BazEkon - The Main Library of the Cracow University of Economics

BazEkon home page

Main menu

Author
Yeasmin Nafisa (University of Lapland, Finland), Koivurova Timo (University of Lapland, Finland)
Title
A Factual Analysis of Sustainable Opportunity Recognition of Immigrant Entrepreneurship in Finnish Lapland : Theories and Practice
Source
Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI), 2019, vol. 15, nr 2, s. 57-84, tab., bibliogr. s. 79-83
Issue title
Immigrant Entrepreneurship: New Research Trends and Challenges
Keyword
Rozwój zrównoważony, Imigracja, Przedsiębiorca, Przedsiębiorczość imigrantów, Społeczna odpowiedzialność biznesu
Sustainable development, Immigration, Entrepreneur, Immigrant entrepreneurship, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Note
JEL Classification: L26, L29, J15
streszcz., summ.
Abstract
Przedsiębiorcy imigranci funkcjonujący na terenie arktycznej Laponii znajdują się w niekorzystnej sytuacji. Według dotychczasowych badań (Yeasmin, 2016) istnieje wiele czynników, które utrudniają zrównoważony rozwój firm należących do imigrantów. Są to m.in. brak wiedzy społeczno-ekonomicznej i politycznej. Poszerzanie wiedzy, łączenie silnych i słabych więzi (Granovetter, 1973) mogą pozytywnie wpływać na rozwój biznesu. Zrównoważone praktyki przedsiębiorczości imigrantów wymagają legitymizacji między działaniami przedsiębiorczymi a uznawaniem możliwości. Badania nad zrównoważoną przedsiębiorczością imigrantów są na razie początkującym obszarem badawczym i trudno jest stworzyć jeden model potencjału wzrostu przedsiębiorczości imigrantów w Laponii (Yeasmin, 2016). Dlatego celem tego badania jest stworzenie zintegrowanej wartości dla przedsiębiorców-imigrantów poprzez połączenie CSR i teorii zakorzenienia oraz znalezienie alternatywnej koncepcji w celu zrozumienia czynników, które mogą podtrzymywać funkcjonowanie mikroprzedsiębiorstw należących do imigrantów w Laponii. Badanie to dowodzi, że stopień rozwinięcia CSR można rozpatrywać jako czynnik wspierający strategię instytucjonalną, społeczną i gospodarczą. W badaniu Autorzy skupiają się na czynnikach adaptacyjnych, które przedsiębiorcy-imigranci stosują, aby przetrwać i osiągać sukces przedsiębiorczy. (abstrakt oryginalny)

Immigrant entrepreneurs are in a disadvantaged position in the Arctic Lapland. According to previous studies (see Yeasmin, 2016), there are many factors that hinder the sustainability of immigrant business. Immigrant entrepreneurs lack socioeconomic and political knowledge along with many other hindrances. Broadening knowledge and combining strong and weak ties (Granovetter, 1985) are positive factors among many other mixed factors relating to operating a business successfully. Sustainable immigrant entrepreneurship practices require legitimacy between entrepreneurial actions and opportunity recognition. Research on sustainable immigrant entrepreneurship does not fit into a single literature body and it is difficult to make a single model for the growth potential of immigrant entrepreneurship in Lapland (Yeasmin, 2016). Therefore, the focus of this study is to create an integrated value for immigrant entrepreneurs by combining the CSR theory and mix embeddedness theory, and find an alternative concept of practice for understanding the drivers that can sustain the micro businesses of immigrants in Lapland and can give an explanation on opportunities recognition which can be embedded so as to get access to the necessary entrepreneurial capital (local, regional or national). This study argues that the degree of CSR embeddedness could be developed as a component of mixed embeddedness supports the discovery of institutional, social and economic opportunity strategy amongst immigrant entrepreneurs. Conceptually, this study explores adaptive factors that immigrant entrepreneurs are determined to embed (whether knowingly) as mixed practices that create entrepreneurial success. (original abstract)
Full text
Show
Bibliography
Show
  1. Azmat, F., & Samaratunge, R. (2009). Responsible entrepreneurship in developing countries: Understanding the realities and complexities. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(3), 437-52.
  2. Azmat, F., & Zutshi, A. (2012). Influence of home country culture and regulatory environment on corporate social responsibility (CSR) perceptions: The case of Sri Lankan immigrant entrepreneurs. Thunderbird International Business Review, 54(1), 15-27.
  3. Baycan-Levent, T., Nijkamp, P. (2009). Characteristics of migrant entrepreneurship in Europe. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 21(4), 375-397.
  4. Beekun, R.I., & Badawi, J.A. (2005). Balancing ethical responsibility among multiple organizational stakeholders: The Islamic perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 60, 131-145.
  5. Bennet, D. & Bennet, A. (2008). The depth of knowledge: Surface, shallow or deep? VINE, 38(4), 405-42.
  6. Coombs, W.T., & Holladay, S.J. (2012). Managing Corporate Social Responsibility: A Communication Approach. West Sussex: Wiley-Backwell.
  7. Crane, A., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2004). Stakeholders as citizens? Rethinking rights, participation, and democracy. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 107-122.
  8. Davis, K. (1960) Can business afford to ignore corporate social responsibilities?. California Management Review, 2, 70-76.
  9. Den Hond, F., & De Bakker, F.G. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism: How activist groups influence corporate social change activities. Academy of Management Review, 32, 901-924
  10. Donaldson, T., & Thomas, W.D. (2000). Precis for ties that bind. Business and Society, 105, 436- 444.
  11. Elfring, T., & Hulsink, W. (2004). The Strong versus weak tie effect on entrepreneurial processes: ICT-Start-ups in the Netherlands. Retrieved from https://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wurpubs/fulltext/45571
  12. European Commission. (2003). Building the Information Society in Europe: A Pathway Approach to Employment Interventions for Disadvantaged Groups. Dublin: Itech Research.
  13. European Commission. (2012). Enterprise and Industry SME Definition. Retrieved 21 February, 2012, from http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ policies/sme/facts-figures- analysis/sme-definition/index_en.htm
  14. Frederick, H.H. (2006). Global entrepreneurship monitor, Aotearoa New Zealand. Unitec School of Management & Entrepreneurship Research Report Series. Unitec New Zealand: Auckland, Retrieved from www. gemconsortium.org
  15. Frederick, H.H. (2008) Introduction to special issue on indigenous entrepreneurs, Journal of Enterprising Communities, 2(3), 185-191.
  16. Garriga, E., & Mele, D. (2004). Corporate social responsibility theories: Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, 51-71.
  17. Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Berkeley, California, USA: University of California Press.
  18. Gj0lberg, M. (2010). Varieties of corporate social responsibility (CSR): CSR meets the "Nordic Model." Regulation and Governance, 4, 203-229.
  19. Goodpaster, K.E. (1999). Bridging East and West in management ethics: Kyosei and the moral point of view. In G. Enderle (Ed.), International Business Ethics. Challenges and Approaches (pp. 151-159). France: University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame.
  20. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510.
  21. Granovetter, M. (2005). The impact of social structure on economic outcomes. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 33-50.
  22. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6),1360- 1380.
  23. Hamilton, R., Dana, L-P., & Benfell, C. (2008). Changing cultures: An international study of migrant entrepreneurs. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 16(1), 89-105.
  24. Handelman, J.M. (2006). Corporate identity and the societal constituent. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 107-114.
  25. Hermes, K., & Leicht, R. (2010). Scope and characteristics of immigrant entrepreneurship in Europe. A cross-national comparison of European countries. Retrieved 28 January,2018, from https://www.gesis. org/fileadmin/upload/institut/wiss_arbeitsbereiche/gml/ Veranstaltungen/5.NK_2007/Papers/Hermes_Leicht.pdf
  26. Hjerm, M. (2004). Immigrant entrepreneurship in the Swedish welfare state. Sociology, 38(4),739-56.
  27. Jack, S.L. (2005). The role, use and activation of strong and weak network ties: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 42(6), 1233-59.
  28. Jenkins, H. (2006). Small business champions for corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), 241-56.
  29. Juholin, E. (2004). For business of the good of all? A Finnish approach to corporate social responsibility. Corporate Governance, 4(3), 20-31.
  30. Kaku, R. (1997). The path of Kyosei. Harvard Business Review, 75(4), 55-62.
  31. Kaptein, M., & Van Tulder, R. (2003). Toward effective stakeholder dialogue. Business and Society Review, 108, 203-225.
  32. Keinert, C. (2008). Corporate Social Responsibility as an International Strategy. Germany: Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg.
  33. Kloosterman, R., & Rath, J. (1999). Mixed embeddedness. (In)formal economic activities and immigrant business in the Netherlands. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 23(2), 253- 267.
  34. Kloosterman, R., & Rath, J. (2001). Immigrant entrepreneurs in advanced economies: Mixed embeddedness further explored. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 27,189-202.
  35. Kloosterman, R. (2010). Matching opportunities with resources: A framework for analysis (migrant) entrepreneurship from a mixed embeddedness perspective. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22(1), 25-45.
  36. Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate Social Responsibility: Doing Most Good for Your Company and Your Cause. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.
  37. Mahon, J.F., & McGowan, R.A. (1991). Searching for the common good: A process-oriented approach. Business Horizons, 34(4), 79-87.
  38. Mele, D. (2002) Not only Stakeholder Interests. The Firm Oriented toward the Common Good. France: University of Notre Dame Press.
  39. Migration Policy Group (2002). Supplier diversity-the case of immigrant and ethnic minority enterprises. Paper prepared for the Transatlantic Round Table on Supplier Diversity. Brussels, Belgium.
  40. MIT, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2011). Sustainability: The 'embracers' seize the advantage. MIT Sloan Management Review. Retrieved from http://c0426007.cdn2. cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/ MIT- SMR-BCG-sustainability-the-embracers-seize-advantage-2011.pdf
  41. Moravakova, K., Stefanikova, L., & Rypakova, M. (2015). CSR reporting as an important tool of CSR communication. Procedia Economic and Finance, 26, 332-338.
  42. Mohamed, A., & Leponiemi, J. (2009). Immigrant workers' induction training in Finland: Case Petmo project. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 20(3), 278-289,
  43. Nelson, J., & Prescott, D., (2003). Business and the millennium development goals: A framework for action. International Business Leaders Forum. Retrieved from http://www.centroscomunitariosdeaprendizaje.org.mx/sites/default/ files/business_and_the_millennium_development_goals.pdf
  44. Pirsch, J.., Gupta, S., & Grau, S.L. (2007). A framework for understanding corporate social responsibility programs as a continuum: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Ethics, 70, 125-140.
  45. Polanyi, K. (1968). The economy as instituted process. In E. LeClair & H. Schneider (Eds). Economic Anthropology (p. 126). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
  46. Portes, A. (1995). Transnational communities, their emergence and significance in the contemporary world system. Working paper series #16. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.
  47. Preston, L.E., & Post, J.E. (1981). Private management and public policy. California Management Review, 23(3), 56-63.
  48. Preuss, L. (2011). On the contribution of public procurement to entrepreneurship and small business policy. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23, 787-814.
  49. Price, M., & Chacko, E. (2009). The mixed embeddedness of ethnic entrepreneurs in a new immigrant gateway. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 7(3), 328-346.
  50. Ram, M., & Smallbone, D. (2003). Supplier diversity initiatives and the diversification of ethnic minority businesses in the UK. Policy Studies, 24, 187-204.
  51. Rashid, Md. Z.A., & Ibrahim, S. (2002). Executive and management attitudes towards corporate social responsibility in Malaysia. Corporate Governance, 2(4), 10-16.
  52. Rath, J., Kloosterman, R.t, Haberfellner, R., Ma, M.E., Wilpert, C., Razin, E., Magatti, M., & Barrett, G. (2002). Working on the Fringes: Immigrant Businesses, Economic Integration and Informal Practices, an International Network. IMES, Edinburgh: University of Amsterdam.
  53. Rath, J. (2005). Feeding the festive city. Immigrant entrepreneurs and tourist industry. In E. Guild, & J. van Selm (Eds.), International Migration and Security: Opportunities and Challenges (pp. 238-253). London, UK: Routledge.
  54. Rohweder, L. (2004). Yritysvastuu - Kestävää Kehitystä Organisaatiotasolla. Porvoo: WSOY.
  55. Santos, F.M. (2011). CSR in SMEs: Strategies, practices, motivations and obstacles. Social Responsibility Journal, 7(3), 490-508.
  56. Sulmasy, D.P. (2001). Four basic notions of the common good. St. John's Law Review, 75(2), 303-311.
  57. Suutari, T., Lämsä, A.M., Lähdesmäki, M., & Mattila, M. (2016). Immigrant labor market in rural business - A corporate social responsibility approach. Retrieved 20 January, 2018, from https://ec.europa.eu/migrant- integration/librarydoc/immigrant-labour-in-rural-businesses-a-corporate-social-responsibility-approach
  58. Swedberg, R. (1994). Markets as social structures. In N. Smelser & R. Swedberg (Eds). The Handbook of Economic Sociology (pp. 255-28). Princeton, New York: Princeton University Press/Russell Sage Foundation.
  59. Taylor, M., & Leonard, S. (2002). Approaching "embeddedness." In M. Taylor & S. Leonard (Eds). Embedded Enterprise and Social Capital (pp. 1-18). Aldershot: Ashgate.
  60. Uddin, M.B., Hassan, Md. R., Tarique, K. (2008). Three dimensional aspects of corporate social responsibility. Daffodil International University Journal of Business and Economics, 3(1), 199-212.
  61. UN-United Nations (2009). The millennium development goals report 2009. Retrieved 12 December, 2011, from http://www.un.org/ millenniumgoals/reports.shtml
  62. Velasquez, M. (1992). 'International business, morality, and the Common Good,' Business Ethics Quarterly, 2(1), 27-40.
  63. Vogel, D. (1986). The study of social issues in management: A critical appraisal. California Management Review, 28(2), 142-152.
  64. Volery, T. (2007). Ethnic entrepreneurship: A theoretical framework. In L.P. Dana (Ed.). Handbook of Research on Ethnic Minority Entrepreneurship. A Co-Evolutionary View on Resource Management (pp. 30-41). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  65. Waldinger, R., Aldrich, H., & Ward, R. (1990). Opportunities, group characteristics, and strategies. In R. Waldinger, H. Aldrich, & R. Ward (Eds.), Ethnic Entrepreneurs (pp. 13-48). London: Sage.
  66. Wang, L. (2011). Factors affecting perceptions of corporate social responsibility implementation: An emphasis on values. Dissertationes Forestales. Retrieved from http://www.metla.fi/dissertationes/df130.htm
  67. Xiaodan, G., Xingzhi, X., & Wentao, H. (2010). Strong tie, weak tie and entrepreneurial opportunity recognition: The theory and testing by Chinese entrepreneur data. IEEE. Retrieved 27 January, 2018, from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5478231/?reload=true
  68. Yamaji, K. (1997). A global perspective of ethics in business. Business Ethics Quarterly, 7(3), 55-71.
  69. Yeasmin, N. (2016). The determinants of sustainable entrepreneurship of immigrants in Lapland: An analysis of theoretical factors. Entrepreneurial Business and Economic Review 4(1), 129-159.
Cited by
Show
ISSN
2299-7075
Language
eng
URI / DOI
https://doi.org/10.7341/20191523
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+ Share on Pinterest Share on LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu