188
more responsible, wellbeing-conscious approach was adopted based on local entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship here was not only focused on economic development
and the future self-sufficiency of the community apart from mining but was also
conscious of producing responsibly and building a greater range of wellbeing components other than just economic. We use these results to articulate a wellbeing-centric
approach to development called Entrepreneurship for Community Wellbeing.
Keywords SDG 12 responsible consumption and production · SDG 3 good health
and wellbeing · Entrepreneurship · Wellbeing · Sustainability · Corporate social
responsibility
13.1 Introduction
This chapter asks the question: how can corporate responsible producers help underdeveloped yet resource-rich towns undertake development in a way that leads to community wellbeing? Based on its rich, multidisciplinary development, in this chapter
we define community wellbeing as the capacity of a community to flourish, including
being able to fulfil important goals and persist in the face of obstacles (cf. Gough
et al. 2007). In other words, wellbeing is a resilient capacity to achieve sustainable
development aspirations (Burroughs and Rindfleisch 2002) and SDG 3 (UN 2018).
Wellbeing is multidimensional and for our purposes includes eight components: economic, social, cultural, environmental, psychological, spiritual, material and physical
(Keyes 1998; OECD 2013; Peterman et al. 2002).
1
Although the term “community”
has various meanings, in this paper we focus exclusively on communities as bounded
geographic spaces and where there is a desire to achieve collective goals. Community
wellbeing refers to the wellbeing of a distinct geographic space of people whose
fortunes are bound together (Peredo and Chrisman 2006). We also focus specifically
on noncore peripheral communities/towns outside the main metropolitan core.
Our research question then poses how communities can improve their wellbeing
across the eight components: economic, social, cultural, environmental, psychological, spiritual, material and physical. Such a view recognises that these components are interlinked and either benefit or damage occurs depending on whether
actors, particularly corporations, are mindful of these interactions. Although a number of scholars note how “harmonic” (Misoczky 2011) and local entrepreneurshipbased (McMullen 2011; McWade 2012; Peredo and Chrisman 2006) approaches to
development aim to create a broader range of outcomes for communities, we lack a
concept which unites these various outcomes into a parsimonious and composite
measure (Dana et al. 2014; Gray et al. 2014; Huggins and Thompson 2014;
Korsgaard and Anderson 2011). We advance “wellbeing” as a concept which fills
this gap and can offer coherence to understanding how different community development strategies achieve multiple outcomes.
1 In this chapter, when we use the term “multidimensional wellbeing”, we are referring to all eight
components listed here.
I. B. Franco and L. Newey
more responsible, wellbeing-conscious approach was adopted based on local entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship here was not only focused on economic development
and the future self-sufficiency of the community apart from mining but was also
conscious of producing responsibly and building a greater range of wellbeing components other than just economic. We use these results to articulate a wellbeing-centric
approach to development called Entrepreneurship for Community Wellbeing.
Keywords SDG 12 responsible consumption and production · SDG 3 good health
and wellbeing · Entrepreneurship · Wellbeing · Sustainability · Corporate social
responsibility
13.1 Introduction
This chapter asks the question: how can corporate responsible producers help underdeveloped yet resource-rich towns undertake development in a way that leads to community wellbeing? Based on its rich, multidisciplinary development, in this chapter
we define community wellbeing as the capacity of a community to flourish, including
being able to fulfil important goals and persist in the face of obstacles (cf. Gough
et al. 2007). In other words, wellbeing is a resilient capacity to achieve sustainable
development aspirations (Burroughs and Rindfleisch 2002) and SDG 3 (UN 2018).
Wellbeing is multidimensional and for our purposes includes eight components: economic, social, cultural, environmental, psychological, spiritual, material and physical
(Keyes 1998; OECD 2013; Peterman et al. 2002).
1
Although the term “community”
has various meanings, in this paper we focus exclusively on communities as bounded
geographic spaces and where there is a desire to achieve collective goals. Community
wellbeing refers to the wellbeing of a distinct geographic space of people whose
fortunes are bound together (Peredo and Chrisman 2006). We also focus specifically
on noncore peripheral communities/towns outside the main metropolitan core.
Our research question then poses how communities can improve their wellbeing
across the eight components: economic, social, cultural, environmental, psychological, spiritual, material and physical. Such a view recognises that these components are interlinked and either benefit or damage occurs depending on whether
actors, particularly corporations, are mindful of these interactions. Although a number of scholars note how “harmonic” (Misoczky 2011) and local entrepreneurshipbased (McMullen 2011; McWade 2012; Peredo and Chrisman 2006) approaches to
development aim to create a broader range of outcomes for communities, we lack a
concept which unites these various outcomes into a parsimonious and composite
measure (Dana et al. 2014; Gray et al. 2014; Huggins and Thompson 2014;
Korsgaard and Anderson 2011). We advance “wellbeing” as a concept which fills
this gap and can offer coherence to understanding how different community development strategies achieve multiple outcomes.
1 In this chapter, when we use the term “multidimensional wellbeing”, we are referring to all eight
components listed here.
I. B. Franco and L. Newey