193
(Huggins and Thompson 2014) and exacerbate regional unevenness (Pike et al.
2007). Local economic gains can be offset if local entrepreneurs are not adequately
educated and trained to consider unintended consequences such as environmental
degradation, excessive class inequalities and perceptions of Western cultural imperialism causing affront to indigenous culture and values (Banerjee 2011; Dana, et al.
2014; Misoczky 2011).
Entrepreneurship and Community Wellbeing
Traditionally, entrepreneurship refers to the formation, evaluation and exploitation
of opportunities for commercial gain (Shane and Venkataraman 2000) neglecting
sustainable paths for responsible production. The entrepreneur spots opportunities
to create financial value through innovation or doing the same things better. The
intent is for growth, traditionally narrowly defined as consisting of economic indicators. However, such opportunity recognition and value creation motivations and
skills of entrepreneurs have now been extended to also include social and environmental value creation – or what is commonly known as social entrepreneurship
(Bacq and Janssen 2011; Korsgaard and Anderson 2011; Nicholls 2010; Ratten and
Welpe 2011).
Entrepreneurship for community wellbeing is a further extension of this logic
that goes beyond just “social” to include a more multidimensional and holistic goal
for entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship for community wellbeing is an approach
where communities (1) set multidimensional wellbeing as their goal and (2) develop
different types of entrepreneurship (commercial, social, institutional) in a way that
seeks to achieve the community wellbeing goals. As a bottom-up approach to entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship for community wellbeing is more likely to create
value for communities than existing top-down approaches. This emerging approach
advocates for the transformation of vulnerable communities to higher states of
organisation and the realisation of their full potential (cf. Easterly 2006).
Indeed, the improved wellbeing of entrepreneurs themselves and their families
can have flow-on effects to the broader community, as occurred in Cahn’s (2008)
case study of fine mat weaving in a Samoan micro-enterprise. The latter enterprise
blended its economic activity with the cultural way of life, cultural norms, and
offered psychological benefits through status. In contrast, a village-based coconut
oil production enterprise suffered from tensions between its economic structure and
the cultural commitments of its members. The fine mat weaving enterprise enhanced
not only economic but also social and cultural assets, which seemed to improve
sustainability. Top-down approaches may miss these critical sociocultural-economic
dynamics, thus fracturing the enterprise and wider society (Peredo and McLean
2013). Entrepreneurship for community wellbeing is also based on a new set of
values focused on the community (Peredo and Anderson 2006), including the most
marginalised and exploited. This approach is also intended to imprint communities
and other stakeholders involved with strong values of egalitarianism and sensitivity
for the suffering of others (Maalouf 2014).
Empirical research in Latin America shows that communities’ lack of education
and opportunities to work for either a company or an industry relevant to the local
economy further compromises community wellbeing and escalates poverty, loss of
13 SDG 12 Responsible Consumption and Production
(Huggins and Thompson 2014) and exacerbate regional unevenness (Pike et al.
2007). Local economic gains can be offset if local entrepreneurs are not adequately
educated and trained to consider unintended consequences such as environmental
degradation, excessive class inequalities and perceptions of Western cultural imperialism causing affront to indigenous culture and values (Banerjee 2011; Dana, et al.
2014; Misoczky 2011).
Entrepreneurship and Community Wellbeing
Traditionally, entrepreneurship refers to the formation, evaluation and exploitation
of opportunities for commercial gain (Shane and Venkataraman 2000) neglecting
sustainable paths for responsible production. The entrepreneur spots opportunities
to create financial value through innovation or doing the same things better. The
intent is for growth, traditionally narrowly defined as consisting of economic indicators. However, such opportunity recognition and value creation motivations and
skills of entrepreneurs have now been extended to also include social and environmental value creation – or what is commonly known as social entrepreneurship
(Bacq and Janssen 2011; Korsgaard and Anderson 2011; Nicholls 2010; Ratten and
Welpe 2011).
Entrepreneurship for community wellbeing is a further extension of this logic
that goes beyond just “social” to include a more multidimensional and holistic goal
for entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship for community wellbeing is an approach
where communities (1) set multidimensional wellbeing as their goal and (2) develop
different types of entrepreneurship (commercial, social, institutional) in a way that
seeks to achieve the community wellbeing goals. As a bottom-up approach to entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship for community wellbeing is more likely to create
value for communities than existing top-down approaches. This emerging approach
advocates for the transformation of vulnerable communities to higher states of
organisation and the realisation of their full potential (cf. Easterly 2006).
Indeed, the improved wellbeing of entrepreneurs themselves and their families
can have flow-on effects to the broader community, as occurred in Cahn’s (2008)
case study of fine mat weaving in a Samoan micro-enterprise. The latter enterprise
blended its economic activity with the cultural way of life, cultural norms, and
offered psychological benefits through status. In contrast, a village-based coconut
oil production enterprise suffered from tensions between its economic structure and
the cultural commitments of its members. The fine mat weaving enterprise enhanced
not only economic but also social and cultural assets, which seemed to improve
sustainability. Top-down approaches may miss these critical sociocultural-economic
dynamics, thus fracturing the enterprise and wider society (Peredo and McLean
2013). Entrepreneurship for community wellbeing is also based on a new set of
values focused on the community (Peredo and Anderson 2006), including the most
marginalised and exploited. This approach is also intended to imprint communities
and other stakeholders involved with strong values of egalitarianism and sensitivity
for the suffering of others (Maalouf 2014).
Empirical research in Latin America shows that communities’ lack of education
and opportunities to work for either a company or an industry relevant to the local
economy further compromises community wellbeing and escalates poverty, loss of
13 SDG 12 Responsible Consumption and Production