Search results

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives can provide a mechanism for tapping into the vast consumer markets of developing countries. The purpose of this paper is to investigate how regional headquarters (RHQs) of multinational enterprises (MNEs) in Africa pursue CSR and whether their initiatives are aligned with their own global CSR agendas or tailored to local idiosyncrasies.

Following a secondary data analysis of MNEs’ CSR and sustainability reports and their homepages, in-depth interviews with their CSR managers in African RHQs are conducted.

The paper provides insights into motivations of RHQs to pursue specific CSR initiatives. MNEs need to make considerable adaptations to their global CSR agendas in order to develop initiatives that fit the local setting. The authors further identify key institutions in developing countries and discuss the potential of collaborations with MNEs in their CSR initiatives.

Future research should assess the impact of environmental differences (e.g. developing nations compared to industrialized nations) and firm characteristics on CSR autonomy (both at RHQs and at the subsidiary level). Furthermore, the perspectives of the various stakeholders (such as local governments or NGOs) should be examined to establish a holistic understanding of CSR in developing countries.

MNEs gain a better understanding of peculiarities encountered in developing countries and are provided with recommendations on how to develop their CSR policies.

The paper directs awareness to CSR in the African context, thereby providing a platform for understanding some of this continent’s most important challenges.

The paper shows how the context of developing countries shapes the translation process of MNEs’ global CSR agendas. Companies benefit from the best practice examples provided in this paper and learn from the stakeholder collaborations discussed.

This paper aims to explore the dynamics of entrepreneurial ecosystems with both rural and urban features, as well as the varied system requirements of differing types of entrepreneurs within such an ecosystem.

Using a mixed-methods case study approach, the study examined the Roanoke–Blacksburg region in western Virginia. Researchers conducted quantitative analysis of entrepreneurial metrics and network relationships, as well as qualitative analysis of data collected through entrepreneur surveys and stakeholder interviews.

Findings suggest entrepreneurs of different types faced disparate challenges and uneven access to resources and networks. Innovation-driven “gazelle” enterprises (IDEs) had numerous growth-related resource needs, including angel, venture and scale-up funding; prototyping equipment and facilities; and translational research by local universities. Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) required more entrepreneurial education programming, subsidized main street office space and clearer pathways through the government regulatory system. A key finding was also concerned with the different ways by which IDEs and SMEs accessed key resources within the ecosystem, illustrated through social network analysis, and supported through qualitative feedback.

Study findings were limited by a relatively low survey response rate from some entrepreneur demographic segments, particularly minorities.

The study represents an in-depth, multi-methods approach that offers insight into two under-researched areas in the ecosystem literature: the dynamics of urban – rural ecosystems and the varied system requirements of different entrepreneur types. The paper includes three overarching recommendations for policy and practice: improved collection and sharing of regional metrics; differentiated approaches to entrepreneurial support based on entrepreneur type; and enhanced efforts to advance inclusive entrepreneurship.

Since 1980, there has been an increasing interest in the area of innovation, entrepreneurship and economic development. While the role of educational institutions in the entrepreneurship/new venture creation process has been recognized, little research has been done, particularly outside the US, to identify the type and extent of involvement in this area by these institutions. Looks at the activities of European third‐level educational institutions in Western Europe, Sweden, Finland, Eastern and Central Europe, and some of the Republics of the former USSR. Universities in these geographic areas were surveyed regarding the extent (if any) of their activities in four primary areas of entrepreneurship: educational programmes; training programmes; research; and enterprise formation. There were 109 of the 227 institutions from 23 countries which responded ‐ a 48 per cent response rate. Institutions were more inclined to be involved in research than education, training and actual venture creation.