Dimensions of Sustainability

In many ways, the definition of sustainable development proposed by the Brundtland Commission was vague and ambiguous; however, commentators eventually began to focus on what became known as the three pillars, or dimensions, of sustainable development: environmental protection, economic development and social equity.[1]  Many of them argued that environmentally-conscious, or sustainable, businesses should pursue environmental, economic and social objectives simultaneously and conduct their operations ethically with sustainable environmental, economic and social dimensions embedded within their products, processes and services.[2]  This approach has often been referred to as the “triple bottom-line”, a nod to the notion that businesses should expand their traditional focus on the financial “bottom-line” as the measure of performance to include ecological and social impact.  From time to time, others have suggested that additional dimensions of sustainability should be recognized and integrated into a model along with the first three dimensions.  For example, a cultural dimension would take into account the need for sustainable businesses to sustain traditional or indigenous knowledge, maintain cultural diversity and prevent the loss of personal and community identify.[3]  Racelis argued that sustainable development was, by its very nature, an ethically motivated normative concept and thus it was essential to include an ethical domain in any framework or model of sustainable entrepreneurship.[4]

The “triple bottom-line”

In the 1990s, Elkington proposed a framework for measuring and quantifying an organization’s economic activities that had a direct impact on society and the environment, thus moving beyond traditional performance measures such as profit, return on investment and shareholder value to incorporate creation of social and environmental value and the impact of operations on all of the organization’s stakeholders (i.e., shareholders, customers, employees, business partners, governments and local communities).[5] Elkington referred to his framework as the “triple bottom-line”, described by others as an expansion of the “traditional accounting and performance framework to encompass its ecological and social impact, in addition to its financial impact”.[6]  The constituent aspects of the triple bottom-line have become known as the “3 P’s” (i.e., People, Planet and Profit), and can be briefly described as follows[7]:

  • People: This aspect focuses on how companies behave with respect to addressing social and ethical issues such as fair treatment for employees and promotion of social cohesion. Issues that need to be addressed include, job creation, protection of human rights, non-indulgence towards fraud and corruption, use of child labor, gender relationships and discrimination in the workplace, workplace safety, labor participation in management and profits, implementation and enforcement of behavior codes and social cohesion (i.e., fulfilling individual and community needs).  Companies must not only adhere to formal labor regulations but also must voluntarily and purposely adopt self-imposed systems to manage these issues.  Companies should provide fair salaries, tolerable working hours and conditions and meaningful benefits such as health care and insurance, and should also demonstrate their understanding of the value of their workforce through hiring, developing and training the “right” people that complement their sustainable business objectives.  Training should not only meet the current needs of the company but also include a “knowledge” component that strengthens the ability of employees to survive in a competitive labor marketplace.
  • Planet: The second aspect recognizes that sustainability is crucial to the longevity of the planet and its inhabitants and calls on companies to measure and manage the impact of its activities on natural resources and the landscape.  Unsustainable use and abuse of natural resources will ultimately cause companies to lose their people, employees and customers, and destroy their profitability and economic viability.[8]   Among the specific issues that need to be considered are environmental care, supply chain management, eco-efficiency, clean products, sustainable technology development, sustainable industry fields and eco-design.  In many instances, protecting the environment is a real and substantial constraint on profit maximization for companies; however, the triple bottom-line places environmental integrity side-by-side with profit seeking as overall goals and purposes for the organization.  As is the case with the People aspect, companies must not only deal with environmental laws and regulations but also a broad and continuously growing array of self-regulatory standards.
  • Profit: The third aspect, profit, is certainly not new to commercial ventures and it can be expected that companies will be concerned about the financial results of their business activities. Simply put, companies cannot achieve the long-term value for Planet and People described above unless they are financially viable and sustainable and thus able to survive and ultimately achieve the goals and purposes originally stabled by the entrepreneurs who founded the venture.[9]  However, success with regard to profitability in the triple bottom-line framework is gauged by additional factors such as allocating excess funds away from self-gratification and into meaningful, helpful ways such as investments in machines and infrastructure, sponsoring and donating and equitable distribution of financial profits (e.g. labor participation).  In addition, the framework also takes into account the economic benefits that society in general enjoys from the business activities of the company including profits realized by supply chain members and other business partners which must be understood and valued as social benefits.

While each of the 3 P’s can be understood and appreciated in isolation, the challenge for companies lies in achieving and maintaining the appropriate balance among the three areas, a task that is particularly difficult given that companies operate in a turbulent and evolving external market that is constantly changing and thus requires a series of twists and turns in business strategy and the areas of immediate focus.  For example, the need to generate revenues to maintain operations and invest in new equipment and personnel required to grow the business may lead to temptations to cut corners on using eco-friendly materials that may be more costly.  Sustainable entrepreneurs may also find that their desire to protect and reward their employees threatens the long-term viability of the business during recessionary times when sales are down due to factors outside the control of the company.  Similarly, donations and sponsorships may need to be cut back during times that excess capital needs to be diverted to upgrading products to address changing customer requirements.  In all of these instances, the impact of changes in strategy and tactics needs to be analyzed and communicated to the involved stakeholders.

While the “triple bottom-line” has been well-known and recognized, a strong perception remains that financial and social returns are mutually exclusive and that improvements on one of these dimensions will be accompanied by reductions on the other dimension.  Commentators have argued that it should not be a question of whether to focus on creating financial wealth or social change but rather on conceptualizing the path of the organization as concurrently pursuing both economic and social value.  Bergh described that “blended value proposition” developed by Emerson et al., which is based on the belief that “the nature of value is integrated and non-divisible; that value attained as an outcome of an activity has financial, social and environmental elements integrated at the core of the value proposition”.[10]  What this means is that the focus of analysis should be on whole value created for all of the stakeholders, not just investors but also other impacted groups and society in general.  Richomme-Huet and De Freyman have also stressed that sustainable entrepreneurs should create values that produces economic prosperity, together with social justice and environmental protection. In other words, there should not be a zero-sum game or tradeoff between profit and other non-profit aspects, such as environmental well-being or social welfare.[11]

One issue that makes it difficult for companies to simultaneously manage People, Planet and Profits is that while there are accepted and reasonably objective ways to measure financial performance it is problematic to gauge the actual impact of a company’s behavior on nature and the communities in which it operates and thus assess the company’s overall performance along all included dimensions.  Racelis cited an example provided by Sir Partha Dasgupta, who was involved in the development of the Inclusive Wealth Index: “If a national accountant claims the savings ratio of a country like Brazil or Costa Rica is 15%, but doesn’t take into account the natural capital, the forests being razed, then it is not a true indication of the accumulation of wealth. If depreciation of forests is deducted from savings, the picture looks significantly different.” [12]

An obvious problem is that there is no common unit of measurement, which makes it difficult to afford equal weight to each of the three dimensions.[13]  While there have been suggestions that social welfare and environmental damage can and should be measured using monetary values, the reality it is problematic, if not impossible, to put a price on social and environmental issues such as endangered species, nuclear disasters and soil degradation.[14]  Critics have claimed that companies have taken advantage of the lack of measurement tools to inaccurately report their triple bottom-line performances, with Pojasek arguing that while many companies have made a great public show of embracing the triple bottom-line, they often have used it in ways that have “provided a smokescreen behind which firms can avoid truly effective and environmental reporting and performance”.[15]

In 2006, Savitz and Weber proposed a menu of economic, environmental and social performance measures based on information drawn from different functions within the company—accounting, marketing and human resources—that could provide a clear picture of a company’s management of the triple bottom-line and opportunities for reporting and assessing results[16]:

  • Economic: Traditional economic measures such as sales, profits and return on investment should be supplemented by taxes paid, monetary flows and jobs created (e.g., job growth and cost of underemployment.
  • Environmental: Objective/quantitative measures can be obtained for air and water quality, energy usage (e.g., electricity and fossil fuel consumption) and waste production (e.g., hazardous and solid waste management).
  • Social: Labor practices (e.g., unemployment rate and female labor force participation rate), community impacts (e.g., relative poverty, health adjusted life expectancy and violent crimes per capita), human rights and product safety and responsibility.

Majid and Koe observed that the use of the triple bottom line, often referred to as the “TBL”, had been extended beyond being a means for explaining or describing sustainable development to being recognized as a “tool or device for sustainable reporting under the headings of environmental quality, social justice and economic prosperity by organizations; due to its ease in monitoring the effects of business activities on the three dimensions in TBL”.[17]

Many businesses, non-profit organizations and government agencies have cited the triple bottom line as the foundation for their measurement and reporting of sustainability performance; however, many of have complained that significant shortcomings remain in developing reliable, objective and wide accepted standards for measuring performance on the environmental and social dimensions of the triple bottom line and simultaneously integrating the performance on each of the dimensions to arrive at a viable measure of overall return on investment.[18]  Racelis criticized the efficacy of the “triple bottom line” as a measurement tool for sustainable entrepreneurship due to its failure to clearly mention the degree of emphasis that should be given to the domains identified in the model.  Others have attempted to solve the puzzle of how to balance the domains by maintaining that equal priority should be given to each of the domains in the model, a stance taken by Majid and Koe for their model, discussed below, that includes four domains: economic, social, ecological, and cultural.[19]

Cultural dimension

Majid and Koe surveyed definitions of sustainable entrepreneurship that served as the foundation for suggesting that “culture” should be added to the three original dimensions of the triple bottom line and recognized as a context for entrepreneurship that should be sustained. They noted that O’Neill et al. described sustainable entrepreneurship as “a process of venture creation that links the activities of entrepreneurs to the emergence of value-creating enterprises that contribute to the sustainable development of the social-ecological system” and the characteristics of the cultural environment in which the entrepreneurial activities are being carried out play a significant role in influencing the “values” that sustainable enterprises seek to create.[20]  Earlier, Nurse had argued that culture should be integrated into sustainable entrepreneurship in the same manner as economic viability, environmental responsibility and social equity.[21]  In fact, Nurse proposed that not only should culture be the “fourth pillar of sustainable development, but should be central to it in order help the people to deal with sustainability issues in one’s own way, because “culture shapes what we mean by development and determines how people act in the world”.[22]

Majid and Koe relied upon and endorsed these definitions when proposing their own definition of sustainable entrepreneurship: “A process in which entrepreneurs exploit the opportunities in an innovative manner for economic gains, society equity, environmental quality and cultural preservation on an equal footing.”[23]  They then continued to propose a revised model of sustainable entrepreneurship based on analysis of four domains: the economic, environmental and social domains in the traditional TBL, and a cultural domain that specifically recognized preservation of the community and cultural values as an obligation of sustainable entrepreneurs and their activities.  Majid and Koe noted that explicitly including culture in the model was consistent with the significant role that culture played in setting the context for sustainable entrepreneurship, particularly the social impact of entrepreneurship.

In the same vein, Racelis pointed out that in many areas of the world, sustainable entrepreneurship must be understood to include addressing concerns about damage to traditional or indigenous knowledge or culture and over-dependence on Western culture arising from economic progress and development as defined by Western standards.  Racelis noted that measurement and assessment tools relating to sustainability entrepreneurship must take into account cultural factors including those aspects related to learning, education, awareness, and marketing.[24]

Ethical dimension

An important element of sustainable entrepreneurship is ensuring that the businesses launched and operated by the entrepreneurs conduct their affairs in a sustainable manner and demonstrate ethical behavior.  Many commentators have stressed that the pursuit of the various types of economic and non-economic entrepreneurship described in this Guide cannot be sustainable unless the entrepreneurs conduct their operations ethically.  Building on this, Racelis argued for consideration of the ethical environment created within an entrepreneurial firm, the mechanisms put in place by the entrepreneur to ensure ethical standards are observed, and the ways in which unethical behaviors on the part of employees are addressed.[25]  According to Racelis, “sustainable development is, by its very nature, an ethically motivated normative concept referring to a form of economics and lifestyle that does not endanger our future” and that it is therefore essential to include an ethical domain in any framework or model of sustainable entrepreneurship.[26]

Racelis argued that “entrepreneurship is an ethical activity of pressing importance as it significantly influences the sort of lives we will lead in the future” and noted, in particular, that “the very process of creating new products, services, and markets is a journey with its own enormous ethical impact on the stakeholders immediately affected by the entrepreneur’s actions”.  For example, there are strong ethical dimensions at play in the relationship between the entrepreneur and the supporters of the new venture who put themselves in a position of great vulnerability to the entrepreneur and place much at stake in anticipation of the success of the entrepreneur.[27]

Racelis mentioned several important and complex moral and ethical issues and problems that all entrepreneurs must confront with respect to basic fairness, personnel and customer relationships, distribution dilemmas and other challenges.[28] Illustrations of major ethical concerns and issues with respect to entrepreneurship include[29]:

  • Human dignity and human rights issues: Racelis argued that “a normative approach to entrepreneurial ethics calls for the application of social norms to business and management since social norms serve as the foundation for rules of behavior within a community”. Racelis suggested that organizations, including sustainable entrepreneurial ventures, need to treat members of their community with dignity and respect and must be mindful of: (1) maltreatment (i.e., blatant injustice through abuse of power or mistreatment); (2) indifference (i.e., disrespectful treatment through lack of recognition of people’s personhood and concern); (3) justice (i.e., respect for persons and their rights), (4) care (i.e., concern for people’s legitimate interests and support for them in resolving their problems); and (5) development (i.e., favoring human flourishing, mutual esteem, and friendship-based reciprocity).[30]
  • Contributing to a harmonious way of living together in just, peaceful, and friendly conditions: Racelis observed that humans are also social beings; they possess “sociability” and want to live together in an established order, with harmony, justice, and peace. These traits and needs should be demonstrated by feelings of care, trust, concern and interest for others, including those who are vulnerable to the choices of others and those who deserve extra consideration.[31]
  • Corruption, especially in the supply and customer chains: Hefty fines, damaged reputations, and jail sentences—recent scandals prove that corruption in business does not always bring profits, yet bribery persists.
  • Financial and operational pressures which heighten the incentives for entrepreneurs to engage in expedient behavior (including dishonesty): Rising incidents of corruption, piracy, terrorism, and human and drug trafficking. Legal and reputational issues (i.e., penalties for willful infringement and having unlicensed software reduces credibility and can be seen as being very unprofessional.

Other unethical practices include violations of union rights, use of child labor, dangerous working conditions, race and gender discrimination, and underhanded influence on people to gain benefit or power by way of lies, deceit, or the creation of false expectations.[32]

Racelis argued that “a strong case for our moral responsibility to future generations can be established on the grounds of fiduciary duties, virtue ethics, stewardship and accountability, respect for human dignity and human rights, promoting the common good, etc.” and that the job of leaders such as sustainable entrepreneurs should include caring and taking responsibility for their followers.[33]  Ethical missteps will cause sustainable entrepreneurs to lose their existing funds and resources due to corruption and make it more difficult for them to obtain new financial resources and recruit and retain the human capital needed for the venture to be successful.[34]  As to some of the actual steps that sustainable entrepreneurs can take in order to fulfill their ethical obligations, a survey described by Morris et al. mentioned implementing penalties for unethical behavior and communicating them to employees; drafting and adopting a formal code of conduct that provided guidance for resolving specific on-the-job ethical dilemmas; implementing ongoing ethics-related training; preparing and circulating among employees a company policy manual covering ethics was accessible to employees; designating an officer or manager who is assigned direct responsibility for ethical issues; and launching and maintaining a program regularly scheduled discussions with employees regarding ethical issues..[35]   The ideal is for the business as a whole and each of its managers and employees to embrace and practice ethical values and adopt and live the simple premise that “Good Ethics is Good Business”.[36]

This post is part of the Sustainable Entrepreneurship Project’s extensive materials on Sustainability and Entrepreneurship.

Notes

[1] D. Choi and E. Gray, “The venture development process of “sustainable” entrepreneurs”, Management Research News, 31(8) (2008), 558.

[2] J. Bell and J. Stellingwerf, Sustainable Entrepreneurship: The Motivations & Challenges of Sustainable Entrepreneurs in the Renewable Energy Industry (Jonkoping, Sweden: Jonkoping International Business School Master Thesis in Business Administration, 2012), 4.

[3] See K. Nurse, “Culture as the Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development”, Small States: Economic Review and Basic Statistics, 11 (2006), 28; D. Shepherd and H. Patzelt, “The New Field of Sustainable Entrepreneurship: Studying Entrepreneurial Action Linking ‘What is to be Sustained’ With ‘What is to be Developed’”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, January 2011, 137; and D. Shepherd and H. Patzelt, Sustainable Entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurial Mechanisms Linking What is to be Sustained With What is to be Developed. Conference proceedings in 5th International AGSE Entrepreneurship Research Exchange, February 5-8, 2008, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.

[4] A. Racelis, “Sustainable Entrepreneurship in Asia: A Proposed Theoretical Framework Based on Literature Review”, Journal of Management for Global Sustainability, 2 (2014), 6.

[5] J. Elkington, Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom-Line of 21st Century Business (Oxford: Capstone, 1998).

[6] Green Marketing TV: empowering green & Social Entrepreneurs (2011) (as cited in J. Bell and J. Stellingwerf, Sustainable Entrepreneurship: The Motivations & Challenges of Sustainable Entrepreneurs in the Renewable Energy Industry (Jonkoping, Sweden: Jonkoping International Business School Master Thesis in Business Administration, 2012), 4).

[7] The descriptions of the 3 P’s are adapted from E. Crals and L. Vereeck, “Sustainable entrepreneurship in SMEs—Theory and Practice”, http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/ptb/ejgc/ejgc3/cralsvereeck%20paper.pdf [accessed July 18, 2016], 3-4; J. Bell and J. Stellingwerf, Sustainable Entrepreneurship: The Motivations & Challenges of Sustainable Entrepreneurs in the Renewable Energy Industry (Jonkoping, Sweden: Jonkoping International Business School Master Thesis in Business Administration, 2012), 4-5; and L. Rey, Sustainable Entrepreneurship and its Viability (Rotterdam: Master Thesis for MS in Entrepreneurship, Strategy and Organizations Economics from Erasmus School of Economics, December 2011), 19-20.  See also E. Crals and L. Vereeck, Sustainable Entrepreneurship in SMEs. Theory and Practice (Belgium: Limburgs Universitair Centrum, 2004).

[8] K. Langdon, The 3 P’s of Sustainability (2010) (as cited in J. Bell and J. Stellingwerf, Sustainable Entrepreneurship: The Motivations & Challenges of Sustainable Entrepreneurs in the Renewable Energy Industry (Jonkoping, Sweden: Jonkoping International Business School Master Thesis in Business Administration, 2012), 5).

[9] E. Crals and L. Vereeck, Sustainable Entrepreneurship in SMEs: Theory and Practice. Conference proceedings in 3rd Global Conference on Environmental Justice and Global Citizenship, February 12-14, 2004, Copenhagen, Denmark.; J. Austin, H. Stevenson and J. Wei-Skillern, “Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different or Both?”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, January 2006, 1; and J. Hall, G. Daneke and M. Lenox, Sustainable Development and Entrepreneurship: Past Contributions and Future Directions, Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5) (2010), 439.

[10] L. Bergh, Sustainability-Driven Entrepreneurship: Perceptions of Challenges and Obstacles in a South African Context (Cambridge UK: Master Thesis for MS in Sustainability Leadership, July 2013), 6 (citing J. Emerson, S. Bonini and K. Brehm, The blended value map: Tracking the intersects and opportunities of economic, social and environmental value creation (2003)).

[11] I. Majid and W-L. Koe, “Sustainable Entrepreneurship (SE): A Revised Model Based on Triple Bottom Line (TBL)”, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2(6) (June 2012), 293, 303 (citing K. Richomme-Huet and J. Freyman, What Sustainable Entrepreneurship Looks Like: An Exploratory Study from a Student Perspective. Conference proceedings in 56th Annual International Council for Small Business (ICSB) World Conference, June 15-18, 2011, Stockholm, Sweden).

[12] A. Racelis, “Sustainable Entrepreneurship in Asia: A Proposed Theoretical Framework Based on Literature Review”, Journal of Management for Global Sustainability, 2 (2014), 16 (citing UN Environment Programme, Inclusive Wealth Report 2012: measuring progress toward sustainability (Bonn: United Nations University-International Human Dimensions Programme, 2012)).

[13] T. Slaper and T. Hall, “The Triple Bottom Line: What is it and how does it work?”, Indiana Business Review, (2011), 4.

[14] J. Bell and J. Stellingwerf, Sustainable Entrepreneurship: The Motivations & Challenges of Sustainable Entrepreneurs in the Renewable Energy Industry (Jonkoping, Sweden: Jonkoping International Business School Master Thesis in Business Administration, 2012), 5.

[15] R. Pojasek, Debunking the Notion of a Triple Bottom Line (2009) (as cited in J. Bell and J. Stellingwerf, Sustainable Entrepreneurship: The Motivations & Challenges of Sustainable Entrepreneurs in the Renewable Energy Industry (Jonkoping, Sweden: Jonkoping International Business School Master Thesis in Business Administration, 2012), 5).

[16] A. Savitz and K. Weber, The triple bottom line: how today’s best-run companies are achieving economic, social, and environmental success – and how you can you too (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2006).

[17] I. Majid and W-L. Koe, “Sustainable Entrepreneurship (SE): A Revised Model Based on Triple Bottom Line (TBL)”, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2(6) (June 2012), 293, 300 (citing J. McCartney and P. Rouse, A Framework for Sustainability, Strategy and Management Control. Conference proceedings in 4th Asia Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting Conference, July 4-6, 2004, Singapore; and M. Mitchell, A. Curtis and P. Davidson, Can the “Triple Bottom Line” Concept Help Organizations Respond to Sustainability Issues? Conference proceedings in 5th Australian Stream Management Conference, May 21-25, 2007, New South Wales, Australia).

[18] See M. Mitchell, A. Curtis and P. Davidson, Can the “Triple Bottom Line” Concept Help Organizations Respond to Sustainability Issues? Conference proceedings in 5th Australian Stream Management Conference, May 21-25, 2007, New South Wales, Australia; and T. Slaper and T. Hall, “The Triple Bottom Line: What Is It and How Does It Work?” Indiana Business Review, Spring 2011, 4.

[19] I. Majid and W-L. Koe, “Sustainable Entrepreneurship (SE): A Revised Model Based on Triple Bottom Line (TBL)”, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2(6) (June 2012), 293.

[20] Id. at 299 (citing G. O’Neill, J. Hershauer and J. Golden, “The Cultural Context of Sustainability Entrepreneurship”, Green Management International, 55 (2009), 33, 34).

[21] Id. at 306 (citing K. Nurse, “Culture as the Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development”, Small States: Economic Review and Basic Statistics, 11 (2006), 28).  While arguing that culture should be included in any comprehensive model of sustainable entrepreneurship, Nurse did not advocate that “cultural entrepreneurs” should be recognized as sustainable entrepreneurs as they typically focused their activities on the art sector or cultural industries which could be not-for-profit and non-entrepreneurial oriented.  Id.

[22] Id. at 302 (citing K. Nurse, “Culture as the Fourth Pillar of Sustainable Development”, Small States: Economic Review and Basic Statistics, 11 (2006), 28, 37).

[23] Id. at 300-301.

[24] A. Racelis, “Sustainable Entrepreneurship in Asia: A Proposed Theoretical Framework Based on Literature Review”, Journal of Management for Global Sustainability, 2 (2014), 16.

[25] Id. at 14 (citing M. Morris, M. Schindehutte, J. Walton and J. Allen, “The ethical context of entrepreneurship: proposing and testing a developmental framework”, Journal of Business Ethics, 40 (2002), 331).

[26] Id. at 6.

[27] Id. at 11 (citing L. Dunham, Entrepreneurship and ethics (2005)).

[28] Id. (citing F. Hannafey, “Entrepreneurship and ethics: a literature review”, Journal of Business Ethics, 46(2) (2003), 99).

[29] Id. (citing E. Garriga and D. Melé, “Corporate social responsibility theories: mapping the territory”, Journal of Business Ethics, 53 (2004), 51; M. Morris, M. Schindehutte, J. Walton and J. Allen, “The ethical context of entrepreneurship: proposing and testing a developmental framework”, Journal of Business Ethics, 40 (2002), 331; and R. Raeesi, M. Dastrang, S. Mohammadi and E. Rasouli, “Understanding the interactions among the barriers to entrepreneurship using interpretive structural modeling”, International Journal of Business and Management, 8(13) (2013), 56).

[30] Id. at 12 (citing D. Melé, “Human quality treatment”: five organizational levels”. Journal of Business Ethics, 120 (2014), 457; and M. Morris, M. Schindehutte, J. Walton and J. Allen, “The ethical context of entrepreneurship: proposing and testing a developmental framework”, Journal of Business Ethics, 40 (2002), 331)..

[31] Id. at 12-13 (citing D. Melé, “Human quality treatment”: five organizational levels”. Journal of Business Ethics, 120 (2014), 457).

[32] Id. at 14 (citing M. Andersen and T. Skjoett-Larsen, “Corporate social responsibility in global supply chains”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 14(2) (2009), 75; and  D. Melé, “Human quality treatment”: five organizational levels”, Journal of Business Ethics, 120 (2014), 457).

[33] Id. at 16-17 (citing J. Ciulla, “Leadership and the ethics of care”, Journal of Business Ethics, 88(1) (2009), 3).

[34] Id. at 18 (citing R. Raeesi, M. Dastrang, S. Mohammadi and E. Rasouli, “Understanding the interactions among the barriers to entrepreneurship using interpretive structural modeling”, International Journal of Business and Management, 8(13) (2013), 56).

[35] M. Morris, M. Schindehutte, J. Walton and J. Allen, “The ethical context of entrepreneurship: proposing and testing a developmental framework”, Journal of Business Ethics, 40 (2002), 331.

[36] A. Racelis, “Sustainable Entrepreneurship in Asia: A Proposed Theoretical Framework Based on Literature Review”, Journal of Management for Global Sustainability, 2 (2014), 18 (citing P. Van Beurden and T. Gössling, “The worth of values: a literature review on the relation between corporate social and financial performance”, Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2) (2008), 407).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s