how organisational actors perceive, access, and apply sustainability knowledge under conditions of uncertainty (Chaudhary et al., 2023). We address this gap by combining the notion of sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems (SEE) with social exchange theory (SET). SET explains human interactions as reciprocal exchanges shaped by trust, reciprocity, and perceived benefits (Craddock et al., 2012; Paillé et al., 2016), offering a relational lens on engagement decisions. Integrating SET with SEE allows us to connect macro- and meso-level ecosystem structures with the micro-level relational dynamics through which SMEs decide whether and how to engage with sustainability support. This integration remains rare but is vital for explaining why some relationships trigger sustainability action while others stall, even when resources are available. Accordingly, this paper sets the following research questions:
RQ1: How do SME actors engage with sustainability support providers within entrepreneurial ecosystems?
RQ2: Why do some sustainability support relationships succeed in prompting action, where others fail?
We offer three important contributions to the literature around SME engagement, sustainability and climate action, by: first, theoretically framing the relational mechanisms in SME sustainability engagement. Moving beyond the observation that “trust matters,” the study unpacks the micro-processes through which SMEs build, assess, and act on trust, reciprocity, and perceived benefit in ongoing SME-business support exchanges to facilitate climate action, shifting the focus from whether trust matters to how it operates in practice. Second, by integrating SET with SEE. By linking macro- and meso-level ecosystem structures with micro-level relational evaluation processes, we introduce an exchange-based ecosystem model to explain why some support relationships trigger sustainability action where others stall, despite having the requisite resources in place. Finally, we reframe sustainability support as a relational exchange problem. The findings challenge assumptions that formal institutional actors (universities, chambers of commerce, professional bodies, platforms) are inherently more effective, showing that peer networks and informal trust-based exchanges often have greater credibility, accessibility, and behavioural impact. These three contributions advance the wider business support literature by embedding relational (SME-business support provider) mechanisms into ecosystem thinking; a rare integration (Huggins and Thompson, 2015; Muldoon et al., 2024; Spigel, 2017).
The remainder of the article is structured as follows: The next section reviews the literature on entrepreneurial ecosystems and sustainability support for SMEs. This is proceeded by a methodological exposition. The findings section presents the empirical insights drawn from our extensive set of interviews with both SMEs and ecosystem actors, structured around key thematics. The discussion interprets the findings through the lens of SEE and SET frameworks, highlighting how structural conditions and relational dynamics jointly influence SME engagement with sustainability support. The conclusion outlines targeted implications for policy and ecosystem coordination, particularly the need to offer SMEs simplified tools and locally embedded support and identifies avenues for future research on micro-level entrepreneurial decision-making for SMEs looking to transform and accelerate their sustainability journeys.
Theoretical background
SME business support: progress and persistent gaps
A substantial body of research has documented the challenges SMEs encounter when accessing and benefiting from external advice and assistance. Early studies indicated that small firms often encounter barriers related to limited awareness, financial costs, and managerial capacity, restricting their engagement with formal support services (Bennett and Robson, 2003; Mole et al., 2009). The orientation, design, and accessibility of programmes, in addition to the role of intermediary organisations, shape uptake and perceived effectiveness (Kitching and Blackburn, 2002). Interventions that lack trust-based relationships or are perceived as overly bureaucratic frequently fail to engage SMEs effectively (Mole et al., 2017). In practice, many SMEs rely more heavily on informal, relational sources of advice including peers, customers, or professional networks often perceived as more relevant, timely, and trustworthy than formal institutional offerings (Revell and Blackburn, 2007; Rizos et al., 2016). While such informal exchanges are valuable, they can limit exposure to new ideas and structured knowledge.
Research on sustainability-oriented support reveals similar patterns. While research emphasises the value of embedding advisers who understand the specific challenges facing SMEs, and are committed to sustainability principles (Schick et al., 2002), the presence of advisers alone does not guarantee engagement. Many SMEs remain reluctant to access online platforms or websites provided by support organisations (Phipps et al., 2023), making it difficult to establish meaningful connections. Common barriers to engagement include a perceived lack of time, limited financial and human resources (Jaramillo et al., 2018), and a dearth of relevant skills or interest (Trianni and Cagno, 2015). SME owners and managers frequently perceive sustainability management standards and tools as overly complex (Bakos et al., 2020; Johnson and Schaltegger, 2016). Scepticism about the tangible benefits of sustainability initiatives is widespread, ranging from disbelief in the efficacy of low-carbon measures (Conway, 2015), to doubts about financial returns (James et al., 2016), and perceptions of low customer demand (Bakos et al., 2020). These findings illustrate the importance of designing support that smaller firms can interpret, value, and realistically engage with, whether through formal or informal channels.
Across the literature, trust emerges as a central pillar promoting cooperation, reducing opportunism, and facilitating knowledge flow (Iansiti and Levien, 2004; Thomas and Autio, 2013). O’Shea et al. (2021) contend that stronger trust and collaboration enhance proactive sustainable behaviour, while Theodoraki et al. (2018) and Raposo et al. (2021) show how trust-based interactions facilitate access to resources and knowledge spillovers. Although trust and relational quality are widely recognised in the broader business support literature as influential in decision-making (Blackburn et al., 2018; Brunetto and Farr-Wharton, 2007; Kautonen et al., 2010), most empirical studies model these constructs as relatively stable attributes or antecedents to outcomes, rather than the dynamic micro-processes through which SMEs build, evaluate, and act upon these relational factors particularly in sustainability-oriented, multiactor contexts. Yet, SMEs rarely operate in isolation; rather, they are embedded in webs of relationships that include customers, suppliers, advisors, intermediary organisations, and local institutions. These interconnected settings, commonly conceptualised as entrepreneurial or sustainability ecosystems, provide the structural and relational context in which trust is built and resources are mobilised (Spigel, 2017; Stam and van de Ven, 2021). Despite growing interest in ecosystems as enablers of entrepreneurship and sustainability transitions, few studies examine how SMEs navigate and leverage these dynamic multi-actor environments to develop trust, share knowledge, and act collectively toward sustainability objectives (Roundy, 2017; Neumeyer and Santos, 2018). We seek to remedy that omission by exploring how SME owners and managers navigate these relational terrains in multi-actor, sustainability-oriented contexts. This framing extends traditional sustainability-support scholarship into ecosystem-based interventions that foreground trust, relational quality, and practical engagement.
Sustainable Entrepreneurial Ecosystems as a framework
To situate SME engagement within its broader structural context, this section reviews the entrepreneurial ecosystem (EE) framework and its sustainability-oriented evolution. The concept of EE has gained significant traction in both business theory and practice (Borissenko and Boschma, 2016; Spigel, 2017; Volkmann et al., 2021). Rooted in biology, where ecosystems denote interactions among organisms and their physical environments (Cavallo et al., 2019), the EE concept was first introduced to business studies by Moore (1993) to describe competitive dynamics. The EE literature has increasingly emphasised the role of place-based networks, institutional actors, and resource flows in enabling enterprise growth and innovation (Spigel, 2017; Stam and van de Ven, 2021).
Although a universally accepted definition of EE is lacking (Roundy et al., 2018; Stam, 2015; Volkmann et al., 2021), scholars concur that entrepreneurial success is context-dependent and influenced by local, national, or global economic environments (Scott et al., 2022). This systemic perspective emphasises the interplay among various actors and contextual factors (Erina et al., 2017; Roundy et al., 2018). Key components include legal, institutional, and cultural frameworks, as well as interconnected actors such as entrepreneurs, incubators, customers, suppliers, universities, research centres, policymakers, professionals, and investors (Acs et al., 2017; Bischoff, 2021). In response to the growing need to embed sustainability into entrepreneurship, the concept of the sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystem (SEE) has emerged (Theodoraki, 2022; Volkmann et al., 2021). SEEs differ from conventional EEs by prioritising long-term viability through goals such as resource efficiency, social equity, and environmental sustainability (Tolstykh et al., 2021). Despite increasing attention, SEE remains conceptually underdeveloped and empirically fragmented (Bischoff, 2021; Theodoraki, 2022). A critical factor in enhancing entrepreneurial support lies in knowledge-sharing and stakeholder interaction, which Mason and Brown (2014, p. 77) term “entrepreneurial connectors.” The connectivity among ecosystem actors is thus, foundational. For example, Neumeyer and Santos (2018) found that sustainability-focused entrepreneurs had denser and more connected social networks than conventional entrepreneurs. Resource-based partnerships also play a crucial role in supporting such enterprises (Meyskens and Carsrud, 2013), while the absence of networks and cooperation can hinder regional sustainability strategies (Sedlacek and Gaube, 2010).
Within these ecosystems, knowledge is disseminated through both informal mechanisms, such as peer mentoring and trust-based advice, and formal mechanisms including incubators, accelerators, and training programmes (van Rijnsoever, 2020). In terms of providers of sustainability support, ecosystem research has often centred on universities, given their role in knowledge generation and diffusion (Wagner et al., 2021). However, while universities contribute through education, training, incubation, and consultancy, they do not always reflect the realities experienced by SMEs. Informal, trust-based support, such as peer advice, mentoring, and emotional encouragement, are often more influential (Korhonen et al., 2004; Newell and Moore, 2010). Recent work also highlights the increasing use of digital intermediaries in connecting SMEs to sustainability resources (Hampton et al., 2023; Phipps et al., 2023), though these tools may undermine trust by fostering one-way, impersonal interactions (cf. Vesal et al., 2021). Sustainability support also comes from local authorities, chambers of commerce, industry bodies, and private actors (Mole and Belt, 2023); yet, their contributions remain underexplored. Thus, the SEE framework offers a broader, systemic perspective than traditional business support models by recognising that SMEs operate within an interconnected web of governmental, civic, commercial, and knowledge-based organisations. This perspective enables analysis of formal and informal support channels, as well as how institutional norms and socio-economic conditions influence engagement. However, network ties alone do not guarantee the effective flow of sustainability knowledge. While scholars have mapped the structural roles of ecosystem actors (Neumeyer and Santos, 2018; Wagner et al., 2021), the relational mechanisms that determine how SMEs interpret and act upon sustainability support remain poorly understood (Cavallo et al., 2019; Maroufkhani et al., 2018).
In other words, while SEEs offer a valuable systemic perspective, they often overlook how sustainability knowledge is actually circulated, interpreted, and enacted by individual SMEs. Related frameworks such as absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990) and institutional logics (Thornton et al., 2012) explain why firms vary in their ability or motivation to engage with sustainability knowledge emphasising cognitive, organisational, and normative mechanisms, but are less suited to explaining how relational dynamics facilitate or inhibit these exchanges within ecosystems. We respond to these limitations by applying social exchange theory (SET) to provide a complementary perspective that focuses precisely on these interactional mechanisms, illuminating the micro-relational processes: trust, reciprocity, perceived benefit, and power, through which sustainability knowledge flows and is acted upon. This framing also aligns with the microfoundational logic in recent ecosystem research (Felin and Foss, 2023; Felin et al., 2015), which emphasises how individual-level interactions underpin and sustain higher-level structures. By viewing relational exchanges as the behavioural building blocks of collective sustainability action, we extend the SEE framework beyond structural mapping to a dynamic, interaction-based explanation of SME engagement.
Social Exchange Theory as a relational lens for business support
SET offers a foundational lens for understanding how individuals and organisations form and sustain relationships through interdependent exchanges (Blau, 2017; Emerson, 1976; Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). Rather than assuming participation in entrepreneurial ecosystems is automatic or structurally determined, SET emphasises the evaluative and interpretive processes through which actors assess the value of interactions making it particularly relevant for understanding SME participation in SEEs. SET posits that exchange relationships are governed by four key tenets (see Table 1): trust, cost–benefit analysis, reciprocity, and power dynamics. These principles explain how actors decide whether and how to engage in collaborative exchanges, especially under conditions of uncertainty or limited formal governance, such as in sustainability ecosystems.
Key tenets of SET.
In the context of SEEs, where formal coordination may be weak, trust-based, reciprocal relationships become essential to enable collaboration, knowledge-sharing, and moral support. Bai et al. (2024) differentiate between calculative trust, based on rational expectations, and relational trust, which develops through repeated personal interactions. Trust is especially important in settings where formal governance is limited, and actors rely on informal relationships to manage uncertainty (Bai et al., 2024). Individuals engage in exchanges by evaluating the relative costs and benefits of their interactions, seeking to maximise rewards such as information, support, or recognition while minimising costs like time or risk (Emerson, 1976; Homans, 1958). SET also highlights the importance of reciprocity, where SMEs are more likely to engage when they feel their contributions are valued and will be returned in kind (Blau, 2017). Finally, power plays a critical role in shaping social exchange relationships, emerging from imbalances in dependence, those who control more valued resources or alternatives hold greater power, which can influence the equity and outcomes of the exchange (Emerson, 1962). The theory thus, provides a nuanced explanation of the relational enablers and frictions that can facilitate or inhibit engagement.
Although SET has been widely applied in contexts such as buyer–supplier relationships (Casidy and Yan, 2022; Vesal et al., 2021), employee relations (Doney and Cannon, 1997), and sustainable procurement (Chang and Fong, 2025), its use within sustainability ecosystems remains limited. While prior research has tended to explain SME engagement through constructs such as cognitive absorptive capacity or institutional pressures, our approach emphasises relational mechanisms, namely trust, reciprocity, perceived benefit, and power, that connect individual evaluations to ecosystem-level outcomes. Applying SET to SEEs provides a microfoundational account of engagement (Felin et al., 2015; Felin and Foss, 2023), in which relational exchanges between SMEs and support actors represent the behavioural mechanisms that sustain or disrupt wider ecosystem dynamics. This perspective bridges micro-level relational evaluations with meso- and macro-level structures, illustrating how local interactions collectively reproduce or transform an ecosystem’s capacity for sustainability-oriented learning and action.
Methodology
Research design and context
We employed a qualitative design to examine how UK SMEs engage, learn, and adopt sustainability support within ecosystems. While this study focuses on SMEs as organisational actors within sustainability ecosystems, it recognises that sustainability engagement, particularly in smaller firms, is often driven by the agency and values of owner-managers and staff, who enact these organisational relationships within wider systems of actors and institutions (Boons et al., 2013; Short et al., 2010; Spence, 2016).The data collection approach combined a desk-based mapping of UK stakeholder initiatives with 47 in-depth semi-structured interviews (32 with SMEs, 15 with support providers) and two mini-focus groups (4 or 5 SME participants in each). The desk research was instrumental in identifying key actors and initiatives, while interviews and focus groups explored how SMEs and support providers perceive, experience, and evaluate sustainability-related resources (Creswell and Poth, 2024; Qu and Dumay, 2011). The mini-focus groups enabled participants to engage in dialogue, reflecting and expanding on one another’s experiences, thus surfacing deeper insights (Greenbaum, 2000). This approach is well aligned with recent studies investigating SME sustainability engagement and stakeholder support (Crossley et al., 2021; Quartey and Oguntoye, 2020).
Our study centres on the UK as a critical and timely context for examining SME engagement within sustainability ecosystems. The UK has been active in promoting sustainability among SMEs through national campaigns (e.g., Together for Our Planet), funding mechanisms (e.g., Innovate UK grants), and regionally administered pilot programmes. These efforts have resulted in a diverse and decentralised support landscape, making it an ideal setting for analysing the relational and structural dynamics of sustainability ecosystems. Despite this policy and institutional activity, recent evidence points to persistently low engagement with sustainability support among SMEs (Mole and Belt, 2023). This disjunction, between the availability of support and the limited uptake, emphasises the need to better understand how support is perceived, negotiated, and resisted by SMEs. The UK context thus, offers an opportunity to examine not only what mechanisms exist but also how they are experienced in practice. Moreover, the UK is broadly comparable with other high-income, innovation-oriented economies with similarly structured SME landscapes, enhancing the potential transferability of insights.
Sampling strategy
A purposive sampling approach was used to identify UK-based SME owners/managers and sustainability support providers, followed by a second stage of snowball sampling to diversify the participant pool (Meath, 2024; Singleton and Straits, 2010). The firm sample spanned different sectors and sizes including micro, small, and medium enterprises, and included both sustainability-engaged and less-engaged firms. This heterogeneity was essential in capturing varied experiences and overcoming previous critiques of homogeneity in SME research (Bakos et al., 2020; Parker et al., 2009). Support providers were identified through desk research and recruited via direct email. SMEs were approached using mailing lists from university-industry collaborations, to comply with GDPR. The final sample included SMEs primarily from commercial and professional services (20%), media and entertainment (20%), healthcare (13%), and information technology (10%). Business size was evenly distributed (38% micro, 38% medium, 25% small), and participants ranged from directors and owners to marketing and operations managers. Only 5% of SMEs had a dedicated sustainability officer, reflecting the reality that sustainability responsibilities often fall within broader managerial roles in these types of companies (Tan et al., 2025). The provider sample includes representatives from non-profits (33%), private consultancies (33%), universities (20%), chambers of commerce (7%), and local authorities (7%). Their offerings span consultancy, training, networking, financial support, and one-stop sustainability resources (Journeault et al., 2021). Summary profiles are available in Appendix A (see Tables A1 and A2).
Data collection
A semi-structured interview protocol was developed to elicit insight into the sustainability engagement and support experiences of participants. SME questions focused on sustainability practices, awareness of resources, and engagement patterns, while provider interviews explored delivery modes, uptake challenges, and resource design. A short pilot phase with four interviews was conducted to refine questions. Interviews and mini-focus groups were conducted online via MS Teams, each lasting 60–90 minutes. Ethical approval was secured from the host institution, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Data collection was completed by two trained researchers. The final dataset was deemed sufficient to achieve theoretical saturation, as no new insights emerged beyond the 47 interviews and two focus groups (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Ramadani et al., 2022).
Data analysis
The analysis followed a thematic approach to ‘identify patterns or themes within qualitative data’ (Maguire and Delahunt, 2017: 217), drawing on both semantic (surface-level meaning) and latent (underlying assumptions or logic) codes. The analytical process was both iterative and abductive, combining data-driven inductive coding with theoretical alignment based on both SET and SEE frameworks. Figure 1 outlines the six stages of the analytical process.
Thematic analysis: data analysis and coding procedure.
In the initial phase, semantic codes were generated based on explicit descriptions of how firms engage with, perceive, and enact sustainability support within ecosystems. These were then grouped into broader latent themes that reflected deeper organising principles or strategies. The latent themes capture the relational dynamics that underpin SME engagement across ecosystem actors. In the subsequent interpretive phase, these themes were linked to theoretical constructs from SET such as trust, reciprocity, cost–benefit, and power and to the SEE framework, which situates these dynamics within micro-, meso-, and macro-level structures.
Table A3 presents an excerpt from the coding framework, illustrating the interpretive pathway from semantic data extracts (participant words) through initial codes and sub-themes to the formation of overarching themes. For example, extracts such as “I didn’t feel I was getting enough return for the cost of the membership” and “It cost me £258 to be on . . . I just don’t think it’s fit for purpose” were grouped under Perceived low value for money and contributed to the broader theme of Mismatch in cost–benefit analysis of carbon management platforms. This theme was then interpreted through SET’s principle of cost–benefit evaluation and mapped to micro-level dynamics within the SEE framework, illustrating how semantic data were progressively abstracted into latent relational patterns and connected to theoretical constructs to generate the final thematic framework.
Approximately 45 hours of recordings were transcribed and analysed using reflexive thematic content analysis with NVivo 15 (Braun and Clarke, 2006). This method, grounded in inductive reasoning and deep engagement with the data, enabled identification of patterns in how SMEs and providers interact with sustainability initiatives (Hristov and Appolloni, 2022; Rawat et al., 2023). Two researchers conducted independent coding and reconciled discrepancies through discussion (Bonfanti et al., 2021). A third researcher reviewed theme definitions and supported the refinement of the thematic structure.
To ensure trustworthiness and analytical rigour (Pratt et al., 2020), we adopted four strategies alongside investigator triangulation:
Source triangulation (interviews, focus groups, desk research)
Member checking (informal feedback loops with participants)
Peer debriefing (within the research team)
Visual mapping of themes (e.g., thematic tables and matrices)
Given the relational nature of the topic, the researchers maintained reflexivity and critically reflected on their positionality throughout the study (Flick, 2018). They recognised that their professional experience in sustainability research and engagement with SME networks could shape interactions with participants and influence data interpretation. To address this, regular discussions and peer debriefing were used to ensure transparency, critical distance, and awareness of how their positionality informed theme development.
Defining ecosystem levels
To structure our analysis and explore the dynamics between SMEs and the broader sustainability support landscape, we adopted a multi-level ecosystem lens, distinguishing between micro, meso, and macro levels (Adner, 2017; Ritala and Gustafsson, 2018). At the micro level, the focus is on SMEs as organisational actors, including the role of owners, managers, and internal decision-making processes related to sustainability. The meso level includes intermediary actors and organisations that facilitate sustainability engagement, such as support service providers, local universities, business networks, local authorities, and sector-specific platforms. Finally, the macro level encompasses the wider policy and institutional environment shaping sustainability practices, including national government initiatives, public discourses, and regulatory frameworks. This framing informed our sampling strategy and helped capture how different types of actors interact within the ecosystem to influence SME engagement with sustainability. This positioning aligns with prior ecosystem research that acknowledges blurred boundaries between individual agency, organisational actors, and meso-level institutions, while analytically positioning firms, particularly SMEs, as collective actors within entrepreneurial and sustainability ecosystems (Stam, 2015; Spigel, 2017).
Findings
Drawing on SET, we show how SME decisions to engage with or act upon sustainability support to induce climate action are influenced by four key social exchange mechanisms: (i) trust, (ii) cost–benefit logic, (iii) reciprocity, and to a lesser degree, (iv) power dynamics. Table 2 summarises the discussion and highlights key patterns across actor groups reinforcing the idea that relational quality, rather than resource availability alone, is critical to engagement and transformation.
A typology of business support stakeholders.
Source: Derived from stakeholder interviews.
Trust
Trust plays a foundational role in shaping how SMEs select and engage with actors and resources in the sustainability ecosystem (see Table 2). High levels of trust were reported in relationships with peers and industry-specific initiatives such as NetPositive, My Green Lab, and Earth and Space Sustainability Initiative due to shared experience, understood as the belief or impression that others faced similar challenges, contexts, or goals, and practical relevance: I feel very at home in our city’s depot, particularly in the creative industries sector, with my friends and the way they go about doing things. I trust anyone in my networks, like the Better Business Network, People Planet Pint Network, or the networks within that business context (P23, Director/Owner).
Similarly, SMEs frequently described consultants as credible experts, particularly in the early stages of their sustainability journey, for offering clarity and direction, but also helpful in driving change.
By contrast, trust in local councils and providers of digital sustainability tools and platforms was variable. Some SMEs described councils as disengaged or offering inconsistent support. Several commented that while councils were ‘talking the talk,’ practical assistance or follow-through was often missing. There were also broader concerns about the authenticity of the various digital platform providers, as their underlying motivations were not always transparent: It’s like. . . who’s being honest? One tool says this; another body says that. It all depends on who’s getting the money (P14, Founder/Managing Director).
Trust in customers, suppliers, universities, and chambers of commerce tended to range from medium to high and was often conditional. For example, while respected for their knowledge base and infrastructure, trust increased significantly when universities offered tailored collaborations (e.g., student projects or co-designed R&D), or when chambers organised relevant, sector-specific sustainability events: The Chamber offers a wide range of things. They’re a great source of information. They’re also probably the first place I’d go if I wanted to find out what grants are available. It’s more about whether I decide to take part (P13, Founder/Director).
Cost–benefit analysis: weighing relevance, time, and risk
Our findings highlight a strong expectation of instrumental value from engaging with structured sustainability support programmes (see Table 2). SMEs weigh staff time and opportunity cost against the resource value offered, including concrete tools, frameworks, or roadmaps readily applicable to their organisational context. For example, where training provided by actors such as universities met these expectations, it fostered positive reciprocal obligations, with participants more willing to engage, apply new knowledge, and commit to behavioural change: Make sure someone leaves with . . . at least one thing they’re going to go back to their office and . . . do’ (P19, Founder/Managing Director).
Nevertheless, SMEs did not always seek financial return. Membership in business- or sector-focused initiatives fostered more relational forms of engagement. SMEs valued opportunities for collaboration, learning, and reputational development. In some cases, involvement transformed organisational behaviour, as staff became sustainability ambassadors and internal change agents. Such examples demonstrate how strong relational exchanges can generate sustained behavioural change and embed sustainability into organisational culture: All [staff] signed up to become my green waste ambassadors. [. . .] The majority of that [sustainable transformation] has come from us all being ambassadors (P6, Operations Manager).
A common concern with respect to potential costs involved was the time intensity of accessing support. For example, several SMEs reflected on the administrative burden of grant applications. Further, when exchanges are seen as low-return, high-effort, or poorly aligned, engagement declines rapidly. In this respect, owner/mangers frequently expressed frustration with carbon accounting platforms and sustainability rating systems like EcoVadis. Challenges included a lack of sector-specific functionality, opaque methodologies, and disproportionate administrative burdens: None of these accounting platforms were in any way set up for engineering. . . The data coming back from those platforms was just really poor. So that’s why we decided to start doing it in-house. (P24, Strategy and Partnerships Manager).
Reciprocity: Sustained engagement through mutual benefit
Informal peer networks provided one of the most consistent examples of high-reciprocity engagement (see Table 2). SMEs described these as low-cost, high-return environments, where knowledge, contacts, and encouragement were shared freely. These reciprocal exchanges were not transactional but based on shared values, often underpinned by locality or sector affinity. For time-poor SMEs, this form of support was especially valued because it did not demand large commitments and resulted in actionable insights: The people, networks, and organisations you regularly speak with help in practical ways, through contacts, advice, informal guidance, even just chatting. So it’s not only about inspiration or motivation; it’s about the practicalities of actually taking those steps (P15, Founder/Director).
In customer relationships, reciprocity manifested through mutual performance expectations. Large institutional clients such as universities, NHS trusts, and local authorities demanded sustainability credentials but also provided legitimacy, consistent orders, and reputational benefits in return. Similarly, supplier relationships emerged as vital informal learning channels. Rather than being limited to transactional exchanges, trusted suppliers shared expertise, flagged regulatory changes, and co-developed solutions: We were considering plastic pouches, but when we spoke to the supplier, we found out those pouches are hard to recycle. [. . .] That kind of conversation helped us steer clear of a solution that would have been worse than what we already had (P27, Founder/Director).
In more formal settings, the Chambers of Commerce, by contrast, were generally seen as consistently reciprocal because they consistently provided tangible benefits, including training, access to events, and policy forums, without requiring major upfront investment.
However, the data reveal barriers and frictions that can limit or discourage collaborations. Some accounts pointed to imbalanced or unrealised exchanges regarding how to access or evaluate university support, illustrating opacity around the potential returns of engagement. These findings highlight that even when formal support is available, perceived mismatches in effort and return inhibit engagement.
Power: navigating asymmetries in the sustainability ecosystem
Power in sustainability exchanges is dynamic and context-dependent. SMEs may feel disempowered when mandates are imposed without support yet empowered when they contribute to shaping sustainability narratives or tools.
Customer relationships, particularly with large institutional buyers like the NHS or universities, were key sites of power dynamics. Here, sustainability trajectories were shaped not through collaboration but through procurement power. While sometimes motivating or legitimating, these asymmetries were also fluid, influenced by internal capabilities, experience, and the SME’s evolving sense of value in the exchange: If I notice certain things are being asked for a lot, I’ll take it to senior management and say we’re being asked by customers for information. . . or to be associated with this platform, and then they (kind of) discuss whether that’s beneficial for the company (P7, Sustainability Officer).
Power imbalances also emerged in consultant–SME relationships, but primarily among SMEs for which sustainability was a focus, especially early on, as they often lacked the in-house expertise or time to address sustainability. Over time, many reduced this dependency, preferring internal capacity-building. SET helps explain this shift as SMEs reassess the value of ongoing relationships, especially when external support becomes costly or less essential: Now we’re further down the line [. . .] we’re not reliant on them. We know what we’re doing but we’re happy to know [the consultant is] there if we need extra advice (P24, Strategy and Partnerships Manager).
In contrast, peer networks like the British In Vitro Diagnostics Association were viewed as more horizontal, enabling open dialogue and shared learning rather than top-down instruction. Similarly, collaborations with universities often involved mutual negotiation and co-creation. Importantly, SMEs were not powerless. Some leveraged niche expertise, reputation, or local embeddedness to shape sustainability conversations: One of the things we do with suppliers is ask for sustainability evidence during our onboarding process. If we’re choosing between two suppliers that are very similar in price and offerings, the deciding factor will be which one is more sustainable. (P30, Digital Data and Analytics Specialist)
Comparison of stakeholders and resources
A comparison of stakeholder relationships reveals that high-trust, reciprocal exchanges, particularly with customers, peers, and peer-based initiative groups, are most likely to drive or sustain sustainability action. These actors provide either strong incentives (e.g., customer demand) or personalised support (e.g., peer-to-peer learning), and SMEs feel seen and supported in these relationships. Actors offering less personalised or inconsistent engagement (e.g., local councils) were perceived as less effective, even when resources were available. Universities, chambers of commerce, and consultants occupied a middle ground, respected but requiring expectation and time management. In contrast, providers of digital platforms and tools were seen as the least credible, with inconsistent engagement with SMEs.
A further comparison of actors reveals that the sheer ubiquity of support is less important than its usability and contextual fit. SMEs consistently favoured resources that enabled them to take tangible steps particularly when these were tailored to their sector, size, and stage of sustainability engagement. By contrast, tools perceived as overly generic, complex, or bureaucratic were ignored or abandoned. Even free support was frequently underutilised when it failed business needs, seemed irrelevant, or was perceived to offer limited value. This suggests that the effectiveness of sustainability resources depends not simply on their ecosystem presence, but on how well they are designed, delivered, and embedded within trusted, accessible channels.
The exchange-based model of sustainability knowledge and practice in ecosystems
As illustrated in Figure 2, the exchange-based model reflects the ecosystemic nature of sustainability learning, with activity unfolding across three interlinked levels. The macro level provides the broader institutional and policy backdrop, including government initiatives, regulations, and dominant discourses, which shape the landscape of sustainability engagement. The meso level centres on the ecosystem actors involved in facilitating or mediating knowledge exchange, such as consultants, councils, peer networks, and digital platforms. Finally, the micro level highlights the role of individual perceptions, motivations, and interpretations, particularly how SME owner-managers and staff assess the credibility, relevance, and cost–benefit of sustainability knowledge. These levels interact to influence how sustainability-related knowledge is accessed, internalised, and acted upon.
The exchange-based model of sustainability knowledge and practice in ecosystems.
Drawing on SET, we unpack how sustainability knowledge flows within ecosystems are shaped not simply by availability, but also by relational dynamics, including trust, reciprocity, cost–benefit thinking, and power (see Figure 2). The exchange-based model of sustainability knowledge and practice in ecosystems explains how SMEs engage with various ecosystem actors to access and apply sustainability knowledge. These engagements are provided by both informal (e.g., customers, peers, suppliers) and formal actors (e.g., consultants, local councils, universities) shaping knowledge flow, interpretation, and the likelihood of sustainability action. ‘Knowledge Flow Pathways’ include the processes and channels through which sustainability-related knowledge is transferred, shared, and absorbed between ecosystem actors. They connect social exchange mechanisms to tangible sustainability outcomes. Without them, even high-trust and high-benefit exchanges may fail to lead to meaningful learning or change. More specifically, it includes
1. Directional Flow – Who drives the exchange, and who receives it? For example, a consultant delivers a sustainability strategy, and an SME absorbs and implements it.
2. Modes of Flow • Formal channels are structured, institutionalised mechanisms that are typically planned, codified, and often contractual. In this study, they include: • Consultancy engagements (e.g., ESG advisors, carbon audits) • Local council funding schemes and training programmes • University-led student projects or collaborations • Industry-related initiatives with memberships or certification (e.g., My Green Lab) • Digital tools and platforms for measurement, reporting, or compliance • Informal channels are non-institutional, relational, and often emerge organically through everyday interactions. These include: • Peer-to-peer exchanges in local business networks • Informal advice at events, workshops, or forums • Ongoing learning from customers or suppliers • Word-of-mouth recommendations or benchmarking within a community
3. Resources—the type of resources exchanged, such as training, tools, platforms, newsletters, consultancy, certifications, funding, or grants.
4. Knowledge Content – the substance of what is transferred, such as carbon accounting practices, funding advice, or sector-specific best practices.
Unlike standard resource-flow diagrams, the figure illustrates interactional mechanisms and feedback loops, showing engagement as an emergent, co-evolving process across ecosystem levels rather than a static structure: repeated micro exchanges accumulate into meso-level routines (e.g., preferred networks, support channels) and collective SME activity and ecosystem partnerships can influence macro-level norms (e.g., wider policy and sustainability discourse), adding a bottom-up dimension to institutional evolution. Actors engage in exchanges governed by trust, reciprocity, perceived benefits, and power. These social exchange mechanisms are enacted and recalibrated through ongoing interaction. For example, repeated collaborations with trusted consultants or peers reinforce relational trust, whereas perceived inequities or unmet expectations can erode it. This reciprocal link captures how actors both shape and are shaped by the relational quality of exchanges.
As previously indicated, knowledge flows are moderated by sector fit, level of experience with sustainability, and engagement channel. Together, these components explain how learning and transformation unfold in delivery outcomes. This brings us to elucidating a knowledge exchange model using two contrasting examples. Each case includes analysis of the social exchange mechanisms, the knowledge flow pathway, and the sustainability outcomes reported. The first example illustrates how formal engagements with sustainability consultants shape SME sustainability practices. It reflects the dynamics of a top-down, expert-led exchange in which knowledge transfer was structured but mediated by issues of cost, trust, and power dynamics. The second example illustrates how peer-to-peer learning within local or sectoral networks is critical in building SME sustainability. Unlike the consultant example, this interaction was informal, embedded in networking spaces or sector-specific initiatives, and underpinned by a strong sense of reciprocity and trust. Full information on knowledge flow pathways between SMEs and other actors in the ecosystem is included in Table 3.
Knowledge flow pathways between SMEs and other actors in ecosystems.
Pathway 1 (formal). Consultants and SMEs
This pathway involves formal social exchanges where consultants provide specialised knowledge to SMEs through structured interactions, enabling a mostly one-way flow of expertise that supports sustainability efforts, with the impact moderated by sector relevance and company maturity.
Social exchange mechanism
These interactions are typically formal in nature involving commissioned audits, tailored strategies, and training sessions. SMEs perceived several benefits: gaining legitimacy through verified carbon reporting, adopting new practices such as renewable energy sourcing, and receiving tailored sustainability strategies. Trust in the consultants was generally high, with several SMEs describing repeat engagements and long-term relationships. However, perceived costs were also significant. For smaller or early-stage businesses, the financial investment could be prohibitive. Power imbalances in consultant–SME relationships were not always present, as many SMEs did not feel the need to engage due to constraints such as time, focus, or lack of priority. More advanced SMEs described using consultants more selectively, positioning them as on-demand advisors rather than core drivers of action.
Knowledge flow pathway
Knowledge flowed primarily in one direction from the consultant to the SME and was typically delivered through formal, structured channels such as site visits or staff workshops. The content ranged from carbon calculation methodologies to reporting standards and emissions reduction strategies.
Sustainability influence
Despite these challenges, many SMEs reported tangible outcomes: developing internal carbon strategies, upgrading facilities to improve energy efficiency, and initiating staff training aligned with sustainability goals. These engagements highlight how formal support, when trusted and perceived as beneficial, can catalyse action though often selectively and within the bounds of available SME capacity.
Moderator
Because consultants often work on a one-to-one basis with SMEs, the support offered is typically tailored to firm sector, size, and sustainability maturity. SMEs were significantly more likely to act on support they perceived as relevant and actionable within their specific operating environment.
Pathway 2 (Informal): SME peer networks
This pathway reflects informal social exchanges among SMEs, characterised by reciprocal knowledge-sharing and peer support, facilitating a two-way flow of practical insights that encourage sustainability actions, with moderators including sector, geography, and social proximity.
Social exchange mechanism
SMEs described these interactions as low-barrier and mutually supportive. Moral encouragement, validation, and practical advice featured heavily in their accounts. Many noted that peer exchanges felt more accessible than other types of engagements, and that advice from ‘someone like us’ carried credibility. The costs were minimal, and the trust within these networks, especially among businesses facing similar challenges, was high.
Knowledge flow pathway
Knowledge flowed bidirectionally, with SMEs both contributing and receiving insights. These exchanges occurred informally: at Chamber events, local groups and initiatives, business breakfasts, sector meet-ups, or even via word-of-mouth. The content shared was immediately practical such as how to begin a carbon audit, which suppliers to use, which certifications were realistic and it often came with experiential guidance.
Sustainability influence
Reported outcomes included initiating carbon audits, switching to more sustainable local suppliers, and gaining confidence to start implementing sustainability changes, even incrementally. Importantly, these peer exchanges helped SMEs overcome a key barrier: their sense of isolation or uncertainty accompanying sustainability action.
Moderator
Sector, geography, or social proximity can act as key moderators, making exchanges more accessible and enabling SMEs to take tangible steps.
Discussion
This article examines how and why SMEs engage with sustainability-oriented business support in the context of entrepreneurial ecosystems. We contribute to the debate through constitutive theorising (Cornelissen and Durand, 2014), combining SET and SEE to introduce a relational vocabulary and framework to understanding SME sustainability engagement to achieve climate action. By developing an exchange-based model of knowledge and practice circulation, we provide new insight into the micro-level logic shaping ecosystem participation. Although relational influences on SME engagement have been widely recognised (Mole et al., 2017), they have not been fully integrated into ecosystem thinking, particularly in sustainability contexts. The SET–SEE synthesis developed here provides a multi-level analytical framework linking structural ecosystem conditions (macro/meso) with relational evaluation processes (micro) that ultimately determine SME participation. This integration advances understanding of how knowledge and resources flow in sustainability ecosystems, how SMEs decide whether to engage, and how relational dynamics shape the success or failure of support initiatives. Our contributions unfold across three areas:
Unpacking relational mechanisms in SME engagement
While prior work (Blackburn et al., 2018; Mole et al., 2017) confirms that trust shapes SME engagement, we explain how trust and other relational mechanisms (reciprocity, cost–benefit logic, power asymmetry) are formed, maintained, and sometimes broken down in multi-actor sustainability ecosystems. We move beyond static conceptualisations of trust in SME engagement and show that SMEs actively negotiate these exchanges, continually reassessing perceived benefits in light of relational cues.
Trust
Overall, the findings indicate that relational, rather than calculative, trust forms the foundation for sustained engagement with sustainability initiatives. Higher relational trust was particularly evident in peer networks and sector-specific initiatives, where shared experiences, common language, and mutual understanding created strong foundations for informal exchange (Rousseau et al., 1998). These relationships were grounded in perceived goodwill and reciprocity, facilitating both the transfer of explicit knowledge (e.g., procedures, regulations) and the exchange of tacit knowledge, such as values and cultural norms (Bai et al., 2024). These tacit dimensions were critical for building alliances and enabling meaningful, sustained collaboration in sustainability contexts. By contrast, interactions with digital platforms and some formal initiatives relied more heavily on calculative trust. When these tools were perceived as opaque or profit-driven, SMEs questioned not only their usefulness but also their legitimacy as intermediaries. This finding echoes recent evidence that while digital sustainability platforms can enhance accessibility, their impersonal, top-down design often undermines relational trust and fairness (Hampton et al., 2023; Phipps et al., 2023; Vesal et al., 2021). Trust develops incrementally and remains fragile in unequal relationships (Molm, 2003). These dynamics reinforce the importance of relational legitimacy, grounded in transparency, reciprocity, and trust within ongoing exchanges, rather than legitimacy derived solely from institutional status (Suchman, 1995).
Cost–Benefit evaluation
For many SMEs, engagement with sustainability support mechanisms is driven by a search for instrumental utility such as actionable knowledge, practical tools, or clear roadmaps that can be directly applied to address business challenges. In line with SET, this reflects a logic of cost–benefit analysis (O’Boyle et al., 2012), whereby the time, effort, and cognitive load associated with engagement must be justified by tangible returns. When mutual benefit is consistently delivered, trust and commitment deepen (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005), creating a reinforcing cycle that encourages SMEs to re-engage and invest further in sustainability transitions. This exchange, however, is not purely transactional. As SET suggests, relationships are shaped by relational benefits (Cropanzano et al., 2017) including opportunities to connect with peers, gain visibility in sustainability conversations, or receive tailored and empathetic guidance. These non-material benefits play a powerful role in fostering relational trust and encouraging sustained participation, especially when formal support is perceived as rigid, overly generic, or difficult to access.
Reciprocity
Reciprocity emerged as central to how SMEs interpreted and responded to sustainability support. In our study, reciprocal relationships formed when support providers shared resources such as carbon calculators, checklists, or tailored advice without bureaucratic barriers. In contrast, relationships lacking reciprocity, such as those that required time-intensive reporting or offered little in return, left some SMEs feeling ‘used’ or exploited. They were more likely to re-engage when they perceived that providers gave without demanding immediate returns. This aligns with Blau’s (2017) and Molm’s (2003) work, which shows that non-obligated giving builds future expectations of cooperation.
A comparison between consultant-led and peer-based exchanges illustrates the multi-level character of sustainability learning. Formal channels, such as consultancy projects or university collaborations, tend to help SMEs consolidate and apply structured sustainability practices, while informal, trust-based interactions with peers, customers, and suppliers encourage experimentation, idea-sharing, and the adaptation of sustainability approaches to specific contexts. Together, they form complementary pillars of an ecosystem: the former providing codified expertise, the latter sustaining cultural and behavioural transformation.
Power and perceived asymmetry
While ecosystems are commonly conceptualised as collaborative and mutually reinforcing (Roundy et al., 2017; Stam, 2015), this study demonstrates that the relational dynamics within sustainability ecosystems are not always symmetrical. Drawing on SET, the findings reveal that firms frequently operate under conditions where institutional actors, such as clients or public funders, dictate the terms of exchange, thereby shaping both the form and pace of sustainability transitions. Importantly, the study reveals moments where formal providers of sustainability support lack power to influence sustainability within SMEs due to the lack of incentives for the latter to engage. By drawing attention to these uneven dynamics, we call for a more power-sensitive understanding of the SEE, one that accounts for the structural conditions, institutional pressures, and strategic agency that shape how different actors engage with the ecosystem.
Design propositions emerging from Contribution 1
This contribution highlights that SME engagement with sustainability support is shaped by relational mechanisms rather than by the mere availability of resources. These insights give rise to the following design propositions for future research and ecosystem design:
DP1a: Sustainability support initiatives that prioritise repeated, trust-building interactions (e.g. peer-based formats or long-term engagement models) will achieve higher SME uptake and sustained participation than one-off or transactional interventions.
DP1b: Support mechanisms perceived by SMEs as reciprocal and proportionate offering clear value relative to the time, effort, and administrative burden required are more likely to foster stronger commitment and re-engagement than initiatives perceived as extractive or compliance-driven.
2. Proposing an exchange-based model of knowledge flow integrating SET with SEE
Central to our contribution is an exchange-based model grounded in SET and integrated with SEE frameworks, offering a novel theoretical synthesis. By integrating SET (Blau, 2017; Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005) with SEE frameworks (Spigel and Harrison, 2018), the study extends existing theory to connect macro/meso structural conditions with micro-level relational evaluation processes that ultimately determine engagement. Unlike prior studies predominantly focused on resource access or formal support structures, this model illustrates relational dynamics, motivations, and power asymmetries shaping SME engagement. It offers a fresh conceptual tool to explain why some support relationships catalyse sustainability action while others falter, despite apparent resource availability. This synthesis addresses a persistent gap in SEE research, where micro-process theorisation remains underdeveloped, particularly in sustainability contexts (Roundy et al., 2017). Existing SEE frameworks often emphasise structural and institutional enablers (e.g., policies, actor networks, innovation platforms) (Bischoff, 2021; Sunny and Shu, 2019; Theodoraki et al., 2018), and less attention is paid to how actor agency and motivation mediate ecosystem participation. We also extend SET by applying it in the under-explored context of sustainability ecosystems. By showing how SMEs assess the legitimacy, utility, and fairness of ecosystem actors through these relational filters, we contribute to SET by demonstrating how social exchange principles operate within distributed, multi-actor sustainability environments, particularly under conditions of institutional ambiguity and limited formal enforcement. Our study deepens SET’s explanatory power by illuminating how transitions unfold at the micro level through dynamic, trust-based exchanges that render sustainability initiatives meaningful and actionable for SMEs. This has an important implication for government innovation and sustainability funding and policy.
Our exchange-based model of sustainability knowledge and practice in ecosystems positions SMEs as active agents who reinterpret, reshape, and sometimes resist the mechanisms designed to support them. These behaviours are mediated by SET principles: trust built through repeated interaction, perceived reciprocity, calculative cost–benefit logic, and the ability to influence rather than merely receive. In so doing, the model captures how sustainability knowledge is not simply ‘delivered’ but co-constructed in situated, relational contexts. This model reframes sustainability uptake not merely as a question of resource access or absorptive capacity, but as a relational exchange problem in which credibility, reciprocity, and perceived benefit are central. By highlighting why some support channels catalyse sustained action while others fail, the model offers a conceptual tool for both researchers and practitioners to analyse and redesign support mechanisms.
The empirical data also highlight gaps in how institutional support is experienced by SMEs. Some engagements were described as rigid, extractive, or overly top-down. When support mechanisms fail to resonate with SME motivations and operational realities, they undermine both behavioural change and ecosystem performance. As Iansiti and Levien (2004) argue, ecosystem effectiveness depends on the strength of its individual components; weaknesses in one element reduce overall performance. This insight helps explain the low uptake of sustainability support mechanisms observed across various contexts.
Tailored support that aligns with SME contexts enhances ecosystem performance (Iansiti and Levien, 2004; Spence et al., 2011; Schick et al., 2002). This research reveals that the current disconnects between sustainability support providers and SMEs lead to inefficiencies in knowledge transfer and the adoption of sustainable practices. As Schick et al. (2002) highlight, advisers to sustainable ventures can inadvertently create barriers to success if they fail to understand the specific challenges ventures face. This misalignment contributes to frustration and disengagement from SMEs, further exacerbating the gap in sustainability outcomes. Addressing this misalignment through context-sensitive, relationally grounded support can strengthen ecosystem functioning and accelerate sustainability transitions.
Design propositions emerging from Contribution 2
The exchange-based SET–SEE model shows that sustainability knowledge flows through distinct relational pathways, each supporting different learning outcomes. This gives rise to the following design propositions:
DP2a: Formal, consultant-led and programme-based support mechanisms are more strongly associated with the consolidation of established sustainability practices, whereas informal, peer-based exchanges are more conducive to experimentation, contextual adaptation, and exploratory learning.
DP2b: Sustainability ecosystems that combine formal expertise with trusted informal networks will enable higher levels of knowledge exchange and engagement than ecosystems relying predominantly on formal institutional support alone.
3. Challenging assumptions of institutional centrality
A third contribution lies in questioning the presumed centrality of formal institutions, particularly universities, within SEEs (Bai et al., 2024; Roundy et al., 2018). A growing body of literature on sustainability ecosystems emphasises the importance of networks and inter-organisational connections as key enablers of SEEs (Bøllingtoft and Ulhøi 2005; Fang et al. 2010; Hoang and Antoncic 2003; McAdam and Marlow 2008). This study adds to the literature on interorganisational networks within SEEs by demonstrating that certain actors and institutions become influential not because of their structural position or frequency of contact, but because of the relational depth and perceived mutual benefit embedded in their interactions. This becomes particularly clear when viewed through the lens of SET.
Through our findings, we see that formal and informal actors are affected by SET dynamics. This evidence emphasises the positive role of less visible actors and informal relationships, particularly peer networks and peer-based initiatives, which foster trust, mutuality, and relevance. These informal channels provide the psychological safety and contextual understanding that formal programmes lack, making them more conducive to the uptake and internalisation of sustainable practices because network-based exchanges grounded in trust facilitate knowledge spillovers, access to resources, and the sharing of actionable insights (Raposo et al. 2021; Theodoraki et al., 2018).
SET offers valuable insights into preferential engagement with informal, trust-based support mechanisms over formal institutional offerings by highlighting how SMEs assess the outcomes of exchange relationships and compare them to alternatives. Decisions about whether to continue a relationship depend on these perceived comparative benefits (Wallenburg and Handfield, 2022). In sustainability contexts, SMEs find that formal sustainability support providers may be costly, irrelevant, or lack reciprocity. As a result, they gravitate towards less binding or complex support forms, including peer networks, which are often built on trust and mutual benefit rather than formal contracts or agreements. It highlights how informal relationships can serve as powerful drivers of sustainability practices, particularly for those firms facing barriers in engaging with more formalised support structures. In this way, this study contributes to the growing literature exploring how stakeholder support can foster entrepreneurial activity aligned with sustainability goals (Bischoff and Volkmann, 2018; Pinkse and Groot, 2015; Simatupang et al., 2015). While our research focuses on a developed economy context, similar dynamics have been observed in economies with institutional gaps or weak regulatory environments, where informal networks often substitute for formal structures (Wahga et al., 2018). Our findings suggest that such informal, trust-based mechanisms are not merely stopgaps but effective forms of coordination that enhance SME environmental engagement even in well-institutionalised contexts. This broadens the global relevance of the relational perspective advanced here.
Design propositions emerging from Contribution 3
By questioning the assumed centrality of formal institutions, this contribution foregrounds the role of informal, trust-based intermediaries. From this, we derive the following propositions:
DP3: Informal, place-based or sector-specific sustainability networks will generate deeper behavioural change among SMEs than digitally mediated or generic support platforms, due to higher relational embeddedness and contextual relevance.
Implications for policy and practice
The insights from this study highlight several critical implications for policymakers and practitioners, involved in designing, implementing, or facilitating sustainability support for SMEs within ecosystems to achieve climate action. These are summarised in Table 4.
Multilevel policy and practice implications for SME sustainability ecosystems.
Further research and conclusions
This study unearths several fruitful areas for further investigation into SME engagement within sustainability ecosystems when seeking to achieve climate action, particularly at the intersection of micro-level behaviour and ecosystem design.
First, the study focuses on SMEs within a particular regional and policy context, which may limit the broader applicability of findings. However, this context-specificity also points to the value of comparative studies. Future research might examine how similar dynamics play out in other geographic regions, sectors, or policy environments, to explore whether relational norms, trust conditions, and exchange expectations vary across sustainability ecosystems.
Second, a longitudinal perspective would help capture how SME attitudes, trust, and engagement evolve over time and across phases of the sustainability journey. Such work could clarify what triggers disengagement, how relational breakdowns occur, and under what conditions trust can be rebuilt, offering more dynamic models of sustainability participation.
Third, future research could build more explicitly on micro-foundations scholarship to examine how individual-level cognitions, values, and capabilities within SMEs aggregate into ecosystem dynamics. While we adopt a relational perspective to explain sustainability engagement, a dedicated micro-foundational analysis could explore how owner-manager beliefs, employee sensemaking, and intra-firm routines interact with ecosystem structures to shape capability development and long-term sustainability outcomes (Felin and Foss, 2023; Felin et al., 2015). Such work would complement the relational exchange perspective advanced here and represents a distinct and promising avenue for further theoretical development.
Fourth, SMEs are not a homogenous group. Future studies could disaggregate SME experiences by sector, ownership model, cultural background, or regional context to uncover the specific relational and institutional conditions that shape engagement. This would allow for more equity-aware ecosystem design, especially in underserved or marginalised communities.
Fifth, future work should explore co-creation methodologies that actively involve SMEs in shaping the policies and platforms intended to support them. Action research or participatory design studies could offer practical models for how relationality can be embedded in the governance and evolution of SEEs.
Finally, future research could build on the design propositions advanced in this study by empirically examining how different relational configurations, intermediaries, and support formats influence SME sustainability engagement across diverse ecosystem contexts.
This article advances business support scholarship by embedding relational mechanisms into ecosystem thinking, an integration that is rare (Huggins and Thompson, 2015; Mole, 2020). We show that SME engagement in sustainability support initiatives to achieve climate action is driven less by the availability of resources and more by relational evaluations of trustworthiness, reciprocity, and shared goals. By integrating SET with SEE frameworks, we move beyond conventional access- or resource-based explanations to foreground the central role of the relational experience of support. The resulting exchange-based ecosystem model explains why some relationships catalyse sustainability action while others falter, even when resources are abundant. This reframing positions sustainability support uptake not merely as a supply-side delivery challenge but as a relational exchange problem unfolding through everyday interactions within the ecosystem. The dual lens was deliberate: SET illuminates the entrepreneurial and motivational dimensions of SME behaviour, while SEE captures the structural and systemic conditions shaping and constraining support. Together, they offer a holistic view of the relational, institutional, and practical dynamics influencing SME engagement. Consequently, we respond to calls in both literatures to examine the how of sustainability transitions, namely how support is interpreted, accessed, and exchanged in practice.
Our findings challenge the assumed centrality of formal institutional actors, such as universities, chambers of commerce, and digital platforms, by highlighting the often-overlooked effectiveness of peer networks and informal, trust-based exchanges. These mechanisms often outperform formal offerings in credibility, accessibility, and long-term behavioural influence. This insight extends ecosystem and business support theory by showing that relational embeddedness and reciprocity, rather than institutional status, drive engagement. For policymakers, ecosystem designers, and support providers, the implications are clear: programme design must be relationally literate, embedding empathy, reciprocity, and credibility into every stage of engagement. Metrics should extend beyond uptake counts to capture trust, relevance, and mutual value. Informal infrastructures that facilitate and sustain peer learning should be funded alongside formal programmes. Taken together, these measures can strengthen SME engagement and enhance the ecosystem’s capacity to scale sustainability impact across small business communities to achieve climate action.
Footnotes
Appendix A
Data analysis.
| Data extract (quote) | Codes | Sub-themes | Theme |
|---|---|---|---|
| It’s not an instruction manual. I think initially I hoped something would tell me exactly what to do and how to do it. | Lack of clear step-by-step guidance | Lack of practical tools for footprint measurement | Mismatch in cost-benefit analysis of carbon management platforms |
| A simple tool would be amazing - just input electricity data and get a clear output. | Need for intuitive, user-friendly tools | ||
| I didn’t feel I was getting enough return for the cost of the membership. | Cost–benefit perceived as unfavourable | Perceived low value for money | |
| I didn’t feel that I would get the return for what I was paying for the membership. . . There isn’t really more we can do now with our current setup. | Feeling the cost (money, time) does not match incremental benefits. | ||
| It cost me £258 to be on. . . .I just don’t think it’s fit for purpose. | Cost perceived as too high for value received. | ||
| There are other tools that you have to pay to use as well. I think that could be useful to make it accessible to everyone, not just pay service. . . | Cost as a barrier limiting use and potential benefits. | ||
| I do find a lot of conflicting answers. I read one thing, then I’ll check it somewhere else, and it contradicts the first. | Conflicting online information creates uncertainty | Concerns about credibility | Mistrust in carbon management platforms |
| So many companies are offering frameworks to get to net zero, but are they just there to make money? | Distrust of third-party sustainability frameworks | ||
| Zellar is not telling me things honestly. [. . .] somebody else is saying the opposite because they want the money. . . So who’s being honest? | Mistrust in platform honesty and accuracy | Unclear motivations of providers | |
| You don’t know if these companies are there just to make money and are you going to end up with something which actually isn’t credible. | Skepticism about the legitimacy of providers. | ||
| . . .the amount of people that were offering some kind of service but didn’t say how they were doing it. And I found that quite strange really. | Expectation of transparency and shared knowledge as part of mutual exchange. | Lack of openness and mutual validation breaches norms of reciprocity | Reciprocity - giving without getting |
| When you actually have someone check in. . . we would probably use more tools. | Highlights importance of collaboration, validation, and mutual checking. | ||
| . . .none of these counting platforms were in any way set up for engineering. . . the data coming back. . . was just really poor. So that’s why we decided to start doing it in house. . . | Indicates lack of control over platform design forcing them to take power back. | Users circumventing platform limitations | Power imbalance in platform design |
| Scope 3 is really hard - like 90% of our footprint comes from our saleable goods. . . but it’s not accurate. | Struggles with measuring Scope 3 emissions accurately | ||
| . . .if you didn’t fill in one part, you couldn’t move on to the next. But and we didn’t have that information. And so it was just. . . we couldn’t get through the calculator effectively. | Platform design restricting users who lack certain data, showing power imbalance. | Platform restricts user agency | |
| It’s very difficult to, especially with scope three. . . we do all that based on spend and it’s not accurate. . . we want to try and make it more accurate. | Constraints of platform methodologies limit user ability to produce accurate results. |
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all participating SMEs, local ecosystem stakeholders, and knowledge exchange partners who generously shared their time and insights. No third-party writing or editing assistance was used in the preparation of this manuscript. The manuscript is submitted directly by the authors.
Ethical considerations
This study was approved by the University of Leicester General Research Ethics Committee (Reference No: 1448).
Consent to participate
Written informed consent was obtained from all participants. Participants provided informed consent prior to their involvement. All data were anonymised.
Consent for publication
Not applicable. This manuscript does not contain individual-level identifying data, images, or videos.
Author contributions
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by Innovate UK.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data availability statement
The data supporting the findings of this study are not publicly available due to confidentiality agreements with participants, but may be made available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request and with appropriate ethical approvals.
Acknowledgment of AI use
An AI tool was used to support language editing and improve clarity in earlier drafts of this manuscript. All content has been reviewed, verified, and approved by the authors.