Untangling the Origins of Sustainable Commitment: New Insights on the Small vs. Large Firms’ Debate

Abstract

The sustainable development challenge is increasingly being included in entrepreneurs’ agendas. Firms are considered responsible for social and environmental effects but are also considered as social actors that can effectively incorporate sustainability solutions into market transactions. The literature on corporate social responsibility (CSR) in small business has depicted these firms as less involved in sustainability management implementation owing to resource constraints and limited perception of the business case for sustainability. Further, studies on both small business and sustainable entrepreneurship have highlighted the pivotal role of entrepreneurs’ values in motivating a more sustainable way of conducting business while, large companies, driven by external pressures, are more focused on a strategic CSR approach than small firms. Starting from these premises, the paper aims to identify the main drivers or barriers of sustainability implementation and to verify any significant differences between small and large-sized companies in their approach to sustainability practices implementation. The study adopts a qualitative research method based on semi-structured interviews addressing 22 participants from Italian firms of different sizes selected for their social and environmental commitment. The findings of the study highlight the existence of some common features among small and large firms, in particular, regarding motivations, entrepreneur values, and business vision, contributing new perspectives to the sustainable entrepreneurship debate.

Full text

sustainability
Article
Untangling the Origins of Sustainable Commitment:
New Insights on the Small vs. Large Firms’ Debate
Silvia Cantele * , Silvia Vernizzi and Bettina Campedelli
Department of Business Administration, University of Verona, Via Cantarane 24, VR 37129 Verona, Italy;
silvia.vernizzi@univr.it (S.V.); bettina.campedelli@univr.it (B.C.)
*Correspondence: silvia.cantele@univr.it
Received: 6 December 2019; Accepted: 15 January 2020; Published: 16 January 2020


Abstract:
The sustainable development challenge is increasingly being included in entrepreneurs’
agendas. Firms are considered responsible for social and environmental effects but are also considered
as social actors that can effectively incorporate sustainability solutions into market transactions.
The literature on corporate social responsibility (CSR) in small business has depicted these firms
as less involved in sustainability management implementation owing to resource constraints and
limited perception of the business case for sustainability. Further, studies on both small business and
sustainable entrepreneurship have highlighted the pivotal role of entrepreneurs’ values in motivating
a more sustainable way of conducting business while, large companies, driven by external pressures,
are more focused on a strategic CSR approach than small firms. Starting from these premises, the paper
aims to identify the main drivers or barriers of sustainability implementation and to verify any
significant differences between small and large-sized companies in their approach to sustainability
practices implementation. The study adopts a qualitative research method based on semi-structured
interviews addressing 22 participants from Italian firms of different sizes selected for their social
and environmental commitment. The findings of the study highlight the existence of some common
features among small and large firms, in particular, regarding motivations, entrepreneur values,
and business vision, contributing new perspectives to the sustainable entrepreneurship debate.
Keywords:
sustainability; small business; sustainable entrepreneur; sustainable business model;
corporate social responsibility; large firm
1. Introduction
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are defined as independent, non-subsidiary
institutions that employ a limited number of employees. However, this number varies depending
on the national statistical system. The European Union defines SMEs as those that have less than
250 employees and an annual turnover lower than 50 million euros or an annual balance sheet total
not exceeding 43 million euros [
1
]. These enterprises play a major role in the economic growth of all
countries; they account for approximately 90% of the number of firms worldwide and employ about
50–60% of the global workforce [
2
,
3
]. In Europe, SMEs represent 99% of all enterprises and in the past
five years, they have created around 85% of new jobs and provided two-thirds of the total private
sector employment according to the European Commission [4].
In the past decade, topics such as ecosystem degradation and social sustainability have attracted
the attention of a considerable number of society members, such as consumers, nongovernmental
organizations, and politicians [
5
]. Currently, people are expressing increased concern about the
environmental and social effects of companies and tend to exert significant pressure on them to
change their ways of conducting business by adopting a more sustainable way. Among researchers,
Sustainability 2020,12, 671; doi:10.3390/su12020671 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2020,12, 671 2 of 12
sustainability practices of large companies were mostly discussed because these companies have high
visibility in the community and also because their effects are easily identified [6,7].
Although a single SME does not have a great impact on environmental issues compared with
a single large organization, put together, SMEs are responsible for a substantial part of resource
consumption, air and water pollution, and waste generation. In Europe, they are estimated to create
about 60–70% of industrial pollution [
8
]. The literature on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and
sustainability has usually depicted SMEs as organizations with distinct features that differentiate them
from large and multinational corporations, such that theories and tools used to study the latter are
not always applicable to the former. In this regard, Jenkins (2004) even challenges the use of the term
“corporate” in describing SMEs’ approach to social responsibility [
9
]. Considering the relevance of
SMEs to the world economy and the increasing pressure toward sustainability, understanding their
approach to sustainability and ascertaining the drivers or barriers that influence their decisions and
practices has become important.
In SMEs, entrepreneurs play a pivotal role, and studies have already highlighted the impact of
their leadership styles on CSR or sustainability, thus feeding a field of research dedicated to sustainable
entrepreneurs [
10
] or ecopreneurs [
11
]. Starting from this premise, the aim of the present study is to
analyze in depth the approach of sustainable entrepreneurs toward sustainability implementation,
by analyzing perceived pressures and drivers, by, in particular, focusing on SMEs and the real or
apparent differences between them and large companies.
Thus, we formulate the following research questions:
RQ1: What are the main drivers or barriers of sustainability practice implementation?
RQ2: Are there any significant differences between small- and large-sized companies in their approach
to sustainability practices implementation?
To address these research questions, we adopt a qualitative research method based on
semi-structured interviews, which we consider the best option for exploring the issue. We conducted
the interviews from January to June 2019 and considered a sample of 22 firms.
The remainder of this article is organized as follows. Section 2is dedicated to a literature review
on CSR and sustainability in SMEs and sustainable entrepreneurship. Section 3describes the research
methods, and Section 4is dedicated to the analysis. Section 5discusses the main insights and presents
some concluding remarks and future research avenues.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Studies on CSR and Sustainability in SMEs
The approach of firms toward CSR and sustainability can vary in terms of type of strategic posture,
ranging from simple reactive to more proactive ones [
12
,
13
]. Several studies try to figure out the factors
driving the decision of SMEs to implement more in-depth sustainability practices, identifying as main
factors external and internal pressures, expected benefits, and entrepreneur’s motivation.
Among the studies attempting to categorize the motivations behind SMEs’ pro-environmental
management [
14
,
15
], Williams and Schaefer [
15
] cited competitiveness (business competitive pressure),
legitimation (pressures from the external business environment, such as by stakeholders and regulation),
and ecological responsibility (personal engagement or values of the entrepreneur) as the main
motivations behind pro-environmental management. Another study [
16
] figured out how the
environmental pressures driving the adoption of sustainability practices are exerted by the stakeholders
in the supply chain, competitors, organizations in the area, and public administration, and how the
most powerful pressures are those from the legal environment and organizations associated with
the company’s location. Relationships with stakeholders are proved to be relevant in pushing small
firms to adopt environmental practices—Darnall et al. [
17
] found that, even if small firms are less
likely to implement environmental practices compared with larger companies, the former are more

Sustainability 2020,12, 671 3 of 12
responsive to value-chain, internal, and regulatory stakeholder pressures. In addition, small firms are
more resource-constrained than large firms, but when affected by external pressures, they are less likely
to invest their scant resources on political resistance, whereas their rapid decision-making process
contributes to a quick response to stakeholders’ requirements.
Following this field of research, Testa et al. [
18
] analyzed the drivers of proactive environmental
strategies of small and micro firms in Italy by identifying three groups of possible drivers—internal
factors, external pressures, and entrepreneur attitude. For internal drivers, they considered reduction of
costs, of environmental footprint, and of environmental risk; for external pressures, they distinguished
those of public authorities, customers (public and private), and competitors, in addition to the desire
to promote a positive organizational image. The findings highlighted that the most powerful driver is
the entrepreneur’s attitude, followed by external pressures.
Added to external and internal pressures and entrepreneur attitude, perceived benefits are,
according to the existing literature, one of the main drivers of sustainability practices implementation.
Several studies have highlighted that positive expectations regarding the benefits of CSR or
environmental practices can push small entrepreneurs toward adopting such practices. Hamman
et al. [
19
] investigated the relationships between SME owners’ values, practices toward relevant
stakeholder groups, and economic value created by cost reduction and/or increase in profits. Among
benefits leading to increased economic value, they included increased motivation and satisfaction
and lower absenteeism of employees; higher satisfaction and lower price sensitivity of customers;
and positive image and reputation in the community.
Added to this, Cordano et al. [
20
], focusing on a sample of SME wineries in the US, tested the
factors influencing decisions to adopt additional environmental management programs and found
that the perception of benefits (i.e., costs reduction, increased demand, reputation, improved quality,
and competitiveness), the norms perceived by the firm’s employees (personal obligation to reduce
pollution for minimizing environmental harm), and pressures from internal and external stakeholders
have positive effects on such programs.
Awareness was also found to be a driver of sustainability management implementation in SMEs.
Johnson [
21
], for example, found that the following three drivers appear to be relevant: the perception
of relative advantage (e.g., in terms of reputation, competitiveness, costs, customer acquisition,
and employee motivation), the awareness of tools, and organizational size. These results support
other common findings on motivations and setbacks related to sustainability implementation in SMEs.
The owner-manager’s willingness to engage and promising benefits are drivers, whereas limited
awareness and the design of tools suited to large corporations can be considered discouraging factors.
Studying sustainability practices implementation, Brammer et al. [
22
] distinguished between SMEs,
arguing that the world of environmental management in SMEs is multifaceted and should therefore be
studied in terms of its differences. In detail, they found that, among motivations, medium firms perceive
more benefits related to long-term finances and market position than small firms. Among deterring
factors, some authors have considered the obstacles SMEs face in applying CSR and sustainability.
The authors of reference [
23
] found that the most powerful barriers appear to be the cost burden and
skepticism about potential increase in profits owing to adopting environment-friendly practices, as
well as lack of time and poor infrastructure to support environmental activities (e.g., recycling facilities
for waste management).
Cassells and Lewis [
24
] analyzed the attitudes, actions, and expected benefits of a group of SMEs
in New Zealand and reported that a gap exists between elements that entrepreneurs said are desirable
for the environment and the activities that they actually perform. Further, another inconsistency
emerged: The most frequently implemented practices appeared to be cost-driven practices, but most of
the owner-managers involved were skeptical about the cost savings achievable and were also unsure
that environmental improvements can help meet customers’ needs. Hsu and Cheng [
25
] used the
innovation diffusion theory to explain factors that prompt Taiwanese SMEs to practice CSR. Their

Sustainability 2020,12, 671 4 of 12
analysis revealed that, among Taiwanese SMEs, managers’ ethics and firm culture are drivers of CSR,
whereas cost and lack of time and of guidance or benchmarks are barriers.
Further, a study [
26
] on a sample of 166 SMEs in Queensland proposed a model in which external
pressures from stakeholders are assumed to affect environmental awareness and attitudes, which,
in turn, affect environmental practices. The authors also suggested that some moderating variables
can reduce the force of pressures on awareness and attitudes—owner characteristics, environmental
information, and constraints of time and financial resources.
Moreover, qualitative studies have analyzed the peculiarities of SMEs in terms of sustainability
management or innovation, mainly in light of knowledge-based or resource-based approaches [
27
–
30
].
The most prolific contributions on small business can be found in the “traditional” stream of literature
dedicated to CSR in SMEs, which depicts these firms as constrained by many limitations and
barriers [
31
]—lack of time, resources, appropriate information, and support services [
32
–
34
]; difficulties
in measuring the benefits and maintaining the momentum of activities [
35
]; or in establishing the
business case [
36
,
37
]. However, some have argued that these constraints are not really perceived by
small firms [38].
Among relevant differences between SMEs and large companies, previous studies cited the
relevance of the entrepreneur/CEO values in SMEs, their sense of belonging to the local community,
the specificity of human resources management [
32
], the prevalence of “informal” practices of CSR and
the reduced propensity to communicate them externally [
35
,
39
] or the difficulties in understanding
CSR beyond the specific practices carried out by the firm [40].
2.2. Studies on Sustainable Entrepreneurship
The term sustainable entrepreneurship was initially used to indicate the process of discovering,
evaluating, and exploiting economic opportunities that are present in market failures that detract from
sustainability, including those that are environmentally relevant [
41
]. The literature has used different
terms to indicate similar concepts, such as environmental entrepreneurship [
42
], ecopreneurship [
43
],
and green entrepreneurship [44–46].
Several studies have analyzed sustainable entrepreneurship from the perspective of drivers and
motivations. Miles et al. [
47
] asserts that it can be determined by demand-side conditions—such as
practices required by consumers and/or governments—or can be a supply-side phenomenon—that is,
because managers make a deliberate effort to become more socially responsible and environmentally
aware. In both cases, the adoption of sustainable corporate entrepreneurship is highlighted by the
combined presence of innovation (in products, processes, strategies, or business models) [
10
] and that
of all three sustainability components—responsible environmental management, social accountability,
and long-term economic performance.
From this point of view, sustainable entrepreneurship in more recent studies is considered
the possibility to incorporate the principles of sustainable development [
48
], and thus Sustainable
Development Goals [
5
] within entrepreneurial initiatives [
49
]; this means passing from generic
references to sustainable development, to more precise relationships with planet boundaries [50].
By combining the priority of environmental and societal goals (ranging from low to high range of
priority) and market effect (ranging from effects not yet marketable to effects spill over to society and
politics at large), Schaltegger and Wagner [
10
] present a matrix in which sustainable entrepreneurship
occupies the highest position with reference to both axis (high priority and effects to society and politics
at large). This analysis led to a modified definition of sustainable entrepreneurship, which according to
the matrix representation is defined as “in essence the realization of sustainability innovations aimed
at the mass market and providing benefit to the larger part of society” [10] (p. 225).
The stress on market acknowledgment is a relevant factor, which links sustainable entrepreneurship
with the issue of business case for sustainability [
51
], that is, the recognition of economic drivers
toward sustainability implementation (e.g., cost and cost reduction, risk and risk reduction, sales and
profit margin, reputation and brand value, attractiveness as employer, and innovative capabilities).

Sustainability 2020,12, 671 5 of 12
Conversely, a relevant part of the sustainable entrepreneurship literature has highlighted the relevance
of entrepreneurs’ motivation, their individual values, and their passion for sustainable business [
52
,
53
].
Moreover, studies on ecopreneurs [
54
] have suggested that ecopreneurial SMEs seek to achieve other
goals alongside financial ones and are prepared to go to significant lengths to achieve such goals.
Regardless, not all ecopreneurs are equal, and the different combinations of financial and societal
purposes can indicate different paths of business model development [11].
As known, entrepreneurship can describe various phenomena [
54
], but many authors concentrate
on the process of a start-up company (e.g., [
45
]). In this view, entrepreneurs are actors opening a
new company, and entrepreneurship is the process of creating and establishing a new enterprise;
another aspect of entrepreneurship is the striving for growth [
55
,
56
], such that entrepreneurs are
viewed as actors enlarging companies and expanding businesses. The different approach of SMEs
and large companies toward sustainable initiatives has rarely been addressed in the literature on
sustainability entrepreneurship, and in these cases, the small size has been paired with the idea of
new business. Hockerts and Wüstenhagen [
57
] asserted that early in the transformation of an industry
toward sustainability, new entrants or “Emerging Davids” are more likely to pursue sustainability
opportunities. Eventually, incumbent firms respond to the new entrants and adopt sustainability
practices. These “Greening Goliaths” are less progressive but have considerable impact because of
their existing market presence. Ultimately, new entrants and incumbents co-evolve, creating incentives
and competitive positions that allow both to survive.
By combining sustainability in the SME literature and sustainable entrepreneurship literature,
some further insights can be gained by comparing small and large firms already established in the
market in their approach to sustainability, to understand whether and how differences highlighted by
the CSR literature persist when viewed with sustainable entrepreneurship lenses.
3. Methods
This study aimed to comprehend the approach of SME entrepreneurs toward sustainability
implementation by analyzing perceived pressures and drivers and the existence of any real or apparent
differences between SMEs and large companies. For this purpose, the study adopts a qualitative
research method. That is, to achieve the aims of the study, face-to-face, in-depth, semi-structured
interviews were conducted, with 22 participants from Italian firms of different sizes (i.e., nine small,
five medium and five large firms) selected because of their well-known social and environmental
commitment. The firms identified carry out different activities (i.e., seven food and wine production;
three chemical, basic material, and plastic transformation; three wood transformation and furniture
production; two paper production; two public utilities; and the remaining five—packaging, book
printing, building, tannery, and office products). The choice to select and analyze firms carrying
out different activities was motivated by the willing to shed light on any specific industry-related
differences in sustainability approach. On the other side, trying to get a minimum level of homogeneity
we selected firms all belonging to the broad manufacturing sector.
We established an interview protocol to ensure that similar procedures were followed for all
firms analyzed [
58
]. Through the interviews, we addressed the top executives of the sample firms,
particularly the chief executive officer (CEO) (that in many cases was also owner/president), the chief
financial officer (CFO), the sustainability manager, the communication manager, or the R&D manager.
We addressed them because they are the most powerful and influential members of the organization;
they set the company’s strategy, make high-stake decisions, and ensure the day-to-day operations align
with the company’s strategic goals. To supplement and triangulate the interview results for enhancing
the rigor of the qualitative study [
59
], we collect directly from the firms interviewed, documents such
as annual reports, planning documents, and other relevant information on sustainability activities.
We also analyzed the web sites of firms interviewed to get any relevant secondary data.
The interviews lasted from 40 to 75 min and were gathered in the period from January to June 2019.
The majority of interviews were conducted by two researchers: one was in charge of conducting the

Sustainability 2020,12, 671 6 of 12
interviews by following the research framework, whereas the other took field notes about interviewees’
attitudes. At the beginning of each interview, the aim and nature of the research was explained, and the
need to pay attention to their perceptions and experience was underline. During the interviews,
the researcher focused the questions on a limited number of core points, to obtain the required
information. The open-ended questions enhanced the discussion, and the interviewee’s involvement
helped to cover all the issues of research interest [60].
The interviews conducted in this way provided several insights about the ideas of sustainability,
the motivation and pressures experienced in implementing sustainability practices and the perceptions
of related benefits and limitations.
All interview content was stored in a database in which we recorded answers, transcripts,
and notes. Next, adopting a content analysis approach, we analyzed the texts through coding [
61
,
62
].
More in detail, the coding phase first considered open coding, which permitted identification of the
main issues and general content in the analysis data. Following this, through axial coding, the open
coding was shaped to identify the relevant categories to determine the enabling factors. Finally,
the selective coding was employed to summarize the enabling factors of the core aspects. The analysis
and the several related coding phases were managed through Atlas.ti 7.0 software (ATLAS.ti Scientific
Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany), a well-known support for qualitative studies. Finally,
we discussed our results with the interviewees to validate these.
4. Analysis
To understand the approach of sustainable entrepreneurs in small and large firms, some aspects
have been considered in detail deepened during the interviews, mainly concerning factors that drive
entrepreneurs toward sustainability. Starting from the literature about sustainability in SMEs and about
sustainable entrepreneurship, we identified the following different forces acting as determining or
hindering factors: (1) pressures from external environment (in particular, from market and customers,
or from industry and competitors); (2) expected benefits of sustainability implementation (which act
as drivers for the business case for sustainability: reputation, competitive advantage, customer
satisfaction, and organizational commitment); (3) entrepreneur’s characteristics in guiding strategy
practices implementation (with particular reference to entrepreneur’s motivation, values, and vision).
As for the first factor identified (pressures from external environment), some relevant differences
emerge between SMEs and larger enterprises. Most of the large firms interviewed perceive pressure
from the external environment as a key driver for sustainability strategy implementation, and among
the external factors, this factor has particular relevance depending on the industry to which the
firm belongs. In more detail, when the nature of activity (and hence the industry) is perceived as
highly sensitive (e.g., regarding pollution items), firms are driven to pay attention to sustainability
issues (i.e., the environment), and the larger the size (and consequently, the relevance for the specific
community), the more the firms are expected to act in a sustainable way. Another relevant driver
identified from the external environment is the competitors’ attitude toward sustainability practices,
since large firms consider the best practices implemented by some competitors (that are sometimes
located in other countries considered more advanced in terms of sustainable development policies) as
good examples to follow. Apart from the industry and competitors’ attitude, the market (intended as the
demand side of the market) is cited as a force that pushes firms toward sustainability. In fact, the topic
of sustainability has gathered momentum within traditional media and social media debates and
consumers are increasingly interested in obtaining information about firms’ approach to environmental
and social issues. In most cases, consumers exert pressure directly; they usually target mass retailers
or large multinational players by taking advantage of their bargaining power and dictate specific
sustainability requirements to suppliers (related both to internal processes and organization practices
and to the product supplied).
The role of external factors in driving sustainability implementation is less significant with
reference to SMEs. A small number of SMEs considered in this study pointed out the perception of

Sustainability 2020,12, 671 7 of 12
external pressure, and stated that when it occurred, it was always related to the relationship with
particular customers, such as mass retailers, big luxury brands, or a highly exposed industry, which,
as already highlighted for large firms, impose specific sustainability requirements. In general, SMEs
indicated the prevalence of internal motivations, rather than external ones, toward implementing
sustainability practices sustainability.
The second relevant driver identified is the perception of benefits in terms of financial performance
or operational success. This driver is usually included in the economic and strategic motivations
driving the adoption of sustainability practices, also called “the business case” for sustainability [
36
,
37
].
Different from the finding that emerged regarding the external factors influencing sustainability
strategies, large enterprises and SMEs both agree on the relevance of the perception of benefits
as among the main drivers behind implementation of sustainability practices. Moreover, all the
entrepreneurs interviewed struggled to identify direct economic benefits from sustainability, but rather,
spoke about intermediate measures of business success, such as reputation, competitive advantage,
customer satisfaction, and employee commitment. Nevertheless, despite the general agreement on the
relevance of the driver, some relevant differences between large enterprises and SMEs are noteworthy.
In more detail, when asked about the benefits they perceived were obtained by adopting sustainability
strategies, most of the entrepreneurs of large firms referred to reputational gains, whereas those of
SMEs attached more relevance to the role of sustainability as a tool to differentiate themselves from
competitors. In fact, if large firms point out that being sustainable means having a reputation of being
a trustworthy, honest, transparent, empathetic firm, SMEs recognize the potential contribution of
sustainability practices to the reach of strategy differentiation. In particular, according to several small
firms, sustainability commitment has been a way to be a first-mover player and a tool that allows them
to be recognized as different, most of all from competitors “that do not play a fair game.” Moreover,
the differentiation arising from sustainability commitment can be, according to small firms, a strong
driver toward product innovation.
As regards the measurement of sustainability benefits, entrepreneurs of SMEs and large firms
both said that it is difficult to measure the benefits, mainly because of the soft nature of the benefits
themselves. In other words, almost all the entrepreneurs interviewed were convinced that their
sustainable approach would yield them some beneficial outcomes, but were yet to identify and measure
these outcomes. Of note, the perceived difficulty in the measurement of sustainability benefits does not
represent a barrier to implementation of sustainability practices; rather, it is merely a factor that does
not influence entrepreneurs’ attitude toward sustainability. In other words, the drivers of sustainable
commitment cannot be identified in the expected results, but can be elsewhere, that is, in internal and
personal motivations and in the role played by the entrepreneurs themselves. In fact, despite admitting
the presence of external pressures and of economic and success drivers (even if not measurable or
difficult to measure), the real determining factor of sustainability implementation for all the different
types of firms (regardless of their size) is related to the entrepreneur figure.
As for small firms’ entrepreneurs, almost all the interviewees highlighted their leadership role,
in which the leader can be defined as the individual who drives the firm, has the vision, and draws the
path to follow. In this sense, entrepreneurs perceive the duty of setting the right example, and when
the commitment to sustainability is real and recognized by the stakeholders, it can reinforce the
entrepreneur’s identity and legitimacy. However, from where does such commitment arise? According
to small firm entrepreneurs, the drivers of sustainable practices have roots in their inner features,
their personal sensitivity, and the values handed down from one generation to another. It is a way of
being, which involves not forgetting the importance of value creation but simultaneously maintaining
a special focus on something that goes beyond it. The reference to the personal sphere of values is
quite explicit among the large firms’ entrepreneurs as well, and the only difference is that when they
spoke about entrepreneurship, they often spoke about an entire family and not just about themselves.
In this case, as regards the sphere of values, they refer to a set of soft elements, such as faith, ideas,
and thoughts that build the footprint of the family that runs the business.

Sustainability 2020,12, 671 8 of 12
In general, and without significant differences related to firm size, the interviews shed light on
some specific features that characterize sustainable entrepreneurs. A sustainable entrepreneur is an
open-minded, visionary individual, who is curious regarding global events, and is someone who take
cares of other people, be they employees, communities, or future generations. Moreover, almost all the
entrepreneurs interviewed in this study have a similar idea of business goals—they viewed the firm as
a social actor that actively plays to respond to society’s needs. In this sense, sustainability is perceived
as a tool to definitively overcome the old ideological conflict between capital and labor, or between
entrepreneurs and employees; they are different parts of the same entity, and they play different roles
but with a unique, larger goal: enhancing people’s quality of life.
This way of being an entrepreneur and doing business is strictly related to the time span of the
firm’s purpose that cannot be limited to the short term (i.e., profit-oriented goal) but that necessarily
requires a longer perspective. Only by adopting a long-term perspective can firms create and capture
long-lasting value (both financial and social value), and just by creating long-lasting value, firms can
have a future.
In summary, according to the entrepreneurs interviewed, a commitment to sustainability allows
firms to broaden their borders, both in a spatial way (because of the role firms have in the community
of reference) and in a temporal way (because of the time span of a firm’s purpose).
The strong emphasis on the entrepreneur role, values, and personal features sheds lights on
the other side of the coin: Culture, intended as the set of personal history, education, values,
and thoughts, can play a strong and positive role on sustainability commitment, but simultaneously,
if the entrepreneur’s culture is not consistent with sustainability issues, culture itself can be the main
barrier to sustainability practice implementation. To explain further, although some interviewees
recognized the costs of implementing some practices or of adopting specific sustainability tools,
the general idea emerging from both large and small enterprises is that the main limiting factor is the
absence of a consistent business culture. This finding implies that financial or resource constraints are
not the real problem (even in small businesses); rather, these are a pretext to abandon initiatives that
are not part of an entrepreneur’s vision and culture.
The (wrong) perception that some initiatives are expensive is related to the short-term vision that,
as already underlined, is not consistent with the time span of firm’s purposes, that is, with a culture
built around a sustainable approach.
5. Discussion and Conclusions
Starting from the literature about sustainability in SMEs and sustainable entrepreneurship,
we verify the role of three main groups of factors in influencing sustainability practices implementation
(1) pressures from external environment, (2) expected benefits of sustainability implementation and
(3) entrepreneur’s inner features in guiding strategy practices implementation. Some of the interview
results are consistent with those of the literature, but in some cases, they also offer new insights that
give room for more in-depth exploration of this topic. In general, the widely cited reference [
6
] to
relevant differences in small and large firms’ approach to sustainability has been partially denied by
the interviewed entrepreneurs.
As for the first group of factors, (pressures form external environment) the interviews confirm the
relevance of the drivers and some significant differences between large firms and SMEs. In particular,
large firms perceive more external pressures and pay more attention to reputational concerns than do
small firms. By contrast, small firms rarely admit the role of customer solicitation in the decision to
implement sustainability practices, but they appear well aware of the strategic role of sustainability in
business as a differentiation tool (i.e., the business case for sustainability). The frequent reference to
competitive advantage (differentiation advantage) in small firms contrasts with the frequent reports in
the literature on CSR in SMEs, such as the difficulty faced by SMEs in establishing the business case for
sustainability [
36
,
37
]. Conversely, our analysis shows that sustainability implementation could be more

Sustainability 2020,12, 671 9 of 12
embedded in the SME business model than in that of large companies, since the latter are more worried
about external pressures and more prone to image-driven initiatives to gain a positive reputation.
As regards measuring the benefits of sustainability (i.e., the second group of factors),
all entrepreneurs, without any significant difference between small and large firms, express difficulties
or deny the existence of a direct relationship between sustainability practices and financial performance,
a finding that is partially in contrast with that of the literature on this topic [
17
]. This difference gives
room for conducting studies aimed at conducting in-depth investigations deepening on the issue of
sustainability measurement in entrepreneurial decision-making.
In addition, with reference to the third group of factors identified in the literature
(i.e., entrepreneur’s values, culture, and business goals) we do not find any relevant differences
between SMEs and large firms. Almost all the entrepreneurs emphasized the pivotal role of their
values in transmitting the sustainability message within and outside the organization, underlining
in this way how their way of being entrepreneurs is the first motivation toward sustainability
implementation [
10
,
11
,
18
]: Their sustainability commitment has strong, deep roots in their culture,
that is, in their history, values, and way of thinking. The relevance of the entrepreneurs’ role also
emerged when interviewees were asked to describe possible limitations and constraints related to
implementing sustainability practices: interviewees from both small and large firms pointed out the
business culture issue, that in some cases, is considered sufficiently powerful to overcome the operating
constraints usually referred to by the literature on CSR in SMEs (i.e., limitations of time, cost, resources,
and competencies) [23].
This study has several limitations, including the fact that it considers a limited number of firms
and the fact that it is focused only on the Italian context. Future research should consider a wider
sample of cases, including organizations belonging to different countries to verify how different cultural
contexts may influence the results. However, despite these limitations, this study contributes to the
sustainable entrepreneurship literature by discussing the size factor outside the classical juxtaposition
between “small and new” and “large and old,” and it also adds new perspectives about entrepreneurs’
role to the literature on sustainability in firms. These new insights would have political, managerial,
and research implications. From a political point of view, it seems that initiatives aimed at sharing and
spreading the sustainability culture could be effective in both small and large firms. From a managerial
point of view, initiatives to integrate these issues in management could be focused on sustainability
knowledge enhancement rather than on merely adapting tools conceived for large corporations to
the SME context. Finally, future research paths can better address the old “small vs. large debate” by
considering the attributes of family firms as well as organizational size.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, S.C.; Formal analysis, S.V.; Investigation, S.C.; Methodology, S.V.;
Supervision, B.C.; Writing—original draft, S.C. and S.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version
of the manuscript.
Funding:
This research is part of the project #BIT Business Innovation & Digital Transformation @ Vicenza,
WP3 “Sustainable Business Models” funded by Fondazione Studi Universitari di Vicenza.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
European Commission. European Commission Reccomendation 361/2003; European Commission: Brussels,
Belgium, 2003.
2.
Dey, P.K.; Petridis, N.E.; Petridis, K.; Malesios, C.; Nixon, J.D.; Ghosh, S.K. Environmental management and
corporate social responsibility practices of small and medium-sized enterprises. J. Clean. Prod.
2018
,195,
687–702. [CrossRef]
3.
Stekelorum, R.; Laguir, I.; Elbaz, J. CSR disclosure and sustainable supplier management: A small to
medium-sized enterprises perspective. Appl. Econ. 2018,50, 5017–5030. [CrossRef]
4.
European Commission. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes_it (accessed on 10 August 2019).

Sustainability 2020,12, 671 10 of 12
5.
United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Resolution A/70/L.1;
United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
6.
Graafland, J.; Van de Ven, B.; Stoffele, N. Strategies and instruments for organizing CSR by small and large
businesses in the Netherlands. J. Bus. Ethics 2003,47, 45–60. [CrossRef]
7.
Baumann-Pauly, D.; Wickert, C.; Spence, L.J.; Scherer, A.G. Organizing corporate social responsibilitt in small
and large firms: Size matters. J. Bus. Ethics 2013,115, 693–705. [CrossRef]
8.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Environmental Policy Toolkit for Greening SMEs
in EU Eastern Partnership Countries; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: ˙
Istanbul,
Turkey, 2015.
9.
Jenkins, H. A critique of conventional CSR theory: An SME perspective. J. Gen. Manag.
2004
,29, 37–57.
[CrossRef]
10.
Schaltegger, S.; Wagner, M. Sustainable entrepreneurship and sustainability innovation: Categories and
interactions. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2011,20, 222–237. [CrossRef]
11.
Jolink, A.; Niesten, E. Sustainable development and business models of entrepreneurs in the organic food
industry. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2015,24, 386–401. [CrossRef]
12.
Wilson, I. What one company is doing about today’s demands on business. In Changing Business-Society
Interrelationships; Steiner, G.A., Ed.; Los Angeles Graduate School of Management, UCLA: Los Angeles, CA,
USA, 1975.
13.
Carroll, A.B. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Acad. Manag. Rev.
1979
,4,
497–505. [CrossRef]
14.
Cantele, S.; Zardini, A. What drives small and medium enterprises towards sustainability? Role of interactions
between pressures, barriers and benefits. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.
2020
,27, 126–136. [CrossRef]
15.
Williams, S.; Schaefer, A. Small and medium-sized enterprises and sustainability: Managers’ values and
engagement with environmental and climate change issues. Bus. Strategy Environ.
2013
,22, 173–186. [CrossRef]
16.
Bagur-Femenias, L.; Llach, J.; del Mar Alonso-Almeida, M. Is the adoption of environmental practices a
strategical decision for small service companies? Manag. Decis. 2013,51, 41–62. [CrossRef]
17.
Darnall, N.; Henriques, I.; Sadorsky, P. Adopting proactive environmental strategy: The influence of
stakeholders and firm size. J. Manag. Stud. 2010,47, 1072–1094. [CrossRef]
18.
Testa, F.; Gusmerottia, N.M.; Corsini, F.; Passetti, E.; Iraldo, F. Factors affecting environmental management by
small and micro firms: The importance of entrepreneurs’ attitudes and environmental investment. Corp. Soc.
Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2016,23, 373–385. [CrossRef]
19.
Hammann, E.-M.; Habisch, A.; Pechlaner, H. Values that create value: Socially responsible business practices
in SMEs–empirical evidence from German companies. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev. 2009,18, 37–51. [CrossRef]
20.
Cordano, M.; Marshall, R.S.; Silverman, M. How do small and medium enterprises Go “Green”? A study of
environmental management programs in the U.S. wine industry. J. Bus. Ethics
2010
,92, 463–478. [CrossRef]
21.
Johnson, M.P. Sustainability management and small and medium-sized enterprises: Managers’ awareness
and implementation of innovative tools. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.
2015
,22, 271–285. [CrossRef]
22.
Brammer, S.; Hoejmose, S.; Marchant, K. Environmental management in SMEs in the UK: Practices, pressures
and perceived benefits. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2012,21, 423–434. [CrossRef]
23.
Revell, A.; Stokes, D.; Chen, H. Small businesses and the environment: Turning over a new leaf? Bus. Strategy
Environ. 2010,19, 273–288. [CrossRef]
24.
Cassells, S.; Lewis, K. SMEs and environmental responsibility: Do actions reflect attitudes? Corp. Soc.
Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2011,18, 186–199. [CrossRef]
25.
Hsu, J.-L.; Cheng, M.-C. What prompts small and medium enterprises to engage in corporate social
responsibility? A study from Taiwan. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2012,19, 288–305. [CrossRef]
26.
Gadenne, D.L.; Kennedy, J.; McKeiver, C. An empirical study of environmental awareness and practices in
SMEs. J. Bus. Ethics 2009,84, 45–63. [CrossRef]
27.
Bos-Brouwers, H.E.J. Corporate sustainability and innovation in SMEs: Evidence of themes and activities in
practice. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2010,19, 417–435. [CrossRef]
28.
Halme, M.; Korpela, M. Responsible innovation toward sustainable development in small and medium-sized
enterprises: A resource perspective. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2014,23, 547–566. [CrossRef]
29.
Hörisch, J.; Johnson, M.P.; Schaltegger, S. Implementation of sustainability management and company size:
A knowledge-based view. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2015,24, 765–779. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2020,12, 671 11 of 12
30.
Klewitz, J.; Hansen, E.G. Sustainability-oriented innovation of SMEs: A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod.
2014,65, 57–75. [CrossRef]
31.
V
á
zquez-Carrasco, R.; L
ó
pez-P
é
rez, M.E. Small & medium-sized enterprises and corporate social
responsibility: A systematic review of the literature. Qual. Quant. 2013,47, 3205–3218. [CrossRef]
32.
El Baz, J.; Laguir, I.; Marais, M.; Staglian
ò
, R. Influence of national institutions on the corporate social
responsibility practices of small- and medium-sized enterprises in the food-processing industry: Differences
between France and Morocco. J. Bus. Ethics 2016,134, 117–133. [CrossRef]
33.
Jamali, D.; Zanhour, M.; Keshishian, T. Peculiar strengths and relational attributes of SMEs in the context of
CSR. J. Bus. Ethics 2009,87, 355–377. [CrossRef]
34.
Roberts, S.; Lawson, R.; Nicholls, J. Generating regional-scale improvements in SME corporate responsibility
performance: Lessons from Responsibility Northwest. J. Bus. Ethics 2006,67, 275–286. [CrossRef]
35.
Jenkins, H. Small business champions for corporate social responsibility. J. Bus. Ethics
2006
,67, 241–256.
[CrossRef]
36.
Battisti, M.; Perry, M. Walking the talk? Environmental responsibility from the perspective of small-business
owners. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2011,18, 172–185. [CrossRef]
37.
Lee, K.H.; Herold, D.M.; Yu, A.L. Small and medium enterprises, and corporate social responsibility practice:
A Swedish perspective. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2015,23, 88–99. [CrossRef]
38.
Sweeney, L. Corporate social responsibility in Ireland: Barriers and opportunities experienced by SMEs
when undertaking CSR. Corp. Gov. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2007,7, 516–523. [CrossRef]
39. Fassin, Y. SMEs and the fallacy of formalising CSR. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev. 2008,17, 364–378. [CrossRef]
40.
Murillo, D.; Lozano, J.M. SMEs and CSR: An approach to CSR in their own words. J. Bus. Ethics
2006
,67,
227–240. [CrossRef]
41.
Dean, T.J.; McMullen, J.S. Toward a theory of sustainable entrepreneurship: Reducing environmental
degradation through entrepreneurial action. J. Bus. Ventur. 2007,22, 50–76. [CrossRef]
42.
Keogh, P.D.; Polonsky, M.J. Environmental commitment: A basis for environmental entrepreneurship?
J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 1998,11, 38–49. [CrossRef]
43. Schaper, M. The essence of ecopreneurship. Green. Manag. Int. 2002,38, 26–31. [CrossRef]
44.
Berle, G. The Green Entrepreneur: Business Opportunities that can Save the Earth and Make you Money; Liberty
Hall Press: Blue Ridge Summit, PA, USA, 1991.
45.
Bennett, S. Ecopreneuring: The Complete Guide to Small Business Opportunities from the Environmental Revolution;
Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1991.
46. Blue, J. Ecopreneuring: Managing for Results; Scott Foresman: London, UK, 1990.
47.
Miles, M.P.; Munilla, L.S.; Darroch, J. Sustainable corporate entrepreneurship. Int. Entrep. Manag. J.
2009
,5,
65–76. [CrossRef]
48.
Brundtland Commission. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and
Development. 1987. Available online: http://www.un-documents.net/our-common-future.pdf (accessed on
5 July 2019).
49.
Schaltegger, S.; Beckmann, M.; Hockerts, K. Collaborative entrepreneurship for sustainability. Creating
solutions in light of the UN sustainable development goals. Int. J. Entrep. Ventur.
2018
,10, 131–152.
[CrossRef]
50.
Schaltegger, S.; Beckmann, M.; Hockerts, K. Sustainable entrepreneurship: Creating environmental solutions
in light of planetary boundaries. Int. J. Entrep. Ventur. 2018,10, 1–16. [CrossRef]
51.
Schaltegger, S.; Lüdeke-Freund, F.; Hansen, E. Business cases for sustainability: The role of business model
innovation for corporate sustainability. Int. J. Innov. Sustain. Dev. 2012,6, 95–119. [CrossRef]
52.
Koe, W.; Majid, I. A model for predicting intention towards sustainable entrepreneurship. Int. J. Inf. Bus.
Manag. 2014,6, 256–269.
53.
Gast, J.; Gundolf, K.; Cesinger, B. Doing business in a green way: A systematic review of the ecological
sustainability entrepreneurship literature and future research directions. J. Clean. Prod.
2017
,17, 44–56.
[CrossRef]
54.
Rodgers, C. Sustainable entrepreneurship in SMEs: A case study analysis. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag.
2010,17, 125–132. [CrossRef]
55.
Kyrö, P. To grow or not to grow? Entrepreneurship and sustainable development. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol.
2001,8, 15–28. [CrossRef]

Sustainability 2020,12, 671 12 of 12
56.
Gartner, W. What we are talking about when we are talking about entrepreneurship? J. Bus. Ventur.
1990
,5,
15–28. [CrossRef]
57.
Hockerts, K.; Wüstenhagen, R. Greening Goliaths versus emerging Davids—Theorizing about the role of
incumbents and new entrants in sustainable entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur.
2010
,25, 481–492. [CrossRef]
58.
Eisenhart, K.M. Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev.
1989
,14, 532–551. [CrossRef]
59. Patton, M.Q. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods; Sage: London, UK, 2002.
60.
Maykut, R.; Morehouse, R. Beginning Qualitative Research: A Philosophical and Practical Guide; The Falmer
Press: London, UK, 1994.
61.
Boyatzis, R.E. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development; Sage: New York,
NY, USA, 1998.
62.
Motion, J.; Leitch, S. The technologies of corporate identity. Intern. Stud. Manag. Org.
2002
,3, 45–64.
[CrossRef]
©
2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).