194
livelihood options and conflict (Molina-Escobar and Restrepo-Baena 2010). This
has been caused, amongst others, for irresponsible production patterns of multinational companies. However, accessing education to find employment opportunities
in the mining industry is usually perceived by communities as a top-down approach
that often does not meet their development aspirations. This top-down approach to
wellbeing may in fact prevent stakeholders in the resource sector from impacting
communities in any positively responsible way (Mate 2001). Hamdouch et al.
(2016) discuss this issue. They examine how towns and communities make choices
according to their development aspirations. Empirical research also shows that there
is an untapped potential in resource regions for fostering entrepreneurship (Franco
2014) for improved community wellbeing.
Building communities’ capacity for entrepreneurship for improved wellbeing
will make a strong contribution to social sustainability in resource-rich towns. We
argue that local communities which gain resilience through a history of entrepreneurship can successfully cope with the global challenges posited by the mining
industry and improve community wellbeing at the local level (Gray et al. 2014;
Williams and Vorley 2014). This in turn provides them with a greater ability to be
receptive to education for entrepreneurship as an agent of change and development.
In this context, entrepreneurship for community wellbeing is an untapped agenda
for sustainable development. While a number of researchers have undertaken studies exemplifying the multiple types of value created by entrepreneurship (Gray et al.
2014; Korsgaard and Anderson 2011; Williams and Vorley 2014), we feel that wellbeing can be a useful concept for the continued growth of this stream of research.
From an entrepreneurship perspective, one of the main advantages is that a wellbeing approach requires a portfolio approach to community governance of entrepreneurship. Such a portfolio approach encourages the need for commercial
entrepreneurship, which creates primarily economic value but also social value.
However, the social value created is only that which is economically rational and
maximises profit. To counterbalance this, social entrepreneurship, including
community- based enterprises (Peredo and Chrisman 2006; Peredo and McLean
2006), can address a wider range of wellbeing opportunities by relaxing the assumption of profit maximisation (Zahra et al. 2014). Here, increased value created on
non-economic components of wellbeing is deemed equally, if not more, valuable
than financial wealth maximisation. Actors thus define and perceive entrepreneurial
opportunities differently rather than just through the lens of standard economic
evaluations (Peredo and McLean 2013). This portfolio approach requires
community- level governance if the right types and spread of entrepreneurship are to
occur to maximise wellbeing (Lichtenstein and Lyons 2001).
Bringing our arguments together, we contend that resource-rich towns have
important choices to make concerning the paths of their development. The attraction
of employment and riches from mining companies can lead to imbalanced community development from a wellbeing perspective. The concept of wellbeing provides
a framework to guide sustainable community development through entrepreneurship. Moreover, community self-sufficiency beyond mining calls for entrepreneurship skill-building allowing locals to determine their destiny. Such entrepreneurship
though needs to be combined with wellbeing education and governance if commuI. B. Franco and L. Newey
livelihood options and conflict (Molina-Escobar and Restrepo-Baena 2010). This
has been caused, amongst others, for irresponsible production patterns of multinational companies. However, accessing education to find employment opportunities
in the mining industry is usually perceived by communities as a top-down approach
that often does not meet their development aspirations. This top-down approach to
wellbeing may in fact prevent stakeholders in the resource sector from impacting
communities in any positively responsible way (Mate 2001). Hamdouch et al.
(2016) discuss this issue. They examine how towns and communities make choices
according to their development aspirations. Empirical research also shows that there
is an untapped potential in resource regions for fostering entrepreneurship (Franco
2014) for improved community wellbeing.
Building communities’ capacity for entrepreneurship for improved wellbeing
will make a strong contribution to social sustainability in resource-rich towns. We
argue that local communities which gain resilience through a history of entrepreneurship can successfully cope with the global challenges posited by the mining
industry and improve community wellbeing at the local level (Gray et al. 2014;
Williams and Vorley 2014). This in turn provides them with a greater ability to be
receptive to education for entrepreneurship as an agent of change and development.
In this context, entrepreneurship for community wellbeing is an untapped agenda
for sustainable development. While a number of researchers have undertaken studies exemplifying the multiple types of value created by entrepreneurship (Gray et al.
2014; Korsgaard and Anderson 2011; Williams and Vorley 2014), we feel that wellbeing can be a useful concept for the continued growth of this stream of research.
From an entrepreneurship perspective, one of the main advantages is that a wellbeing approach requires a portfolio approach to community governance of entrepreneurship. Such a portfolio approach encourages the need for commercial
entrepreneurship, which creates primarily economic value but also social value.
However, the social value created is only that which is economically rational and
maximises profit. To counterbalance this, social entrepreneurship, including
community- based enterprises (Peredo and Chrisman 2006; Peredo and McLean
2006), can address a wider range of wellbeing opportunities by relaxing the assumption of profit maximisation (Zahra et al. 2014). Here, increased value created on
non-economic components of wellbeing is deemed equally, if not more, valuable
than financial wealth maximisation. Actors thus define and perceive entrepreneurial
opportunities differently rather than just through the lens of standard economic
evaluations (Peredo and McLean 2013). This portfolio approach requires
community- level governance if the right types and spread of entrepreneurship are to
occur to maximise wellbeing (Lichtenstein and Lyons 2001).
Bringing our arguments together, we contend that resource-rich towns have
important choices to make concerning the paths of their development. The attraction
of employment and riches from mining companies can lead to imbalanced community development from a wellbeing perspective. The concept of wellbeing provides
a framework to guide sustainable community development through entrepreneurship. Moreover, community self-sufficiency beyond mining calls for entrepreneurship skill-building allowing locals to determine their destiny. Such entrepreneurship
though needs to be combined with wellbeing education and governance if commuI. B. Franco and L. Newey