ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH · 2017-12-12 · competitive industry consists of numerous...
Transcript of ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH · 2017-12-12 · competitive industry consists of numerous...
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH Online Open Access publishing platform for Management Research
© Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing association
Research Article ISSN 2229 – 3795
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH 564
Volume 2 Issue 1, 2011
The triangulation different perspective of Entrepreneurs, Investors and
regulators toward Sustainable entrepreneurship strategy transition to a
Low-Carbon Economy in Thailand Phuttachart Rattanawong
1, Pacapol Anurit
2, Chuvej Chansa-ngavej
3
Shinawatra University, Graduate Build. 197 Vibhavadi-Rangsit Rd., Bangkok, Thailand
10400. [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Sustainability-driven entrepreneurs design ventures with the primary intention of contributing
to improved environmental quality, social well-being and firm financial performance in ways
that are mutually supportive. It has been suggested that these entrepreneurs can function as
important catalysts to combination economic, social and environmental structural
transformations toward sustainability. However, the actual mechanisms underlying such a
role are empirically under-researched and theoretically underdeveloped. In this study we
investigate the possible catalytic role and commonly agreed framework for the effective of
sustainability entrepreneurship strategy implementation and influential factors toward among
Entrepreneurs, Investors and Regulators perspective in the successful entrepreneurship
strategy on transition to a low carbon economy.
The objective of the study is to enhance our knowledge in the field of sustainable
entrepreneurship strategy transition to a low carbon economy and to address this research gap
by developing a framework that conceptualizes sustainable entrepreneurship as a combination
of three different dimensions: the economic, the social and the environmental one. In
additional, this study will fulfill the gap and highlight the triangulation different perspective
on influential factors. This serves as a tool for unveiling the core of sustainable
entrepreneurship in order to guide future research pertaining to sustainable development and
for the formation of a strategy that addresses modern business issues.
Keywords: Sustainable entrepreneurship, Economy efficiency, Environment social
responsibility, Corporate social responsibility, Low carbon economy
1. Introduction
Global climate change has been brought about by emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) and is
considered one of the most complex that mankind must face in the twenty first century. The
difficult negotiations experienced since the singing of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) in 1992 and sine the Kyoto Protocol came into
force in 2005, have highlighted to the international community that climate change will be
effected by the developmental paths of all countries, which relate to each nation’s particular
political and economic interests. The next 15-20 years will be an important period for all
country’s social and economic development. This will also be a key period in the effort to
control global GHG (Zhuang, 2008).
The triangulation different perspective of Entrepreneurs, Investors and regulators toward Sustainable
entrepreneurship strategy transition to a Low-Carbon Economy in Thailand
Phuttachart Rattanawong, Pacapol Anurit, Chuvej Chansa-ngavej
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 2 Issue 1, 2011
565
The concept of a low carbon economy was first put forward in the UK in 2003 in the Energy
White Paper titled “Our future energy-creating a low carbon economy” (DTI, 2003). The
overall goal of energy development in the UK is to become a low carbon economy country,
to cut the UK’s carbon dioxide emissions by 60 percent by 2050 from the 1990 level and to
achieve real progress by 2020. The UK is the birthplace of the industrial revolution and was
the first country to realize industrialization. As such, the content of the Energy White Paper
and its influence on future policy direction has attracted considerable public attention and
extensive discussion. In fact, more and more countries around the world are making the
transition towards becoming low carbon economies. France, Japan and Canada have
established appropriate policies and taken relevant measures to reduce carbon emissions.
In recently year, owning to the enormous amount of environmental pollution and global
warming which directly connects with industrial and manufacturing in the world, the society
has notice environmental issues increasing steadily. Because of the attention of the society,
more and more companies are willing to accept the environment social responsibility (Chen,
2008). Nowadays, environmental concern rapidly emerges as a mainstream issue because of
global warming, and many companies are seeking to catch the opportunity (Chen, 2010).
Support from the study of Zhuang (2008) has shown that China intends to adopt a low carbon
economy approach through the sustainable development projects that are use of many clean
technologies, such as renewable energy, carbon capture and hydrogen energy. Developing a
low carbon economy that is friendly to both climate and the environment will help China
change its economic growth. Foxon and Parrish (2009) argued that the low carbon economy
does not present good investment opportunities; but there is potential for new business as new
market emerges.
More popular environmentalism in the world, the sales of environment products have
dramatically increased nowadays. Therefore, more consumers are willing to encourage
companies that are environmental concern (Chen, 2010). Just as many consumers have a
preference for the value added to a product by an environment social responsible (ESR)
attribute. Thus, if a company wishes to increase market share it can use environment concern
to promote product differentiation and advertise these new environmentally friendly
characteristics or features (Siegel, 2009). Investments in environmental activities may also be
integrated as important dimensions of a company’s business strategy (Hillestad et al., 2010).
Companies may benefit by finding their own innovative approach to environmental
awareness that can be useful both for branding and differentiation purposes, and for the
development of unique and valuable business models, skills and operations. Such innovative
approaches towards environmental awareness can contribute to trustworthiness and a green
reputation, and may furthermore stimulate technology development. Foxon and Parrish
(2009) suggest that, if companies want to move towards becoming a low carbon economy
successful, then their sustainable entrepreneurship concepts and ideas should be integrated
into all aspects of strategies.
Therefore, this study aims to exploration that conceptual framework towards becoming a low
carbon economy for enterprises could raise their intangible firm equities and evidence the
determinant factors that are relationships and leading to successful of a low carbon economy
and triangulation difference perspective in there factors. Therefore, my propose study aims to
solve this research problem.
The triangulation different perspective of Entrepreneurs, Investors and regulators toward Sustainable
entrepreneurship strategy transition to a Low-Carbon Economy in Thailand
Phuttachart Rattanawong, Pacapol Anurit, Chuvej Chansa-ngavej
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 2 Issue 1, 2011
566
“How does Entrepreneurs success on Sustainable Entrepreneurship Strategy and
transition to a low carbon economy?”
2. Review of Literature
2.1 Environment Social Responsibility (ESR)
The topic of environmental social responsibility (ESR) is the theory of the firm perspective,
first outlined in the Academy of Management Review paper by McWilliams & Siegel (2001).
An economic analysis of ESR begins with the realization that such activities have emerged in
response to the perception or existence of a market failure that is, instances where there is a
divergence between the private and social costs of a firm’s actions. The societal cost is
defined as the private cost to the company plus an additional external cost. External costs are
those directly associated with producing or delivering goods or services that are not incurred
by the producer. Examples of such external costs include pollution and environmental
degradation, such as global warming, acid rain, and deforestation. To a typical lumber
producer or a farmer, the forest has only an economic value. However, from a societal
perspective, forests also have recreational, existence, and biodiversity value (e.g., witness the
ongoing controversy surrounding the preservation of the rainforest in South America). It is
important to note that the fundamental rationale for government intervention and regulation is
to alleviate market failure and address these social costs. However, many companies choose
to go beyond regulatory compliance to provide ESR. As we will see, analyzing the
relationship between regulation and ESR is a critical aspect of the strategic use of ESR. A
good recent example of a firm proactively adopting a strategy to engage in environmental
social responsibility is Wal-Mart. In October 2005, Wal-Mart’s CEO, Lee Scott, announced
an environmental initiative to improve energy efficiency, increase sales of organic food, and
reduce waste and greenhouse gas emissions. As part of the plan, Wal-Mart announced its
intention to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% as of 2012 (the Kyoto Protocol called
for a 7% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the United States by 2012), while setting a
corporate goal of 100% renewable energy and zero waste. Another example is British
Petroleum (BP), the first major industrial company to impose a cap on greenhouse gas
emissions (Lowe & Harris, 1998). BP also instituted a corporate emissions trading system
and joined global efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions, and made significant investments
in solar energy. In both instances, these companies were able to enhance their profitability
while simultaneously reducing pollution.
Another critical issue in the provision of ESR concerns its relationship to the market structure
of the firm’s industry. A key conclusion of the McWilliams and Siegel (2001) paper was that,
in equilibrium, firms that engage in ESR will earn the same rate of profit as firms that do not
engage in ESR. In a subsequent paper, McWilliams and Siegel (2002) demonstrated that ESR
can occur in monopolistically competitive and oligopolistic industries. A monopolistically
competitive industry consists of numerous firms, some product differentiation, and relatively
free entry. Examples of such sectors are restaurants and retail establishments. On the other
hand, oligopolies are characterized by a consolidated industry structure, high entry barriers,
and substantial product differentiation (e.g., autos and computers). I believe that the inability
of firms to generate abnormal returns from ESR, on average, holds under both oligopoly and
monopolistic competition. This is implied for monopolistic competition because industries
with such a structure are characterized by both horizontal and vertical differentiation, a
fragmented industry structure, and very low entry barriers. Under this scenario, it is
The triangulation different perspective of Entrepreneurs, Investors and regulators toward Sustainable
entrepreneurship strategy transition to a Low-Carbon Economy in Thailand
Phuttachart Rattanawong, Pacapol Anurit, Chuvej Chansa-ngavej
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 2 Issue 1, 2011
567
impossible for firms to use ESR to outperform rivals. Examples of firms in monopolistically
competitive industries that engage in ESR include restaurants, hotels, companies selling
organic produce, and different types of retail establishments. The neutrality result likely holds
for concentrated industries as well, where some firms produce a higher quality product that
may yield “abnormal” returns. These abnormal returns may constitute the cushion of profit
that enables the firm to engage in ESR. However, recent economic models of ESR (Baron,
2001; Feddersen & Gilligan, 2001) identify an important countervailing force on the ability
of companies to reap abnormal returns from strategic ESR in oligopolistic industries: activists
and NGOs who target leading firms. This countervailing force makes it difficult for
oligopolistic firms to achieve and sustain a competitive advantage through the strategic use of
ESR because their rivals are continually forced by activists and NGOs to employ a
comparable level of ESR. In a similar, Gilley et al., (2000) found that a company engaging in
an ESR-based strategy could generate an abnormal return only if it could prevent competitors
from imitating its strategy. In fact, the strategic necessity of communicating information
about ESR to consumers via reporting and advertising enhances transparency, thus eroding
competitive advantage.
Other theoretical studies (Dutta et al, 1995; Hoppe & Ehmann, 2001) have shown that any
early mover advantages that might be gained by offering higher quality products (recall that
ESR is modeled as a “quality improvement” in McWilliams and Siegel, 2001) are eroded
when competitive strategies are observable. However, various strategies can be deployed to
counteract this loss of first-mover advantage brought on by transparency. For example, Porter
and Kramer (2006) suggested that corporate the love of humanity can invite loyalty to the
company and other benefits that are uniquely valuable to the company.
It is important to note that most empirical studies of ESR have ignored the role of corporate
leaders in formulating and implementing such initiatives. Most research has been focused at
the firm level, typically examining the relationship between ESR and firm financial
performance. Unfortunately, there has been little research at the individual level or on how
such variables might relate to ESR. In particular, top-level managers are obviously in a
position to influence these policies. In recent years, researchers have explored the relationship
between ESR and CEOs. That is entirely appropriate as corporate leaders typically formulate
such policies and often are actively involved in promoting the ESR activities of their
companies. An example is William Clay (Bill) Ford, Jr., of Ford Motor Company, who
formulated a “hydrogen strategy” for his company that was designed to make Ford the
environmental leader in the industry (Muller & Fahey, 2004). The first study of the
relationship between CEO leadership and ESR was conducted by Waldman et al., (2006).
The authors linked data from psychometric studies of CEOs with information on the
environmental and social performance of companies. They reported that the “intellectual
stimulation” dimension of transformation leadership is strongly positively correlated with the
propensity of firms to engage in strategic ESR. A key implication of this finding is that
studies ignoring the role of leadership in ESR may yield imprecise conclusions regarding the
antecedents and consequences of such activities. A recent insightful paper by Sully et al.,
(2008) further explored the relationship between corporate social responsibility (including
ESR) and various dimensions of leadership. Interestingly, they also assessed the outcomes of
relationships between leaders and followers, as related to the CEO’s “stakeholder values.”
Specifically, they found that CEOs possessing values stressing the concerns of a wide range
of stakeholders (e.g., employees, customers, environmental groups, and the greater
community) are likely to be viewed as visionary leaders. In turn, as compared to CEOs with
The triangulation different perspective of Entrepreneurs, Investors and regulators toward Sustainable
entrepreneurship strategy transition to a Low-Carbon Economy in Thailand
Phuttachart Rattanawong, Pacapol Anurit, Chuvej Chansa-ngavej
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 2 Issue 1, 2011
568
weaker stakeholder values, these leaders are more likely to elicit extra effort on the part of
followers as well as stronger financial performance. In sum, their study suggests that
organizations with inspiring, transformational leaders possessing strong stakeholder values
tend to have superior social and financial performance.
2.2 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Recently, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has emerged as a global trend with both
practical and theoretical implications. CSR is defined as “management of stakeholder concern
for responsible and irresponsible acts related to environmental, ethical and social phenomena
in a way that creates corporate benefit” (Vaaland et al., 2008). CSR is a form of corporate
self-regulation integrated into a business model. Ideally, CSR policy should function as a
built-in, self-regulating mechanism whereby a business will monitor and ensure its adherence
to laws, ethical standards, and international norms. Essentially, CSR is the deliberate
inclusion of public interests into corporate decision making, and the honoring of a triple
bottom line; people, planet, and profit (Wood, 1991). CSR is considered an important
dimension in building a strong corporate brand (Porter & Kramer, 2006; Bansal & Roth,
2000). In crowded marketplaces, companies strive to gain a unique market position that can
differentiate them from competitors in the minds of the consumers. CSR can play a role in
building customer loyalty based on distinctive ethical values. This is especially important
because consumers and societies in general are increasingly influenced by their desire to
identify with the values of the companies they patronize (Ind, 1997). Consumers are
becoming more demanding, critical, sophisticated and value-driven in their choices. CSR
includes at least three aspects of the relationship between the company and society: 1) how
the conduct of business reflects ethical considerations; 2) the extent to which business
operations interfere with established social and human rights; and 3) how business operations
affect the environment (Vaaland & Heide, 2005). Environmental awareness is one of the
most common and heavily emphasized approaches to CSR (Egri & Ralston, 2008). A
company can be environmentally aware by engaging in various environmental activities and
corporate communication (Van Riel, 1995) that signal strong awareness of environmental
concerns in development, production, distribution, and marketing of products and services.
The focus on environmental awareness is a result of the global concern with pollution and the
greenhouse effect. This are the case in all industries, but especially in industries that exploit
scarce natural resources, are energy-intensive, and represent a risk to the global climate
through potential pollution and other accidents.
Porter and Kramer (2006) argue that CSR has become a priority for business leaders in every
country as governments, activists, and the media have focused on holding companies
accountable for the social consequences of their business actions. The problem as they see it
is that most CSR efforts are not productive because they pit business interests against societal
interests rather than looking for points of interdependence. External pressures on firms tend
to make them think of corporate social responsibility in generic ways, instead of in the way
most appropriate to their individual strategies. Four common reasons that companies
participate in CSR activities are: moral obligation (duty to be good citizens and ‘’do the right
thing’), sustainability continued ability to operate requires environmental and community
stewardship, license to operate stakeholder approval to conduct business in a community is
required, and reputation CSR initiatives can improve an organization’s reputation, leading to
improved business conditions. All four of these concepts focus on the tensions between
The triangulation different perspective of Entrepreneurs, Investors and regulators toward Sustainable
entrepreneurship strategy transition to a Low-Carbon Economy in Thailand
Phuttachart Rattanawong, Pacapol Anurit, Chuvej Chansa-ngavej
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 2 Issue 1, 2011
569
business and societal issues, and so fall more into public relations and less into using CSR to
improve organizational performance (Porter & Kramer, 2006).
Often the motivation to be more environmentally friendly has to do with building the firm’s
reputation with these very stakeholders, which is believed to lead to increased financial
performance. The relationship between reputation and shareholder value was studied by
Gilley et al., (2000) when they investigated the influence of environmental initiatives on
firms’ anticipated economic performance using an event study methodology. While they
believed that shareholders would react positively to announced environmental initiatives,
they found no overall effect of announced environmental initiatives on stock returns.
Shareholder value is only one measure of success though, and as such does not preclude
increased reputation from improving firm financial performance in other ways, such as
increased sales revenue. Bansal and Roth (2000) conducted a qualitative study of the
motivations and contextual factors that induce corporate ecological responsiveness. Using
data collected from 53 firms in the United Kingdom and Japan, they found three motivations
for companies to ‘go green’: competitiveness the potential for ecological responsiveness to
improve long-term profitability, and ecological responsibility the concern that a firm has for
its social obligations and values. These motivations were influenced by three contextual
conditions: field cohesion the intensity and density of formal and informal network ties
between constituents in an organizational field, issue salience the extent to which a specific
ecological issue has meaning for organizational constituents, and individual concern the
degree to which organizational members value the environment and the degree of discretion
they possess to act on their environmental values. The authors found that a mixture of these
motivations and contextual conditions caused variation in how ecologically responsive a
company tries to be but supports the notion that meeting a key community’s expectation is
good for business for many different reasons.
As addressed in the prior research, CSR seems to have a positive impact on a firm’s financial
performance, although there has been controversy regarding CSR’s effect. The basic
underlying assumptions are that CSR is positively related to a firm’s financial performance,
and that being socially responsible might create a favorable company image and brand image
(Aupperle, 1985; Cochran, 1984; McGuire, 1988). However, CSR is a long-term, rather than
short-term, investment, suggesting that CSR’s impact on financial performance should be
addressed within a wider time frame. One- or two-year lagged financial performance is not
sufficient to wholly grasp the long-time financial performance implications of CSR (Roman,
1999). The support study from Kim (2010), given economic model for assessing firm
financial performance given that, would take more than 1 year to transfer CSR to actual
financial outcome, at least 3-5 years cumulative effect of CSR should be investigated using
financial market dynamics.
However, within the economic and finance literatures there is a long history of commentators
who have argued that a focus on CSR will reduce financial performance. For example,
Friedman (1970) asserted that the only social responsibility of a company is to use its
resources to engage in activities designed to increase profits. Many others, including Bragdon
and Marlin (1972); Vance (1975); Bramer et al. (2006), support this view. It has been argued
that a negative relationship between CSR and firm finance performance arises due to the
additional costs incurred to improve social or environmental performance, which does not
contribute to enhancing shareholder value. Also, profitable business and investment strategies
that are rejected only because of CSR concerns must result in lowering economic
The triangulation different perspective of Entrepreneurs, Investors and regulators toward Sustainable
entrepreneurship strategy transition to a Low-Carbon Economy in Thailand
Phuttachart Rattanawong, Pacapol Anurit, Chuvej Chansa-ngavej
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 2 Issue 1, 2011
570
performance (Langbein & Posner, 1980; Aupperle et al., 1985; Knoll 2002). Another body of
research suggests a neutral relation between CSR and finance performance. For example,
Ullmann (1985), argues that given such a large number of variables intervene between the
social responsibility performance and the financial performance of companies, there is no
reason to assume that a direct relation should exist. A neutral relationship can also be
explained by the financial market’s inability to value and thus price CSR (Statman, 2000).
Several papers support a positive relation between CSR and firm financial performance
(Derwall et al. 2005; Herremans et al., 1993; Guerard, 1997) and argue that investments in
CSR will lead to positive firm financial performance over the medium to long term due to the
impact of CSR on reputation and brand and the attractiveness of such companies to high
quality managers and employees.
2.3 Sustainable Entrepreneurship (SE)
Entrepreneurship typically focuses on identifying new opportunities for creating value for
customers or users and commercially developing those opportunities to establish a profitable
business (Shane & Venkataraman 2000). The opportunities identified can be for new
products or services, new markets, new production processes, new raw materials, or new
ways of organizing existing technologies, as first pointed out by Schumpeter (1934). While
Schumpeter recognized that entrepreneurs can be driven by non-economic motives such as a
desire for creativity or power, economic theories of entrepreneurship generally emphasize the
role of profit as one of the major underlying goals of entrepreneurs and investors in
developing a new venture opportunity. Sustainability entrepreneurship (SE) takes a slightly
different perspective from the traditional focus of entrepreneurship by emphasizing additional
goals of promoting sustainable living and environmental improvement. An emphasis on
sustainability within entrepreneurship involves searching for opportunities for new products
or services or new technologies or production processes that alleviate social or environmental
conditions, make more efficient use of energy and natural resources, and harness new
resources that are more abundant, cheaper to produce, and less harmful to society.
Sustainability is defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987).
The Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development as the process in which the
exploitation of natural resources, the allocation of investments, and the process of
technological development and organizational change are in harmony with each other for
both current and future generations. SE can be defined as the continuing commitment of
business to behave in an ethical way and contribute toward economic development while
improving the quality of life of the workforce, their families, and the local and global
community, as well as future generations (World Business Council for Sustainable
Development). From a SE perspective, entrepreneurs have a responsibility to their investors
and shareholders but also to nature, society, and future generations. Moreover, Patzelt and
Shepherd, (2011) defined as “Sustainable entrepreneurship is focused on the preservation of
nature, life support, and community in the pursuit of perceived opportunities to bring into
existence futureproducts, processes, and services for gain, where gain is broadly construed to
include economic and non-economic gains to individuals, the economy, and society”.
SE can be regarded as involving the 3P’s: people, planet, and profit Crals & Vereeck. (n.d.).
The first aspect, people, refers to an enterprise’s treatment of its workforce, the protection of
human rights, guarding against child labor and imposing self-restraint in desisting from
The triangulation different perspective of Entrepreneurs, Investors and regulators toward Sustainable
entrepreneurship strategy transition to a Low-Carbon Economy in Thailand
Phuttachart Rattanawong, Pacapol Anurit, Chuvej Chansa-ngavej
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 2 Issue 1, 2011
571
following unethical labor practices. It might include creating jobs, which is a laudable goal
but cannot be undertaken without simultaneously considering its impact on the third P, profit.
The second aspect refers to the impact of the company on natural resources and the
environment. Protecting the ecosystem is integral to an SE perspective in terms of becoming
a major goal (alongside profit-making) for a company or a criterion for evaluating strategy.
Thus, SE may be regarded as a process that creates enterprises that “can be contributory and
restorative in their interactions with human and ecological systems” (Tilley 2007). The third
aspect, profit, is the essence of a business enterprise. When broadly defined, profit relates not
just to the financial returns of the enterprise, but to the allocation of the financial returns
between investment in machines, infrastructure, R&D and other uses, and the distribution of
the gains between those involved in the entrepreneurial process.
An important point of departure for a course on SE would be for students to understand what
SE is. Using the framework developed by Young and Tilley (2006), it is possible to argue
that SE can be distinguished from economic entrepreneurship as well as social and
environmental entrepreneurship in terms of its emphasis, even though these different
perspectives are interrelated (see Figure 2). For instance, SE emphasizes the economic
efficiency and effectiveness aspects of economic entrepreneurship but includes inter-
generational economic equity as an added consideration. Like social entrepreneurship, SE
considers issues of social responsibility and socio-effectiveness but also brings in
considerations for the future (Cohen & Winn 2007). While the concept of social
entrepreneurship is subject to definitional ambiguity in terms of whether or not it refers
exclusively or primarily to non-profit enterprises, it can be argued that SE is consistent with
entrepreneurs striving simultaneously for profit and for improving local and global
environmental and social conditions (Cohen et al., 2008). In addition to issues of
environmental stability and ecological equity considered by environmental entrepreneurship,
SE emphasizes environmental sustainability. Thus, SE takes into account both social aspects
and environmental effects while also considering the long-term economic and business
consequences of new venture opportunities, as indicated by Figure 1.
Figure 1: The framework developed, that SE can be distinguished from social, economic and
environmental entrepreneurship
Source: Adapted from Young and Tilley (2006)
The triangulation different perspective of Entrepreneurs, Investors and regulators toward Sustainable
entrepreneurship strategy transition to a Low-Carbon Economy in Thailand
Phuttachart Rattanawong, Pacapol Anurit, Chuvej Chansa-ngavej
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 2 Issue 1, 2011
572
Cohen and Winn (2007) suggest that four types of market imperfections, namely, inefficient
firms, externalities, flawed pricing mechanisms, and information asymmetries, play a part in
causing environmental degradation. However, these imperfections also offer opportunities for
the creation of radical technologies and innovative business models. Entrepreneurs tend to be
more adept than large, established companies at exploiting new technologies and adopting
new business models. There is a pressing need for entrepreneurs to search for
environmentally friendly technologies and products and identify the technologies that are
going to succeed in providing sustainable solutions to current problems. Fossil fuels currently
supply over 80% of the world’s energy demands and that proportion is expected to remain
constant until 2030 even as the total global energy consumption continues to escalate (Basu et
al., 2010). The sectors experiencing growth within the “green” or “clean tech” industry will
vary over time with technological advances. Currently, the sectors predicted to grow include
the solar, biomass fuel, and green building sectors as well as cleaner coal and nuclear power.
Many commentators have observed the emergence of alternative forms of entrepreneur and
entrepreneurship (Isaak, 1998; Schaper, 2002; Dixon & Clifford 2007). The growing
recognition of social and environmental issues has provided entrepreneurs with new
opportunities, resulting in the emergence of environmental entrepreneurs (Schaper, 2002) or
ecopreneurs (Isaak, 1998) and social entrepreneurs (Dixon & Clifford 2007).
As with all forms of entrepreneurship, financing considerations are important to SE. In the
Timmons Model of the entrepreneurial process (Timmons & Spinelli 2003), the key is to find
a balance between the entrepreneur/team, opportunity, and resources. Financial resources are
significant, because without financing the entrepreneur will not be able to commercialize the
innovation/opportunity. The financial plan presents forecasted financial statements (income
statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements), breakeven calculations, and cost
control. The offering section details the desired financing, the securities being offered, the
company’s capitalization table, and the use of funds. These issues must be considered if SE is
to lead to a viable business (Cochran & Wood, 1984; Cochran, & Winn, 2007 and Lee et al.,
2010).
2.4 Definition of Terms
From the literature review, there are thirteen potential determinant factors, which lie within in
the context of economy, environmental and social and are associated with factors examined
in previous studies. To simplify the discussion, the Summary a brief definition of each
independent variable is also provided as following.
Table 1: Definitions of independent variables
Independent variables Source
Firm Size
The extent of a firm measured by a number of
dimensions such as a number of employees, capital
investment.
DTI (2003), Grubb (2003) and
Muller & Fahey (2004)
Finance Resource
The availability of financial resources to invest in
environment and social businesses.
Carroll (1979), Pearson (2006) and
Timmons & Spinelli (2003)
The triangulation different perspective of Entrepreneurs, Investors and regulators toward Sustainable
entrepreneurship strategy transition to a Low-Carbon Economy in Thailand
Phuttachart Rattanawong, Pacapol Anurit, Chuvej Chansa-ngavej
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 2 Issue 1, 2011
573
Technological Expertise
The availability of technical staff or consultants in
dealing with a sustainable development.
Dixon & Clifford (2007), Dutta et
al., (1995), Isaak (1998) and
Schaper (2002)
Business Experience
The period of time a firm has been in the sustainable
development business.
Foxon & Parrish (2009), Waldman
et al., (2006) and Sully et al.,
(2008)
Government Encouragement The Policies, initiatives, agencies, and everything that is
organized by government to facilitate the rate of
sustainable development becoming to a low carbon
economy and relevant components.
Grubb (2003), Pearson (2005) and
Zhuang (2008)
Environment Commitment
The ability of a firm to keeps promises and
commitments for environment protection
Bagoli & Watts (2003), Chen
(2009) and Feddersen & Gilligan
(2001)
Environment Reputation
The ability of a firm to adopt a leading environment
social responsibility profile to proactively manage their
reputation and brand with regard to good governance,
environment performance.
Ambec & Lanoic (2008), Siegel
&Vitaliano (2007) and Chen
(2008)
Environment Performance
The ability of a firm initiative to improve
environmental product/service and reduce waste and
GHG.
Gilley et al., (2000), McWilliams
& Siegel (2001) and Orlitzky et
al., (2003)
Resource Management
The ability of a firm adoption the good business
management to turn a waste product into something
which has value. Environmental initiatives are seen as
both an environmental opportunity and a business
opportunity.
Babsal & Roth (2000) and Russo
& Fouts (1997)
Community Investment
The availability of a firm continuing commitment by
business ethically and contribute to economic while
improve the quality of life for workforce, their families,
the local and global community.
Patzelt & Shepherd (2011), Wood
(1991)
Corporate Governance
The availability of a firm continuing responsibility to
the public, ethical behavior, practices good citizenship,
transparency in operations and protection stakeholder.
Freeman & Reed (1983), Knoll
(2002) and Porter & Kramer
(2006)
Employee Relationship
The availability of a firm to adopt the ethical standards
in dealing with important stakeholders through
employment practices that attract employees to social
involvement in the form of employee volunteering.
Chit (1964), Donaldson &
Preston (1995), Freeman & Reed
(1983) and Preuss et al., (2009)
Human Rights
The availability of a firm protection of human rights,
guarding against child labour and imposing self-
restraint in desisting from unethical labour practices.
Porter and Kramer (2002), Tilley
(2007)
3. Research Objectives/Research Question
The triangulation different perspective of Entrepreneurs, Investors and regulators toward Sustainable
entrepreneurship strategy transition to a Low-Carbon Economy in Thailand
Phuttachart Rattanawong, Pacapol Anurit, Chuvej Chansa-ngavej
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 2 Issue 1, 2011
574
3.1 To provide a conceptual research framework to explore the relationships among
economic efficiency, environmental social responsibility, corporate social
responsibility, sustainable entrepreneurship, and firm financial performance.
3.2 To identify the degree of important of each determinant factor that is influenced on
sustainable entrepreneurship transition to a low carbon economy.
3.3 The finding of this paper could create a greater awareness on the perspective gap
among Entrepreneurs, Investors and Regulators, since successful on sustainable
entrepreneurship strategy.
Figure 2 show the three questions and three research objectives are established as a basis to
explore the condition of possibilities for transition to a low carbon economy. in Thai’s
sustainable entrepreneurships, to provide insights and solutions to the research problem.
Figure 2: Summary of research questions and Research Objectives
Sources: Developed for this study.
4. Research Methodology
Research Problem Research Questions
“How does
Entrepreneurs
success on
Sustainable
Entrepreneurship
Strategy and
transition to a
low carbon
economy?”
1. How does sustainability
entrepreneurship leading
to success on transition
to a low carbon economy
2. What is the under laying
factors associated and
influenced with
successful of
sustainability
entrepreneurship
transition to a low
carbon economy?
3. What is the different
perspective gap among
Entrepreneurs, Investors
and Regulators, since
successful on sustainable
entrepreneurship
strategy.
Research Objectives
1. To provide a conceptual research
framework to explore the
relationships among economic
efficiency, environmental social
responsibility, corporate social
responsibility, sustainable
entrepreneurship, and firm financial
performance.
2. To identify the degree of important of
each determinant factors that is
influenced on sustainable
entrepreneurship transition to a low
carbon economy.
3. The finding of this paper could create
a greater awareness on the
perspective gap among
Entrepreneurs, Investors and
Regulators, since successful on
sustainable entrepreneurship
strategy.
The triangulation different perspective of Entrepreneurs, Investors and regulators toward Sustainable
entrepreneurship strategy transition to a Low-Carbon Economy in Thailand
Phuttachart Rattanawong, Pacapol Anurit, Chuvej Chansa-ngavej
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 2 Issue 1, 2011
575
The conceptual framework for this study evolves from both theoretical and practical
literatures in three context; Economic efficiency, Environmental Social Responsibility and
Corporate Social Responsibility. A conceptual model for this study is drawn to clarify the
linkage between the three contexts and the relationship of transition to a low carbon economy.
This model adapted upon the specifics of the earlier sustainable entrepreneurship model
(Young & Tilley, 2006; Tilley, 2007) and also combined the earlier firm financial
performance model (Kim, 2010) Figure 3 presents a conceptual model developed from an
extensive literature review.
Figure 3: A conceptual model developed from an extensive literature review.
Source: Adapted from Young & Tilley (2006), Tilley (2007) and Kim (2010)
In order to find the perspective gap among entrepreneurs, investors and regulator toward the
Sustainable Entrepreneurship Strategy and transition to a low carbon economy in Thailand,
Therefore, qualitative analysis was selected as the most appropriate method for gathering the
data that had sufficient depth and richness and also answer the research question and fulfil the
research purpose (Neuman, 2006). In additional, a qualitative research method allows
flexibility, which permits emerging data to iteratively incorporate into the analysis.
Primary data were gathered from thirty semi-structured in-depth interviews. The
identification of entrepreneur informants to be included in the study was undertaken in the list
of request registered to developed Sustainable Projects with the Thailand Greenhouse Gas
Management Organization (TGO), investor informants to be included in the study was
undertaken in the list of the Stock Exchange of Thailand who are interesting to invest in
sustainable development sectors, and regulator informants to be included in the study was
undertaken in the environment and industrial government sector in Thailand. Interviewees
were key sustainable development business sector located in Thailand. These particular
individuals were chosen managerial level and depth of experience in the sustainable
Transition to a Low
Carbon Economy
Sustainable
Entrepreneurs
hip Strategy
Economic efficiency
• Firm size
• Financial Resources
• Technological Expertise
• Business Experience
Environment Social
Responsibility
• Environment
Commitment
• Environment Reputation
• Environment
Corporate Social
Responsibility
• Community
Investment
• Corporate
Governance
Firm Financial
The triangulation different perspective of Entrepreneurs, Investors and regulators toward Sustainable
entrepreneurship strategy transition to a Low-Carbon Economy in Thailand
Phuttachart Rattanawong, Pacapol Anurit, Chuvej Chansa-ngavej
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 2 Issue 1, 2011
576
development business sector because firm financial performance evaluate must be done at
least a year after their companies transition to low-carbon economy.
Non-probability; sampling procedure is adapted by the judgment sample which the researcher
actively select the most productive sample to answer the research questions. Convenience and
snowball technique was selected, the researchers contacted to the 35 samples who work in the
managerial level, while 30 persons or 85.71 percents give the permission to interview
individually. Initially, interviewees were asked a range of questions to rank1 (the least
important factor) to 7 (the most important factor) on influential factors toward their
perspective and opinions of the key dimension of the model. Afterward the result of ranking
will be calculated to find the average, thus the lowest average is the most important factor to
the low carbon economy success. Each interview lasted between 20-40 minutes, and most
were carried out face to face at the interviewee’s place of work. All interviewees were asked
the same questions and all interviews were recorded and transcribed for late analysis.
Highlights the demographic information characterizing the study sample is presented in Table
2.
Table 2 : Demographic information
Category n = 30 %
Gender
Male 18 58.06%
Female 12 38.71%
Age
Less than 40 years 7 22.58%
40-50 years 11 35.48%
Over 50 years 12 38.71%
Stakeholders
Entrepreneurs 10 32.26%
Investors 10 32.26%
Regulators 10 32.26%
Management Position
Middle Management 19 61.29%
Top Management 11 35.48%
Company size (number of employees)
Less than 100 persons 2 6.45%
100-300 persons 13 41.94%
More than 300 persons 15 48.39%
Company size (capital investment)
Less than 300 million Baht 11 35.48%
300-500 million Baht 7 22.58%
More than 500 million Baht 12 38.71%
Year of Sustainable development experiences
Less than 5 years 4 12.90%
5-10 years 17 54.84%
More than 10 years 9 29.03%
4. Analysis and Intrepretation
The triangulation different perspective of Entrepreneurs, Investors and regulators toward Sustainable
entrepreneurship strategy transition to a Low-Carbon Economy in Thailand
Phuttachart Rattanawong, Pacapol Anurit, Chuvej Chansa-ngavej
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 2 Issue 1, 2011
577
The result of this study is very interesting while three parties believe human rights, financial
resource, resource management and environment performance are the most important factors
to the success of the sustainable entrepreneurship. In contrast, firm size and community
investment seem to be less important factors. We were to verify that the three group were
different perspectives. The three groups were assessed by using ANOVA analysis against
thirteen determinant variables that were initially clustering these three groups. It cloud be said
that the perspective different of three groups were difference on business experience,
environment reputation, resource management and employee relationship as shown in the
table 3. However, the result from the three groups common understanding indicate that
almost variables are important influence factors to success sustainable entrepreneurship
strategy excepting firm size and community investment. Table 4 shown the results from
ANOVA. It appeared that the difference in the means of the clusters for variables that were
highly significant (p<.005).
Table 3 : The triangulation different perspective to determinant factors on sustainability
Entrepreneurs Investors Regulators Potential determinant factors
Sum Mean SD Sum Mean SD Sum Mean SD
Economy Factors:
Firm size 15 1.50 .707 17 1.70 .675 17 1.70 .675
Financial Resource 67 6.70 .483 63 6.30 .823 63 6.30 .823
Technological Expertise 61 6.10 .876 60 6.00 .667 60 6.00 .667
Business Experience 61 6.10 .568 56 5.60 .699 56 5.60 .699
Government Encouragement 64 6.40 .699 67 6.70 .483 67 6.70 .483
Environmental Factors:
Environment commitment 57 5.70 1.059 59 5.90 .738 59 5.90 .738
Environment Reputation 62 6.20 .422 50 5.00 1.247 50 5.00 1.247
Environment performance 68 6.80 .422 67 6.70 .483 67 6.70 .483
Resource management 70 7.00 .000 68 6.80 .422 68 6.80 .422
Social Factors:
Community investment 56 5.60 .699 46 4.60 1.506 46 4.60 1.506
Corporate Governance 65 6.50 .527 60 6.00 .943 60 6.00 .943
Employee Relationship 69 6.90 .316 56 5.60 .843 56 5.60 .843
Human Rights 70 7.00 .000 68 6.80 .422 68 6.80 .422
Table 4: The different perspective between groups
Potential determinant factors Sum of
squares
df Mean
Square
F Sig.
Firm size Between
Groups
.267 2 .133 .324 .726
Financial Resource Between
Groups
1.067 2 .533 1.171 .325
Technological Expertise Between
Groups
.467 2 .233 .420 .661
Business Experience Between
Groups
4.067 2 2.033 3.978 .031
Government Encouragement Between .467 2 .233 .700 .505
The triangulation different perspective of Entrepreneurs, Investors and regulators toward Sustainable
entrepreneurship strategy transition to a Low-Carbon Economy in Thailand
Phuttachart Rattanawong, Pacapol Anurit, Chuvej Chansa-ngavej
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 2 Issue 1, 2011
578
Groups
Environment commitment Between
Groups
.200 2 .100 .131 .878
Environment reputation Between
Groups
11.467 2 5.733 7.740 .002
Environment performance Between
Groups
.067 2 .033 .155 .857
Resource management Between
Groups
2.600 2 1.300 9.486 .001
Community investment Between
Groups
5.267 2 2.633 1.886 .171
Corporate Governance Between
Groups
2.600 2 1.300 2.786 .079
Employee Relationship Between
Groups
8.467 2 4.233 8.530 .001
Human Rights Between
Groups
.267 2 .133 1.125 .339
* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level
4.1 Finding and Disscussion
Therefore, we have concluded that the important factors from perspective of three groups as
show in Figure 4. Firstly, the economic efficiency factors should be focused in financial
resource and government. Secondly, the environment factors should be focused in environment
performance and resource management. Thirdly, the social factors should be focused in corporate
governance and human rights.
Sustainable
Entrepreneurship
Strategy
Transition to a Low
Carbon Economy
Corporate Social
Responsibility
• Corporate
Governance
• Human Rights
Firm Financial
Performance
Economic efficiency
• Financial Resource
• Government
Encouragement
Environment Social
Responsibility
• Environment
Performance
• Resource
Management
The triangulation different perspective of Entrepreneurs, Investors and regulators toward Sustainable
entrepreneurship strategy transition to a Low-Carbon Economy in Thailand
Phuttachart Rattanawong, Pacapol Anurit, Chuvej Chansa-ngavej
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 2 Issue 1, 2011
579
Figure 4: The important factors should be focused for Sustainable Entrepreneurship Strategy
5. Limitations of this study
The main limitation of this study is the small sample size. Clearly, the results of this study
cannot be said to reflect the views and opinions of the all of sustainable entrepreneurship
sector. However, as the purpose of this exploratory research was a scoping study to examine
a conceptualization and determinant factors of economic efficiency, environmental social
responsibility and corporate social responsibility in the sustainable entrepreneurship sector,
the findings are of interest in themselves and provide a good foundation for future research.
Moreover, the data analyzed represent an Eastern perspective, and other perspectives might
have generated different results. Finally, the general conceptual framework proposed requires
both case study and empirical research for testing the theoretical in a large number of
sustainable entrepreneurship before any conclusions can be drawn as to its generalization.
6. Conclusion / Suggestions/ Findings
This study has devised a conceptual framework and triangulation different perspective for the
sustainable entrepreneurship strategy transition to a low carbon economy process. Following
the creation of the framework, the study focused on the sustainable entrepreneurship context.
Factors which emerged from the literature as being important dimensions in other contexts
have been considered in relation to sustainable entrepreneurship and a number of determinant
factors that leads to sustainable have been identified.
The process of attaining sustainable entrepreneurship strategy requires the adoption of
specific strategic mechanisms and under this view, sustainable entrepreneurship was defined
accordingly. Theoretically, this study contributes to literatures in four distinctive ways. First,
this study is one of the few efforts to combine two currently disparate fields, that of
organizations and sustainable development and that of entrepreneurship. Second, sustainable
entrepreneurship is only a recent phenomenon that has emerged in the management studies’
literature, both as a theoretical notion and as a practical approach; this study offers a
theoretical definition of this emerging field based on the approach to business
entrepreneurship and a holistic conceptual framework grounded on the sustainable
development literature. Third, the study provides an exploratory study by depth interview as
supporting evidence of the way in which each of the three dimensions were materialized
through the entrepreneurial activity aimed at sustainable development. Fourth, it explores the
relation of the institutional form and of new venture creation, as well as the application of
strategies and the management of the three dimensions of the SE model, the economic
efficiency, environmental social responsibility and corporate social responsibility.
The study presented offers some important qualitative contributions to the field of
entrepreneurial activities. First, it demonstrates how the three dimensions of sustainable
entrepreneurship are interconnected and closely linked, since each one leads to the other.
Second, it reveals the presence of large-scale entrepreneurial opportunities grounded in
problems that either appears as issues of local development or of organization. Third, the
result have shown a very strong support that each level has a significant different perspective.
This study help us understand the role that developmental, economic, social and
environmental problems play in creating opportunities and bring us closer to a theory of
The triangulation different perspective of Entrepreneurs, Investors and regulators toward Sustainable
entrepreneurship strategy transition to a Low-Carbon Economy in Thailand
Phuttachart Rattanawong, Pacapol Anurit, Chuvej Chansa-ngavej
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 2 Issue 1, 2011
580
sustainable entrepreneurship that addresses more broadly the role that entrepreneurs can play
in creating a more socially and environmentally sustainable economy that lead entrepreneurs
transition to a low carbon economy. At the same time, this study provides evidence for
moving towards a less deterministic and more proactive role of entrepreneurs in forming the
conditions that are necessary to overcome existing problems. While the focus on new venture
performance and survival constitutes is critical, the entrepreneurship field should go beyond
the traditional strategic management focus and include an examination of the implications
that new venture creation has on economic, social and environment wealth.
It can thus provide a bridge from the literature on social, environmental and sustainability
entrepreneurship to that on socio-technical transitions and innovation systems which has
identified the key role of sustainable entrepreneurship strategy on transition to a low carbon
economy. The general conceptual framework proposed fulfils the purpose of a model as
explained by Young and Tilley (2006) as a way to construct theory to guide research,
facilitate learning about to issues of environmental stability and ecological equity considered
by environmental entrepreneurship, SE emphasizes environmental sustainability. The model
can be used to underpin future research into a low carbon economy process in other sectors.
This model helps advance our knowledge of the sustainable entrepreneurship process, which
is becoming important in transition to a low carbon economy.
5.1 Future Work
It would be interesting to attempt to replicate the study on a larger scale in order to ascertain
how generalize the results are. In addition, future research should examine a number of the
individual drivers identified in this study, both in order to understand their roles more clearly
and perhaps to rank them in importance. In particular, the strong results regarding
environment and social performance values, the role of sustainable entrepreneurship and the
influence of the thirteen determinant factors on the uptake of sustainable practices and
facilities all appear to merit further study. Further research also should identify whether a
adoption sustainable entrepreneurship strategy transition to a low carbon economy has a more
potent impact on firm financial performance.
In conclusion, researchers could benefit from the insights that the firm and stakeholder theory
also integrated tree contexts; economic, environment and social into our model provide when
explicating the process of sustainable entrepreneurship transition to a low carbon economy.
In this sense, further research should case and empirically validate both the theory and
conceptualizations developed in this study.
6. References
1. Ambec, S., & Lanoie, P. (2008), Does it pay to be green? A systematic overview.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 22(4), pp 45–62.
2. Aupperle, K. E., Carroll, A. B., and Hatfield, J. D. (1985), An empirical examination
of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy
of Management Journal , 28(2), pp 446-463.
The triangulation different perspective of Entrepreneurs, Investors and regulators toward Sustainable
entrepreneurship strategy transition to a Low-Carbon Economy in Thailand
Phuttachart Rattanawong, Pacapol Anurit, Chuvej Chansa-ngavej
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 2 Issue 1, 2011
581
3. Bagnoli, M., & Watts, S. (2003), Selling to socially responsible consumers:
Competition and the private provision of public goods. Journal of Economics and
Management Strategy, 12, pp 419–445.
4. Barney, J.B., & Zajac, E.J. (1994), Competitive organizational behavior: Toward an
organizationally-based theory of competitive advantage. Strategic Management
Journal, 15(8), pp 5–9.
5. Baron, D. (2001), Private politics, corporate social responsibility and integrated
strategy. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 10, pp 7–45.
6. Basu, A., Osland, A. & Solt, M. (2010), A New Course on Sustainability
Entrepreneurship. Retrieved January, 6 2011, from http://nciia.org/conf08/assets
/pub/basu1.pdf
7. Bragdon, J. H., & Marlin, J. (1972), Is pollution profitable? Risk Management, 19, 9-
18.
8. Brmmer, S., Brooks, C., & Pavelin, S. (2006), Corporate social performance and
stock return: UK evidence from disaggregate measures. Financial Management, 35,
pp 97–116.
9. Brundtland, C. (1987), Our common future report of the World Commission on
Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Carroll, A.B. (1979), A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate
performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), pp 497–505.
11. Chen, Y.S. (2008), The positive effect of green intellectual capital on competitive
advance. Journal of Business Ethics, 77(3), pp 271-286.
12. Chen, Y.S. (2010), The Drivers of Green Brand Equity: Green Brand Image, Green
Satisfaction, and Green Trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 93, pp 307-319.
13. Cheit, E.F. (1964), Why managers cultivate social responsibility. California
Management Review, 7(1), pp 3-22.
14. Cochran, P. L., & Wood, R. A. (1984), Corporate social responsibility and financial
performance . Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), pp 42-56.
15. Cochran, B., & Winn, M. (2007), Market imperfections, opportunity, and sustainable
entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(1), pp 29-49.
16. Cohen, B., Smith, B., & Mitchell, R. (2008), Toward a Sustainable Conceptualization
of Dependent Variables in Entrepreneurship Research. Business Strategy and the
Environment 17, pp 107-119.
17. Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), (2003), UK Energy White Paper: Our
energy future creating a low carbon economy, London: TSO.
The triangulation different perspective of Entrepreneurs, Investors and regulators toward Sustainable
entrepreneurship strategy transition to a Low-Carbon Economy in Thailand
Phuttachart Rattanawong, Pacapol Anurit, Chuvej Chansa-ngavej
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 2 Issue 1, 2011
582
18. Derwell, J., Guenster, N., Bauer, R., and Koedijk, K.C.G. (2005), The eco-efficiency
premium puzzle. Financial Analysis Journal, 61, pp 51-63.
19. Dixon, S., & Clifford, A. (2007), Ecopreneurship: a new approach to managing the
triple bottom line. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20(3), pp 326-
345.
20. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L.E. (1995), The stakeholder theory of the corporation:
Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), pp
65-91.
21. DTI, (2003), UK Energy White Paper: Our energy future creating a low carbon
economy, London: TSO.
22. Dutta, P. K., Lach, S., & Rustichini, A. (1995), Better late than early: Vertical
differentiation in the adoption of a new technology. Journal of Economics and
Management Strategy, 4, pp 563–589.
23. Egri, C.P., & Ralston, D.A. (2008), Corporate responsibility: a review of international
management research from 1998 to 2007. Journal of International Management,
14(4), pp 319-339.
24. Feddersen, T., & Gilligan, T. (2001), Saints and markets: Activists and the supply of
credence goods. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 10, pp 149–171.
25. Friedman, M. (1970), The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits.
The New York Times Magazine, 173–178. Retrieved December 12, 2010, from
http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-
business.html
26. Freeman, R.E., & Reed, D.L. (1983), Stockholders and stakeholders: A new
perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25(3), pp 88–
106.
27. Foxon, T. J. & Parrish B.D. (2009), Sustainability Entrepreneurship and Equitable
Transition to a Low Carbon Economy. Greener Management International, 55, pp 47-
62.
28. Gilley, K.M., Worrell, D.L., Davidson, W.N., III, & El-Jelly, A. (2000), Corporate
environmental initiatives and anticipated firm performance: The differential effects of
process-driven versus product-driven greening initiatives. Journal of Management,
26(6), pp 1199-1216.
29. Grubb, M. (2003), The Economics of the Kyoto Protocol. World Economic, 4(3), pp
143–189.
30. Guerard, J.B. (1997), Is there a cost to being socially responsible in investing? Journal
of Forecasting, 16, pp 475-490.
The triangulation different perspective of Entrepreneurs, Investors and regulators toward Sustainable
entrepreneurship strategy transition to a Low-Carbon Economy in Thailand
Phuttachart Rattanawong, Pacapol Anurit, Chuvej Chansa-ngavej
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 2 Issue 1, 2011
583
31. Herremans, I.M., Akathaporn, P., & McInnes, M. (1993), Are there difference in
liquidity and solvency measures based on company size? Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 18, pp 587-604.
32. Hillestad, T., Xie, C., & Haugland, S. A. (2010). Innovative corporate social
responsibility: the founder’s role in creating a trustworthy corporate brand through
“green innovation”. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 19(6), pp 440-451.
33. Ind, N. (1997), The Corporate Brand. Macmillan, London.
34. Isaak, R. (2002), The Making of the Ecopreneur. Greener Management International,
38, pp 81-91.
35. Kim, J. W., (2010), Assessing the long-term financial performance of ethical
companies. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing. 18(3), pp
199-208.
36. Knoll, M.S., (2002), Ethical screening in modern financial markets: The conflicting
claim underlying socially responsible investment. The Business Lawyer, 57, pp 681-
726
37. Langbein, J.H., & Posner, R.A. (1980), Social investing and the law of trusts.
Michigan LawReview, 79, pp 72–112.
38. Lee, D. D., Faff, W.R. & Smith, L. K. (2010), Revisiting the Vexing Question: Does
Superior Copoerate Social Preformance Lead TO Improved Finalcial Performance?
Australian Journal of Management, 34(1), pp 21-49.
39. Lowe, E. A., & Harris, R. J. (1998), Taking climate change seriously: British
petroleum’s business strategy. Corporate Environmental Strategy, 5(2), pp 22–31.
40. McGuire, J. B., Sundgren, A., & Schneeweis, T. (1988), Corporate social
responsibility and firm financial performance. Academy of Management Journal,
31(4), pp 854-872.
41. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001), Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the
firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), pp 117–127.
42. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2002), Additional reflections on the strategic
implications of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review,
27(1), pp 15–16.
43. Muller, J., & Fahey, J. (2004), Hydrogen man. Forbes. Retrieved December 12, 2010,
from http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/1227/046_print.html.
44. Neuman, W. (2006), Social Research Methods Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches (6th ed.). MA: Pearson Education.
The triangulation different perspective of Entrepreneurs, Investors and regulators toward Sustainable
entrepreneurship strategy transition to a Low-Carbon Economy in Thailand
Phuttachart Rattanawong, Pacapol Anurit, Chuvej Chansa-ngavej
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 2 Issue 1, 2011
584
45. Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F., & Rynes, S. (2003), Corporate social and financial
performance: A meta-analysis. Organization Studies, 24, pp 403–441.
46. Patzelt, H., & Shepherd, D. A. (2011), The New Field of Sustainable
Entrepreneurship: Studying Entrepreneurial Action Linking “What is to be sustained”
with “What is to be developed”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Retrieved
January 10, 2011, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-
6520.2010.00426.x/pdf
47. Porter, M. and Kramer, M.R. (2006), Strategy and society: the link between
competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review,
84(12), pp 78-92.
48. Preuss, L., Haunschild, A., & Matten, D. (2009). The rise of CSR: implications for
HRM and employee representation. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 20(4), pp 953–973
49. Roman, R. M., Hayibor, S. and Agle, B. R. (1999), The relationship between social
and financial performance. Business & Society 38, pp 109-125.
50. Russo, M., & Fouts, P. (1997), A resource-based perspective on corporate
environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal,
40(3), pp 534–559.
51. Schaper, M. (2002), The Essence of Ecopreneurship. Green Management
International, 38, pp 26-30.
52. Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
53. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000), The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of
research. Academy of Management Review, 25, pp 217-226.
54. Siegel, D., & Vitaliano, D. (2007), An empirical analysis of the strategic use of
corporate social responsibility. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 17,
pp 773–792.
55. Siegel, D. (2009), Green Management Matters Only If It Yields More Green: An
Economic/Strategic Perspective. Academy of Management, pp 5-16.
56. Statman, M. (2000), Socially responsible mutual funds. Financial Analysis Journal,
67, pp 281-310.
57. Sully de Luque, M., Washburn, N. T., Waldman, D. A., & House, R. J. (2008),
Unrequited profit: How stakeholder and economic values relate to subordinates’
perceptions of leadership and firm performance. Administrative Science Quarterly,
53, pp 626–654.
The triangulation different perspective of Entrepreneurs, Investors and regulators toward Sustainable
entrepreneurship strategy transition to a Low-Carbon Economy in Thailand
Phuttachart Rattanawong, Pacapol Anurit, Chuvej Chansa-ngavej
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 2 Issue 1, 2011
585
58. Tilley, F. (2007), Conceptualizing sustainability entrepreneurship. Summary of a talk
delivered at the First World Symposium on Sustainable Entrepreneurship. University
of Leeds, UK, 15-17 July.
59. Timmons, J., & Spinelli, S. (2003), New venture creation: Entrepreneurship for the
21st century. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill/IrwinUNFCCC (2011). What is the
clean development mechanism? Retrieved January 6, 2011, from
http://cdm.unfccc.int/about/index.html
60. Vaaland, T.I. and Heide, M. (2005), Corporate social responsiveness: exploring the
dynamics of ‘bad episodes”. European Management Journal, 23(5), pp 495-506.
61. Vaaland, T.I., Heide, M. and Gronhaug, K. (2008), Corporate social responsibility:
investigating theory and research in the marketing context. European Journal of
Marketing, 42 (9), pp 927-953.
62. Vance, S.C. (1975), Are socially responsible corporations good investment risks?
Management Review, 64, pp 18–24.
63. Van Riel, C.B.M. (1995), Principles of Corporate Communication. London: Prentice-
Hall.
64. Waldman, D. A., Siegel, D., & Javidan, M. (2006), Components of CEO
transformational leadership and corporate social responsibility. Journal of
Management Studies, 43(8), pp 1703–1725.
65. Wood, D. (1991), Corporate social performance revisited. The Academy of
Management Review, 16(4), pp 691-718.
66. Young, W., & Tilley. F. (2006), Can business move beyond efficiency? The shift
toward efficiency and equity in the corporate sustainability debate. Business Strategy
and the Environment, 15(6), pp 402-415.
67. Zhuang, G. (2008), How will China move towards becoming a low-carbon economy?
China & World Economy, 16(3), pp 93-105.
Biographical Notes
1. Phuttachart Rattanawong had received M.Sc in Building Technology from King
Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi. He is working as Senior Manager at Solar
Power Co.,Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand. He has 22 years of project development experience.
His area interest includes Sustainable Entrepreneurship and Firm Performance. Email:
2. Pacapol Anurit had received Ph.D from Middlesex University. He is an Assistant Professor,
School of Management at Shinawatra University, Pathum Thani, Thailand. He has 20
years of academic experience. His area interest includes Organizational Behavior,
Business Intelligence and Political Marketing. Email: [email protected]
The triangulation different perspective of Entrepreneurs, Investors and regulators toward Sustainable
entrepreneurship strategy transition to a Low-Carbon Economy in Thailand
Phuttachart Rattanawong, Pacapol Anurit, Chuvej Chansa-ngavej
ASIAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
Volume 2 Issue 1, 2011
586
3. Chuvej Chansa-ngavej had received Ph.D from The Ohio State University. He is an
Associate Professor, School of Management at Shinawatra University, Pathum Thani,
Thailand. He has 30 years of academic experience. His area interest includes Performance
Measurement and Decision Making. Email: [email protected]