Next Article in Journal
Optimizing Wireless Charging Locations for Battery Electric Bus Transit with a Genetic Algorithm
Previous Article in Journal
Extended Model Predictive Controller to Develop Energy Management Systems in Renewable Source-Based Smart Microgrids with Hydrogen as Backup. Theoretical Foundation and Case Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
College Students’ Entrepreneurial Mindset: Educational Experiences Override Gender and Major
 
 
Due to planned maintenance work on our platforms, there might be short service disruptions on Saturday, December 3rd, between 15:00 and 16:00 (CET).
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Entrepreneurship and Intrapreneurship in Social, Sustainable, and Economic Development: Opportunities and Challenges for Future Research

1
Durham University Business School, Durham University, Mill Hill Lane, Durham DH1 3LB, UK
2
Fundación ECSIM, Medellin, Colombia
3
Department of Business and Centre for Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation Research (CREIS), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Edifici B Campus UAB, Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), 08193 Barcelona, Spain
4
School of Tourism and Hospitality Management and Centre for Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation Research (CREIS), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Edifici Blanc Campus UAB, Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), 08193 Barcelona, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(21), 8958; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218958
Received: 7 October 2020 / Accepted: 23 October 2020 / Published: 28 October 2020

Abstract

:
Understanding entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship as engines of outcomes beyond economic terms, this paper introduces the Special Issue “Entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship in social, sustainable, and economic development”. Institutions set the basis to analyze the role societies and organizations play in supporting entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial activity. Thus, we take a broad look at formal and informal institutions as those contextual components that are encompassed in a social progress orientation. Based on this, we discuss and provide examples about how entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship lead social, sustainable, and economic outcomes. Thus, in this paper and this Issue, we argue that it is necessary to consider those (institutional) antecedents and (developmental) consequences of entrepreneurship and its diversity as a simultaneous process. In addition to summarizing the main contributions of those articles contained in this Issue, we highlight some opportunities and challenges to further explore the role of entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship not only in economic development but also in social change and sustainability.

1. Introduction

Today’s crisis derived from COVID-19 has drawn the attention of many people from different areas. Scientists are looking for vaccines or medicine to diminish the negative effects of the virus; governments are reacting through different strategies (e.g., lockdown, more equipped hospitals, public aid for those unemployed, etc.) and new rules of the game (i.e., mandatory use of face masks, social distancing, etc.); banks are re-assessing loans system and interest rates; the educational sector is struggling to deliver education with quality despite the restrictions and constraints; and companies are doing their best to adapt strategies while preserving employment and surviving. One way or another, all these actors are showing an entrepreneurial capacity to creatively overcome the current situation. However, entrepreneurial activity is not only a reaction of this particular juncture. It has become a vehicle to solve problems beyond economic terms, reflecting the existence of institutions toward social progress [1,2].
As such, entrepreneurship is a research area that has been shaped thanks to insights from a variety of disciplines. Scholars have contributed to understanding the psychological, sociological, anthropological, managerial, and economic aspects of entrepreneurial activity [3]. Among these contributions, academia has recognized the importance of institutions not only for entrepreneurship, but also for economic development [4]. Although most of the existing research focuses on traditional entrepreneurial activities [5], other types of new ventures have emerged to tackle different economic, humanitarian, and environmental problems [6]. Yet, there is still much room to keep exploring how other sorts of entrepreneurial activities can enhance economic, social, and sustainable development from an institutional perspective [7].
Although entrepreneurship is diverse in terms of its types and nature, particular gaps might exist, from sociodemographic characteristics, corporate dynamics, regional and national outputs, and environmental issues [8]. For example, finer connections between women’s entrepreneurship [9], intrapreneurship [10], and sustainable entrepreneurship [11], among other (less explored) types of entrepreneurial activities and development might serve to improve our understanding of entrepreneurial behavior.
Considering that entrepreneurship does not emerge in isolation, there is also a lacuna regarding the role of the institutional context [12] in shaping individual decisions, not only for becoming entrepreneurs [13] but also for undertaking innovative projects within firms [10]. Hence, it is suggested that institutions may condition the identification of entrepreneurial opportunities that offer solutions for social and sustainable problems at the regional and country level [11].
Given these research opportunities, we openly invited scholars within all the main economics, management, and sustainability sub-disciplines, among other areas, to explore the influence of (formal and informal) institutions on gender issues, intrapreneurship (and corporate entrepreneurship), as well as on green entrepreneurial activity for social, sustainable, and economic development. Thankfully, this Special Issue collected literature reviews and empirical papers, characterized by cutting-edge discussions about entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship for a variety of outcomes related to development at the organizational, regional, and national levels.
This paper, apart from the introducing the Special Issue, revises in Section 2 the disparate literature on institutions and entrepreneurship (including intrapreneurship). Section 3 focuses on the role entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship play in social, economic, and sustainable development. Section 4 summarizes the main contributions of those papers in this Special Issue; and Section 5, in addition to concluding, discusses some future research avenues.

2. Institutional Context for Entrepreneurship and Intrapreneurship

North and Thomas [14] help us understand the development process through which institutions play a key role in influencing productive activities that are ultimately linked to economic outcomes. Despite this approach being mostly related to economic growth, the general concept of institutions as “rules of game” [12] opens the possibility to explore other social and environmental outcomes as a result of human interactions and decisions. For example, North [15] suggests that societies have different motivations toward progress. Accordingly, intentionality constitutes a key component that differentiates some countries and regions from others. According to North [15], open societies are those who create and align incentives for all members to be more productive, whereas limited societies create barriers for production, and hence, development. These incentives and barriers come mainly from what North [12] calls formal and informal institutions. The former refers to written laws and regulations, whereas the latter consists of culture and habits. Both formal and informal institutions act at different levels, implying that informal institutions are more general and less dynamic than formal ones, which are focused on particular aspects of the policy design, thus changing rapidly [16].
The complementary relationship between formal and informal institutions has called the attention of scholars in entrepreneurship research as it basically enables us comprehend that the context matters to influence decisions around entrepreneurial activity and new ventures‘ performance [17]. By considering entrepreneurship as a process [18,19], extant research has suggested that potential entrepreneurs may ultimately set up new ventures thanks to the social support [20]. Even in the event of an individual not being interested in creating a new business, this social support enables his or her to perform any kind of activity in an entrepreneurial way (i.e., identifying a problem and offering a solution). In this case, societies as a whole are equipped with entrepreneurial potential [21], which is needed for potential entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial activity [22]. That is why institutions become relevant to understand the existing incentives that lead to the formation not only of traditional (or commercial) new ventures but also of other types of entrepreneurial activities with a social component [5]. In this regard, to a greater extent, institutions explain the main differences of entrepreneurship across regions and countries [23,24], as well as the emergence and need of gender [9,25], green or sustainable [11,26], immigrant [27], sport [28], and intrapreneurship [29], which are ultimately engines of development.
Particularly for intrapreneurship, there is a mixture of institutions in which the formal and informal context constitute the more external level [10]. It turns out that institutions at the organizational level [30] also condition the entrepreneurial employees’ initiatives within existing companies. The societies’ perception about the key role companies play in the economy as a whole, and especially in the formation of a corporate culture toward diversity, creativity, innovation, greenism, and social purposes, create an (organizational) environment that stimulates everybody within the company. Thanks to this, employees at different hierarchical levels may be motived to move forward entrepreneurial projects that not only help the company to grow but also the economy and society as a whole.

3. Entrepreneurship and Intrapreneurship as Engines of Development

3.1. Social, Sustainable, and Economic Outcomes of Entrepreneurship

Extant research has shown that if societies are oriented toward progress, then these societies provide a suitable environment for entrepreneurs, who in exchange, create social benefits [2,31]. Indeed, econometrically speaking, the existing loop (i.e., endogeneity) between entrepreneurship and development is overcome thanks to the presence of institutions that positively affect entrepreneurial activity in one way or another. Accordingly, plenty of evidence exists around institutions, entrepreneurship, and growth (Bjørnskov and Foss [4] and Urbano et al. [32] offer thorough literature reviews). However, there are still unanswered questions regarding the role of entrepreneurship in other aspects of the development process beyond income and productivity.
Important efforts have been made regarding analyses on social outcomes such as poverty reduction [33], inequality [34], inclusive growth [2], and gender equality [35]. Although it is not as abundant as compared to the analysis of traditional economic growth, this literature confirms that entrepreneurs have a social sense, implying that their decisions transcend materialism and the money-making mindset. Williams and Shepherd [6], for instance, show appealing cases about the existence of new ventures that are created to solve problems derived from natural disasters. Similar devastation is observed when civil wars and internal conflicts destroy world heritage and create social displacement. More than jobs or other assets, people simply lose everything. To survive, they migrate to other countries where cultural aspects are sometimes totally different. From this perspective, Honig [27] and Smallbone et al. [36] reflect on how immigrant entrepreneurship turns into a solution for immigrants and even for locals, who may know about different products, services, processes, etc. This social consciousness leads individuals to turn needs and problems into opportunities through entrepreneurship. Ruiz-Rosa et al. [37] provide a perfect example, in which it is demonstrated that social entrepreneurial orientation reacts when external shocks such as the COVID-19 pandemic take place. Similar behavior is observed when environmental problems are considered more than a simple externality. Scholars agree that environmental problems become social issues in both the short- (poor healthy, misuse and exploitation of natural resources, etc.) and long-term (next generations, extinction of species, etc.) [26].
Wigger and Shepherd [38] explain that collectivism is key to entrepreneurially using natural resources while keeping environmental and social consciousness. Although much remains to be done in terms of sustainable development, the idea that social support and consciousness can properly produce what we need, helps us to comprehend that what we do may affect others not just today but also in the near future. Collective reflection entails the acceptance of everybody, regardless of religion, origin, gender, and race. In this regard, Holliday et al. [39] invite scholars to consider the importance of gender and immigration to achieve the social development goals. Accordingly, the role of women and immigrants in multilateral organizations, policymaking, private companies, entrepreneurship, and families (as the deepest root) constitute a key component of diversity, which leads to social and environmental outcomes. Hall et al. [40] recognize that entrepreneurial mindset may enhance the decision-making processes of all stakeholders in the society aiming at sustainability. This implies, however, that much more evidence on how entrepreneurship (and its diversity) at different levels leads to better humanitarian, economic, and environmental outcomes is needed.

3.2. Instrapreneurship as a Source of Social, Sustainable, and Economic Change

Particularly for the organizational level, DiMaggio and Powell [30] analyze how societies and, especially, organizations react when social norms and shared cultural habits exist. Depending on these institutions at the country and organizational levels, firms design strategies that are linked to the entrepreneurial mindset employees might have, hence, encouraging entrepreneurial action. Nevertheless, important uncertainty can cause imitation of harmful practices [41], which may destroy all intrapreneurial initiatives toward economic development. Wrongly oriented policies or ineffective institutions may encourage behavior that is not beneficial to the economy [42,43]. As a possible solution, DiMaggio and Powell [30] suggest that cognitive scripts and schemes serve to absorb information, which is needed to define productive projects within organizations. Thus, existing rules in a society and beyond condition the best entrepreneurial practices that organizations adopt.
There exist different examples showing how rules and norms define the way entrepreneurial actions take place within organizations. In this regard, intrapreneurship is helpful for entering internationalization processes, enhancing innovativeness, and increasing performance, among other outcomes (cf. De Falco and Renzi [44] and Klofsten et al. [45]). In this sense, this sort of entrepreneurial activity within organizations has emerged as a mechanism to generate not only profitable results for firms but also valuable solutions for the society [46]. Despite the discussion around intrapreneurship, there is also extant research suggesting that certain institutions at organizational and country level influence the quantity and quality of this type of entrepreneurial activity [45,47]. For instance, Audretsch et al. [42] and Turró et al. [10] show that intrapreneurial decisions and actions are negatively affected when over-regulations for labor mobility and business procedures exist. Usually, these sorts of institutions are imposed in developing countries, where entrepreneurial and intrapreneurial action may be associated with survival reasons rather than growth and wealth creation.
However, from a theoretical perspective, Patriotta and Siegel [48] raise a debate on the role of institutions in the way individuals judge the entrepreneurial process. Honig and Samuelsson [47] explain that the intrapreneurial planning process of identification and exploitation of opportunities depends on the institutional context that is created at the aggregated level, and most importantly at the intra-firm level. Taking into account the internal and external environment, intrapreneurs create patterns that better use their resources and capabilities as mechanisms to start an adaptation process for firm and social value creation [45,49]. In light of this discussion, a better understanding on how intrapreneurs should also think strategically to overcome institutional barriers is required. Even though the exploration of human resources such as scientists, managers, workers, and intrapreneurs in general, can be derived from internal approaches, the understanding of external factors such as cultural support, social learning and adaptation, etc., that influence firms’ performance might be required to understand sustainability initiatives that intrapreneurs lead in order to create firm growth and social change [49].
Figure 1 conceptually depicts the role of institutions in creating entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship for social, sustainable, and economic development.

4. Summary of the Papers in the Special Issue

In this Special Issue about entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship in social, sustainable, and economic development, a variety of 14 articles cover all the elements raised in our main debate. For example, Martínez-González et al. [50] focus on institutions as antecedents of entrepreneurial intentions. In particular, this research shows that cultural aspects such as beliefs, social norms, and values influence motivation, self-efficacy, and intention among young students in Spain and Poland. As institutions are also observed at the university level, Jung and Lee [51] exploit a survey tool (i.e., CS-EMS) to explore differences in gender and programs (i.e., engineers vs. non-engineers). The main findings suggest that entrepreneurial mindset differs between the analyzed groups. A deeper level of institutions refers to the family support that shapes entrepreneurial intentions. In this regard, Georgescu and Herman [52] show that the entrepreneurial background of families constitutes a relevant institutional factor for students’ perceiving entrepreneurship as a good career choice.
Moving from intentions to actions, in which social support is needed (particularly the family one), Escamilla-Fajardo et al. [28] reveal through an exhaustive literature review that extant research about sport entrepreneurship can be classified based on four clusters, namely (i) football, entrepreneurship, and social development; (ii) football, innovation, and management; (iii) football, efficiency, and new technology; and (iv) football, injuries, and innovation in rehabilitation. This research opens up questions on how entrepreneurial activity (and the formation of these clusters) takes place across time and space. In this regard, Litsardopoulos et al. [53] empirically demonstrate that individuals allocate time to self-employment based on gender characteristics and the place (i.e., urban and rural areas) they live. Certainly, time, dedication, and motivation matter to move forward projects regardless if these are new ventures or initiatives within existing companies.
Encouraging entrepreneurship within firms requires the understanding of the external and internal environment, which leads to the creation of different strategies to readapt the company itself when there is institutional change. In this sense, Butkouskaya et al. [54] explore the role of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and integrated marketing communication (IMC) in SMEs’ growth. Interestingly, this research finds important differences for these factors when comparing companies from Spain (as a developed country) and Belarus (as a developing one). The development stage of countries turns out to be an important characteristic of the environment. Hence, Seikkula-Leino and Salomaa [55] analyze the effect of entrepreneurial competences and organizational change in Finnish universities. Thanks to this research, intrapreneurial universities can be understood as those higher educational organizations where supervisors and employees are equipped with entrepreneurial thinking and action. Having these characteristics would lead to an increase in the efficiency of managerial as well as teaching activities. Similar results are found in Pei et al.’s [56] study, which demonstrates that learning absorption through entrepreneurial team cognition significantly influences firms’ growth in China.
Learning and knowledge are, then, key aspects that entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship can use to deliver social, sustainable, and economic benefits for entrepreneurs and everybody else in the society. Being unaware of the institutional context, particularly regulations and processes, might bring negative effects to companies as well as the society. Jaramillo-Moreno et al. [57] bring this discussion to our attention by identifying that some community-based tourism enterprises in Ecuador have neither designed nor implemented managerial, financial, operational, strategic, and marketing plans. The fact that these elements of a business plan have not been considered might reduce the social goals of these enterprises, especially in areas that are highly dependent on the tourism sector. This is something Ertac and Tanova [58] confirm in their article. They shed some light on the importance of empowering women through entrepreneurship to increase their entrepreneurial mindset, which is useful for personal development and business growth. Accordingly, the aggregated results lead to social benefits in Cyprus, even under unfavorable contexts.
Ruiz-Rosa et al. [37] suggest that when context becomes unfavorable, social entrepreneurial intention might be negatively affected. However, Ruiz-Rosa et al.’s [37] research also shows that students are explicitly expressing a desire for becoming social entrepreneurs. This is similar to what Butkouskaya et al. [59] find when analyzing tourism students in Spain. Accordingly, institutional characteristics at the macro, but most importantly, at the university level, define the intention of students to becoming entrepreneurs oriented toward sustainability. Alwakid et al. [26] also bring to our attention the power of (informal) institutions to increase the level of green entrepreneurial activity. In particular, this research builds upon the importance of sustainable entrepreneurship for the achievement of the sustainable development goals in Saudi Arabia, where knowledge expansion and growth are taking place thanks to public investment in research and development (R&D). Dobrzanski and Bobowski [60] confirm that this does not happen only in Saudi Arabia but also in ASEAN countries. By using data envelopment analysis (DEA), these authors find that public expenditure in R&D has created different effects, highlighting, for example, the case of Hong Kong, Indonesia, Singapore, and the Philippines. Certainly, the way entrepreneurs and incumbent firms identify and manage knowledge defines the development path, in which social change and sustainability transcend the traditional economic growth perception. Table 1 summarizes all these contributions.

5. Conclusions and Ways Forward

This paper has brought together entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship as mechanisms that translate the influence of institutions on outcomes beyond economic terms such as social change and sustainability. By using institutional economics [12], we have analyzed the roles formal (as regulations) and informal institutions (as social support) play in the formation and development of entrepreneurship and its diversity, which includes gender, immigrant, social, green entrepreneurship, and intrapreneurship. In particular, for the latter, institutions at the organizational level [30] have served to complement the influence of contextual factors on (intra)entrepreneurial activity. This framework analysis has helped us explore the extant literature, examples, and gaps around the usefulness of entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship for social, sustainable, and economic development. These analyses have served to open up a debate in which different scholars have participated with outstanding evidence, discussions, and contributions, in which entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship have been explored through different types such as gender, green, community-based entrepreneurship, and intrapreneurship, among others.
Some challenges still exist when considering the causal chain running from institutions, entrepreneurship, and development. Although Wigger and Shepherd [38] have drawn our attention through the proper exploitation of natural resources as a source of opportunities for entrepreneurship, some other aspects that have been always there might also drive entrepreneurial projects that individuals and companies can lead. As academics, practitioners, and policymakers, we can learn from what the Dutch non-profit company called The Ocean Cleanup is doing to preserve the environment. This firm has identified not an opportunity but a problem that is getting worse year by year: the enormous amount of plastic in oceans and rivers. The Ocean Cleanup has created a floating vacuum cleaner that, through a boat, is sucks up plastic and cleans the ocean. The way we as a society support companies like this one may create higher motivation to come up with solutions for social, sustainable, and economic problems. In this regard, alliances between universities, companies, and governments may foster a solid environment and ecosystem for entrepreneurs in pursuit of outcomes beyond money-making goals.
This undoubtedly brings theoretical challenges as well. Therefore, one might think that the complementary relationship between institutions at the macro- [12] and meso-level [30] brings solid foundations not only for firm growth but also for social, sustainable, and economic development. This theoretical viewpoint may be helpful for those policymakers oriented toward entrepreneurship, firm growth, and development, as it motives a debate around the role of different types of institutions in entrepreneurial activity at different levels in the development process [4,7]. That is why we need a better understanding of how macro- and meso-institutions improve the decisions of policymakers, companies, and entrepreneurs before, during, and after entrepreneurial and strategic processes, which might take place in turbulent times (e.g., COVID-19, violence, natural disasters, etc.).

Author Contributions

All authors have contributed equally. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

The authors, as Guest Editors, acknowledge the constant support from Hulda Li, as well as all managing editors that handled submissions, review, and publishing processes. Also, special thanks go to the reviewers, who with their time and valuable suggestions contributed to the enhancement of those papers accepted in this special issue. The authors want to thank all those scholars who have participated with cutting-edge ideas in this special issue. Particularly, Sebastian Aparicio acknowledges Durham University Business School for constant support. Additionally, Sebastian acknowledges COLCIENCIAS Ph.D. programme (617/2013), as well as Sapiencia-Enlaza Mundos (Municipio de Medellín) for financial support during Ph.D. studies. Andreu Turro and Maria Noguera acknowledge the financial support from the project ECO 2017-87885-P (Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. McMullen, J.S. Delineating the domain of development entrepreneurship: A market–based approach to facilitating inclusive economic growth. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2011, 35, 185–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Aparicio, S.; Audretsch, D.; Urbano, D. Does entrepreneurship matter for inclusive growth? The role of social progress orientation. Entrep. Res. J. 2020, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Landström, H.; Harirchi, G.; Åström, F. Entrepreneurship: Exploring the knowledge base. Res. Policy 2012, 41, 1154–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  4. Bjørnskov, C.; Foss, N.J. Institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: What do we know and what do we still need to know? Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2016, 30, 292–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  5. Acs, Z.J.; Boardman, M.C.; McNeely, C.L. The social value of productive entrepreneurship. Small Bus. Econ. 2013, 40, 785–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Williams, T.A.; Shepherd, D.A. Building resilience or providing sustenance: Different paths of emergent ventures in the aftermath of the Haiti earthquake. Acad. Manag. J. 2016, 59, 2069–2102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  7. Urbano, D.; Aparicio, S.; Audretsch, D. Twenty-five years of research on institutions, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: What has been learned? Small Bus. Econ. 2019, 53, 21–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  8. Audretsch, D.B.; Kuratko, D.F.; Link, A.N. Making sense of the elusive paradigm of entrepreneurship. Small Bus. Econo. 2015, 45, 703–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Noguera, M.; Alvarez, C.; Urbano, D. Socio-cultural factors and female entrepreneurship. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2015, 9, 183–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Turró, A.; Urbano, D.; Peris-Ortiz, M. Culture and innovation: The moderating effect of cultural values on corporate entrepreneurship. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2014, 88, 360–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pacheco, D.F.; Dean, T.J.; Payne, D.S. Escaping the green prison: Entrepreneurship and the creation of opportunities for sustainable development. J. Bus. Ventur. 2010, 25, 464–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. North, D.C. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  13. Yunis, M.S.; Hashim, H.; Anderson, A.R. Enablers and Constraints of Female Entrepreneurship in Khyber Pukhtunkhawa, Pakistan: Institutional and Feminist Perspectives. Sustainability 2019, 11, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  14. North, D.C.; Thomas, R.P. The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic History; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1973. [Google Scholar]
  15. North, D.C. Understanding the Process of Economic Change; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  16. Williamson, O.E. The new institutional economics: Taking stock, looking ahead. J. Econ. Lit. 2000, 38, 595–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  17. Bruton, G.D.; Ahlstrom, D.; Li, H.-L. Institutional theory and entrepreneurship: Where are we now and where do we need to move in the future? Entrep. Theory Pract. 2010, 34, 421–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gnyawali, D.R.; Fogel, D.S. Environments for entrepreneurship development: Key dimensions and research implications. Entrep. Theory Pract. 1994, 18, 43–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Shane, S. Reflections on the 2010 AMR decade award: Delivering on the promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2012, 37, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  20. Schmutzler, J.; Andonova, V.; Diaz-Serrano, L. How context shapes entrepreneurial self-efficacy as a driver of entrepreneurial intentions: A multilevel approach. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2019, 43, 880–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Aparicio, S.; Urbano, D.; Stenholm, P. Institutions in Attracting the Entrepreneurial Potential: A Multilevel Approach. Acad. Manag. Proc. 2019, 1, 15408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Krueger, N.F., Jr.; Brazeal, D.V. Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrep. Theory Pract. 1994, 18, 91–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Thornton, P.H.; Ribeiro-Soriano, D.; Urbano, D. Socio-Cultural Factors and Entrepreneurial Activity. Int. Small Bus. J. 2011, 29, 105–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Welter, F.; Baker, T.; Audretsch, D.B.; Gartner, W.B. Everyday entrepreneurship—A call for entrepreneurship research to embrace entrepreneurial diversity. Entrepr. Theory Pract. 2017, 41, 311–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Brush, C.; Edelman, L.F.; Manolova, T.; Welter, F. A gendered look at entrepreneurship ecosystems. Small Bus. Econ. 2019, 53, 393–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Alwakid, W.; Aparicio, S.; Urbano, D. Cultural Antecedents of Green Entrepreneurship in Saudi Arabia: An Institutional Approach. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Honig, B. Exploring the intersection of transnational, ethnic, and migration entrepreneurship. J Ethn. Migr. Stud. 2020, 46, 1974–1990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Escamilla-Fajardo, P.; Núñez-Pomar, J.M.; Ratten, V.; Crespo, J. Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Soccer: Web of Science Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Turro, A.; Noguera, M.; Urbano, D. Antecedents of entrepreneurial employee activity: Does gender play a role? Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2020, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis; DiMaggio, P.J.; Powell, W.W. (Eds.) University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1991; Volume 17. [Google Scholar]
  31. Bjørnskov, C.; Foss, N.J. Well-being and entrepreneurship: Using establishment size to identify treatment effects and transmission mechanisms. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0226008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Urbano, D.; Aparicio, S.; Audretsch, D.B. Institutions, Entrepreneurship, and Economic Performance; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  33. Bruton, G.D.; Ketchen Jr, D.J.; Ireland, R.D. Entrepreneurship as a solution to poverty. J. Bus. Ventur. 2013, 28, 683–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Suddaby, R.; Bruton, G.D.; Walsh, J.P. What we talk about when we talk about inequality: An introduction to the Journal of Management Studies special issue. J. Manag. Stud. 2018, 55, 381–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hechavarria, D.; Bullough, A.; Brush, C.; Edelman, L. High-growth women’s entrepreneurship: Fueling social and economic development. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2019, 57, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  36. Smallbone, D.; Dabic, M.; Kalantaridis, C. Migration, entrepreneurship and economic development. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2017, 29, 567–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  37. Ruiz-Rosa, I.; Gutiérrez-Taño, D.; García-Rodríguez, F.J. Social Entrepreneurial Intention and the Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic: A Structural Model. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wigger, K.A.; Shepherd, D.A. We’re all in the Same Boat: A Collective Model of Preserving and Accessing Nature-Based Opportunities. Entrep. Theory Prac. 2020, 44, 587–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Holliday, J.; Hennebry, J.; Gammage, S. Achieving the sustainable development goals: Surfacing the role for a gender analytic of migration. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 2019, 45, 2551–2565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  40. Hall, J.K.; Daneke, G.A.; Lenox, M.J. Sustainable development and entrepreneurship: Past contributions and future directions. J. Bus. Ventur. 2010, 25, 439–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Krause, R.; Wu, Z.; Bruton, G.D.; Carter, S.M. The coercive isomorphism ripple effect: An investigation of nonprofit interlocks on corporate boards. Acad. Manag. J. 2019, 62, 283–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Audretsch, D.B.; Lehmann, E.E.; Menter, M.; Wirsching, K. Intrapreneurship and absorptive capacities: The dynamic effect of labor mobility. Technovation 2020, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Urbano, D.; Turro, A.; Aparicio, S. Innovation through R&D activities in the European context: Antecedents and consequences. J. Technol. Transf. 2020, 45, 1481–1504. [Google Scholar]
  44. De Falco, S.E.; Renzi, A. Benefit Corporations and Corporate Social Intrapreneurship. Entrep. Res. J. 2020, 10, 20200382. [Google Scholar]
  45. Klofsten, M.; Urbano, D.; Heaton, S. Managing intrapreneurial capabilities: An overview. Technovation 2020, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Parris, D.L.; McInnis-Bowers, C. Business not as usual: Developing socially conscious entrepreneurs and intrapreneurs. J. Manag. Edu. 2017, 41, 687–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Honig, B.; Samuelsson, M. Business planning by intrapreneurs and entrepreneurs under environmental uncertainty and institutional pressure. Technovation 2020, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Patriotta, G.; Siegel, D. The Context of Entrepreneurship. J. Manag. Stud. 2019, 56, 1194–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  49. Provasnek, A.K.; Schmid, E.; Geissler, B.; Steiner, G. Sustainable corporate entrepreneurship: Performance and strategies toward innovation. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2017, 26, 521–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Martínez-González, J.A.; Kobylinska, U.; García-Rodríguez, F.J.; Nazarko, L. Antecedents of Entrepreneurial Intention among Young People: Model and Regional Evidence. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  51. Jung, E.; Lee, Y. College Students’ Entrepreneurial Mindset: Educational Experiences Override Gender and Major. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Georgescu, M.-A.; Herman, E. The Impact of the Family Background on Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions: An Empirical Analysis. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Litsardopoulos, N.; Saridakis, G.; Hand, C. The Effects of Rural and Urban Areas on Time Allocated to Self-Employment: Differences between Men and Women. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Butkouskaya, V.; Llonch-Andreu, J.; Alarcón-del-Amo, M.-D.-C. Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO), Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC), and Performance in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs): Gender Gap and Inter-Country Context. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Seikkula-Leino, J.; Salomaa, M. Entrepreneurial Competencies and Organisational Change—Assessing Entrepreneurial Staff Competencies within Higher Education Institutions. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Pei, X.-L.; Wu, T.-J.; Guo, J.-N.; Hu, J.-Q. Relationship between Entrepreneurial Team Characteristics and Venture Performance in China: From the Aspects of Cognition and Behaviors. Sustainability 2020, 12, 377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  57. Jaramillo-Moreno, B.C.; Sánchez-Cueva, I.P.; Tinizaray-Tituana, D.G.; Narváez, J.C.; Cabanilla-Vásconez, E.A.; Muñoz Torrecillas, M.J.; Cruz Rambaud, S. Diagnosis of Administrative and Financial Processes in Community-Based Tourism Enterprises in Ecuador. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ertac, M.; Tanova, C. Flourishing Women through Sustainable Tourism Entrepreneurship. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Butkouskaya, V.; Romagosa, F.; Noguera, M. Obstacles to Sustainable Entrepreneurship amongst Tourism Students: A Gender Comparison. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  60. Dobrzanski, P.; Bobowski, S. The Efficiency of R&D Expenditures in ASEAN Countries. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2686. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Integrating institutions, entrepreneurship, and intrapreneurship for development.
Figure 1. Integrating institutions, entrepreneurship, and intrapreneurship for development.
Sustainability 12 08958 g001
Table 1. Summary of the studies in this Special Issue.
Table 1. Summary of the studies in this Special Issue.
CategoryActivity/OutcomeAuthorsContributions
Institutions and entrepreneurship/IntrapreneurshipEntrepreneurship (Entrepreneurial intentions)Martínez-González, Kobylinska, García-Rodríguez, and Nazarko [50]Subjective characteristics (i.e., beliefs, social norms, and values) initiate the chain of effects that influence the action variables (i.e., motivation, self-efficacy, intention). Attitude is the nexus variable between both groups of variables in Spain and Poland.
Institutions and entrepreneurship/IntrapreneurshipEntrepreneurship (Entrepreneurial intentions)Jung and Lee [51]The results indicate that strict invariance held for either gender or educational experiences, while scalar invariance held between the engineering and non-engineering groups. While the male, engineering, and educational experience groups generally scored higher on both the latent and observed sub-scales of the CS-EMS, the results of the conditional effects of grouping variables indicate that educational experiences mattered most.
Institutions and entrepreneurship/IntrapreneurshipEntrepreneurship (Entrepreneurial intentions)Georgescu and Herman [52]Results show that students with an entrepreneurial family background, effectiveness of entrepreneurship education, and entrepreneurial personality traits reported a higher entrepreneurial intention than those without such a background. However, entrepreneurial family background negatively moderated the relationship between effectiveness of entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention.
Institutions and entrepreneurship/IntrapreneurshipEntrepreneurship (Sport)Escamilla-Fajardo, Núñez-Pomar, Ratten, and Crespo [28]Through a bibliometric analysis, four clusters about sport entrepreneurship were identified: (1) football, entrepreneurship and social development, (2) football, innovation and management, (3) football, efficiency and new technology, and (4) football, injuries and innovation in rehabilitation.
Institutions and entrepreneurship/IntrapreneurshipEntrepreneurship (Gender)Litsardopoulos, Saridakis, and Hand [53]This research advanced knowledge on the existence of complex dynamics between gender and age, which affect the allocation of time to self-employment between rural and urban areas.
Institutions and entrepreneurship/IntrapreneurshipIntrapreneurship (Gender)Butkouskaya, Llonch-Andreu, and Alarcón-del-Amo [54]There is a positive relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO), integrated marketing communications (IMC), and performance among SMEs in Spain and Belarus. However, these connections are significantly stronger in the case of male, rather than female managers in a developed market (Spain). The EO-IMC-performance relations are more intensive when the manager is female.
Institutions and entrepreneurship/IntrapreneurshipIntrapreneurshipSeikkula-Leino and Salomaa [55] Entrepreneurial strategies about entrepreneurial thinking and actions at individual and organizational levels have been explored. Both supervisors and employees evaluate themselves and the organization to be entrepreneurial. Results provide insights for universities aiming to implement an entrepreneurial strategy, stressing psychological factors in the development of entrepreneurial competencies.
Institutions and entrepreneurship/IntrapreneurshipIntrapreneurshipPei, Wu, Guo, and Hu [56]Entrepreneurial team cognition characteristics and behavior characteristics affect venture performance. Additionally, partial mediating effects of entrepreneurial team behavior characteristics on the relationship between cognition characteristics and venture performance were found.
Entrepreneurship/Intrapreneurship and developmentSocial changeJaramillo-Moreno et al. [57]Despite having a certificate from the Ministry of Tourism (MINTUR), the Community-Based Tourism Enterprises have not implemented important administrative and financial processes such as a strategic plan, operational plan, market study, cost analysis, process manual, market plan, initial situation, results status, final status, or financial indicators.
Entrepreneurship/Intrapreneurship and developmentSocial change (Gender)Ertac and Tanova [58]When psychological empowerment is high, women ecotourism entrepreneurs in Northern Cyprus with a higher level of growth mindset experience a greater level of flourishing, even in an unfavorable context.
Institutions, entrepreneurship, and developmentSocial entrepreneurial orientation and social changeRuiz-Rosa, Gutiérrez-Taño, and García-Rodríguez [37]Findings serve to validate the explanatory model of social entrepreneurial intention from the perspective of the theory of planned behavior. Results also show that social entrepreneurial intention decreases in times of deep socioeconomic crises and high uncertainty, such as that caused by COVID-19.
Institutions, entrepreneurship, and developmentSustainable entrepreneurship, gender, and sustainable developmentButkouskaya, Romagosa, and Noguera [59]Economic factors (both societal and university related), the level of innovation in society, and the students’ self-confidence are barrier for sustainable entrepreneurship amongst university students of tourism. Female students were more conscious of the possible obstacles to new business creation than male students. For example, females considered their lack of entrepreneurial education as more significant than did the males. In addition, the female students tended to need more economic and practical support than male students.
Institutions, entrepreneurship, and developmentGreen entrepreneurship and sustainable developmentAlwakid, Aparicio, and Urbano [26]Cultural characteristics such as environmental actions, environmental consciousness, and temporal orientation, increase the level of green entrepreneurial activity across cities in Saudi Arabia. This study contributes to existing knowledge about (informal) institutions, green entrepreneurship, and sustainable development
Entrepreneurship/Intrapreneurship and developmentEconomic growthDobrzanski and Bobowski [60]Hong Kong and the Philippines are the most efficient regarding research and development (R&D) if efficiency is assessed through constant return to scale (CRS) approach. However, according to the variable return to scale (VRS) approach, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Singapore, and the Philippines are more efficient. The study also confirms that increased spending on innovation is resulting in non-proportional effects.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Aparicio, S.; Turro, A.; Noguera, M. Entrepreneurship and Intrapreneurship in Social, Sustainable, and Economic Development: Opportunities and Challenges for Future Research. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8958. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218958

AMA Style

Aparicio S, Turro A, Noguera M. Entrepreneurship and Intrapreneurship in Social, Sustainable, and Economic Development: Opportunities and Challenges for Future Research. Sustainability. 2020; 12(21):8958. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218958

Chicago/Turabian Style

Aparicio, Sebastian, Andreu Turro, and Maria Noguera. 2020. "Entrepreneurship and Intrapreneurship in Social, Sustainable, and Economic Development: Opportunities and Challenges for Future Research" Sustainability 12, no. 21: 8958. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12218958

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop