This paper presents a framework to enable case study analysis of sustainable development from business models innovation. Increasing economic development can give rise to trade-offs between economic growth and environmental degradation. Business model innovation can help address such trade-offs by refocusing value creation and capture towards less environmentally damaging activities. Business models therefore provide a critical tool in the move towards sustainable development. In this paper a literature review of existing business model frameworks is conducted and gaps found in the definition and conceptualisation of value, alignment with sustainable development, and assessment of social and environmental impacts and goals. More generally, there is a lack of in depth case studies in the sustainable business model literature. A framework is developed to address these gaps and to allow in depth analysis and understanding of the functioning of business models for sustainable development. Development and piloting of the framework made use of literature and co-operative enquiry. The framework of the paper is applied in depth with a unique energy company case study. Application shows economies of scope to be critical to the delivery of sustainable development. The business model framework addresses equity and distributional issues that are key to sustainable development, but missed by current frameworks.

Introduction

The scale of resource use to supply consumer goods and services is the main reason that society stands so close to breaching many boundaries set out for key global environmental pressures (Allwood et al., 2011; Rockström et al., 2009). Many managers are aware of the increasing importance of being socially and environmentally sustainable in their operations. More sustainable goods and services provision requires a combination of new technologies, changes in practice/behaviours, in combination with new business models. To make such a change it is helpful for organisations to be able to observe past case studies. Evans et al. (2017) however identify a scarce number of case studies and empirical analysis of sustainable business models in the literature and that the lack of case studies makes it difficult for firms to learn how they might develop their business models. From literature they also find that existing business modelling methods and tools are few and rarely sustainability driven. The current papers objective is to develop a framework for in depth case study analysis of business models for sustainability. The framework builds on Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010) as well as Evans et al. (2017) among others. An in depth case study analysis is then presented to demonstrate the framework and provide new case study empirical analysis that is much required.

New ventures are increasingly internationalizing from emerging economies, but the role of their home country and any associated within-country regional differences are not well understood. In this article, we look at a new venture in China and how its headquartered region promotes its internationalization. We present empirical evidence that shows the interrelatedness between a venture’s region and internationalization: When institutional development in a region is strong, the impact of foreign firm presence on venture internationalization becomes even stronger. We discuss implications for managers of multinational enterprises and new ventures operating in emerging economies as well as policymakers in these economies.

Are regional differences affecting new venture opportunities?

Emerging economies are becoming increasingly important sources of outward foreign direct investment and exporting (Ramamurti & Williamson, 2019; UNCTAD, 2015). This appears to be a trend for not only existing, large firms in emerging economies (e.g., Li, Li, Lyles, & Liu, 2016; Ramasamy, Yeung, & Laforet, 2012) but also new ventures (Li, 2013; Lin, Mercier-Suissa, & Salloum, 2016; Manolova, Manev, & Gyoshev, 2014). In exploring the antecedents of new venture internationalization from emerging economies, existing research has focused on entrepreneurial characteristics (e.g., Sekliuckiene, 2017), firm-level factors such as networks (e.g., Yamakawa, Peng, & Deeds, 2008) and capabilities (e.g., Yamakawa, Khavul, Peng, & Deeds, 2013), and industry linkages (Gashi, Hashi, & Pugh, 2014). Despite the external environment being a defining aspect of emerging economy new ventures, little is known about the role of any within-country differences in these ventures’ internationalization. To unravel the effects of the external environment within a new venture’s headquartered region of an emerging economy on venture internationalization, this study draws on institutional theory as well as the foreign direct investment (FDI) spillover literature. First, we consider the uneven development of institutions within an emerging economy. Prior research showed that institutions influence entrepreneurial behaviors and entrepreneurial strategies (Batjargal et al., 2013; Hitt, Li, & Xu, 2016). The institutional environment in emerging economies is typically transitional in nature; the transition takes time and is often gradual (Child & Tse, 2001; Lu, Xu, & Liu, 2009), with some regions catching up with developed economies quickly and others laggingbehind(Luo &Chung,2013;Miller, Lee, Chang, & Le Breton-Miller, 2009).

Organizational leadership is exercised through top management influence over the effective distribution and utilization of resources to achieve organizational development, thus, financial and non-financial improvement. Leadership offers the needed strategic direction that gives traction to strategy implementation and the subsequent success on the market. The level of significance of leadership in organizational development accounts for the depth of study on leadership impact on firm performance over the past decades (see Awamleh, 1999; Rowe et al., 2005; Jung, et al., 2008; Chung and Luo, 2013; Eisenbeiss, et al., 2015). Leadership has largely being seen and assessed as a significant predictor of firm success through strategy formulation. Upper Echelons Theory posits that “organizational outcomes – both strategies and effectiveness – are…reflections of the values and cognitive bases of powerful actors in the organization” (Hambrick & Mason, 1984, p. 193.) In other words, leaders in the upper echelons of an organization influence organizational performance directly through their characteristics and behaviors and indirectly through the strategic choices they make. In spite of this, the effectiveness of leadership in organizational outcomes can be influence by contextual factors (Anning Dorson, 2017). As per Hofstede’s, (1984, 1991) studies of culture on organizational performance, it is found that in contexts where power distance is high, employees are dependent on the boss or the power holder for direction. Jung et al. (2008) assert that leaders usually play key roles in determining organizational policies/processes as well as resource allocations, yet relatively few studies have examined how they affect strategic implementation at the organizational level in different contexts. Organisational leadership is important in fostering the strategic fit of firm and its environment to create the needed competitive advantage. Organisational leadership must be considered as an internal-firm capability for strategy implementation (Anning-Dorson, 2017). Leadership creates the fit between the innovation implementation and the environment. An observed deficiency in literature seem to be the inattentive consideration on the intermediate role played by leaders in certain cultural contexts with regard to shaping organizational success during strategy implementation. This study therefore assesses the moderation role of organizational leadership on innovation-performance relationship. The study argues that in Ghana where power distance is high, organizational leadership provides the needed impetus for strategies such as innovation to achieve organizational development i.e. enhanced firm performance.

The health and social care of the elderly is a policy priority and a major area of state and local government expenditure in most welfare states. In recent decades, the area has been strongly affected by economic, ideological, and organizational changes, not least due to population ageing. Swedish eldercare is conducted in increasingly downsized organizations (Bengtsson, 2010; Szebehely, 2011; Szebehely & Trydegård, 2012) incorporating progressively more market elements and private providers alongside public providers (Meagher & Szebehely, 2013; Stolt, Blomqvist, & Winblad, 2011). State supervision (SSV) of Swedish eldercare has recently been strengthened to ensure better compliance with laws and regulations. Two state commissions investigated the potential to enact a standardized, strengthened, and systematic SSV model for social work in general (SOU, 2004; p. 100, 2007; p. 82). Supervision was strengthened in response to exposures of inhumane care and unequal distribution of eldercare with the aim of ameliorating unhealthy conditions and creating trust in eldercare. Recurrent monitoring of compliance by means of laws and regulations is expected to ensure equal distribution of safe, high-quality eldercare (Socialstyrelsen, 2011), and there are expectations that SSV can ensure and improve quality in both public and private eldercare services (Blomgren & Waks, 2011; Ek, 2012; Johansson, 2011; Lindgren, 2016; Lindgren, 2012). Increased state regulation and control to improve quality in welfare services reflect an international trend (Furness, 2009; Hood, 2012; Power, 2003). However, the issue of whether SSV is an effective way to improve quality in eldercare is debated (Beddoe, 2012; Cooper, 2006). Critics warn that external supervision can negatively affect professions in that it creates mistrust and lowers the level of confidence (Beddoe, 2012; Cooper, 2006). Research into how SSV operates in practice and how it is conceived and reacted to by the supervisees is scarce. Research into SSV and inspection exists (Nygren & Hanberger, 2011; Hämberg, 2013; Hood, Oliver, Scott, & Travers, 1999; Johansson, 2006, 2010; May & Wood, 2003; Power, 1997, 2003), but research from the eldercare field specifically is rare (Braithwaite, Makkai, & Braithwaite, 2007; Ek, 2012; Furness, 2009).

Since the early of 20th century, various industries changed their production process towards modern manufacturing (Chofreh et al., 2014a). Esteban et al. (2015) argued that this massive transformation affected the emergence of overexploitation of resources problem, which includes human, natural, and economic resources. This issue became more crucial and it got a distinctive response from the local and international governments through several local and international declarations, such as the Magnuson Act 1976 and the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, that initially applied the term of sustainability (Goni et al., 2015). The academics frequently assigned the definition of sustainability from The Brundtland report ‘Our common future’. According to The Brundtland report ‘Our common future’, sustainability can be defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987).” This concept implies the resources management to fulfil the essential needs of human being in the long period of time. Elkington (2004) argued that achieving sustainability future requires an integration of three sustainability components including environment, society, and economy. In this approach, organisations need to envisage planet, people, and profit in managing their business. The sustainability concept has been profoundly incorporated into the extended value chain in organisations as it is gradually more vital in the business (Chofreh and Goni, 2017). They need to have sustainable raw materials from their suppliers and deliver sustainable products and services to their customers (van Herpen et al., 2015). The organisations require to assess their sustainability performance and report the results to their stakeholders. However, Chofreh et al. (2014a) claimed that several organisations face the segregation issue between suppliers, business functions, and customers during implementing the sustainable business process.

Sustainability concept is broadly acknowledged as the topics relevant to environmental issues intensify and increase (Čuček et al., 2015). This concept has been incorporated into supply chain management (Silvestre, 2015), finance (Lagoarde-Segot, 2015), supplier relations (Leppelt et al., 2013), product design (Seay, 2015), strategy (Küçüksayraç, 2015), and the policy and operations (Lam and Lai, 2014) of various companies. Organisations from various sectors need to integrate sustainability strategy into their business practices (Lubin and Esty, 2010). According to Chofreh et al. (2014a), numerous organisations have embedded sustainability into their extended value chain. The approach that has a clear vision, mission, and strategies would be successful in transforming towards sustainability (Lubin and Esty, 2010). In achieving sustainable future, organisations require having a holistic view of the entire extended value chain (Klemeš, 2015). They need advanced models, indicators, and methods for evaluating their sustainability performance (Jayalet al., 2010). Information systems (IS) play an important role in assisting organisations in completing these sustainability processes (Elliot, 2011). IS aids them to collect the sustainable data and information, perform data analysis and conversion, monitoring and controlling, and report (Scipioni et al., 2008). During the last decades, IS plays a significant role for global business (Malhotra et al., 2013). However, a research in Green IS field is still in infancy (VomBrockeet al., 2013). Fewer academics and practitioners take IS into consideration while implementing sustainability initiatives. Organisations face generally two problems during their transformation towards sustainability. They are segregation between sustainable business functions (Chofreh et al., 2014a) and lack of a comprehensive plan for implementing sustainability (Chofreh et al., 2016a). According to Capgemini (2013), the sustainability data and activities are commonly managed by using a tool or single system that is isolated from an enterprise system. The practitioners managed the data and information by using spreadsheets that are varying and cannot be easily monitored. This phenomenon indicates a misalignment between sustainability and IS strategies (Goni et al., 2013b).

Introduction

The main aim of this study is to investigate the under-researched relationship between corporate governance mechanisms and audit fees within the SMEs context. Indeed, such relationship has been investigated in large firms (Abbott et al., 2003; Goodwin-Stewart and Kent, 2006; Knechel, 2016), yet we find no evidence of this relationship within the SMEs context. We adopt this framework for different reasons. First, there is growing evidence that governance features are important in SMEs as in large firms. It is found that good corporate governance will bring better alternatives for SMEs and provides SMEs with effective strategies and best practices to access different resources and enhances better management decisions (Drucker, 1992; Sparrow, 1993). Accordingly, we aim to investigate in more details the theoretical and empirical aspects of corporate governance and audit features in SMEs using panel data set and to expand our knowledge of the audit features within the SMEs context. Second, investigating SMEs is very important in the UK, for example, in 2007, 99.9 per cent of the businesses were SMEs. In addition, SMEs are a key employer in the UK with approximately 59.2 per cent of private sector employees. From the macro-level perspective, SMEs represent 50 per cent of the UK gross value added and 51.5 per cent turnover (BIS: Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, 2009). Hence, our study has an importance for policymakers and managers for a key sector in the UK. Finally, Afrifa and Tauringana (2015) detect that corporate governance is related to SMEs performance in the UK; however, they reported some differences in the role of corporate governance factors between small and medium-sized firms. Hence, investigating the role of corporate governance in SMEs will be of importance and will add to our understanding of the determinants of audit fees.

With increasing environmental ramifications, organizations globally are expected to take responsibility for environmental management (Rondinelli and Berry, 2000). As per economists the environmental management is a priority for India since increasing industrialization, entrepreneurial nature, and foreign investment will promote the growth of Indian economy, but at the same time it will demand more resources and will contribute to environmental pollution. A recent study by the World Bank reports that the environmental degradation costs India about $80 billion a year, India has13 out of 20 most polluted cities, and 23% of its child deaths could be attributed to environmental factors (Mallet, Financial Times, July 2013). As per the Twelfth Five Year plan, Micro Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) contribute to over 40% industrial production and over 45% of India’s export but also account for substantial pollution load of India. India is already experiencing dangerous environmental conditions. In the recent past, India has faced several natural calamities (List of natural disaster, 2016) such as the landslide in Pune (2014), floods in Chennai (2015), a massive earthquake of magnitude 8.2 Richter in the Himalayan region and of magnitude 6.7 Richter in Manipur (2016), and large-scale fire destructing Uttarakhand forests (2016) etc. Experts have claimed exploitation of natural resources as one of the key cause of such calamities. Hence, to avoid further environmental deterioration due to the exploitation of natural resources, it becomes organization’s responsibility to plan sustainable development and facilitate environmental growth. Moreover, organizations may also benefit from adopting environmental management interventions as research has found that pro-environmental activities have a positive relation with employer branding, public image, marketing opportunities, improved sales, potential cost saving, and competitive advantage (Khanna and Anton, 2002; Christmann, 2000; Shrivastava, 1995). Environmental management is considered as an offshoot of a broader accounting agenda, known as ‘triple bottom line,’ which integrates social, environmental and financial aspects (Elkington, 2006). Triple bottom line analyzes an organization’s performance in a broader perspective rather than being restricted to profit-making. The environmental dimension refers to attaining a balance between organizational growth and conserving natural resources for future generations (Daily and Huang, 2001; Jennings and Zandbergen, 1995; Ramus, 2002).

مقاله سال 2016

Organizations undertake projects as vital means to implement strategy and realize value (Chih and Zwikael, 2015). However, a great proportion of projects fail, e.g. in 2015 only 29% of software projects are successful, with 52% of the projects canceled and 19% failed to deliver the expected results (Dannis, 2015). One of the main reasons for this situation lies in today’s rapidly changing environment. Uncertainties, which cannot be fully estimated and often involve ‘unknownunknown’ events like evolving strategy, introduction of new technology and resource conflicts, have impact on project implementation and force the deviation of perceived value from expected goals. Thus even if organizations make great efforts to maintain accurate evaluation of the uncertainties and devise well-designed project plans, project plans never perform in the predicted way, and if the deviation grows, projects will fail. Under these circumstances, effective project implementation processes that consider dynamism under uncertainty should be explored.

The conventional project implementation methodologies follow a linear logic to bring projects ‘back on track’ with respect to the pre-determined operational plans (Hazır, 2014), whereas recent research suggest that the on-going project is an open system, with both its goals and implementation status evolving (Lee et al., 2006; Aritua et al., 2009). In the dynamic environment, projects have to continuously interact with their implementation context, adapting and evolving requirements throughout the system’s lifetime to cope with uncertainties (Locatelli et al., 2014). Thus project implementation process should involve not only foresight, but also remedial actions in response to unexpected changes, requiring the combination of both proactive and reactive activities. Some research refer to this perspective as ‘bounded planning’ and ‘interactive problem solving’, and claim that the value of a project is not well-known in advance, but being defined and updated with uncertainty prevailing (Engwall, 2003; Ahern et al., 2014). Moreover, the non-linear interdependencies between different project components make the system more complex. These interdependencies may form multiple feedback mechanisms, with which even small variation in individual components may diffuse into serious crisis on the overall project (Williams et al., 2003). Thus without looking into the comprehensive system structure, the effects of both uncertainties and remedial actions on project outcomes are difficult to understand.

Since human activities dominate the project implementation processes, including perceiving and reporting the changes, evaluating the remedial action proposals and making reactive decisions, we should look beyond the ‘hard’ operational data and focus more on ‘soft’ factors like stakeholders’ perceptions and behavioral biases (e.g. reporting errors and escalation of commitment) (Meyer, 2014). System dynamics (SD) modeling is applicable here, which can combine both ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ paradigms in the following way (Pidd, 2009; Rodrigues, 2000): Firstly, when formulating the SD model, multiple stakeholders have to coordinate on the central structure of the system (main components, links and feedback loops) and then draw up the causal diagram. This procedure promotes the organizational learning and provides insights into project implementation. The second procedure is the computer-based simulation, which provides explicit suggestions such as what the possible remedial actions would bring, and when and how to intervene. At this procedure, the SD model can use operational data monitored by conventional methods (Lee et al., 2006).