Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Organizations are constantly searching for new pathways to ensure survival and sustainability in a highly dynamic and competitive environment. Against this background, the present study aims to propose a strategic framework considering the crucial role of small businesses and entrepreneurship for sustainable economic, social, and environmental development. This paper employed a selective-intensive literature review technique to review and evaluate extant sustainability orientation (SO) literature from multiple strategic orientation paradigm. In addition, drawing from the theoretical underpinnings of resource complementarity and configuration perspective, this study proposes a configuration of sustainability orientation (SO), entrepreneurial orientation (EO), and market orientation (MO) in the era of sustainable development. The key finding of this paper is the development of a higher-order dynamic capability, that is, Entrepreneurial Responsible Orientation (ERO). ERO is proposed as an entrepreneurial strategic framework that integrates three distinct but complementary elements (i.e., sustainability, entrepreneurial, and marketing) under the umbrella of strategic orientation that drives superior sustainable firm performance. Moreover, we put forward the future research agenda by developing several potential research questions, thus, the findings of this study will serve as a springboard to extend the knowledge base in this field of research. This paper provides an integrated framework in the contexts of small businesses and entrepreneurship by utilizing the combination of the theoretical and conceptual development approaches. The proposed framework, if implemented successfully, has the potential to drive sustainable performance of the small firms particularly, and sustainable development of the country, generally.

Keywords

sustainable development entrepreneurship SMEs resource complementarity sustainability orientation

Introduction

We live in a constantly changing world, while the global challenges to the economies, societies, and environments are becoming ever more complex. However, everyone (e.g., individuals, businesses, governments, non-governmental organizations) needs to take responsibility for their actions and behaviors in contributing toward a more sustainable world (UN, 2020). In practice, sustainable development (SD) is the key to organizing our cognitive and behavioral responses for the long-term success, prosperity, and sustainability of the world (Holmberg & Sandbrook, 2019; Virakul, 2015). Since United Nations (UN) has launched the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)—an agenda to be achieved by 2030—the concept of sustainable development has gained considerable attention from researchers, practitioners, and policymakers, globally (Williams et al., 2019). In this vein, the professional and academic literature has demonstrated the crucial role of businesses on a path toward sustainable development (Chien et al., 2021). At the same time, business organizations face immense pressure from various stakeholders to behave in socially and environmentally responsible ways (Shou et al., 2019; Zhang & Zhu, 2019). A Consistent observation has been made in prior literature that “without sustainable organizations, there is no sustainable development, thus, no future” (Business and Sustainable Development Commission, 2017; Weidinger et al., 2014).

The majority of business organizations in both developed and developing countries are small and medium enterprises (SMEs), representing a very large share of the global economic activity (Prashar, 2019). SMEs constitute more than 90% of the world’s businesses providing more than half of all employments (e.g., Kaminskaite, 2017; World Bank Group, 2019). Notably, 99% of all businesses in Europe (European Commission, 2019), and 98% of all businesses in Asia are SMEs providing every two out of three private jobs (Yoshino & Taghizadeh-Hesary, 2016). Although SMEs are smaller when taken individually, as a consequence of their dominance in the global economy, it is quite natural that collectively their impacts on society and the environment are much more significant than the larger businesses (Yadav et al., 2018). In this vein, the sustainable practices of SMEs have a huge implication for sustainable economic, social, and environmental development (Higgs & Hill, 2019; Jansson et al., 2017).

Given the dominance and crucial role of small businesses and entrepreneurship for sustainable development (Chang & Cheng, 2019; Prashar, 2019), recent calls have suggested that an entrepreneurial strategic posture must capture a broader responsible stance, that is while focusing on being entrepreneurial, they must also strive to balance their economic goals with their responsibility toward customers, society, and environment (e.g., Jansson et al., 2017; Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010; Mitchell et al., 2010). Against this background, this paper suggests that integrating sustainability principles in SMEs’ strategic orientation is imperative to ensure sustainable business performance particularly, and sustainable development of the country generally (Chang & Cheng, 2019; Yacob et al., 2019). Drawing from the theoretical underpinning of the dynamic capability theory and the configurational perspective of multiple strategic orientations, this study conceptualizes an extended strategic posture that postulates the new approach of doing business in the sustainable development world, aligning social and environmental aspects of sustainability along with the economic gains (Baumgartner, 2009; Parente et al., 2018).

The main goal of this study is to configure entrepreneurial responsible orientation (ERO) balancing the economic, social, and environmental concerns into the strategy management of small businesses and entrepreneurship. This study defines ERO in three dimensions (i.e., sustainability, entrepreneurial, and market orientation), which are proposed to complement and mutually support each other in driving superior performance of SMEs as well as addressing the changing customer, societal, and environmental demands. Moreover, this study also discusses the proposed theory concerning its nature, dimensionality, measurements, and future implications.

The rest of the paper progresses as follows. It first discusses the relevant literature by highlighting the significant role and responsibility of SMEs for sustainable development. Second, this paper builds argumentations and theoretical justifications of the proposed framework through the lens of dynamic capabilities and the configurational perspective of contingency theory. Third, this study describes the nature, dimensionality, and measurement approach of the proposed concept. The last section of the paper discusses the avenues for future researchers and presents valuable insights for theory, policy, and practice.

Sustainable Development and Corporate Responsibility

The concept of sustainable development is not so simple and straightforward because this implies various distinct and contrasting meanings depending on the contexts in which it is utilized (e.g., cultural contexts, small or large business context). This term was firstly introduced in 1972 at United Nations (UN) conference on the human environment. However, the most widely used and largely accepted definition of sustainable development (SD) was originated from the Brundtland report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) in 1987. It is defined as “the development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987).

Despite various confusing and contrasting conceptualizations, the concept of sustainable development has constantly been gaining momentum in terms of its significance and popularity among governments and policymakers worldwide. Both developed and developing countries have escalated their higher level of commitments for sustainable development at the UN summit on September 25, 2015, in New York. More than 190 nation’s leaders all around the world adopted a set of 17 sustainable development goals (SDG’s) as part of an agenda to be achieved by 2030 (Dyllick & Muff, 2016; Williams et al., 2019). SDG’s framework is based on three pillars of sustainable development; economy, society, and environment. Although these development matters (i.e., economic, social, and environmental) were generally handled by the governments, public authorities, and institutions in the past, United Nations Organization (UNO) is constantly striving and demanding a collective effort from all the stakeholders (e.g., individuals, organizations, governments, civil society) for the successful achievement of SDGs (UN, 2015). To this end, the debate on sustainability issues has gained significant attention in business theory and practice (e.g., Calabrese et al., 2019; Yu et al., 2018).

In a business context, sustainability is often described according to the triple bottom line (TBL) model introduced by Elkington in 1997. The TBL framework suggests that business goals are inseparable from the societies and environments in which they operate. According to the TBL model, sustainability is a multidimensional concept composed of three dimensions: economic (profit), social (people), and environmental (planet) (Elkington, 1994). The underlying idea of the TBL framework is to measure business sustainability not only by its financial but also in environmental and social consequences. This model was specifically conceptualized in a language familiar to business theorists to allow its greater acceptance in business theory and practice (Elkington, 2004). To this end, integration of the triple bottom line (i.e., economic, social, and environment) in businesses have increasingly been recognized as an important field of research (Elkington, 2013; Shou et al., 2019).

The Role of SMEs

The previous literature has predominantly emphasized that sustainable development can only be achieved if all business firms embrace sustainability principles in their strategic management (Engert et al., 2016; Schaltegger et al., 2019). Therefore, every kind of business, regardless of its size, needs to address social and environmental responsibilities in its business activities to ensure sustainable performance (Stoian & Gilman, 2017). Although SMEs are smaller when taken individually, from a macro perspective at the same time, SMEs are the dominant form of business organization worldwide playing a backbone role in the global economy (World Bank Group, 2019).

Several studies report that more than 90% of the businesses globally are SMEs, accounting for more than 70% of all products and services, and employing more than 50% of the total workforce (e.g., Kaminskaite, 2017; World Bank Group, 2019). SMEs represent 99% of all businesses in Europe (European Commission, 2019), 98% of all businesses in Asia providing two out of three private jobs in the region (Yoshino & Taghizadeh-Hesary, 2016), and more than 90% of all business firms in Africa and representing 50% contribution to GDP (Muriithi, 2017). SMEs serve as an engine to the economies of both developed and developing countries. Particularly, several reports underlined the economic development of China with their SME sector. According to Chinese National Bureau of Statistics, (a) SMEs represent 99% of all business firms, (b) employs 80% workforce, and (c) contributes nearly 60% to GDP. Similarly, this case holds true in developing countries contexts, such as Pakistan, where SMEs represent about 90% of all businesses, employing 80% of the nonagricultural labor force and contributing 40% to GDP per year (Small and Medium Enterprises Development Authority, 2019). Moreover, several developmental countributions of SME sector have been noted in most of the African countries. For instance, with regard to its employment contributions, it represents 90% in Ethopia, 80% in Kenya, and 70% in Nigeria (Muriithi, 2017). Therefore, as a consequence of SMEs’ dominance in the business arena worldwide, it is quite natural that they have a considerable impact on the environmental and social well-being (Westman et al., 2019) as well as hold a significant role to play for sustainable development (Ayuso & Navarrete Báez, 2018; Higgs & Hill, 2019; Prashar, 2019). In this context, the governments, policymakers, and scholars are predominantly drawing their attention to the crucial role and significant contributions of SMEs in world’s business activity.

In contrast to large businesses, (i) SMEs have very different preconditions to act their social and environmental responsibility, and (ii) prefer to talk about their efforts in less academic and more informal ways (Jenkins, 2006). Given that sustainable development reflects both uncertainties and opportunities (McMullen & Shepherd, 2006; York & Venkataraman, 2010), recent studies have suggested that small businesses may address sustainable development issues more faster and more effectively than the larger firms (Jenkins, 2006; Matinaro et al., 2019; Prashar, 2019). A globalization council study (2009) reported that SMEs are more flexible and adaptive than MNCs to achieve more economic, social, and environmentally sustainable outcomes (Yadav et al., 2018), though, SMEs’ involvement in sustainable development can be considered as an entrepreneurial act (Spence et al., 2011). Furthermore, the relationship between SMEs and sustainable development is often considered interdependent; the achievement of sustainable development goals (SDGs) is conditioned with the success of SMEs, while the growth and performance of SMEs cannot be achieved without incorporating sustainability principles and practices in their strategic framework. To this end, recent studies have predominantly focused their attention to investigating sustainability issues in SMEs (e.g., Chien et al., 2021; Raza et al., 2021).

Framework Development—Entrepreneurial Responsible Orientation

Strategic Orientations and SMEs Performance

Considering SMEs’ crucial role and significant contributions on the road toward a more sustainable world, their growth and performance are often linked with their strategic orientation in strategy management and entrepreneurship literature (Beliaeva et al., 2020; Irwin et al., 2018; Nasir et al., 2017). Strategic orientations are the principles, guidelines, directions, decisions, and activities that businesses make to achieve superior performance. According to Hakala (2011), strategic orientation is a bundle of principles and behaviors that guides firm activities to ensure its viability and performance. Cadogan (2012), considered strategic orientation as simply the reflection of how a firm operates. Overall, strategic orientations provide directions to attain superior firm performance (Beliaeva et al., 2020; Hakala, 2011). Previous studies have predominantly reported the significant influences of the company’s strategic orientation on attaining its goals from a macro and micro perspective (e.g., Khizar et al., 2022; Kurtulmuş et al., 2020). Accordingly, a sufficient proportion of research studies is available related to strategic orientations with firm performance (e.g., McKenny et al., 2018; Shou et al., 2019), innovation performance (e.g., Song et al., 2019; Tutar et al., 2015), and sustainable competitive advantage (e.g., Criado-Gomis et al., 2017; Papadas et al., 2018). This study includes entrepreneurial orientation (EO), market orientation (MO), and sustainability orientation (SO) under the umbrella of strategic orientation by utilizing an integrated approach to postulate an extended entrepreneurial strategic posture (EO) that also incorporate the responsibilities toward customers (MO), society, and environment (SO).

Entrepreneurial orientation

Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) reflects the degree to which a firm engages in identifying new business opportunities and renewing existing business operations. EO generally represents the decisions, processes, and practices toward new opportunities (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). Fellnhofer et al. (2017), describes EO as a firm-level entrepreneurial strategic posture to facilitate entrepreneurial decisions and actions. EO is generally comprised of three components: (i) innovativeness, (ii) risk-taking, and (iii) pro-activeness (Covin & Slevin, 1989; Miller, 1983). Innovativeness refers to the extent of a firms’ capability of innovating new products, services, and technologies (Baker & Sinkula, 2009; Kreiser, 2011). Risk-taking reflects the willingness of a firm for making resource commitments without the fear of failure (Miller, 1983). Pro-activeness reflects a firm’s forward-looking and anticipatory behavior to capture new opportunities either related or unrelated to current business operations (Venkatraman, 1989).

Market orientation

Market orientation (MO) is the degree of a firm’s responsiveness to the changing market demands strategically and operationally (Sivageahnam et al., 2015). The scholars have approached the nature of market orientation (MO) in many different ways, however, the two conceptualizations; MO to be an organizational culture (Narver & Slater, 1990) and MO as implementing marketing concept (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990), got prominence and considerable scholarly attention in the literature. Narver and Slater (1990) conceptualized MO as “an organizational culture that most effectively and efficiently creates the necessary behaviors for the creation of superior market and organizational performance.” This school of thought conceptualized MO in three dimensions: (i) customer orientation, (ii) competitor orientation, and iii) inter-functional coordination (Narver & Slater, 1990). On the other hand, Kohli and Jaworski (1990) conceptualized MO as (i) intelligence generation, (ii) intelligence dissemination, and iii) responsiveness.

Sustainability orientation

Sustainability orientation (SO) can be defined as the extent of a firms’ internal commitment toward the integration of societal and environmental concerns in decision making (Shou et al., 2019). SO demonstrates the readiness of a firm for implementing the sustainability-related initiative in the organization (Tata & Prasad, 2015). Contrary to other scholars who considered SO as business philosophy (e.g., Roxas & Chadee, 2012; Shou et al., 2019), some scholars (e.g., Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010) conceptualized the nature of sustainability orientation assigning it to the individual rather than a business philosophy. This line of research defined SO as an individual’s values and belief system for considering the social and environmental concerns in business operations (Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010).

Resource Complementarity: Multiple Strategic Orientations Perspective

Resources are the available stock of tangible or intangible assets possessed by a firm (Teece et al., 1997), whereas capabilities represent the firms’ ability to deploy organizational resources for certain desired goals (Helfat & Peteraf, 2003). In this vein, the resource-based view (RBV) addresses the importance of internal resources (tangible or intangible) to attain a sustainable competitive advantage and superior firm performance (Black & Boal, 1994; Newbert, 2008). Extending from RBV, the dynamic capability approach (DC) argues that superior performance can be attained by adapting, integrating, and reconfiguring existing organizational resources (Teece et al., 1997). In line with this, strategic orientations are often considered as the resources and capabilities that drive a firm’s innovativeness (Tutar et al., 2015), acquire a competitive advantage (Fainshmidt et al., 2019), and lead toward achieving superior firm performance (Beliaeva et al., 2020; Kantur, 2016).

There is ample empirical evidence on the positive effects of EO (e.g., Karami & Tang, 2019; Semrau et al., 2016), MO (e.g., Presutti & Odorici, 2019), and SO (e.g., Danso et al., 2019) on firm performance. Existing literature on strategic orientation has mainly focused their investigations on a single orientation-performance relationship (e.g., Brouthers et al., 2015). On the other hand, there is scholarly evidence available that firms depending on a single orientation have failed in the long run (Kumar et al., 2011). Therefore, recent studies have suggested that firms should adopt a mix of orientations in a dynamic and competitive environment (Hakala, 2011). Likewise, recent studies have demonstrated the significance to study the synergistic and interaction effects of multiple strategic orientations instead of focusing on investigating a single orientation in isolation (Ho et al., 2016; Khizar et al., 2021). In line with this, Hakala (2011) conducted a systematic meta-analytic review of multiple strategic orientations in management literature. He identified three different approaches (i.e., sequences, alternatives, and complementary) that clarify the interrelationships and/or interactions among multiple orientations. According to Hakala (2011), (i) the sequence approach considers a single best strategic orientation regardless of the situation, and orientations follow one another in a developmental sequences, (ii) the alternative approach considers contingency factors to examine the appropriateness of the strategic orientation(s) that fits in a particular context. Unlike sequential and alternatives approaches, (iii) the complementary approach views organizational strategic management as incorporating multiple orientations simultaneously (Hakala, 2011).

The complementary perspective considers orientations to be complementary rather than mutually exclusive. Consequently, an entrepreneurial strategic posture of the firm developed under multiple strategic orientations would create a stronger competitive position, and that in turn, will lead to superior firm performance (Hakala, 2011). Putting it another way, a firm that relies on a single orientation in isolation performs poorly and may fail in the long run. For instance, an entrepreneurial-oriented firm is potentially innovative that constantly strives to capture new ideas and opportunities to promote the introduction of new products and services (Lumpkin & Dess, 1996). On the other hand, this entrepreneurial-oriented (EO) firm may lack in its ability to generate intelligence regarding the actual and potential needs of its customers as well as other stakeholders. In the same vein, a firm depending solely on market orientation (MO) may perform well in identifying and satisfying customer needs and wants (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990) while lacking in entrepreneurial capability and ignoring its societal and environmental impacts.

From a strategic point of view, recent advances have confirmed that entrepreneurial orientation (EO), and market orientation (MO) are the prevalent forms of strategic orientations that positively coexist in an entrepreneurial strategic posture (e.g., Baker & Sinkula, 2009; Boso et al., 2013; Hakala, 2011). While on the other hand, various scholars have argued that the lack of sustainability focuses in strategic management is one major reason for limited progress toward sustainable development (e.g., Baumgartner, 2009; Engert et al., 2016). In this vein, this study posits that small businesses are succeeding in advancements in being entrepreneurially oriented and market-oriented, however, the integration of sustainability principles into their strategic posture is lacking despite constant stakeholders pressures and the urgent calls for sustainable development. Thus, the current needs for sustainable developments justify and demand the integration of sustainability in small businesses and entrepreneurship strategic posture.

In consonance with the proponents of the complementary approach (e.g., Khizar et al., 2021), we argue that superior performance outcomes can be achieved through the combinations and complementarities of different orientations. This study suggests that small firms should capture a broader perspective taking an innovative and proactive strategic stance (EO), to satisfy the needs of customers (MO) while behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible way (SO), this, in turn, will lead to achieving superior economic (profit), social (people), and environmental (planet) performance. This view highlights the notion of a “beneficial interplay of the elements of a system where the presence of one element increases the value of others” (Ennen & Richter, 2010, p. 207), and “the gain from increasing every component [of a system] is more than the sum of gains from the separate individual increases” (Milgrom & Roberts, 1994, p. 5). Hence, a complementary set of resources (i.e., entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation, and sustainability orientation) would create synergistic effects on SMEs’ sustainable performance.

The above discussed theoretical justifications have highlighted that certain elements may exert more value in the presence of other factors (e.g., Beliaeva, 2019; Ennen & Richter, 2010; Hakala, 2011). Drawing from these theoretical foundations, this study proposes an integrated model that develops a broader responsibility orientation in the context of small business and entrepreneurship. The integrated Entrepreneurial Responsible Orientation (ERO) framework is proposed to effectively respond to the stakeholder’s demands and the calls for sustainable development. ERO serves as a strategic framework that addresses entrepreneurial, customer, business, societal, and environmental responsibilities, which in turn, will also pay firms in achieving successful sustainable economic, social, and environmental performance outcomes, therefore, enhancing the survival of an organization (Elkington, 2013). The diagram below (Figure 1) highlights the logic behind the development of the proposed entrepreneurial responsible orientation (ERO) framework. The integrated model of entrepreneurial responsible orientation (ERO) occurs through the convergence of two logical streams, (i) organizational micro perspectives, (a) entrepreneurial orientation (i.e., market-driving), and (b) market orientation (i.e., market-driven), and (ii) the global/macro level perspective of sustainable development.

Figure 1.

ERO framework (convergence of micro and macro perspectives).

Discussions

Corporate sustainability issues have gained significant considerations in academic research due to the urgent calls for sustainable development as well as the constant pressure from the multiple stakeholders (Schmitz et al., 2019). Extending this line of debate, the main goal of this paper is to propose a responsibility framework in the context of small businesses and entrepreneurship. Building on the resource complementarity perspective, this study expanded the entrepreneurial strategic posture to include EO, MO, and SO simultaneously. We believe that to stay competitive in a highly dynamic environment, small firms and entrepreneurs should adopt ERO, which in turn, will lead to superior sustainable performance.

The Nature and Conception of ERO

The present study conceives ERO as a firm-level dynamic capability that is formed by the combination of multiple strategic resources and capabilities. We postulate that the elements of ERO (i.e., EO, MO, SO) are the capabilities that have implications to complement each other toward becoming mutually supportive performance practices, thus, enabling a firm to succeed in innovativeness, attaining sustainable competitive advantage, and achieve superior economic, social, and environmental performance.

ERO is considered as an entrepreneurial strategic posture (i.e., general higher-order capability) that includes distinct complementary components (i.e., EO, MO, SO) simultaneously. Cadogan (2012) explicate the nature of multiple strategic orientations as the formative constructs. In line with this perspective (e.g., Cadogan, 2012; Criado-Gomis et al., 2017), we postulate that ERO is an aggregate third-order construct, typified as reflective first-order, reflective second-order and formative third-order (Figure 2). Each dimension of ERO (i.e., EO, MO, and SO) has the potential to generate different results when they are independently evaluated. However, it is not necessary that all three components must be present in all entrepreneurial firms, and/or a firm may not implement all components at the same time, yet, we argue that responsibility oriented entrepreneurial and small business firms should develop a comprehensive ERO stance in their strategy management to drive superior performance outcomes.

Figure 2.

ERO construct: reflective first-order, reflective second-order, and formative third-order.

Categorization and Measurement of ERO

According to Sartori (1970), a concept can be described either by its extension or intension. Accordingly, George and Marino (2011) suggested that the nature of EO should not be considered as a single conception rather it captures a broader perspective. In agreement with Criado-Gomis et al. (2017), this study proposed an extended version of entrepreneurial responsible orientation (ERO) in the classical categorization schema (Table 1). ERO is categorized as a secondary category by including all the elements of the primary categories (i.e., EO, MO, and SO). Thus, ERO extends the initial meanings of the primary categories to form a higher-order dynamic capability.

Table 1.

Classical Categorization Schema of the ERO Concept (from EO to ERO).

Primary categories	Entrepreneurial orientation (EO)			Market orientation (MO)			Sustainability orientation (SO)
Dimensions	Innovativeness	Risk-taking	Proactivity	Intelligence generation	Intelligence Dissemination	Responsive-ness	Economic responsibility	Social responsibility	Environment responsibility
Secondary category	Entrepreneurial responsible orientation (ERO)
Components	Entrepreneurial orientation (EO)			Market orientation (MO)			Sustainability orientation (SO)
Dimensions	Innovativeness	Risk-taking	Proactivity	Intelligence generation	Intelligence dissemination	Responsive-ness	Economic responsibility	Social responsibility	Environment responsibility

The development of an effective measurement model is a critical concern in small business and entrepreneurship research (Low & Macmillan, 1988; Parente et al., 2021). Given no prior conception and a comprehensive valid measure of ERO, the existing measurements can provide a baseline in this regard. The existing literature on the three components (i.e., EO, MO, SO) of ERO has highlighted that scholars have conceptualized and measured these dimensions in various ways. However, there exists scholarly agreements on the most common and mostly utilized measurements of EO (e.g., Covin & Slevin, 1989; Lumpkin & Dess, 1996), MO (e.g., Kohli & Jaworski, 1990; Narver & Slater, 1990), and SO (e.g., Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010; Roxas & Chadee, 2012).

According to Covin and Wales (2019), regardless of the measurement decisions, a latent construct exists for itself, hence, the measurement decisions such as—unidimensional or multidimensional, reflective, or formative—must be consistent with how ERO has been conceptualized in a given study. Moreover, Wilcox et al. (2008) suggested that “a given research situation or research tradition may favor either formative or reflective measurement, but constructs themselves, posited under a realist philosophy of science as existing apart from their measurement, are neither formative nor reflective.” However, the present study proposes entrepreneurial responsible orientation (ERO) as an extended and enlarged entrepreneurial (EO) strategic posture that can be measured with different measurement scales as well as at different measurement levels depending on the particular research questions and theoretical groundings.

Implications for Theory and Practice

The proposed integrative responsibility framework of ERO expands the existing body of literature in various ways. First, this study highlighted the notion of strategic orientation as an umbrella term that can combine the ideas derived from multiple desciplines. Our proposed framework captures a broader entrepreneurial strategic stance in the era of sustainable development and combines multiple dimensions (i.e., SO, EO, and MO) that were previously studied in isolation. Second, the development of entrepreneurial responsibility framework at the strategic level pointed to the need for entrepreneurial and small business firms to adopt SDGs as a way to enhance their sustainable performance (i.e., economic, social, and environmental). Third, the present study assists entrepreneurs and owners/managers to gain a better understanding of how strategic orientation(s) directs and facilitates their ways of doing business. In this vein, the ERO framework guides entrepreneurs and SMEs’ owners/managers to appropriately select and mix strategies to attain superior organizational performance.

In terms of the societal implications of this study, the ERO framework can be used in managerial practice when making strategic decisions to create value for the business as well as for stakeholders. It addresses the broader responsibility framework and will serve as a SMEs’ responsibility orientation toward multiple stakeholders (i.e., economy, society, and environment). Moreover, it is postulated that ERO is an effective strategic orientation, if implemented successfully, will not only yield superior economic benefits for business firms but also support in solving various societal problems. On the one hand, the implementation of ERO will minimize stakeholders’ pressure on firms to incorporate societal and environmental responsibilities in their strategy. On the other hand, the stakeholders might benefit from new job creation, economic growth, and the solution to many social and environmental issues. Besides, the study provides insights to government, policymakers, and intermediary organizations to develop and improve appropriate policies to promote sustainable practices in SMEs which will foster the way toward sustainable development.

Implications for Future Research

Although this paper is introductory regarding the integration of sustainability orientation in SMEs’ strategic posture in a complementary fashion under the umbrella term of strategic orientation(s). This study offers multiple avenues for future researchers in the areas of business strategy and sustainable entrepreneurship. Taking a stock of the discussed literature, theories, and argumentations of the novel ERO framework, future studies are needed for the measurements, rigorous methodologies, and empirical testing of the proposed framework.

Future research should empirically identify different antecedent variables (i.e., drivers and barriers) that may support or hinder the formation and implementation of ERO. In addition, the identification of other antecedent factors such as leadership characteristics, organizational characteristics as well as contextual characteristics of ERO would also enhance our understanding regarding this framework. We also expect that the potential studies should also identify the potential consequences of ERO in various ways, (i) micro (i.e., individual level), (ii) meso (i.e., organizational level), and (iii) macro (i.e., national, regional, and/or global level). More specifically, it would be interesting to empirically examine the effects of ERO on multiple organizational outcomes, such as sustainable innovation, sustainable competitive advantage, and sustainable firm performance (i.e., profit, people, and planet).

For any firm, the degree of focus on these strategic orientations, individually or in interaction, can vary substantially. Therefore, besides considering the aggregate nature of ERO construct, future studies should also empirically test the proposed framework investigating the individual as well as the synergistic effects of ERO components on several consequent/dependent variables. Furthermore, it is more interesting to conduct these investigations in the presence of internal/external factors (e.g., organizational, environmental, contextual, cultural) as mediators and moderators in orientation-performance relationships. We also suggest that future researchers can also examine the direct as well as the interaction effects of multiple strategic orientations on SMEs’ performance. Potentially, the entrepreneurial responsible orientation (ERO) framework holds two-way (i.e., EO*MO, EO*SO, and SO*MO) and three-way (i.e., EO*MO*SO) interactions that require further investigations for a more nuanced understanding.

Drawing from the complementary and configurational perspectives, future research can be done identifying and/or investigating different combinations and configurations of multiple strategic orientations based on multiple factors, such as leader characteristics, organizational characteristics, and industry factors. According to Doty et al. (1993), firms perform better when they are closer to the ideal configurations. Future configuration studies can be conducted to empirically test and identify the ideal configurations to be used as a benchmark. Moreover, another interesting area of ERO exploration is the geographical contexts. For instance, the cultural, sectoral, and industrial contexts in which SMEs and entrepreneurs operate in Asia are quite different that the African contects. Likewise, SMEs operating in Africa may have different preconditions of their strategic orientations and sustainability focus. Therefore, we call for more research to empirically test and validate ERO framework in developing and emerging countries’ contexts. The cross country comparison models of research could also provide a better knowledge base to this debate.

Lastly, we suggest future researchers can also incorporate and investigate some additional variables and issues associated with the proposed strategic framework for empirical testing in the fields of sustainability, strategic management, marketing, and entrepreneurship. We additionally formulate some specific research questions to extend scholarly debate and further advancements in this field of study.

RQ 1: How can ERO be conceptualized?

RQ 1a: What theoretical framework can be utilized?

RQ 1b: Should ERO be conceptualized at the individual level or the organizational level?

RQ 2: How can ERO be operationalized/measured?

RQ 2a: What are the dimensionality of ERO (unidimensional or multidimensional)?

RQ 2b: Should ERO be operationalized/measured at individual-level or organizational-level?

RQ 2c: Should ERO be operationalized/measured formatively or reflectively?

RQ 2d: Can ERO be measured through existing scales or it is preferable to develop a new scale?

RQ 3: What are the key similarities/differences of ERO in different contexts? (a—organizational, b—sectoral, c—cultural, b—geographical)

RQ 4:What are the key antecedents of ERO? (a—individual-level/organizational-level, b—internal/external factors, c—drivers/barriers)

RQ 5:What are the key outcomes of ERO? (a—individual-level/organizational-level, b—internal/external, c—micro/meso/macro)

Conclusion

SMEs dominate the business arena worldwide causing a considerable impact on the environmental and societal well-being (Westman et al., 2019), play a significant role in sustainable development (Ayuso & Navarrete Báez, 2018; Higgs & Hill, 2019; Prashar, 2019). Nonetheless, the lack of sustainability focus in strategic management is the major cause of limited and slow progress towards the economic, social, and environmental aspects of sustainable development (Engert et al., 2016). Therefore, this study configures a strategic framework in the contexts of entrepreneurship and small businesses, responding to the stakeholder’s pressure and the urgent calls of the United Nation’s sustainable development goals (SDGs) agenda 2030.

This study theoretically developed and proposed an extension to entrepreneurial strategic posture (EO) by incorporating the care for customers (MO), society, and environment (SO). This paper proposes an integrative concept of entrepreneurial responsible orientation (ERO) that addresses how multiple strategic orientations are complementary and mutually supportive for the sustainable performance of businesses. In agreement with the calls for sustainable development, the theoretical underpinnings of resource complementarity became the most appropriate choice for the framework development based on the assumptions that complementary resources (i.e., EO, MO, and SO) may interact and produce synergistic effects.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Hafiz Muhammad Usman Khizar

References

Ayuso

Navarrete Báez

F. E.

(2018). How does entrepreneurial and international orientation influence SMEs’ commitment to sustainable development? Empirical evidence from Spain and Mexico. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(1), 80–94.

Baker

W. E.

Sinkula

J. M.

(2009). The complementary effects of market orientation and entrepreneurial orientation on profitability in small businesses. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(4), 443–464.

Baumgartner

R. J.

(2009). Organizational culture and leadership: Preconditions for the development of a sustainable corporation. Sustainable Development, 17(2), 102–113.

Beliaeva

(2019). Complementarity and contextualization of firm-level strategic orientations [Doctoral Dissertation pp. 9–173]. LUT University Press.

Beliaeva

Shirokova

Wales

Gafforova

(2020). Benefiting from economic crisis? Strategic orientation effects, trade-offs, and configurations with resource availability on SME performance. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16(1), 165–194.

Black

J. A.

Boal

K. B.

(1994). Strategic resources: Traits, configurations and paths to sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 15(2S), 131–148. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250151009

Boso

Story

V. M.

Cadogan

J. W.

(2013). Entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation, network ties, and performance: Study of entrepreneurial firms in a developing economy. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6), 708–727.

Brouthers

K. D.

Nakos

Dimitratos

(2015). SME entrepreneurial orientation, international performance, and the moderating role of strategic alliances. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 39(5), 1161–1187.

Business and Sustainable Development Commission. (2017). “Better world” business and sustainable development commission. Author. https://report.businesscommission.org/

10.

Cadogan

J. W.

(2012). International marketing, strategic orientations and business success: Reflections on the path ahead. International Marketing Review, 29(4), 340–348.

11.

Calabrese

Costa

Levialdi

Menichini

(2019). Integrating sustainability into strategic decision-making: A fuzzy AHP method for the selection of relevant sustainability issues. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 139, 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.11.005

12.

Chang

A. Y.

Cheng

Y. T.

(2019). Analysis model of the sustainability development of manufacturing small and medium-sized enterprises in Taiwan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 207,458–473.

13.

Chien

Wang

C. N.

Chau

K. Y.

Nguyen

V. T.

Nguyen

V. T.

(2021). Sustainability in the Business sector: A fuzzy multicriteria decision-making model for financial leasing company selection of the vietnamese SMEs. SAGE Open, 11(3), 21582440211036080.

14.

Covin

J. G.

Slevin

D. P.

(1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75–87.

15.

Covin

J. G.

Wales

W. J.

(2019). Crafting high-impact entrepreneurial orientation research: Some suggested guidelines. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 43(1), 3–18.

16.

Criado-Gomis

Cervera-Taulet

Iniesta-Bonillo

M. A.

(2017). Sustainable entrepreneurial orientation: A business strategic approach for sustainable development. Sustainability, 9(9), 1667.

17.

Danso

Adomako

Amankwah-Amoah

Owusu-Agyei

Konadu

(2019). Environmental sustainability orientation, competitive strategy and financial performance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(5), 885–895.

18.

Doty

D. H.

Glick

W. H.

Huber

G. P.

(1993). Fit, equifinality, and organizational effectiveness: A test of two configurational theories. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1196–1250.

19.

Dyllick

Muff

(2016). Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business: Introducing a typology from business-as-usual to true business sustainability. Organization and Environment, 29(2), 156–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026615575176

20.

Elkington

(1994). Towards the sustainable corporation: Win-win-win business strategies for sustainable development. California Management Review, 36(2), 90–100.

21.

Elkington

(2004) Enter the triple bottom line. In: Henriques

Richardson

(Eds.), The triple bottom line, does it all add up? Assessing the sustainability of business and CSR, earths can publications Ltd. (pp. 1–16). London. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540910941948

22.

Elkington

(2013). Enter the triple bottom line. In the triple bottom line: Does it all add up. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849773348

23.

Engert

Rauter

Baumgartner

R. J.

(2016). Exploring the integration of corporate sustainability into strategic management: A literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 2833–2850.

24.

Ennen

Richter

(2010). The whole is more than the sum of its parts—or is it? A review of the empirical literature on complementarities in organizations. Journal of Management, 36(1), 207–233.

25.

European Commission. (2019). Noord-holland—internal market, industry, entrepreneurship and sme, regional innovation monitor plus. Author.

26.

Fainshmidt

Wenger

Pezeshkan

Mallon

M. R.

(2019). When do dynamic capabilities lead to competitive advantage? The importance of strategic fit. Journal of Management Studies, 56(4), 758–787.

27.

Fellnhofer

Puumalainen

Sjögrén

(2017). Entrepreneurial orientation in work groups—effects of individuals and group characteristics. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13(2), 427–463.

28.

George

B. A.

Marino

(2011). The epistemology of entrepreneurial orientation: Conceptual formation, modeling, and operationalization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 989–1024.

29.

Hakala

(2011). Strategic orientations in management literature: Three approaches to understanding the interaction between market, technology, entrepreneurial and learning orientations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(2), 199–217.

30.

Helfat

C. E.

Peteraf

M. A.

(2003). The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 997–1010.

31.

Higgs

C. J.

Hill

(2019). The role that small and medium-sized enterprises play in sustainable development and the green economy in the waste sector, South Africa. Business Strategy & Development, 2(1), 25–31.

32.

Plewa

V. N.

(2016). Examining strategic orientation complementarity using multiple regression analysis and fuzzy set QCA. Journal of Business Research, 69(6), 2199–2205.

33.

Holmberg

Sandbrook

(2019). Sustainable development: What is to be done? In J. Holmberg (Ed.), Policies for a small planet (pp. 19–38). Routledge.

34.

Irwin

K. C.

Landay

K. M.

Aaron

J. R.

McDowell

W. C.

Marino

L. D.

Geho

P. R.

(2018). Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and human resources outsourcing (HRO): A “HERO” combination for SME performance. Journal of Business Research, 90, 134–140.

35.

Jansson

Nilsson

Modig

Hed Vall

(2017). Commitment to sustainability in small and medium-sized enterprises: The influence of strategic orientations and management values. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(1), 69–83.

36.

Jenkins

(2006). Small business champions for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), 241–256.

37.

Kaminskaite

(2017). Reducing the failure rate of SMEs comparative analysis of excellence management systems: Six sigma and lean start-up. Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences.

38.

Kantur

(2016). Strategic entrepreneurship: Mediating the entrepreneurial orientation-performance link. Management Decision, 54(1), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2014-0660

39.

Karami

Tang

(2019). Entrepreneurial orientation and SME international performance: The mediating role of networking capability and experiential learning. International Small Business Journal, 37(2), 105–124.

40.

Khizar

H. M. U.

Iqbal

M. J.

Khalid

Adomako

(2022). Addressing the conceptualization and measurement challenges of sustainability orientation: A systematic review and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 142, 718–743.

41.

Khizar

H. M. U.

Iqbal

M. J.

Rasheed

M. I.

(2021). Business orientation and sustainable development: A systematic review of sustainability orientation literature and future research avenues. Sustainable Development, 29(5), 1001–1017.

42.

Kohli

A. K.

Jaworski

B. J.

(1990). Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18.

43.

Kohli

A. K.

Jaworski

B. J.

Kumar

(1993). MARKOR: A measure of market orientation. Journal of Marketing research, 30(4), 467–477.

44.

Kreiser

P. M.

(2011). Entrepreneurial orientation and organizational learning: The impact of network range and network closure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 1025–1050.

45.

Kuckertz

Wagner

(2010). The influence of sustainability orientation on entrepreneurial intentions—Investigating the role of business experience. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 524–539.

46.

Kumar

Jones

Venkatesan

Leone

R. P.

(2011). Is market orientation a source of sustainable competitive advantage or simply the cost of competing? Journal of Marketing, 75(1), 16–30.

47.

Kurtulmuş

B. E.

Katrinli

Warner

(2020). International entrepreneurial orientation and performance of SMEs: The mediating role of informal institutional framework. SAGE Open, 10(4), 2158244020983294.

48.

Low

M. B.

Macmillan

I. C.

(1988). Entrepreneurship: Past research and future challenges. Journal of Management, 14(2), 139–161.

49.

Lumpkin

G. T.

Dess

G. G.

(1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.

50.

Matinaro

Liu

Poesche

(2019). Extracting key factors for sustainable development of enterprises: Case study of SMEs in Taiwan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 209, 1152–1169.

51.

McKenny

A. F.

Short

J. C.

Ketchen

D. J.

Payne

G. T.

Moss

T. W.

(2018). Strategic entrepreneurial orientation: Configurations, performance, and the effects of industry and time. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 12(4), 504–521.

52.

McMullen

J. S.

Shepherd

D. A.

(2006). Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Academy of Management Review, 31(1), 132–152.

53.

Milgrom

Roberts

(1994). Comparing equilibria. The American Economic Review, 48(3), 441–459.

54.

Miller

(1983). The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29(7), 770–791.

55.

Miller

(2011). Miller (1983) revisited: A reflection on EO research and some suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35(5), 873–894.

56.

Mitchell

R. W.

Wooliscroft

Higham

(2010). Sustainable market orientation: A new approach to managing marketing strategy. Journal of Macromarketing, 30(2), 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0276146710361928

57.

Muriithi

S. M.

(2017). African small and medium enterprises (SMEs) contributions, challenges and solutions. European Journal of Research and Reflection in Management Sciences, 5(1), 36–48.

58.

Narver

J. C.

Slater

S. F.

(1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20–35.

59.

Nasir

W. M. N. B. W. M.

Al Mamun

Breen

(2017). Strategic orientation and performance of SMEs in Malaysia. SAGE Open, 7(2), 2158244017712768.

60.

Newbert

S. L.

(2008). Value, rareness, competitive advantage, and performance: A conceptual-level empirical investigation of the resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 29(7), 745–768.

61.

Papadas

K. K.

Avlonitis

G. J.

Carrigan

Piha

(2018). The interplay of strategic and internal green marketing orientation on competitive advantage. Journal of Business Research, 104, 632–643.

62.

Parente

El Tarabishy

Botti

Vesci

Feola

(2021). Humane entrepreneurship: Some steps in the development of a measurement scale. Journal of Small Business Management, 59(3), 509–533.

63.

Parente

El Tarabishy

Vesci

Botti

(2018). The epistemology of humane entrepreneurship: Theory and proposal for future research agenda. Journal of Small Business Management, 56(Suppl.), 30–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12432

64.

Prashar

(2019). Towards sustainable development in industrial small and medium-sized enterprises: An energy sustainability approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 235, 977–996.

65.

Presutti

Odorici

(2019). Linking entrepreneurial and market orientation to the SME’s performance growth: The moderating role of entrepreneurial experience and networks. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(3), 697–720.

66.

Raza

Liu

Zhang

Zhu

Hassan

Gul

Hussain

(2021). Sustainable supply management practices and sustainability performance: The dynamic capability perspective. SAGE Open, 11(1), 21582440211000046.

67.

Roxas

Chadee

(2012). Environmental sustainability orientation and financial resources of small manufacturing firms in the Philippines. Social Responsibility Journal, 8(2), 208–226. https://doi.org/10.1108/17471111211234842

68.

Sartori

(1970). Concept misformation in comparative politics. The American Political Science Review, 64(4), 1033–1053. https://doi.org/10.2307/1958356

69.

Schaltegger

Hörisch

Freeman

R. E.

(2019). Business cases for sustainability: A Stakeholder theory perspective. Organization & Environment, 32(3), 191–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026617722882

70.

Schmitz

E. A.

Baum

Huett

Kabst

(2019). The contextual role of regulatory stakeholder pressure in proactive environmental strategies: An empirical test of competing theoretical perspectives. Organization & Environment, 32(3), 281–308.

71.

Semrau

Ambos

Kraus

(2016). Entrepreneurial orientation and SME performance across societal cultures: An international study. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1928–1932.

72.

Shou

Shao

Lai

K. H

Kang

Park

(2019). The impact of sustainability and operations orientations on sustainable supply management and the triple bottom line. Journal of Cleaner Production, 240, 118280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118280

73.

Sivageahnam

Al Mamun

Wan

W. N.

Nasir

Ibrahim

M. D.

(2015, October 17). Innovation, strategic orientation and performance of malaysian manufacturing SMEs: A conceptual paper. The 4th International Seminar on Entrepreneurship and Business (pp. 1–26), Penang, Malaysia. http://umkeprints.umk.edu.my/id/eprint/4941

74.

Small and Medium Enterprises Development Authority (SMEDA). (2019). State of SMEs in Pakistan. Small and medium enterprises development authority, Lahore, Pakistan. Retrieved from https://smeda.org/

75.

Song

(2019). Entrepreneurial orientation, interaction orientation, and innovation performance: A model of moderated mediation. SAGE Open, 9(4), 2158244019885143.

76.

Spence

Gherib

J. B. B.

Biwolé

V. O.

(2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship: Is entrepreneurial will enough? A north–south comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(3), 335–367.

77.

Stoian

Gilman

(2017). Corporate social responsibility that “pays”: A strategic approach to CSR for SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management, 55(1), 5–31.

78.

Tata

Prasad

(2015). National cultural values, sustainability beliefs, and organizational initiatives. Cross Cultural Management, 22(2), 278–296. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCM-03-2014-0028

79.

Teece

D. J.

Pisano

Shuen

(1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.

80.

Tutar

Nart

Bingöl

(2015). The effects of strategic orientations on innovation capabilities and market performance: The case of ASEM. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 207, 709–719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.10.144

81.

UN. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development resolution adopted by the general assembly on September 25, 2015, A/RES/70/1. United Nations General Assembly.

82.

UN. (2020). Home. United Nations. Retrieved December 8, 2020, from http://www.un.org/en/index.html

83.

Venkatraman

(1989). Strategic orientation of business enterprises: The construct, dimensionality, and measurement. Management Science, 35(8), 942–962.

84.

Virakul

(2015). Global challenges, sustainable development, and their implications for organizational performance. European Business Review, 27(4), 430–446.

85.

WCED

S. W. S.

(1987). World commission on environment and development. Our Common Future, 17(1), 1–91.

86.

Weidinger

Fischler

Schmidpeter

(2014). Sustainable entrepreneurship: Business Success through sustainability. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-38753-1

87.

Westman

Luederitz

Kundurpi

Mercado

A. J.

Weber

Burch

S. L.

(2019). Conceptualizing businesses as social actors: A framework for understanding sustainability actions in small-and medium-sized enterprises. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(2), 388–402.

88.

Wilcox

J. B.

Howell

R. D.

Breivik

(2008). Questions about formative measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1219–1228.

89.

Williams

Whiteman

Parker

(2019). Backstage interorganizational collaboration: Corporate endorsement of the sustainable development goals. Academy of Management Discoveries, 5(4), 367–395. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2018.0154

90.

World Bank Group. (2019). Improving SMEs’ access to finance and finding innovative solutions to unlock sources of capital. Author.

91.

Yacob

Wong

L. S.

Khor

S. C.

(2019). An empirical investigation of green initiatives and environmental sustainability for manufacturing SMEs. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 30(1), 2–25.

92.

Yadav

Gupta

Rani

Rawat

(2018) Drivers of sustainability practices and SMEs: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 7(4), 531.

93.

York

J. G.

Venkataraman

(2010). The entrepreneur–environment nexus: Uncertainty, innovation, and allocation. Journal of business Venturing, 25(5), 449–463.

94.

Yoshino

Taghizadeh Hesary

(2016). Major challenges facing small and medium-sized enterprises in Asia and solutions for mitigating them (Working paper No. 564). ADBI. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2766242

95.

M. C.

Mai

Tsai

S. B.

Dai

(2018). An empirical study on the organizational trust, employee-organization relationship and innovative behavior from the integrated perspective of social exchange and organizational sustainability. Sustainability, 10(3), 864.

96.

Zhang

Zhu

(2019). Enhancing corporate sustainable development: Stakeholder pressures, organizational learning, and green innovation. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(6), 1012–1026. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2298

The Epistemology of Entrepreneurial Responsible Orientation (ERO): Theory,Conceptualization,and Future Research

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Sustainable Development and Corporate Responsibility

The Role of SMEs

Framework Development—Entrepreneurial Responsible Orientation

Strategic Orientations and SMEs Performance

Entrepreneurial orientation

Market orientation

Sustainability orientation

Resource Complementarity: Multiple Strategic Orientations Perspective

Discussions

The Nature and Conception of ERO

Categorization and Measurement of ERO

Implications for Theory and Practice

Implications for Future Research

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References