211
based on the best interests of multidimensional wellbeing and learn to connect local
business development to these community aims. Moreover, these communities
develop capabilities in understanding how the various components of wellbeing
(e.g. social, environmental, economic, spiritual) interact and thus can better synchronise different types of entrepreneurial business.
Most specifically, our research findings demonstrate that stakeholders who
embark on community wellbeing development rather than industry-based capacity
building are more successful in delivering sustainable outcomes in resource regions.
This is similar to the findings elsewhere such as Dana et al.’s (2014) study of two
French villages and the impact of tourism, Gray et al.’s (2014) case study of Women
in Business Development Incorporated in Samoa and Korsgaard and Anderson’s
(2011) study of the sustainable living project of Friland. All cases demonstrate the
need for development to adopt a multidimensional wellbeing approach.
The Risaralda case illustrates that a community wellbeing approach with a focus
on entrepreneurship is helping communities become more resilient to potential mining impacts. In Risaralda, examples can be seen where mining has been combined
with jewellery design and trade entrepreneurship initiatives; a livelihood option that
is currently adding value to resource extraction in the region. This has been possible
due to active community participation, broader understanding of entrepreneurship
for community wellbeing and good governance. Conversely, the existing top-down
or mining approach in some locations of Antioquia is often substituting for traditional livelihood options such as agriculture and other entrepreneurship initiatives
relevant for local communities. This is not only compromising community sustainability but also jeopardising the mining industry’s opportunities to make a strong
contribution at the community level and produce in a responsible manner. This is
mainly due to overinvestment in irrelevant initiatives, limited understanding of
entrepreneurship for community wellbeing as an approach to development and
approaches to community wellbeing that do not reach the broader community but
only the mining industry and potential employees.
In this context, entrepreneurship for community wellbeing adds to traditional
discussions heralding the benefits of entrepreneurship to developing economies
(Fischer et al. 2018) and to the achievement of SDGs 3 and 12. If not undertaken
with all aspects of wellbeing under consideration, then entrepreneurship can encourage business types that create negative externalities such as increased inequality,
environmental degradation, indigenous colonisation, “diseases of affluence” (Ezzati
et al. 2005; McKeown 1988) and the proliferation of a consumer culture. A wellbeing approach and our findings also add to discussions about regional resilience
(Davies and Tonts 2010; Martin and Sunley 2015) by extending the focus beyond
economic resilience to include multiple aspects of wellbeing resilience. Even if
adverse economic shocks occur, the effects are not just economic but affect multiple
aspects of wellbeing. A wellbeing-conscious approach can render communities less
vulnerable to external shocks through having built wellbeing capital or slack that
can buffer. Experience with wellbeing can aid recovery. Without this stock of wellbeing, communities are more vulnerable to more severe adverse effects across multiple wellbeing components.
13 SDG 12 Responsible Consumption and Production
based on the best interests of multidimensional wellbeing and learn to connect local
business development to these community aims. Moreover, these communities
develop capabilities in understanding how the various components of wellbeing
(e.g. social, environmental, economic, spiritual) interact and thus can better synchronise different types of entrepreneurial business.
Most specifically, our research findings demonstrate that stakeholders who
embark on community wellbeing development rather than industry-based capacity
building are more successful in delivering sustainable outcomes in resource regions.
This is similar to the findings elsewhere such as Dana et al.’s (2014) study of two
French villages and the impact of tourism, Gray et al.’s (2014) case study of Women
in Business Development Incorporated in Samoa and Korsgaard and Anderson’s
(2011) study of the sustainable living project of Friland. All cases demonstrate the
need for development to adopt a multidimensional wellbeing approach.
The Risaralda case illustrates that a community wellbeing approach with a focus
on entrepreneurship is helping communities become more resilient to potential mining impacts. In Risaralda, examples can be seen where mining has been combined
with jewellery design and trade entrepreneurship initiatives; a livelihood option that
is currently adding value to resource extraction in the region. This has been possible
due to active community participation, broader understanding of entrepreneurship
for community wellbeing and good governance. Conversely, the existing top-down
or mining approach in some locations of Antioquia is often substituting for traditional livelihood options such as agriculture and other entrepreneurship initiatives
relevant for local communities. This is not only compromising community sustainability but also jeopardising the mining industry’s opportunities to make a strong
contribution at the community level and produce in a responsible manner. This is
mainly due to overinvestment in irrelevant initiatives, limited understanding of
entrepreneurship for community wellbeing as an approach to development and
approaches to community wellbeing that do not reach the broader community but
only the mining industry and potential employees.
In this context, entrepreneurship for community wellbeing adds to traditional
discussions heralding the benefits of entrepreneurship to developing economies
(Fischer et al. 2018) and to the achievement of SDGs 3 and 12. If not undertaken
with all aspects of wellbeing under consideration, then entrepreneurship can encourage business types that create negative externalities such as increased inequality,
environmental degradation, indigenous colonisation, “diseases of affluence” (Ezzati
et al. 2005; McKeown 1988) and the proliferation of a consumer culture. A wellbeing approach and our findings also add to discussions about regional resilience
(Davies and Tonts 2010; Martin and Sunley 2015) by extending the focus beyond
economic resilience to include multiple aspects of wellbeing resilience. Even if
adverse economic shocks occur, the effects are not just economic but affect multiple
aspects of wellbeing. A wellbeing-conscious approach can render communities less
vulnerable to external shocks through having built wellbeing capital or slack that
can buffer. Experience with wellbeing can aid recovery. Without this stock of wellbeing, communities are more vulnerable to more severe adverse effects across multiple wellbeing components.
13 SDG 12 Responsible Consumption and Production